Bose is so much better the Paradigm!!!

[mulester7]

.....Privateer, you're pitchin' your hook into Lake Ignorance......

 

[algernon]

.....Bose 901's are to Bose what Miracle Whip is to Kraft.....

That's not saying much as Miracle Whip is horrible tasting. Give me Hellman's on my sandwiches please.

I don't know much about the 901's, never hearing them, but my dad tells a story ( circa some time in the 70's) of a friend plugging his into AC to create a 50HZ tone to really annoy the neighbors. Apparently this did not damage the speakers. Then again, 50 Hz isn't really deep base either.

 

[mulester7]

.....lemoney Hellman's is quality paramount in the mayonnaise field for sure, Algernon....you like me already, huh?........people, when I would press the tape monitor button alternately, taking the second equalizer out of the mix, the presence of the music would simply go from live to re-creation....live, sitting about 10 feet from a group, or sitting front row at a Pops concert....with the whole wall exploding with music that had width and heighth....shoot, I may not tell my friends and do a throne room system........guys, here's a must....notice the used ones in the six buck range....Rosemary Clooney, yeah, I'm 56, does a magnificent job of singing with the Cincinnati Pops Orchestra on a couple....magnificent orchestra.....Telarc label, nuff said....

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000003CWC/qid=1113265333/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-7971935-6234220

 

[jaxvon]

You know, I like the fact in that in that ebay auction, they're actually using the 901 (as a table, of course).

Seriously man, I don't care if you EQ them or whatever, you simply cannot get great or accurate sound from 9 4.5" paper drivers. It just isn't gonna happen. You might get some nice midrange, but only if they were high-quality treated paper cones (which they're not).

And what is this marketing garbage that you're spewing about direct/reflected sound? If you want to experience this phenomenon done right, pick up a pair of Martin Logans, Magnepans, or Linkwitz Orions.

 

[mulester7]

.....Jaxvon, all I'm saying is there is a HUGE difference in the likability of four 901's using two equalizers and placing them correctly.....one end of a room about 14 X 20 or longer is perfect....you're all trying to come up with reasons why it won't be any good....I've lived it....I grow weary of defending it with no report being turned in by someone trying it.....

 

[sjdgpt]

You know, I like the fact in that in that ebay auction, they're actually using the 901 (as a table, of course).

You noticed that also.

I can see a new ad campaign for Bose.... our end tables sound better than your end tables through better woodworking.

Alas, there aint much wood in them there speakers, unless you want to count the wood product used for the paper speaker cones.

 

[Privateer]

http://web.archive.org/web/20041009194608/http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html

More of the same review of the poor performing Bose Acoustimass-15.

Considering the large emphasis on marketing that Bose places on its products as well as the ostentatious boasting of "innovation" and "performance", I am curious as to why none, count them: ZERO, of their speakers are THX-certified. George Lucas offers certification to any product from any company willing to undergo the scrutiny of his tests. I'm sure Dr. Amar Bose has brought in many Bose speakers to the Skywalker Ranch for certification only to have them rejected time and time again. I am no fan of THX-Certification myself; However, no one can deny that it is perhaps the singly most powerful marketing tool in the entire industry. One tool that Dr. Bose would not have overlooked, but again, one that he could not obtain for himself.

Got THX? Sad when ANY bose product can not pass the 20Hz to 20 kHz THX test.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

You gotta love Consumer Reports...

Few magazines are now willing to give honest reviews of Bose products due to a Consumer Reports review a few years back that gave the AM-15 embarrassingly bad ratings (score of 62 out of 100). Consumer Reports allegedly used a double-blind comparison test, which is in fact the ideal way to compare speakers. That particular review ended up in a lawsuit over "unscientific testing methods". Thankfully, Bose lost that lawsuit, but since then, Consumer Reports and various other magazines give neutral-to-rave reviews that tip-toe around the actual sound quality and focus more on ergonomics and style. More prestigious publications like Fi and What HiFi? ignore Bose products completely.

This guy love Bose...

