901 series 2 speakers


hi, anybody out there have any thoghts of the bose 901 series 2 speakers?
128x128g_nakamoto

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.

901 sounded terrible even back in the day. The Bose cube acoustimas which came much later was better but rather limited dynamically.
back in 1971 i was only 18  and did'nt know too much about stereo components. i only knew what i saw at the "pacific stereo" store in l.a. county and what i read in the "stereo review" magazine since they retired.
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*
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.