Bose Speaker Measurements & Frequency Response Graphs

[jamie2112]

Well, as long as bose is buying up ad space via google, then audioholics will continue to afford keeping this great site up:

It's almost ironic, eh?

Thats freakin great!!!!!!!!

 

[Len44]

How about because it's inferior? Seriously, did you SEE the frequency response graph from Sound & Vision?

Um...was that for the 901s -- or the cubes? (I only intended to comment on the 901s.)

However, I had thought (evidently in error, for which I apologize) that Audioholics were more interested in the actual sound (or presence, or whatever other term one might choose to use), as opposed cold, hard data...as helpful as data may be in many ways. FWIW, the 901s were thought of as pretty sensational by a number of reviewers when they were introduced, and, anyway, I am willing to admit that I enjoyed mine for quite awhile, with my particular (humble) setup.

 

[Pyrrho]

Um...was that for the 901s -- or the cubes? (I only intended to comment on the 901s.)

However, I had thought (evidently in error, for which I apologize) that Audioholics were more interested in the actual sound (or presence, or whatever other term one might choose to use), as opposed cold, hard data...as helpful as data may be in many ways. FWIW, the 901s were thought of as pretty sensational by a number of reviewers when they were introduced, and, anyway, I am willing to admit that I enjoyed mine for quite awhile, with my particular (humble) setup.

Those numbers tell you quite a bit about the actual sound. Typically, those who decry specifications and measurements for "just the sound" often also speak disparagingly of level matched, double blind listening sessions, which would be actually just the sound, in favor of seeing what they are hearing and judging based on what they see and hear. This allows the placebo effect full sway, and often makes them suckers for all the mumbo jumbo BS snake oil that comes along, which does nothing at all for the sound. It is also hypocritical, because the combination of seeing and hearing is not just the sound.

Incidentally, I am NOT saying that the above applies to you; I mean the above generally, as it is written. I do not know if it applies to you or not; you did not say anything about double blind tests and level matching.

Of course, you are right that the 901s are different from the speakers at the link in the opening post of this thread, and therefore are an entirely different matter. Of course, this does not mean that the 901s are any good, nor does it mean that they are bad. It just means that they must be judged separately from the other speakers (and, of course, the different versions of the 901s should be judged separately from each other as well).

Here is a link to a purportedly old review of the Bose 901:

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/425/index.html

It is neither all complementary nor all condemnation.

I have not been able to find a frequency response measurement for any Bose 901, in my brief time searching. If you know of one on line, please post a link.

 

[caupina]

I concur with your thoughts Pyrrho, and certainly one can make a good purchase based on what the specifications of a certain speaker say, but that just one step of the whole process, and once you get the speakers set up at your HT, there's a whole bunch of variables that come into play, the main one being the way you perceive sound, and that at the end of the day, IMHO, is what this hobby is all about.
Bose response might be wishy-washy but it holds certain truth, because what you read on a spec sheet might not translate into a reality once you are seated on your sweet spot at you HT due to different circumstances. With that being said,when it comes to a speaker with above average specs, chances are their under performance is more likely due to your own fault, ie: poor set-up, than the speaker's. Unfortunately the only way you can be sure you get what you pay for, is by taking the speakers home and try them there, but by reading the specs you might get a very good idea of what to expect.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

Here is a link to a purportedly old review of the Bose 901:

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/425/index.html

It is neither all complementary nor all condemnation.

I have not been able to find a frequency response measurement for any Bose 901, in my brief time searching. If you know of one on line, please post a link.

I'm not sure what he means by a "big, fat low end." Can 4" speakers produce a big fat low end? I guess theoretically 9 4" speakers works out to be 36" of air movement, but somehow I doubt that there is an equivelency there.

I just remember the 901s being good party speakers. They're loud and they fill the room with sound, whereas with other speakers the party goers keep getting in the way of the direct sound waves. I seem to recall, however, that they were great in the mid-range but lacking in the real low and high ends.

 

[Pyrrho]

I concur with your thoughts Pyrrho, and certainly one can make a good purchase based on what the specifications of a certain speaker say, but that just one step of the whole process, and once you get the speakers set up at your HT, there's a whole bunch of variables that come into play, the main one being the way you perceive sound, and that at the end of the day, IMHO, is what this hobby is all about.
Bose response might be wishy-washy but it holds certain truth, because what you read on a spec sheet might not translate into a reality once you are seated on your sweet spot at you HT due to different circumstances. With that being said,when it comes to a speaker with above average specs, chances are their under performance is more likely due to your own fault, ie: poor set-up, than the speaker's. Unfortunately the only way you can be sure you get what you pay for, is by taking the speakers home and try them there, but by reading the specs you might get a very good idea of what to expect.

I do not advocate buying speakers based upon specifications alone. Primarily, this is because they don't give enough information in the specifications. For example, when was the last time you saw a Total Harmonic Distortion rating for a speaker? The reason you don't, of course, is because the numbers would typically be so high that it would make one feel ill.