Bose equipment, even the flagship LifeStyle 50, resembles the sonic performance of the 11-year-old Aiwa minisystem in my garage. For $500, the Wave Radio is an overpriced alarm clock. If you're impressed by it, have a listen to a Henry Kloss radio for a fraction of the price! For $1000, the Bose 3-2-1 can not be described as anything less than a crime against sound reproduction. The message I want everyone to take from this lengthy review is that Bose, like Bang & Olufsen and Nakamichi, sell lifestyle and designer products whose prices are very heavily saturated by image and appeal. They are by no means, no means at all performance products. They have no cost-effectiveness, no bang-for-the-buck value, and draw no respect from any true audio enthusiests. "Their" goal is to appeal to and impress housewives.

 

[HookedOnSound]

I can't believe that this April Fool's joke has now reach #89 posts (mine included)

Pretty soon, it'll be May Fool's Joke!

BOSE 901's were impressive for their time but times have changed and the design (and quality) has long been surpassed by new technology and better performance produced by other manufacturers.

Fast forward to 2005 and not 1975 shall we?

Bose wins on some segments has down because their inherit appeal: size.

Albeit this involves a performance tradeoffs but the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) is high.

For most ppl buying BOSE, compromise is part their purchasing decision, they are looking for a reasonable sounding system that will integrate easily into the decor without being obtrusive in a small to medium living space. And then there are some who don't know better.

There is nothing wrong with that. Is it overpriced? after looking at several HTIB I have to admit that the Bose Acoustimass (am i saying right?) seem a little on the high side.

If you happen to know the difference between a Bose Acoustimass system and a better alternative, consider yourself lucky. But if you have a friend who has a BOSE, don't go shooting off your mouth about it being a piece of shiite. you'll end up looking like a jerk. Best thing to do is bring your friend over to your house and show your system to open his ears. If he hears the difference, all the better, he might just thank ya instead of calling you an a$$!

Happy Listening!

 

[zipper]

Hey,if you're happy with the 901's more power to ya...............I've heard em before & they are certainly capable of filling a room with sound. But that is all Blows seems to be interested in. My BIL bought a Blows surround set a while back & was quite proud of it at 1st. It is some 6.bla acoustimass job where everything plugs into one of the towers including the little cube surrounds. I smiled to myself as he pumped up the volume from his Onkyo & all I could muster up for a polite reply was, "not bad". He has become less & less enchanted with it over time, starting with the CC, then the cubes.

I then had him listen to my VERY modest setup(below) & he commented on the excellent vocals that my CC was producing. When I told him that I don't use the CC when listening to music, he gave me that puzzled look that I'm sure many of you have seen before, got up & stuck his ear up to the CC, & said ,"wow". I believe it was then that he,in his mind anyhow, knew he had been blown by Blows.

If you've never heard,or heard of, Martin Logans, I suggest you find someone or some place that has them & give them a listen.






Yamaha 3300
Mitsubishi DD-6030 (DVD)
Axiom M60's
Klipsch KB1.1's
Klipsch CC
Paradigm PDR-10 subs(2)
2 Optimus MPA-250 amps(in mono,1 for each main)
B&K-202+ for surrounds

Had a B&K ref 200.5 for about a week, but I want a new HDTV so I had to take it back ...............wish I could afford both.

 

[Rob Babcock]

This is great! (Wipes away tears of laughter). My favorite thread in ages!

 

[sts9fan]

Too Funny! How long will this crap be sticky?

 

[Audioholics]

he commented on the excellent vocals that my CC was producing. When I told him that I don't use the CC when listening to music, he gave me that puzzled look that I'm sure many of you have seen before, got up & stuck his ear up to the CC, & said ,"wow".

My wife did the exact same thing shortly after I put in RBH 1266-LSEs in Reference System 3. I ghosted the center channel and played some music and she commented on how clean the vocals were. When I told her the center channel wasn't on she had to put her ear up against it to convince herself.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

I often wonder if people who prefer Bose have just never critically listened to their system or auditioned anything else.

There's a reason most Bose equipment is sold only in the Bose store or has it's own section far away from anything else, so you CAN'T compare them.

Listen to some complex music on a 901 and compare that to a pair of Athena floorstanders and there is no comparison. The Athenas will shine in both upper range and lower range where the Bose doesn't even go.

