Bose Speaker Measurements & Frequency Response Graphs

[MinusTheBear]

How much do the Bose 901 cost. I am just curious at what other speakers these can be compared too in their price range.

 

[Len44]

I think they List for about $1349 or so (Bose.com), but can be had for less...perhaps in the $1100 (ballpark) range.

 

[no. 5]

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.

Just another flippant comment about Bose...

1. What measurements do you consider critical regarding speakers?

High resolution on and off axis frequency response is the most important. Preferably in an anechoic environment, covering a field of 180 degrees or better.

2. Is there a great example that you could share?

Example of what?

3. How does one go about deciding whose ears are better than another's?

Better than another's in what way? If you mean actual ability to hear, a test of a persons thresholds of upper and lower frequency, perception of resonance, harmonic distortion, etc, could decide that. But if you mean ability to be consistent in evaluations, that is a learned ability, that I think almost anyone can become good at.

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...

The extent that speaker evaluation is subjective depends largely on the specific case; take an ugly and an attractive speaker that are rated very nearly the same in a blind evaluation and put them in a sighted evaluation and the attractive speaker will be preferred, or a coloration that sounds pleasant today may sound unbearable tomorrow, or one person may like a coloration another dislikes.
But enough research has been done on the subject that a person can say that a speaker with flattish response, wide bandwidth, wide dispersion, and low distortion will generally be preferred.

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

I think a lot of people talk of the awfulness of Bose as a knee-jerk, but in the case of the 901's, I think some credit is due to Dr. Bose for the idea that a mulitipoler speaker is better than a monopole. Which is similar to what Floyd Toole has shown. Granted, the 4" full range driver will likely have dismal off axis high frequency response.

 

[Len44]

"High resolution on and off axis frequency response is the most important. Preferably in an anechoic environment, covering a field of 180 degrees or better."

Are you aware of speaker manufacturers who provide these specifications? I am not...

"Example of what?"

Please see above. I meant to ask if any examples of loudspeaker companies that provide what you consider to be critical measurements regarding speaker performance. I apologize for the lack of clarity regarding the reference.

"I think a lot of people talk of the awfulness of Bose as a knee-jerk, but in the case of the 901's, I think some credit is due to Dr. Bose for the idea that a mulitipoler speaker is better than a monopole. Which is similar to what Floyd Toole has shown. Granted, the 4" full range driver will likely have dismal off axis high frequency response."

Yeah, the Julian Hirsch review referenced above was quite enlightening.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[Len44]

P.S. Sorry I couldn't figure out the multi-quote after multi-quote stuff...

 

[bandphan]

bowers and wilkens for one

 

[Len44]

bowers and wilkens for one

Fair enough. My brief foray looking at a few leading speaker manufacturers did not include b&w, and of course they should have been included. No mention of the "anechoic environment, covering a field of 180 degrees or better", tho.

I did look at Wilson Audio and Martin Logan, among others...and of course nearly all do include some frequency response specification.

 

[no. 5]

"High resolution on and off axis frequency response is the most important. Preferably in an anechoic environment, covering a field of 180 degrees or better."

Are you aware of speaker manufacturers who provide these specifications?

To the general speaker buying public? I do not know of any manufacturers off hand that include frequency response data of the kind I spoke of in their product information. However, good measurements can be found in Stereophile magazine and a number reviews from SoundStage! have measurements conducted by Canada's NRC.

 

[bandphan]

To the general speaker buying public? I do not know of any manufacturers off hand that include frequency response data of the kind I spoke of in their product information. However, good measurements can be found in Stereophile magazine and a number reviews from SoundStage! have measurements conducted by Canada's NRC.

its the 3rd party measurements that count, as no5 mentioned. Martin Logan will provide a complete white sheet if requested(full measurments), as will David Wilson. There are a few members here that do testing when it permits.

 

[musiclover0608]

Claim: We cannot hear differences between speakers.
True when using poor quality mass market gear and poor quality mass market speakers.
False when using good high quality source components and good speakers. The differences are easily discernible.

