Bose 901...really

The good book says that there is a time and place for everything. Even Bose 901s?

I am building a pool house addition to my house, 36 X 26 with a cathedral ceiling about 24 ft. The entire interior is hard surface wood, glass, and concrete, so it will be very reverberant. I want to install a set of multichannel speakers. For the fronts, I am all set, with NHT1259 woofers in a 3 cu ft wall cavity, along with three Dynaudio monitors, mounted on the wall. (I have all this on hand). The rear wall includes a very large set of windows. They say that if the world gives you lemons, make lemonade. Why not use that expanse of glass and wood as a reflector for Bose 901s? I have a hunch it would work quite well. And the darned things a cheap as speakers go these days.
I listened to 901s extensively in the 70s and 80s (mostly discos but some friend's houses, too.) They had no bass and very shelved down highs. The two discos that used them had supertweeters and subwoofers also and used the Boses pretty much for midrange. When I've heard them at houses they've always sounded shouty and veiled at the same time. Phasey, too.

I'd go to your local Guitar Center and check out some pro speakers, both studio and reinforcement types.
I too listened to Bose 901s in the 70s and 80s. I thought they sounded crap every time. The only thing that made them notable to start with was they used to advertise the speaker had an unlimited power rating. So as a teenager in the 70s we all kind of ooh'ed and ah'ed about it. "They must be good if they can take unlimited power!" Also their direct reflecting advertising made them a little intriguing. "What do they know that other manufacturers don't?" The thing is I've heard a lot of Bose equipment over the decades and none have ever sound good. Shows what good marketing can do for a company.
That's all that Bose ever had going for it: marketing hype. The whole concept is a lie. As a Sound tech: I'm familiar with a lot of music venues. Everyone that I've ever been to that sounded worth a nickel had sound treatment behind and along the sides of the platform/sound stage. Usually a series of curtains to absorb the side reflections/resonances. Same overhead to reduce or eliminate ceiling reflections. At a rock concert: if the rear and side walls weren't treated- you'd hear more of the stage monitors(out of phase) than you would of the mains. In the Bose ads going back to the 80's, the huge red arrows that represented reflected sound were supposed to be what you heard at a live concert. If the venue had that much reflected sound: it would be an ACOUSTIC NIGHTMARE(like the old Orlando Sports Stadium, UGH)!! McIntosh used to(maybe they still do) test almost every mainline manufacturer's speakers in their audio lab every year. Bose was consistantly the top producer of intermodulation distortion(the most noticable/irritating kind)in those test reports. The concept of causing a 5 1/4" driver to reproduce everything from 20 to 20kHz with an active EQ is flawed to begin with. It can't help but generate IM! Thanks for letting me vent.
Rodman99999 and Wireless200 have expressed the official audiophile opinion. I would most of the time agree. But, my swimming pool room is an unusual environment, and, on a hunch, I decided to give the 901s a try. I don't regret it.

For serious listening I can relax with my Maggies.
I was curious to see if the Bose equalizer could be completely replaced by the Behringer DEQ2496 (instead of using both in series). Answer is definitely YES, although the Bose user manual says otherwise.

First set the Parametric function to 502 Hz / 6 oct / -14 dB. This compensates most of the speaker's frequency response problem.

Then do the usual Automatic equalization process. This tweeks things up and takes care of room effects.

The overall sonic result is significantly improved over using the Bose electronics. Perhaps much of the inferior sound of these speakers derives from the electronics rather than the speakers proper.