I'll say this, Bose 901s sound good with live music, cranked, and with the use of mind-altering subtances. The reflections of the audience clapping is captivating, but I'll tell you what, you can get the same effect and save a ton of money by buying a cheap HTiB. Is "presense" all that concerns you or accurate reproduction of the music at every frequency?

Bose might give you presense, but it gives you little else.

 

[RJB]

Still laughing...

Every time I see what's new in this thread I start laughing again....so I can't resist adding another comment...

WOW, Bose makes speakers, when did they start doing that!!?? I always thought they just made those cheap clock radios. Gotta run out and get some of their new speakers!

 

[Resident Loser]

Well, I've got my Kevlar...

...body armor and Nomex skivvies on so here goes...

I've had a pair of 901 Series Two since '74/'75...so take my comments in light of that...

I too, use two equalizers...but not in the manner in which it has been suggested...or at least as I think has been suggested, as it(doubling the bass boost) makes no sense to me. Even Bose says you can hook up two pairs of 901s to the same amp and use only one eq, piggybacking isn't an option. In addition to the Bose eq, I use an SAE 2700B half-octave unit...using a Crown test disk as source material and a Radio Shack analog SPL meter(which compares favorably to the borrowed pro unit initially employed) my system is eq'd from the tip of my Stanton 881S stylus to my listening position; measuring and plotting things out on paper, applying the inverse curve with the SAE unit three or four times to arrive at reasonably flat response. In addition, using the disk's reference test tone @1k as the set point for all further measurements, the eq is working as it should...as a sound shaper and not a gain device...punching the eq in and out of the ckt reveals a change of tonality only with no volume increase. IMO, most folks don't use their eqs correctly, which in turn gives them a bad rap generally.

But I digress. Most of the sliders are actually in the "cut" positions and as it turns out, flat ain't where it's at. I decided the top end was too "hot" and wound up rolling-off the hi-freqs above 10K. The bands that do apply boost, are perhaps +6dB max.

Insofar as the "lack of bass" one poster remarked of, all I have to say is "HUH!" Bass is definitely one thing not lacking. There are a couple of cuts, one an ELP track( I forget the title) and another Heart tune "Magic Man" where the synth smoothly sweeps down to a point where you can practically count the nodes of the sine waves...deep, clear, visceral, right to the Mariana's Trench. As a former semi-pro guitarist and an avid amateur recordist, I am quite experienced in what live music sounds like, so I do have some point of reference.

And yeah, the nine drivers DO have the area which approximates that of a 12in. woofer, but without the mass...I feel the transients are excellent for that reason...ask a guitarist why they might prefer the sound of a Fender Pro-reverb vs. a Super vs. a Bandmaster...a sort of division of labor kinda' deal IMHO. Synth, electric bass or acoustic...and particularly acoustic when bowed...I have no complaints whatsoever; articulate and detailed. Listen to the stand-up on RVG re-issue CD of Coltrane's " Blue Train" or the vinyl Herb Ellis' and Red Miller's " Doggin' Around". You can hear the rosin!

As far as I'm concerned, my 901s are very revealing...good source material sounds wonderful...bad just sounds bad...although the hi-freq adjustments of the 901 eq can help in some cases.

Bill Frisells "Gone, Just like A Train" is, IMO, an incredibly engineered disc. Jim Keltner's drums standout as probably the most realistc kit I've heard...I have a 45rpm DtoD record of Charlie Bird's combo on Crystal Clear in virgin white vinyl...there is a horn that is just uncanny and the entire disk's soundstage is presented as it was described(including their comments re: the oversized rimshots BTW) in an article in the late, lamented AUDIO magazine. It may have been a part of an AURICLE column...My dog, who barks at any adult male voices, other than mine, literally freaks with the opening track of "O, Brother Where Art Thou" and it's chain-gang chant. Going back to Heart, there is a coin dropped between two cuts...the phrase that comes to mind is "sonic holography"...

Pop, rock, country, jazz, classical...solo guitar, string quartets...native American flute music, chant or zydeco; my catlogue runs the gamut.

