Bose 901


I spent a weekend away listening to these .

What a Moronic review.


http://noaudiophile.com/Bose_901/

ishkabibil
I had three formative hifi experiences in the late 70s and early 80s, my early teens in the suburbs of St. Paul.  In chronological order, hearing 901s at the house of one of my parent's friends - I couldn't believe music could sound so big, like I was in a concert hall!  Second was the stereo system in the office of my junior high school band teacher - cool blue meters and big speakers in the corners of the office - I didn't know then what I know now, and I could be totally wrong, but I like to think McIntosh and Klipsch?  Sounded so real.  More importantly he introduced me (us) to jazz.  And his daughter, but that's another story, let's just call it music + girls = heartache + mix tapes.  Thirdly buying my first low end music reproduction system - Pioneer receiver, Advent speakers, Technics turntable, at a little strip mall store in the Twin Cities called Sound of Music (they morphed into something much different over the years, also another story), off the sale/discount/used rack.  I loved it of course but that's when I started wondering why my stereo sounded like this and their stereos sounded so much better?
The hate for the 901’s has to come from people that never heard them. Coarse I could talk smack about almost every speaker I’ve heard at a show like ces or axpona. Those of us that owned them and took the time to set them up know. 
After spending as much money on hifi as my house cost I can say the 901vI was a bargain and easily the smartest money I spent on this hobby.
@steve59Bless your heart...You make total sense... A humble and informed reply.
100 percent correct solid gold bro.

Not to be intentionally contrary, but the $500 I spent in 1971 on a pair of 901’s was the biggest waste of money in my hi-fi life. It didn’t take me long to start hating them, and replaced them soon with a pair of 1001’s from a new company named Infinity. The 1001 was only $139/ea, and was a far superior loudspeaker.

In ’71 I had yet to discover the little underground mag named Stereophile (that transpired the following year), so hadn’t seen Gordon Holt’s panning of the 901 in the mag. Only accurate review of the speaker at the time.

The basic premise of the 901 is fatally flawed: to imitate the ratio of direct vs. reflected sound in concert halls. That idea ignores the fact that recordings made in those halls contain both direct and reflected sound---there is no way for the listener to separate the two. To then duplicate that ratio via the loudspeaker is to double the effect.

And what of recordings NOT made in halls? 89% reflected sound in studio recordings? They sound RIDICULOUS on the 901!