Heard them briefly in the '70's and was not impressed. I liked their look. Diffuse sound stage and bass not defined or strong. There is a lot of useful analysis of their sonic abilities here.
901 series 2 speakers
hi, anybody out there have any thoghts of the bose 901 series 2 speakers?
62 responses Add your response
...and all things and comments being said, we've proved once again that it's impossible to be everything to everyone. 6$ per speaker....mmm.....I wonder what a 901'X' would sound like with 'better' drivers, even if your only 'yardstick' was $. Sure, it'd be more $, but it'd an interesting thing to try...select to correct for the perceived shortfalls. They really demanded to be in a larger than average room, for sure. Otherwise it was like having your head IN the enclosure with the drivers...'really big headphones'...*G* |
Hi Back in early 1960's I studied circuit theory under Dr Amar Bose, who built the current BOSE Corp. He was very bright, energetic, knew his stuff, and was a great teacher. But he's probably even a better businessman that understood the concept of "face validity" for marketing products to a mass, non-technical market. Under this concept, your product must uniquely satisfy a common sense premise & promise (a unique selling proposition) without having to be rigorously true technically. It must also be reliable, attractive, and perform at least as good as the average product. Thus Gillette's Trac II razor offered a second parallel blade to cut the hair a second time before it pulls back into the skin follicle, since the cutting friction of the leading blade pulled the hair up. If 2 blades were good, now we have 5! Bose set up an experiment in Boston's Symphony Hall to measure the directions of the incoming sound to a particular representative seat (I don't remember the row & seat location). He found that 11% of the sound came directly from the orchestra, and the remainder were reflections from the venue's walls, ceiling, floor, seats, baffling, etc - ambient sound. So he developed the 901 speakers to mimic this finding using 9 identical equalized midrange drivers for reliability & big or efficient sound: one on the front baffle and two arrays of 4 each on 2 angled baffles on the rear recreating Boston's famed ambience. The he could say the sound from his 901's matches the sound you would hear in that venue. Who could argue? Face validity! But when you set up and played those speakers in your room, the sound would also bounce off you room's walls, ceiling, floor, etc, thereby superimposing your room's unique ambience on top of Symphony Hall's ambience. For some genres of music this produced geometrical distortion or variance from reality. For full orchestral works such Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, this distortion was not bothersome because lots of other things were going on at louder levels and masking this commingled ambience. However, for purer, simpler works like single vocalists (Joan Baez or Frank Sinatra), it would enlarge and slightly smear their images in the sound field. Moreover, their use of mid-range drivers could not reproduce deep bass or very sharp transients in the upper registers. But the mid-market didn't care. I listened to them a few times, but never wanted to own them. In the end it depends on what you want in recreating the music genres you listen to. Gratefull_ear |
I never liked them. They have horrible lower bass and no high end. Consider this: New replacement drivers are $6.00 each. You have 18. That is $98 worth of drivers. The good thing is that they make great PA speakers. Bar Bands used the carpet covered 802s, which used the same drivers. On midrange only music, such as Bose dealers used to demonstrate them 40 years ago, they really put out a lot of sound. If you want to impress someone, play conga and other drum music. In a comparison I saw in Jacksonville back then, 901's were compared to B&W DM14's, another speaker with sonic issues due to not having a midrange. The Bose were blown away, even on bongos and congas. I use my old DM14's on my TV. I could live with these speakers only. I used stacked pairs, then electrostatics with them. If you want to test the actual theory of the 901 design, take any speaker and turn it at a 45 degree angle facing the wall behind them. BTW, I had a Phase Linear 400 for years. This amp deserves a good preamp and speakers. |