I fully realize that the previous comments are simply "anecdotal' in nature and I hardly expect everyone to run out and buy a pair of 901s(and from what I understand the series two was their high point). I am of the opinion that they do require a different mind-set to fully appreciate...people who are used to, what I refer to as, an "in your face" approach to musical reproduction, are less than impressed with them generally speaking...no flash, no sizzle. IMO, they require a bit more user interaction to reveal what they are capable of compared to the "obvious" presentation of traditional loudspeaker systems. Hey, but that's just my opinion or theory.

Would I buy them today??? Mine listed @$525 and cost even less as a part of a "package" I put together with my retailer, way back when, in the days of the "fair trade" laws. The prices today would probably give me pause...and given all the bad word of mouth Bose gets, I dunno', really don't have an answer. While I have purchased some gear recently, I really haven't listened to much re: speakers...and I really have no complaints with what I presently do have and still enjoy. I do tend to agree with those who complain about the constant barrage of advertising the company on The Mountain is responsible for...but hey, they are running a business...I have heard the Acoustimass stuff as part of a HT system(NOT at a Bose store) and I really expected to hear absolute dreck, but was surprised they sounded as good as they did...again, particularly in light of what I have read in cyberspace...of course it was 15-20 min. listening session and I do have a problem with the summing mono woofer and the concept that bass is non-directional...although I did buy the Eagles "Hell Freezes Over" DVD as a result. There is the simplicity and WAF to take into account...they do make a marketable product.

I do own a Waveradio, didn't buy it, won it in a retailer's contest my wife entered, unbeknownst to me...pretty pricey for a clock radio...but...and here is the but...if set up properly, it's reasonably good in light to the real estate it takes up...mid-bass can be spotty. Hooked it up to my el cheapo GPX CDP...quite sufficient for casual listening in the bedroom.

Do I claim Bose is the best? What exactly is the "best"? I think it's a confluence of a few things...different things for different people. For me they(the 901-IIs) seem to be. For someone else? Hey that's why there is vanilla and chocolate. Call me deaf, call me lame or call me lucky...I have been and continue to be satisfied with my thirty year-old choices and have listenened to a lot of music in the time I could have been seeking the elusive(and virtually non-existent IMO)Grail.

jimHJJ(...give me a 10 second headstart OK...)

 

[mulester7]

....."I too, use two equalizers...but not in the manner in which it has been suggested"....that'll be far enough....thanks for your comment and post, but we need, """TWO BOSE 901 EQUALIZERS"""....and you want four 901's for the heighth along with the width....I'm on a project today with a couple of guys and we just broke for lunch....I wanted to run home and check to see if someone had risen to the occassion....someone will....I'll be back this evening and lay out inch by inch a Super Bose Setup's placements....I'll be the first to say technology has come a long way since 1975, but I doubt the 901's or the equalizers have changed that much....it's got to be two Bose EQ's and it don't matter what ole' Martin whatever has to offer............

 

[mulester7]

.....and I just noticed you said "even Bose said not to piggy-back"....I never tried to come out of one Bose EQ and go straight into a second one with both being between the pre-amp and the amp.....back later....can any of you guys have some supper ready?.....

 

[mulester7]

.....Clint, could I borrow a 20?.....

 

[Resident Loser]

Sorry, somewhere along the line...

...someone said something about 36 dB of boost...or something like that...

Not a good idea...it'll cause severe over-excursion of the drivers...but, anywho, I seem to have misinterpreted what I read...so the point is moot...I think...You could use two separate amps feeding two sets of speakers AND two Bose EQs...or one amp, one EQ and two sets of speakers if your amp can handle the load or one EQ with two amps(if they can be bridged to mono) each driving two speakers per channel...Bose does say(at least in my owners manual) that the only system better than a pair of 901s is two sets using one EQ...one pair in front as per placement guidelines...and another pair sort of flanking the listening position...I suppose one pair on the floor(w/pedestals) and one pair hanging from the ceiling might work, but it might confuse the imaging even more than they are oftimes described as doing.

If you are running the EQs between pre-amp to power amp(s) don't use the EQs "tape mon" function...it could be disastrous...the output of your tape player will be directly feeding the input of the power amp with no signal attenuation.

jimHJJ(...again, sorry...)