 

[Pyrrho]

I'm not sure what he means by a "big, fat low end." Can 4" speakers produce a big fat low end? I guess theoretically 9 4" speakers works out to be 36" of air movement, but somehow I doubt that there is an equivelency there.

I just remember the 901s being good party speakers. They're loud and they fill the room with sound, whereas with other speakers the party goers keep getting in the way of the direct sound waves. I seem to recall, however, that they were great in the mid-range but lacking in the real low and high ends.

Your geometry is off. Forgetting about the slope of the cone, and just thinking about diameter, and assuming that the sizes are all for the moving portion of the speaker, nine 4" speakers would have the same area as one 12" speaker. Feel free to calculate for yourself; the area of a circle is πr². (In case the Greek letter or the superscript does not come through, the area of a circle is "pi" times the radius of the circle squared, the radius being, of course, half the diameter.)

For movement of air, of course, it gets more complicated, as there is also the amount of movement of the speaker that matters, as a speaker that moves 1" moves more air than one of the same size that moves 1/2". But, if we are talking about all of the speakers moving the same amount, then nine 4" speakers will move the same air as one 12" speaker (again, with the assumptions mentioned above).

 

[Len44]

Thanks Pyrrho for your post and the link to the Sterophile review. After I took a look I looked for other reviews, but that was the only one I could quickly locate. I would certainly like to find the other reviews (especially those written closer to the '68 introduction) to which Dr. Bose refers in his comments: "Since the final test of a speaker is in its sound with actual program material, we urge Stereophile readers to audition the Bose 901 and then judge for themselves whether Stereophile or the 15 other US and foreign reviews, which draw completely different conclusions, is correct."

BTW, I am a HUGE fan of TRUE blind tests. Seems like a good way to objectively determine one's preferences when comparing equipment.

I was fortunate to have been able to set up my 901s pretty much IAW the instructions supplied, and used the back and side walls to great advantage. With plenty of punch from the Yamaha seperates, the music always seemed pretty smooth to me...

Of course, as they say, "your mileage may vary..."

 

[audioholix]

Bose?

The Bose speaker came up, again, in a post just below on seeking the hi-end.
I thought I had something substantial on this and found a review and measurement of one of their systems. Very interesting indeed:

http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html

I don't reality impress with those Bose life style or small system. But I do like my Bose speakers
Denon Avr- 987 _ pair of Bose 502
come out from the pre-out of Denon is Crown802 another pair of Bose 502
double Velodyne dls-5000r
4 surround Bose 161 speakers
1 Bose vsc-10 center.
I like my Bose speakers... These set up for every occasion . Movie.. Music.. Pick the right speaker doesn't matter what brand you get...

 

[mike c]

double Velodyne dls-5000r

you have pics of this setup?

 

[whateverman]

If you guys really want to laugh at something... I e-mailed Bose about a week ago:

I was looking at your home theater speakers and was intrigued. Although they look nice, I could not find any specifications on the speakers. Could you tell me what the frequency responses are at +/- 3dB and also provide a frequency response graph? These should be posted on the website but are nowhere to be found. Thank you.

Their response:

Thank you for your inquiry.

Bose does not publish data on the acoustic properties of our products because we don't believe it is an adequate indication of performance. Such data is based on analyzing various types of devices, and measurements are made in a wide variety of conditions. At this time, we are not aware of a simple, clear-cut way to compare analytic responses. Measurement techniques and test setups also vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, which can make interpreting the results misleading.

Bose offers a 30-day, risk-free test of our products. We recommend trying them in your own listening environment to evaluate them for yourself.

 

[pzaur]

You can find select graphs for specific products. You just have to search your butt off to locate them. I've never found anything for the average consumer. Their Professional line does have graphs as part of their "Technical Data". At least they do for the Panaray LT 9403 Loudspeaker. Checkout page 7 for their impedance vs. response graph.

-pat

 

[gwilks98]

Great, we all know that acoustimass isn't the greatest value out there. What about the 201/301 lines? Those are far more popular. Got any data on those?

 

[no. 5]

Um...was that for the 901s -- or the cubes? (I only intended to comment on the 901s.)

However, I had thought (evidently in error, for which I apologize) that Audioholics were more interested in the actual sound (or presence, or whatever other term one might choose to use), as opposed cold, hard data...as helpful as data may be in many ways. FWIW, the 901s were thought of as pretty sensational by a number of reviewers when they were introduced, and, anyway, I am willing to admit that I enjoyed mine for quite awhile, with my particular (humble) setup.

That was a flippant comment I made about Bose.

The important thing about the cold hard data is the right data will directly correlate with the "sound". But it should be known that much more is meant by 'data' than just something like "8 Ohms, 56Hz to 20kHz +/- 3dB".