g_nakamoto, I owned a pair of 901V's. I liked them, a lot. They needed power which I had. Phase Linear 400 was good, the McIntosh MC2300 was better. They were the only pair of speakers that I had ever owned that could take everything the Mac good give. (rated at 300wpc, output was a steady 475 when tested into 8ohms). I used the Phase Linear parabolic equalizer in conjunction with the 901's as was happy with them. When I began experimenting with systems and got into my Class A phase of life (Levinson ML2's, Krell KSA 50), I needed to change speakers as these wonderful Class A amps sounded terrible through the 901's. When I did change speakers, I missed the sound of the 901's and the tremendous bass output. (solid, not thumpy) If you like your 901's, then maybe use the tone control on your preamp to add some sparkle or like me add an equalizer and add a little in the treble area. I am curious though, if you think that your Mac amp sounds better than your Phase Linear 400 with the Bose? My Mac had more power, but it certainly didn't sound better with the Bose, just the opposite. The Phase sounded better to me at lower volume listening using the Bose than the Mac did. Enjoy, they are classics and can be a blast depending on what you listen too. Norman |
Lynn...*applause* Well said, sir. *S* When it was just our ears, and those of the people we read and trusted, it was a simpler time and the choices seemed more 'black & white'. As the technology advanced and the means of measuring what was occurring, it all became shades of gray...or grey, if one prefers.. Bose is still the leader of making small 'act large', with their studies on the how and why a enclosure can accentuate the response of a driver. It can be regarded as art and artifice, but they've certainly remained a Name in things audio... Audiophile. A description that can depend on POV and expectations, IMHO. One persons' jewel is anothers' costume jewelry.... I gave up on chasing zeros to the right of the decimal point. If I like the sounds I hear, I will call it Good and call it a day. Others can cheer or jeer as desired; like me, HO....;) |
Ok, Anyone that actually has a musical ear knows the difference between BLowse 901's and good speakers. The 901s were an awesome cranking speaker that could put music everywhere. The problem was, the music was everywhere . There is no concept of soundstaging or true accurate reproduction. The sound was loud and clean but just not real. I started my stereo career with ADS 810s, moved to NHT3.3s, and now have those but mainly use my Wilson Watt 8's. I know there are many other awesome speakers out there but Blowse 901's should be outlawed from high-end discussions. |
Since you are retired and wanting to keep you 901 Series II, I would suggest recapping your equalizer if you haven't done so already. Also, I have found my Series II to work better with an older receiver vs modern separates. And since you have owned them for over 40 years, you probably know that they should be placed according to the owner's manual, I.e. Best on the tulip stands, so many inches from side and rear walks, and not to place any objects in between. I did all that and the bass was incredible. I was hearing deep rumble on tracks that I never heard on another system. I did miss the highs of modern silk dome tweeters. Good luck. |
I had them.... even heard them on tubes (MC 275)... One major hurdle ... the equalizer is the destroyer of the sound. If I were to have Bose 901's today? I would get a Barcus Berry Sonic Maximizer and chuck the Bose EQ box. I am no fan of the 901 concept today. But, if you have the right room and good rear walls for it? The BBE would be a modest investment and should make the speakers sound much better. |
I had a pair of AR2ax as my first speakers and they were among the early, great speakers. but in grad school was able to buy the 901I II's. No comparison for party sound. The 901s filled the room in a stone house with 2 1/2 ft thick stone walls and in apartments my wife and I lived in. No accurate soundstage but Great Wall of music sound from anywhere in the room. Seems to me they cost me $1100. Used today for $3 - $4 hundred they'll be hard to beat. Recommended 100 wpc but I never cranked close to that, even in the stone house. watch out not only for the surrounds but make sure you get the appropriate equalizer. Bouncing 8 speakers off the back walls required a boost in treble. Anyone who says no base can't be real, though. There is even a button on the equalizer to filter out the lowest frequency signals. Bars and small outdoor venues would make maximum use of their 275 watt power handling turning them around to blast the back 8 speakers directly out. if you go for them, check the sound with the equalizers. Just like my B&O 8002 needed a rebuild because of dried out caps, the Bose equalizer needed recapping because of a serious hum it developed. I bought a used equalizer then went to the other extreme with a set of Thiel 2.4 with the Thiel SS1 sub for pure accuracy. There's no comparison but the Thiel combined for well over $3k used v $300? Buy the Bose if that's your budget. |
