Why bother? Magnepan MG12s are less money, sound much better, will take less power to sound good, and will provide back wave concert-hall like sound as well.

If they suit your ears that's all that matters.

Yes way differently .

I would listen to other company's products. Companies that spend a boat load on advertising have to pay for that advertising. You can often get more value from a stereo company that is more modest in their advertising budget.

Trey

I never bought into the 'direct reflecting' technology that Bose advocates. Not sure about the new 901's but the older generation sounded like one huge full range speaker minus detail, speed, and transparency.

Maybe the newer ones are better.

soulful.terrain wrote:

I never bought into the 'direct reflecting' technology that Bose advocates. Not sure about the new 901's but the older generation sounded like one huge full range speaker minus detail, speed, and transparency.

You can find Gordon Holt's review of the first version of the 901 at http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/425/index.html .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

I never bought into the 'direct reflecting' technology that Bose advocates. Not sure about the new 901's but the older generation sounded like one huge full range speaker minus detail, speed, and transparency.

You can find Gordon Holt's review of the first version of the 901 at http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/425/index.html .

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Thanks for the link John.
I can see where positioning them were critical. Could very well have been the problem with the ones I encountered.

Nothing new on the Bose website concerning the 901.  I did ask if a new series VII upgrade was coming, but I received neither a denial or a confirmation.  I was especially curious because I had bought a new pair of 901 VI's in the fall of '09, and so I naturally assumed a "new and improved" version would soon be in the pipeline.

There is probably little if any chance of any print magazine reviewing any Bose product. Bose has a habit of filing lawsuits whenever a negative review is published. If you like them that's your choice. You should be aware that Bose products are almost universally disliked by people interested in good sound reproduction. That you have to wait because your choice is on back order doesn't change the fact that to most audiophiles Bose products are over priced produts with mediocre performance.

MacDonalds sells billions and billions of burgers. That doesn't make them haute cuisine. The analogy applies to Bose products.

It is not smart business to write a review that will end up costing you tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Trey

 "Bose products are almost universally disliked by people interested in good sound reproduction."  - JoeE SP9

With all due respect, I would take issue with that assumption.  Audiophiles are a tiny minority within the general music loving population.  Many music lovers care about good sound but do not consider themselves to be audiophiles.  I would offer that it is this larger group that Bose targets. 

To be frank, the Bose Corporation's target market is people who don't know any better. Their sales approach and technique is to never ever compare their products with anything else. That's why they publish no specs. It's also why any retailer who sells Bose products is required to set Bose gear up in a totally separate area where comparisons are impossible. They are well aware that in a direct comparison with competitively priced products theirs always come off second best.

In my experience (45 years) with audio equipment the "music lovers" that have had an opportunity to do a comparison usually get rid of whatever Bose speaker they have and purchase something that costs the same or less and always sounds better. Friends and acquaintances that have contemplated buying Bose have always changed their mind after hearing other gear. Unfortunately the general public has been snowed by the enormous amount of money Bose spends advertising their overpriced mediocre sounding speakers. Even the Wave radio is bettered by a Cambridge Audio radio that sounds better for half the price.

Lest I be thought of as an "audiophile" with a lot of expensive gear and 10 recordings my 3500+ LP's and 1100+ CD's should dispel that idea. I came into this hobby as a music lover. Being an audiophile came later when I wanted better sound after hearing how good a system can sound. My comment about "almost universal dislike" is supported by most forums. Yes, there are a few die-hard Bose lovers. There are also people that think low bit rate MP3 files sound good.

If you don't know any better, you just don't know any better! 

Of course, this entire hobby is about pleasing one's own ears. If Bose is what you like then that's what you like. Just be prepared for other "music lovers" and "audiophiles" being under whelmed by anything Bose.

"To be frank, the Bose Corporation's target market is people who don't know any better."

I suppose you were at the meeting?

"Their sales approach and technique is to never ever compare their products with anything else. That's why they publish no specs."

Actually, I once read (perhaps in STEREOPHILES' review of the 901 by JGH) that the reason they publish no, or few specs, is that they believe specs do not necessarily correlate to sound quality.  Which of course, by the way, is a mantra of many "high-end" audiophiles.

"They are well aware that in a direct comparison with competitively priced products theirs always come off second best."

How do you know what they are or are not aware of?  Again, were you at the meeting?  That's just a silly thing to say.

While I admit that in audiophile circles, Bose is generally not well regarded,  I would suggest that the reasons for this derision may have more to do with the peculiarities of the audiophile sensibility than any lack of real-world performance on Bose' part.  For example, the comparison to McDonalds.  This betrays an audiophile need for exclusivity, Bose being perceived as too mainstream.  And if it's mainstream, it must be suspect.  Exclusivity and price always seem to impress.