Claim: Measurements don't count.
True if you just want to win an argument by ignoring facts.
False because measurement is what made synthesizers possible. Measurement is what makes HT room treatment possible. Measurement is how a LOT of good speaker companies get customers. Measurement is what gives a hint of what a speaker is capable of achieving before we actually listen to it.

Claim: Personal preference trumps all measurements.
True if we care only about making noise, not making music.
False if we care about reproducing as best as possible what is recorded.

Claim: Julian Hirsch reviewed it eons ago, it must be good.
True if nothing better existed at the time. Ford Model-T was the "best" too for its time. Is it still good today?
False given today's technology.

Look in Stereophile for the types of measurements that are meaningful.

Consumer Report measured Bose once and published the finding and Bose sued CR to stop the publication but Bose lost. Why the desperate attempt to hide meaningful scientific data? Is there something worth hiding?

Bose is just another business trying to make money. It will do the marketing and the advertisement to get its customers. People who don't care or are unaware of what is truly available will assume Bose is "high end". People who care and are aware of what is available will know Bose is just run of the mill; just another mass market company who charges a premium.

I just want to point out the facts so people can decide for themselves. If someone loves Bose, so be it. At least they know what they are getting.

 

[krajnik]

Looking at that frequency response, I'm reminded of a catchy little phrase I heard a few years ago:

"no highs, no lows, just Bose"

 

[spkrdtr]

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 new to this forum but stumbled on this discussion regarding Bose's lack of frequency response data and wanted to add my 2 cents worth.

I am aware of only one standard test method for measuring loudspeaker frequency response and that is via an anechoic chamber. The objective of the chamber is to remove as much a possible, reflected sounds and measure ONLY the output coming directly from the speaker itself. Thus, confounding first, second and third reflections which can vary with each speaker's design are eliminated and all (well most) speakers are tested on a level playing field.
Acutally, an anechoic chamber is man's way of duplication an open field response indoors.
So here we have a novel design (Bose 901) which relies on reflected surfaces with 89% of the driver's output coming out the back of the cabinet. Now, picture a 901 in an anechoic chamber in a standard test set up with a test mic pointed at the front of the speaker. What do you think the results will be after the most of the sound has been absorbed by the walls of the chamber?
I feel Bose's position on not providing st'd test data on the 901 or any of their speaker systems which rely on multi-directional sound is justified - UNTIL a test method is developed for these types of speakers.

Now, perhaps they have carried over their position to their more traditional front firing speakers which doesn't make sense other than to hide poor performance. But the discussion here has been focused to a large extent on the 901 which prompted me to make this post.

 

[no. 5]

So here we have a novel design (Bose 901) which relies on reflected surfaces with 89% of the driver's output coming out the back of the cabinet. Now, picture a 901 in an anechoic chamber in a standard test set up with a test mic pointed at the front of the speaker. What do you think the results will be after the most of the sound has been absorbed by the walls of the chamber?

If the speaker is measured for more than on-axis response, the results will give a pretty good picture of what the speaker will sound like. In fact, there are many reliable sources that provide more than just on-axis response, check out the measurement portion of this review of an omnipolar Mirage Omni 60; measurements to 75 degrees off-axis, and deviation from on-axis response to 180 degrees.

Concerning speaker measurements, Floyd Toole's keynote address from the 111th AES convention is a good read (here, number 28, page 6).

 

[spkrdtr]

I'll try to make my point a different way.

If a loudspeaker is designed to rely heavily on reflections, it will test poorly in an environment (anechoic chamber) designed to mitigate those reflections. The test will be meaningless because it failed to take into account the key property the speaker relies on to disperse sound.

 

[WmAx]

I'll try to make my point a different way.

If a loudspeaker is designed to rely heavily on reflections, it will test poorly in an environment (anechoic chamber) designed to mitigate those reflections. The test will be meaningless because it failed to take into account the key property the speaker relies on to disperse sound.