If you like your 901's fine, there is nothing wrong with that, but if a person is interested in good sound, how would they find out what "good" is? They could go to as many stores as they could find, and listen to as many speakers as they could find, but could they say exactly what made the speakers they liked sound good? They wouldn't be much farther along then when they started, for how much of that good sound was because of their mood? From the room? Even from how the speakers were setup? Really, how good is their memory, that they can say without doubt that speaker A is much better than B, or a problem Dr. Bose ran into, and that is consistency in evaluations, that is, speaker A doesn't sound as good now as it did five months ago.

My point in all of this is people can be trained to be consistent in evaluations, and those people can be used to evaluate hundreds of para mutations in speaker characteristics, then correlations can be drawn between extensive high resolution measurements and listener evaluations as to what things that are seen in the measurements make a speaker subjectively good or bad.

I do not advocate buying speakers based upon specifications alone. Primarily, this is because they don't give enough information in the specifications. For example, when was the last time you saw a Total Harmonic Distortion rating for a speaker? The reason you don't, of course, is because the numbers would typically be so high that it would make one feel ill.

I agree, however, if useful measurements can be found, that would be very useful for buying speakers.

 

[audioholix]

Set up of Bose 502 speakers

you have pics of this setup?

I can't find the way to insert those pix email me at NYfishaholix@yahoo.com I can sent you those set up.

 

[rtcp]

If anyone's interested, I posted some pictures of the inside of a Bose 701 a year ago.
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=177693&postcount=28
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=192321&postcount=38

 

[no. 5]

If anyone's interested, I posted some pictures of the inside of a Bose 701 a year ago.
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=177693&postcount=28
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=192321&postcount=38

Thanks, that was interisting... so that's what the best speakers in the world look like with their marketing pulled off.

 

[Len44]

I am unaware that anyone ever claimed that the 701s were..."the best speakers in the world." In fact, not even Bose claims this for the 701s. However, it is OK with me if you don't like Bose speakers, or believe them to be overpriced or overvalued.

But, not everyone believes this to be true, based on their own experiences.

 

[Len44]

But it should be known that much more is meant by 'data' than just something like "8 Ohms, 56Hz to 20kHz +/- 3dB".

If you like your 901's fine, there is nothing wrong with that, but if a person is interested in good sound, how would they find out what "good" is? They could go to as many stores as they could find, and listen to as many speakers as they could find, but could they say exactly what made the speakers they liked sound good? They wouldn't be much farther along then when they started, for how much of that good sound was because of their mood? From the room? Even from how the speakers were setup? Really, how good is their memory, that they can say without doubt that speaker A is much better than B, or a problem Dr. Bose ran into, and that is consistency in evaluations, that is, speaker A doesn't sound as good now as it did five months ago.

My point in all of this is people can be trained to be consistent in evaluations, and those people can be used to evaluate hundreds of para mutations in speaker characteristics, then correlations can be drawn between extensive high resolution measurements and listener evaluations as to what things that are seen in the measurements make a speaker subjectively good or bad.
I agree, however, if useful measurements can be found, that would be very useful for buying speakers.

Thanks for your comments. Some Qs:

1. What measurements do you consider critical regarding speakers?
2. Is there a great example that you could share?
3. How does one go about deciding whose ears are better than another's?

Speaker evaluation seems to be quite subjective, as we all come to the listening with our own prejudices regarding "quality." So, the best way to establish, say, the top ten speakers (current, and/or vintage/all-time), would be ???

Appreciate any thoughts...

 

[Len44]

Those numbers tell you quite a bit about the actual sound. Typically, those who decry specifications and measurements for "just the sound" often also speak disparagingly of level matched, double blind listening sessions, which would be actually just the sound, in favor of seeing what they are hearing and judging based on what they see and hear. This allows the placebo effect full sway, and often makes them suckers for all the mumbo jumbo BS snake oil that comes along, which does nothing at all for the sound. It is also hypocritical, because the combination of seeing and hearing is not just the sound.

Incidentally, I am NOT saying that the above applies to you; I mean the above generally, as it is written. I do not know if it applies to you or not; you did not say anything about double blind tests and level matching.

Of course, you are right that the 901s are different from the speakers at the link in the opening post of this thread, and therefore are an entirely different matter. Of course, this does not mean that the 901s are any good, nor does it mean that they are bad. It just means that they must be judged separately from the other speakers (and, of course, the different versions of the 901s should be judged separately from each other as well).

Here is a link to a purportedly old review of the Bose 901:

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/425/index.html

It is neither all complementary nor all condemnation.

I have not been able to find a frequency response measurement for any Bose 901, in my brief time searching. If you know of one on line, please post a link.

On further review...

I was able to find this link:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/12222003171856.pdf

regarding the original Julian Hirsch review of the 901s. I believe this adds to the quest for data that many have requested. While there are several passages from his excellent article (many praising, others not so much, All Factual) that I am tempted to quote, perhaps it is better to allow the review to speak for itself.

Again, my comments have been intended to focus on the 901s, vice the broad-brush condemnation of Bose products in general...