At the end of the day, it's still a free country, and everyone can pick and choose and vote with their wallet.  In that election, Bose seems to be doing pretty well.

Sure, Bose does well. They spend an enormous amount on advertising. The fact remains they are overpriced mediocre performing components. Most people when hearing a direct comparison with Bose speakers and another manufacturers comparably priced speakers chose other than Bose as better sounding for the money. This is personal experience gained over the 45+ years I've been involved in this hobby.

I know people who were and are Audio salesman that have sold Bose speakers. They were told by the Bose reps not to directly compare Bose with other products.

To suggest that because Bose sells a boatload of product it sounds good (not) is why I brought up the MacDonald's analogy. 

On any forum when the question of Bose comes up there is always a small percentage that like them. The majority usually don't bother to post to Bose oriented threads. That could be why there haven't been many posters on this thread

As I posted  earlier, Your ears are the only ones you need to satisfy. If you like 901's good for you. You're now aware that your opinion isn't shared by everyone. 

To sum up, "You can get better sound for the same or less money be buying someone else's product".

In my basement man-cave, which admittedly has been a difficult room to get satisfactory sound in, I have had klipschorns and B&W 703's.  My 901's blow them both right out of the room.  Not even close.  I also have a pair of RBH MC6CT's in the adjoining family room, which happens to be an easy room to get good sound in.  Although I haven't A/B'd the speakers directly against each other in the same room, when I listen to the RBH speakers (Onkyo A9555 amp and DX7555 CD player) in the family room, and then immediately listen to the same music in the man-cave on the 901's (Adcom GFA-5500 amp, NAD C165 pre, Pioneer Elite DV47 DVD player), the Bose rig makes the RBH sound like a good boom box.  The 901's simply sound more like live music and less like hi-fi.  Music sounds life-sized and packs a visceral wallop most affordable systems lack.  And the bass is nothing short of amazing, particularly in light of the 901's relatively small size and price.  This experience is why I get so tired of all the Bose-bashing.  I'm not saying they make the best speakers in the world, but if you want life-like sound, not necessarily studio monitor sound, and you prefer smaller, affordable speakers, Bose is hard to beat, imo.

I also have an opinion about why you don't see much pro-Bose talk on the internet forums, too.  This thread, for example.  The OP just asked about a new version of the 901, and it immediately turned into a Bose-bashing festival.  I think most of us soon learn to keep our heads down.  Me, I'm just a glutton for punishment.

If you like the sound of 901's that's your choice. You should know by now the kind of responses you'll get when someone expresses praise for them. I also like a very expansive sound and sound stage. Thats why I use dipolar panels (esl's). Sure, I don't get the kind of pinpoint imaging many fans of small stand mounted two way's want. However, I do get very good imaging and a very wide and deep sound stage. Truth be told, I'm not fond of any speaker in a box. 901's have never made my boat float. I heard them when they were first introduced and my feelings about them have never changed. Before someone asks, yes I have heard them properly set up with the Eq and more than adequate power. They still underwhelmed me. Those of us who don't like them have a difficult time understanding what 901 lovers see (hear) in them.

FWIW:

JBL L100's, another "cult" favorite are even lower on my list than 901's.   

They are high priced "life-style" products with a huge amount of marketing cloaked in fictional science. That they capture so much market is a drag on all good audio gear because it makes it that much harder for the real gear to be seen or heard. Plus, I have somehitng against an inferior product line costinging top dollar mainly targeted towards people who clearly don't know better. You can say it's their choice,a dn acompany can charge what it wants, but it doesn't make it right. At least at McDonalds you aren't paying Kobe beef prices.

That they actually designed their corporate office in the shape of the Wave Radio should give you a hint just how "serious" they are about good sound.

In fact, I would consider that to be a compliment to Bose corporation.  Different strokes for different folks, after all.  Many music lovers prefer the sleek and minimalist approach.  Furthermore, many music lovers are not audiophiles and are put off by stacks of components, hulking speakers and wires everywhere. 

Personally, I've been a Bose 901 fan for about a day short of forever.  Not really a Bose fan, but definitely a 901 fan since I first heard them at Reed's Stereo in Springfield, MO, in the mid-seventies.  I bought my first pair (Series IV's) in 1977 but sold them a couple of years later when I moved to a house with no suitable room for them.  For the next thirty years or so I owned and enjoyed many different speakers, including ESS, klipsch and B&W.