The 901s were the first higher end speakers I purchased. Living in the rural midwest, there were no Bose dealers in the area. So, like so many today, I relied upon product reviews from stereo magazines. One of the earliest 901 reviews was by, if I remember correctly, Julian Hersh (sp?) from Stereo Review. His impression was very positive, even a rave. And his was not the only laudatory review. It was enough that I drove miles to Dayton to purchase a pair. My impression (no doubt biased because I had just spent, I think, $700) was great pleasure at the enormous sound stage and exciting live sound. My point here is that based upon listening, 901 sound was enormous and fulfilling, and the reviews most positive. It seems that when the listening experience was the only evaluative criteria, reviewers loved it. This changed some time later, as reviewers began citing disagreement with the Bose research methods conclusions, and that the the listening experience therefore had to be inaccurate. Then critical lab measurements were included in the reviews and more negativity was registered. So citing research, design, and lab measures the 901s suffered much derision over the years. But, I always wondered, why were those first reviews, those based solely upon the listening experience (including my own), generally so glowing. The same arguments were made in a different context when tube and solid state components were compared. Why was the tube experience favored by so many,while the solid state measurements were so superior. Also, reviewers to this day still argue whether their ultimate, published judgement should be influenced more by listening or measurement. If you are looking forward to purchasing your first "higher end" speakers, I can almost promise you that you would not be disappointed by 901s you might pick up. You will probably smile for a long time. Sure, there are better speakers. In fact I have built a pair of open baffle speakers that are the best I have ever heard, and cost less to build that a pair of purchased 901s. But you won't be disappointed. I certainly was not, and their earliest reviewers were not either. Lynn Davison |
timlub, I later owned a pair of L07's. They would have 'lit up' a 901/2 pair nicely. Pity the two pairs were about a decade apart in my presence. Anything nice in front of the L07's would have been merely frosting. ;) Ah, well....long ago, and far away....*G* Here's a history lesson re the WOS... https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-wall-of-sound |
Bose no longer sells the 901s in the US. I would not be surprised to see the other two passive speakers, 201 and the other one go away soon. There were a rumor years ago about a new generation 901, there were sketches of it, looked very contemporary and it would be powered by an internal amp. With advances in DSP I could see a "decent" sounding next gen 901 debuting |
Here is a decent little kit for only $100... they'll enter you into the audiophile world decent imaging, fairly smooth and detailed.... I'm sure that you might want a bit more bass, but you can add a subwoofer at anytime. I hope this helps. Tim https://www.parts-express.com/c-note-mt-bookshelf-speaker-kit-pair-with-knock-down-cabinets--300-714... |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
I've always had the 901's so I don't know what I'm missing. and since I'm retired I don't have funds to buy any other speakers. I can say that my phase linear amp did damage 3 of my speakers and I had them repaired. only 1 is still original. also the 1 and 2 series had cloth surrounds. 3 and up had foam which will need replacing after so many years. |
I can't imagine the surrounds on Series II being any good. I was replacing series II surrounds back in the mid 80's... With that, I know many who really like 901's for listening around the house, but I don't know of any audiophile that would sit in front of them with real intent of trying to create live music. |
*L* And easy to DIY for not much bucks today, either, if one cares to duplicate them. And the active eq is a snap, too. If one wants to blast the daylights out of the neighborhood with 'whatever', or just have some sheer audio 'freak fun', you could do so for grins. Decent drivers would make it edge into 'audiophile turf', but that's just heresy on my part. ;) But those running 'line source' styled speakers know what that's about. Making a bunch of small drivers 'go Big' is a well-beaten path by now... I've taken 6 cheapie Pioneers and turned them into 'lines' hanging from the beams in my shop, 3 per side. The guys were complaining that they couldn't hear their tunes over the equipment. That stopped. *evil G*L* |
