Bose 901

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. 

@miller ...........





They sound good..........forget your numbers.....who cares how you eq them.

@miller 





He is taking a midrange and getting it to sound like a tweeter......let the eq be.....

Right. Thanks.Good point. Another one he got wrong. As Eric Alexander has shown with his Tekton line its better to take a bunch of tweeters and make them sound like a midrange.

As I mentioned in my 1st post, I am very familiar with the set up of the 901s, as I was professionally tutored by a Bose staff member, of the delicacies and details of proper set up, and, the importance of a high quality, high output power amplifier to drive them, because of the eq’s boost of bass. They are as critical with room set up, as anything else, to obtain their magic. At the last retail price of $1400., they were fun, fun, fun, and unless you heard them with proper set up ( I truly doubt many of you negative folks heard them optimally set up ), with a " proper reflective " wall behind, and, to the sides of them ( distance from both, based on the listening room and the listener’s position ), you might change your mind, because what they did well, they did extremely well. I remember playing the Sheffield Drum / Track record, through several pair I set up....... Maggies, ML’s, and some other speakers, owned by many of you, wishing, they could do the same, displaying the force, the intensity, the realism, that could be had, through the 901’s ( but you would not know ). My modified and tweaked Lascala’s, can do it ( although, without the radiation pattern of the 901s, preferring my horns). Omni’s, and panel’s, are not for me, as they all display compression, to these ears. I am sorry Ishka, I am done here. Enjoy ! MrD.