Fast-forward to 2009 and I found myself with a difficult media room that I in fact, had given up on for serious 2-channel use, after failing to get satisfactory results with klipschorns and B&W 703's.  Then I thought of the 901's.  You see, the problem with the sound in this room had been the same with all speakers.  It sounded dull and lifeless, with no sense of air, space or three-dimensionality.  Also, the bass was very, very rough.  I thought the 901's might be just what the doctor ordered for this situation.  They are one of the most spacious sounding speakers I've heard, they do great bass, and importantly for an ill-dimensioned room, they do it without being too close to room boundaries.

So I ordered a pair.  And the match has been, if not made in heaven, then maybe in Framingham, MA.  Good enough, in fact, that I surrendered the adjacent family room back to the family.  I have happily retreated to this dedicated media room for my 2-channel music with the 901's and my HT surround thrills with a separate system.  The 901's sound typically huge and life-like, with amazing bass that will take you all the way down into the 20-30Hz range if you wish.  The alternate EQ setting gives me smoother bass but less extension.  Still solid down to 30Hz though, and quite good enough for me.  No subwoofers needed.

As I read the write-up in the July issue of the Clar-Audient (spelling?) 2+2, the writer's comments about the possible audible benefits of having only one type and size of driver, and no crossover, definitely rang true to me, as I'm sure it would any 901 or stat owner.  A sense of organic wholeness and a sense of ease or maybe just a lack of tension...that's getting close to it, but it is difficult for me to describe.  Whatever, it contributes to a lack of listener fatigue and a sense of naturalness that is very addictive.  And the lack of which is very jarring when listening to conventional multi-crossover designs. 

 Full range esl's are one driver speakers. Having no crossover is an added benefit that full range esl's or any one driver speaker system have. I suppose that's why esl sound is sometimes characterized as "seamless". IMO having no crossover removes another veil.

BTW: I once owned a pair of B&O S-70 speakers. They had pretty good sound. Three months after buying them I heard a pair of Magneplanar MG-1's. I sold the B&O's two days later and bought the Maggies the day after that. I haven't used any "monkey coffins" since then (1976).

I've not heard Maggies very often, but when I have they've made a favorable impression.  And the only electrostats I've heard have been Martin-Logans.  I did hear some Carver ribbons once that sounded real nice .  I think they, like most of the M-L's were actually 2-ways, though; and the Maggies I've heard were either 2 or 3-ways.

The panel speaker I was always most intrigued by was the Martin-Logan CLS full-range electrostat.  I always thought a pair of those combined with a good sub or two might be a real killer rig.

I guess the reason I've never owned panel speakers is that I've never cared for their bass performance.  That, and they usually don't sound as good with dynamic material at higher volume levels.  I'm sure they're better than they used to be, though; most of my limited auditions were a number of years ago. 

I'm just a bit of a glutton when it comes to dynamics and bass.  Which partially explains all the Klipsch speakers in my past (Cornwalls, K-horns & LS2's).  And of course, the two pairs of Bose 901's!

IMO most speakers including most floor standers will sound better with a sub or two. That includes Bose 901's.

The "meat" of music is in the mid range. I went with and stayed with esl's because of the midrange. Panels in general and esl's in particular get the midrange right. If that isn't right I don't care how dynamic a speaker is or how extended the low end may be. I'm just not interested in that speaker. Plus, there is nothing that can be done to fix a midrange that isn't right. I added two TL subs to compensate for an anemic bass response. With them I currently get a low end that is -2dB @ 18Hz with the additional benefit of greatly increased dynamics because my panels aren't being asked to reproduce anything below 85Hz.

I've spent the last two days dialing in the Behringer DSP1124P I recently bought. It's only in the feed to my subs. I use a Behringer CX2310 crossover to low pass to the DSP and from there to a pair of bridged Crown XLS402's. The signal to my esl's goes through my tubed mono blocks and one very high quality capacitor used as a high pass (85Hz) filter. So, for anyone who thinks that Behringer gear is inexpensive (it is)and not "high end" sounding, you may be right! That's why neither of the Behringer devices sends anything to my esl's. Whatever deficiencies they may have (sound wise) are inaudible when used from 85Hz down.

When I get around to getting a Marchand or equivalent quality crossover it will be used for high and low pass. With the gear I'm using, one very high quality capacitor in line for each esl will suffice for now. 

BTW: It's rather obvious we have very different taste in speakers. I already stated my feelings about Bose products in general and 901's in particular. To that I have to add, I've never heard any kind of horn speaker that I've liked with the sole exception being a pair of Avant Garde Trio's. They were acceptable to my ears. 

