Bose 901
- ...
- 112 posts total
Thanks for the link. Its right in line with what I've been saying! " J. Gordon Holt, founding editor of our high-end sister publication Stereophile, noted in a 1971 commentary that the 901 “produces a more realistic semblance of natural ambience than any other speaker system, but we would characterize it as unexceptional in all other respects.” My own mentor, Harry Pearson, Jr., told me in the early 1980s that he bought a pair of first-generation 901s after reading the positive reviews in the mainstream audio press and was so disappointed that it prompted him to found The Absolute Sound as an alternative voice." and "few factors beyond Bose’s own advertising contributed more to the speaker’s huge commercial success." The one guy who liked it was the tech obsessed Julian Hirsch, the man who ruined Stereo Review (and countless budding audiophiles) with his incessant measurement uber alles dogma. Yes Julian Hirsch, the man who thinks all wire is the same so long as its thick enough. Time has not been kind to his views. Stereo Review, RIP. Even though he loved it, he still had to admit: "Electrically, the Bose 901 is rather inefficient, and the 18 dB of bass boost supplied by the equalizer requires huge reserves of amplifier power if loud low-frequency passages are to be played. To a lesser degree, the same problem exists at the very high frequencies." So its equalized to the max, and yet we're supposed to believe "The active equalizer introduces no perceptible distortion." He then goes on to measure its distortion. Right. J. Gordon Holt founded Stereophile on the idea of listening as the ultimate performance criteria. Harry Pearson advanced that ball even further down the field. Neither of them was a fan. To say the least. The one most famous writer to actually like them is also the one whose professional position, which he pushed month after month his whole career, was that listening doesn't really count for all that much. |
- 112 posts total