g_yakamoto: Back in the 70's, i read that you should have at least 100 watts per chanel for these speakers.Yep. I would say 100 wpc in a high current amp would be the minimum, and 200 wpc is better. It's telling that Bose's own amp was 250 wpc into 8 ohms, 400 into 4. The reason 901s were often underpowered is because in 1971 a pair of 901s plus a Phase Linear 400 plus a separate preamp would cost the equivalent of over $8900 in today's money, a bit steep for a college kid, or even a young professional. Just the Bose 901s plus a good receiver would be a lot of money by today's standards (about $5300). |
| Post removed |
You are not completely wrong, schubert. When hung from the ceiling and close to the ceiling, bars always had the eight drivers pointed to the front. 8>)I wouldn’t take that as any definitive answer. It’s not like bar owners are known as acoustic geniuses or even for reading the instructions. I was a sales guy at a Bose dealer in 1975-6 and I read up on all Bose's literature about the 901s' theory of ops and placement. The Bose 901 was the result of Amar Bose’s Masters thesis at MIT, where he measured and studied the ratio of direct vs. reflected sound in Boston’s Symphony Hall, which itself is modeled after the second Gewandhaus in Leipzig, Germany. Boston Symphony Hall is famously reverberant. Amar Bose’s research concluded that at Symphony Hall, of the sound that reaches the listeners’ ears, 11% is direct and 89% is reflected. Therefore he designed the 901 with one forward-facing driver and 8 rear-facing drivers. 8/9ths translates to as close to 89% as you can get. The user guide instructed owners to place the flat baffle (with one speaker) facing into the room, the 8-driver angled rear facing the wall behind it, and position the speakers with a one-foot gap between speakers and wall. The only other reason to have the 8 drivers facing into the room is if there is no wall--or an inadequate one--behind the speakers. The combined 16 speakers on two angled baffles bringing the entire wall into play, which is why the compact 901s produce such room-filling sound. |
Hey johnny, thanks for the history lesson. *L* That was certainly my 'state of the art' for the era, and to get a 'flashback insight' on WTF was going on makes too much sense. *G* The 901's were still impressive for the 'time and place', and I was happy as a well-fed pig in mud back then. They could almost literally blow my friends away, even given the limits they were in. As for the stated demo, it seems to relate to the modern 'line source' stack we see in concerts, driven by enough wattage to pound nails into softwoods. *L* Small wonder the first 5 rows go home with their ears ringing. ;) Perhaps, fortunately, I couldn't afford those seats on a regular basis....I wouldn't be able to hear what I can...*L* Bose was right at the time....massed small drivers can work wonders, given a certain level of 'control' with active EQ. And it still works...I'm a fanboy of active EQ to this day, dialing for 'flat response' in the space I'm faced with. "All things being equal", if you will. ;) Thanks again....*G* |
g_nakamoto writes: hi, anybody out there have any thoughts of the bose 901 series 2 speakers?A few years ago, Jeff Dorgay, editor/publisher of ToneAudio, did a fresh review of the Bose 901 Series VI loudspeakers with the same methods that would be used to review speakers today. For example, he used top quality Sound Anchor stands, high quality speaker cable (that won't fit in the narrow columns of Bose's pedastals), and a range of amplifiers, from a vintage Pioneer SX-424 to a Unison Research S6 vacuum-tube amp to a pair of Pass Labs XA200.5 monoblocks. Read the review; I think you'll find it enlightening. He considered it a competitive value at its $1400 (new, retail) price an a lot of fun for many applications. Dorgay owns and frequently reviews some seriously high end gear. To put some things in perspective, the 1st gen 901s retailed at $476 in 1971. Adjusted for inflation that would be $2874 in today's money. But today the Bose 901 Series VI retails at $1400, which would only amount to $232 in 1971. |
