Originally Posted by cel4145
Yeah. Thanks anyway. I don't need to do that... But you should stop arguing out of ignorance, Did you even read the article you posted? Or do you just look at pictures and guess poorly based on table legends? LOL
Graph 5 is the speaker response after that bell shaped equalization curve in graph 2 has been applied. These graphs support what Bill's been trying to tell you. The EQ looks to have a boost of about 15db for 25hz. Then the actual measured response of the speakers looks to be about 12 to 15db down AFTER EQ. I might be off by just a few db trying to read it, but do the math.
Really, your response is funny, given that it is you who are speaking from ignorance. Did You
read the article?
Everyone here has been arguing that dat56's frequency measurements were lies or embellishments. No one has advanced their own measurements which contradict them. Instead a theoretical predictive model is used as evidence, which it is not. It is a simulation.
Based on this model it has been suggested that the Bose 901 could not possibly have respectable base, and that it's graph must be a bell curve even after equalization.
Here is what the reviewer says about the Bose (it appears that here he is speaking about the unequalized Bose, but it's not quite clear):
"... The bass was good although sometimes it seemed a little strained. The mid range was superb - incredibly lifelike, in fact - while the high frequencies were generally excellent although occasionally they sounded somewhat less than perfect."
According to the article, after equalization with the receiver, "the response then is generally within about ± 5 dB in various little - after compensating the mic position a little - would any setting of the spatial control."
Overall the reviewer has praise for the Bose 901, at least the version that he was testing. So you might want to adjust your monitor, get some new glasses, or just open your mind. LOL