Yes, regarding speakers, we definitely are on opposite ends of the table.  That's OK.  That's what makes life interesting, I guess.  In fact, the best sounding speakers I've ever heard were horns; klipschorns to be exact.  1986,  Flip's Stereo in St. Louis, MO.  Paul Simon's "Graceland" on CD in Flip's main room (huge, with high, high ceilings and lots of hard, reflective surfaces, but many non-parallel wlls.)  I don't know what the amplification was, but my, how those horns did sing!  That's when I knew I WOULD have a pair someday.  ("Someday" turned out to be in 1998.)

But I've heard horns sound horrible many times, too.  So it's not just the speakers.  You can't leave the room out of the equation.  In my current room, the 901's rock like crazy.  Anywhere else, all bets are off.  Although, to be honest, I've never heard 901's sound bad unless they were broke or the EQ wasn't in circuit, or the set-up was just stupid.

I love panels' midrange, too.  It's what they do best, IMO.  Can't say I'd never own a pair, but I've just never been totally sold on the complete package.  Gotta have that slam, that punch in the gut! 

Music preference is probably a huge factor in speaker choice, too.  I love a lot of different kinds, so I have to have something that can be credible with rock, country and jazz -PLUS- classical, bluegrass and folk.  A tall order, I suppose.

Horns in a room with lots of hard surfaces? That would exacerbate what I find most objectionable in the majority of horns. What many enthusiasts call a crisp clean high end is reminiscent of nails on a blackboard to me. The punch in the gut you speak of usually has nothing to do with live music. It's an example of what my grandmother called "Victrola" music. That's what she called anything that didn't sound real.

My taste in music ranges truly ranges from Bach to Rock. Everything but bluegrass and gospel is represented in my collection. After hearing Bill Munroe's "wailing" I contemplated poking holes in my eardrums with an icepick. Gospel is intellectually unrealistic to me. All else I'll at least give a chance. I've been known to listen to Songs Of The Humpback Whale in surround with the lights out. It's a very interesting experience.

..."Nothing to do with live music."  Are you serious?  Have you ever been to a live rock concert?

As for gospel music being "intellectually unrealistic", maybe that's a discussion for another forum.  Suffice to say "real" gospel music can feed me musically and spiritually. 

You've probably heard Judy Collin's "Farewell To Tarwathie".  But if not, and you groove to whale songs, check it out.

Yes, I've been to many rock concerts. I've never heard any "punch in the gut" bass at any concert, rock jazz or otherwise. I do frequently hear it from home systems that have a bass hump. The accompanying comment is usually something like "Can you feel that bass?". Sure I can feel it but it doesn't sound like what live music sounds like to me. I have some experience knowing what bass sounds like having played bass (electric and acoustic) for 45+ years.

Do Bose 901 fans also vote for Ron Paul? There seem to be some similarities.

Trey

Who's Ron Paul? What do you mean by similarities?

Damn, I wish this new forum had smilies.

check the top right of your html formatting options

--to the left of the omega sign, two right of the flash sign, just above the hyperlink icon

4th icon from the right:

amazing devotion and allegience from his political fans. They are even called Paulies. They have a habit of turning any conversation into an opportunity for them to say how great Ron Paul is.

Trey

So, what better place to discuss...Bose 901's.  And whether most audiophiles like it or not, the speaker is a 43 year-old classic that remains a strong seller in spite of virtually no ad support from Bose, and in spite of the bad-mouthing and mis-representation they receive from many audiophiles.  The fact is, many people who hear them (properly set up) want them.

Trey

The only options I have are rich text and plain text. I can expand or collapse the tool bar. When expanded the only options I have are, bold, italic, insert remove numbered list, insert remove bullets, link, unlink and image.

do you see this? does anyone else see this?

I don't see it.

Neither do I.

Nope. Just icons for bold and italic, numbered or bulleted, link, shaded out unlink and image.

?

Thanks!

Newbie here (new to the forum, not to hi-fi—Stereophile reader since 1985). I'm not a big fan of Bose speakers, although I know a couple of 901 owners (both musicians, fwiw) who swear by them. To me, they sound strange: severely lacking in focus, sometimes almost to the point of incoherence, with an odd "fuzziness" (for lack of a better word) in the upper midrange and lower treble. I do think their bass is pretty good, although I have real doubts that they can reproduce anything cleanly in the bottom octave, and they're undeniably spacious-sounding. Fans of the "direct/reflecting" principle—which I think is interesting but deeply flawed—should be aware that there are other options out there for those who prefer speakers that don't direct all the sound right at them. Someone mentioned Maggies, which are among my favorite speakers. I've also heard Shahinians making exquisitely musical sounds on more than one occasion, and I've lately become persuaded that Mirage's "omnipolar" design has a lot going for it. These alternatives, at least, are all multi-way speakers that have no need to feed a heavily equalized signal to an array of identical drivers which, however potent their summed output may be in the bass, are inherently incapable of producing a truly clean signal in the top two octaves.