asvjerry wrote: I had a pair of 901/2's way back when. Drove them with a Marantz 2270 that when cranked, the dial lights would pulse with the bass line....When the 901s came out, people were pretty naive about how much power they really required. Quite often they were paired with a Marantz or Pioneer receiver making 40-50 wpc. What people didn't know is the effect of the "Active Equalizer" had something like a 20dB boost at 50 Hz to impart some credible bass. That was quite a strain on an a typical--even a good--receiver at that time. Those with more money might pair it with a Phase Linear 400 or an SAE powerhouse. You might say Bose "came out of the closet" regarding power requirements when they produced the Bose 1801 power amplifier, a behemoth putting out 250/400 wpc into 8/4 ohms. *That* really lit up the 901s and showed what they could do when fed some serious power and current. Not surprised that Bose later offered them as PA drivers, pointing the back 8 at the audience and saying the front single could be used as a stage monitor.Actually, the Bose PA speakers were the 800 series, starting with the 801 and soon on to the 802. The configuration *did* turn the Bose enclosures around so the 8 drivers faced the audience, but there was no single driver on the back side. The 800 model had a pair of large ports in the back; the 802s moved those ports to the front and managed to fit all eight 4-1/2" drivers in the angled front as well. ... Often thought if you stacked, say, a dozen of them per side that they'd be an insane line source.... In the 1970s I saw a multimedia presentation that used some really powerful amps (I forget which--probably Crown DC300As or Bose 1801. They used 3 pairs of Bose 800 speakers stacked and facing the audience in a mid-size venue. Those things played loud and clean. They also had the advantage of 48 full-range drivers with no crossovers, facing the audience. The midrange was crystal clear (ideal for dialogue) with seemingly unlimited (for 1976) dynamic range. |
I had a pair of 901/2's way back when. Drove them with a Marantz 2270 that when cranked, the dial lights would pulse with the bass line.... No, I didn't blow the Marantz. *L* I would and did back off. However... Ran into a salesperson that opined that the 901's could withstand a kilowatt (like with the then current Phase Linear's 'big one') and not seem to be in distress. I wouldn't have been surprised with a new pair... Lived for awhile in a rent house, and was blasting away when the landlady walked in and waved to get my attention. She was laughing that when I had it cranked, it would drown out her stereo indoors some 50' away. What blew her mind was that when she'd walk to the mailbox, she could follow what I had on....100 yards away.....*L* Yeah, they weren't accurate, and they weren't 'audiophile' with they way they radiated, but damn you could get LOUD with them. Not surprised that Bose later offered them as PA drivers, pointing the back 8 at the audience and saying the front single could be used as a stage monitor. Often thought if you stacked, say, a dozen of them per side that they'd be an insane line source. Turn the first 5 rows into jelly....*L* |
As has been said elsewhere, Bose’s primary assumption---that listeners at a live concert receive around 89% of the sound they hear not directly from the stage, but rather after being reflected off the walls, ceiling, and floor of the live venue, and that a loudspeaker should therefore mimic that ratio---one driver in the 901 facing the listener, eight facing the wall behind the speaker---is fatally flawed: It assumes a recording contains direct sound only! The 901 ignores the microphone arrangement of any given recording made in a concert hall. There are many different recording techniques, all capturing different ratios of direct and reflected sound. If a recording contains both direct and reflected sound, and the 901 then adds 89% more reflected sound, it is not reproducing what’s on the recording, it is trying to add reflected sound to a recording already containing that sound, in effect doubling it. See what I mean? No wonder the 901 sounds so diffused, confused, and blurred! It also destroys imaging, and makes instruments sound humorously over-sized, a piano or drumset the size of the distance between the speakers. For the 901 to work as intended, a recording would need to be made either in an anechoic chamber, or with one mic capturing the direct sound from the stage in a hall, and eight capturing the sound reflected off the walls, ceiling, and floor of the hall. Then, a nine-channel hi-fi would reproduce each channel separately, one speaker per mic. Ain’t gonna happen. And what of recordings made in a studio, as most are? The concept of 89% reflected sound does not apply here AT ALL. The 901 makes studio recordings sound completely ridiculous---grossly bloated and smeared. I know, I had a pair in 1970-1. Hated them, got a pair of Infinity 1001’s. Half the price, much better speaker. |
| Post removed |
Yup, there are better choices, but I still remember the 301's. They weren't great, but they did have a nice diffuse presentation. I listened to a dorm mates system and liked them. I lusted for 901's, but then Shahanian, Ohm, Maggie pulled me away. Finally, I became a Vandy fanboy. @Mr. Nakamoto, I hope you enjoy your speakers, they are definitely part of Audiophile history. B |