Let me make this clear: proper loudspeaker analysis includes measuring on and off axis in small increments. This is done properly in an anechoic chamber using a turn table.

-Chris

 

[no. 5]

The test will be meaningless because it failed to take into account the key property the speaker relies on to disperse sound.

If only on-axis response is measured, but any manufacture or reviewer that knows the importance of, and the methods needed, to accurately and usefully measure a speaker will measure what is going toward the walls as well as the listener.

Think about it, if it's important to know what the direct sound is like, is it not just as important to know what the indirect sound is like too? If the anechoic measurements shows a 20dB wide band resonance in a speaker's off-axis response, do you think that that problem would be solved when the speaker is placed in a room? Wouldn't good speaker designers know that?

 

[Len44]

"Look in Stereophile for the types of measurements that are meaningful."

Sterophile? You're kidding, right?

 

[Len44]

Claim: We cannot hear differences between speakers.
True when using poor quality mass market gear and poor quality mass market speakers.
False when using good high quality source components and good speakers. The differences are easily discernible.

Claim: Measurements don't count.
True if you just want to win an argument by ignoring facts.
False because measurement is what made synthesizers possible. Measurement is what makes HT room treatment possible. Measurement is how a LOT of good speaker companies get customers. Measurement is what gives a hint of what a speaker is capable of achieving before we actually listen to it.

Claim: Personal preference trumps all measurements.
True if we care only about making noise, not making music.
False if we care about reproducing as best as possible what is recorded.

Claim: Julian Hirsch reviewed it eons ago, it must be good.
True if nothing better existed at the time. Ford Model-T was the "best" too for its time. Is it still good today?
False given today's technology.

Look in Stereophile for the types of measurements that are meaningful.

Consumer Report measured Bose once and published the finding and Bose sued CR to stop the publication but Bose lost. Why the desperate attempt to hide meaningful scientific data? Is there something worth hiding?

Bose is just another business trying to make money. It will do the marketing and the advertisement to get its customers. People who don't care or are unaware of what is truly available will assume Bose is "high end". People who care and are aware of what is available will know Bose is just run of the mill; just another mass market company who charges a premium.

I just want to point out the facts so people can decide for themselves. If someone loves Bose, so be it. At least they know what they are getting.

Now that I have re-read this, I really can't figure what point you're trying to make, other than to join in the pile-on mania against Bose. Again, my comments have only referenced the 901's.

Do I think that 901's are the best speaker out there? No, of course not! But, at the time they were reviewed, they were thought of as pretty damn good, even revolutionary. More than I can say for many speakers manufactured before -- or since. Although there are a number of exceptions, of course. Certainly, it is fair to say most areas of audio / video have improved since the time of the referenced review.

"Bose is just another business trying to make money." Well, hell yeah! Like, uh, Wilson, B&W, and YOUR favorite speaker manufacturer isn't??? Geez!

Regarding the reference to measurements...one might wonder what your position is on differences in speaker wire...and measurement of the differences in various applications. Interesting because so many who place such a huge importance on measurement in one area of audio (or video) often dismiss the importance of measurement in another area. I presume this does not apply to you, of course.

"We cannot hear differences between speakers" I don't think anyone has even suggested such a thing. I know I certainly haven't, and furthermore can assure you that I can quite clearly hear differences between speakers.

Finally, I think spkrdtr and no. 5 both make some very interesting points, valid to the discussion, and have thanked them both.

 

[no. 5]

"Look in Stereophile for the types of measurements that are meaningful."

Sterophile? You're kidding, right?

Curiously enough, Stereophile does provide useful measurements. Just don't read the rest of the review.

 

[R-Carpenter]

It's like saying: “This car that we make is extremely fast, handles like god and very comfortable at the same time but we can't tell you how fast it is and what is it pulling on a skid because there's a lot more to the speed and handling then test”
There's no shortage of other commercial speaks with bad FR and high distortion levels but the level of arrogance and fuller y from B is simply astonishing.