But to each his own. Some folks like 901s; some don't. Big deal. I'm rather impressed to see little or nothing in the way of Bose-bashing, let alone forum-user-bashing, here. Long ago, I gave up on hi-fi forums, after getting royally sick and tired of encountering endless repetitive flame wars on various sites (and, before that, on Usenet). I am aware of no audio-related topic as contentious and potentially polarizing as Bose speakers, and it may be a credit to Stereophile readers that this thread ran its course with nary a rant, let alone any bloodletting. (Or maybe it's just dumb luck.)

Incidentally, I was keenly interested in (and a bit puzzled by) the comment about punch-in-the-gut bass slam. To me, that quality is an essential element of the best hi-fi, and it's one that is all too often beyond the ability of otherwise excellent speakers. Various opportunities exist to experience the phenomenon in live music, the two likeliest ones being bass drum whacks at close range and kick drum (either up close or well amplified). To date, the speakers I've heard do this best are the ancient but still mighty Klipschorns. Well set-up in a good-sized, sturdy room, they have the uncanny ability to produce bass that is literally visceral, yet tuneful and devoid of the slightest overhang or boom.

Sorry if tldr; I'll shut up now. You all have a nice forum here!

Welcome to the forum!!!!

Having played music for a living I can be fairly certain when I say that "punch in the gut bass" doesn't exist in real music. Sure a PA system can and usually does over accentuate just about everything, usually in the wrong way. Bass drums from conventional drum sets simply don't have that punch in the gut feel many people want to hear on their systems at home. You may like and want to hear it but it just isn't there in live music. Ask any drummer.

As for me not being fond of 901's, your description mirrors my feelings. K-Horns make me want to cut my ears off and run away. Of course just about every horn there is makes me feel that way. But then, classic "East Coast speakers like NLA's (New Large Advents) and AR-3's make me want to make a Doctors appointment and get my ears cleaned. Most classic "West Coast" speakers are so in my face I want to slap the vocalist and make him/her back up.

So, I ended up with esl's running full range down to 85Hz. No crossovers and totally coherent sound from 85Hz up. Two 12" TL subs handle the bottom end for my system.

BTW: My comments about bass don't mean my system can't do that punch in the gut feeling. On the few selections where it's actually there I feel it. It's just that it's not on very many recordings.

Hey, thanks much for the welcome. By "punch," maybe we're talking about two different things or at least a difference of degree. I remember the first time I ever experienced what I'm calling punch, and it did involve live music. Specifically, it was Sousa marches played by a miliary band on an outdoor stage in a park. I was a small child, and I distinctly recall being able to feel the bass drum in my gut. When we got too close to the stage, it actually started making me queasy, so my mother and I had to back off a bit. At some point, I guess I became more tolerant of such things, since I've attended quite a few concerts with visceral bass and experienced no queasiness!

Speakers are subjective. I'm blessed (or is it cursed?) by hearing things I like in lots of different kinds of speaker. Unfortunately, no matter how many positive attributes any speaker has, it also has a downside. If I could find a speaker with the dynamic range and midbass performance of K-horns transitioned seamlessly down into the first-octave response of a good REL sub plus a top seven or eight octaves that sounded like Magneplanar IIIs except with the imaging precision of a good pair of minimonitors no matter where I sit, all in a high-sensitivity, easy-impedance design that sounded utterly uncompressed at any sane level and didn't physically overwhelm the living room...well, I can dream anyway!

That kind of punch doesn't come from ordinary drum kits. Only orchestra's or marching bands use bass drums that large. A pair of speakers that do the 1812 with power and authority are what you need.

That kind of punch doesn't come from ordinary drum kits.

Very true. If it did, playing in small spaces would be a bitch and a half.

The 1812 is a special case, I think. Cannonfire is even more demanding than bass drum. I have to admit I've only heard a convincing recorded performance of it three times. (Some of the unconvincing ones may have been as much the recording as the playback, to be fair.)

I have several different versions (LP and CD) by different orchestras. The Telarc version has the best cannon shots by far.

It's possible that I may have started an urban legend. In late 2003 I posted on audio review that the Telarc 1812 LP had snapped off the stylus from a Shure V-15IV. This had happened to me in the early 80's when the LP was first released. Yes, the second cannon shot snapped the stylus off flush with the cantilever. Two audio buddies were there when it happened. The TT was a Micro Sekai DQ-43/MA-707. The arm and cartridge were properly set up using a Shure SFG and a DB Systems protractor.