Bose 901 VI, havent found the right amp - Page 2

Probably many members here had negative setups with 901s. Good setups, good cables, nice sources and good electronics are basically for very impressive results. And don't forget optimal positions, it's imperative to respect measures from rear and side walls. And, don't forget their active equalizer, if you connect it into the tape monitor circuit, and you bypass it for a mistake, the 901s will bring to us a very poor sound.
You can obtain best results connecting the active equalizer from preamp out and the main amplifier input (if you have separate components). Best way for me, and an idiot can't mistake, also .
I think, nobody like to hear sounding a pair of Jbl, Tannoy or whatever without their crossover...
If you're going to find a precise, solid stereo imaging, you must stay away from these loudspeakers. Conventional speakers had some problems...if you stay into the "Bermuda triangle" you can obtain a precise imaging, but bass frequencies are a little weak. If stay away, bass responses are good! But a precise imaging is gone, and speaker's efficiency decrease.
With 901s, big spaces are a must. Simply stay away, far from them. Bass become linear, deeeep, but very musical (try to play a church organ with these babies), and mid and high frequencies join the bass into the same (big) spot!
Bose 901s are not marketing. They are a unique, revolutionary project that not even Bose can actually repeat.

I stopped reading when you mentioned good cables........

The fact that this forum is devoted to audio science, not audio hype, leaves both 'good' cables and Bose objects of derision, along with those who promote them.

Well, when I mention good cables is not referred to objects that only Uncle Scrooge can buy. A simply, good size in diameter, not so expensive wire can make the difference in bass reproduction (MonsterCable, perhaps?), and a better focus sound imaging.
Tried some other brands, but Monster seems to be the most reasonable solution (for me).

Oh boy... Bose and Monster mentioned in the same thread. This is going to be trouble.

Na, it just means the inmates have taken this one over, so it's time for the rest of us to bail and not waste anymore time with it.

It's only sincere, genuine enthusiasm!

Excerpted quote without comment:

The first 'hi end' system I ever heard was a system of Acuphase integrated + Bose 901 wired with kimber cables. forgot what CD player it was, maybe esoteric or rotel or something.

it sounded better than anything i had ever heard till that point (20 years ago) and i knew i wanted my own 'hi end' system

Bose is a very different company now that makes mostly lifestyle products and focus on design over substance. However, the 901 was the foundation upon which bose build their reputation and properly system, its pretty good and back in the day it wasn't very expensive.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/bose-901-loudspeaker-page-4

480/pair!

I admit, I'm not a champ with my english... Sorry.

Your English may not be the best, but at least your ears and brain are connected and functioning well! Besides, your English is much better than my Italian.

I like 901's simply because they sound good to me. They sound like live music. They are a music lover's speaker, but not necessarily an audiophile's speaker, in the sense that most audiophiles, imo, are detail freaks. They love the hyped, unnatural image specificity of conventional speakers, which while seductive, is not how live music usually sounds. And audiophiles also tend to slobber over inner-detail; that "microscope on the music" effect that unnaturally hypes the little details in some recordings (and makes so-so recordings sound bad). 901's produce enough detail, but they don't accentuate it. This helps non-audiophile recordings to still sound good by not shining a light on the imperfections.

Sure, 901's aren't perfect. No speaker is, especially for $1400. But they do space, bass, size and slam at world-class levels, and these are attributes of live music. They are weaker in the areas of resolution, imaging specificity and high frequency extension. But these are traits most often associated with high-end, audiophile sound, but not with live music. When's the last time you went to a concert and walked out thinking about it in terms of high frequency extension? No, you walk out thinking about the visceral power, the enveloping acoustic, the chest-rattling bass...or at least, I do. In fact, I've heard many audiophiles say they prefer the sound of their stereo's to the sound of live music. They have let their stereo's become their "absolute sound". To me, live music is always the absolute sound by which we should measure the fidelity of our hardware and recordings.

DAT, you should do comedy, because you're hilarious!

If you don't stop feeding him he'll never go away.

Many people after sessions with my 901s, wondered me: "So, where is hiding the subwoofer? I can't see it!"

Your guests have obviously never been exposed to a competent sub woofer.

There's only so much low end 4" cones are capable of producing. Despite Bose's claims, they still haven't found a way to violate the known laws of physics.

"Many people after sessions with my 901s, wondered me: "So, where is hiding the subwoofer? I can't see it!"


Or hear it (bsed on professional measurements, at least)!!!

A specialized italian magazine (SUONO) some years ago, described the bass of the 901 VI Series like a unique, powerful 15" woofer. Obviously , a sub is born to increase low frequencies. It's born to do this bad work! A pair of loudspeaker can't do this. Low frequencies are difficult to reproduce and if they did, very lowfreq tend to decrease. Consider that. We are talkin' about a speaker, with 8 drivers x 2, weighing only 16kg, that can generate an incredible (and musical) bass, and it's very, very efficient. I've had many loudspeakers, but none of them can compete with this bass. However, connect a pair of 901 (III, IV, VI, or VI, not I or II, these old models doesn't have Acoustic Matrix enclosure) to a very powerful amplifier (150 w rms channel or more).
Put into the cd player "The Dark Knight", track 1. Go for the minute 3' 27" and listen.
At that time, walls seems to swell and ears tends "to plug".
I've a pair of (very rare) Jbl Hp-580, they hide into their cabinet four passive subs (9,5 inches diameter) in push-pull mode.
These two monolithic towers DOESN'T GO deeeeepp as the 901s!
Mine are real experiences, not only words...

Every Bose 901 I have ever seen actually has nine (9) drivers, not 8: there are 8 rear-firing and 1 front to provide a little direct sound. The C800, a version made for PA use, has only 8 "rear" drivers and you turn it around to facce the audience. It was actually a decent midrange cabinet; I paired them with a pair of woofers and horn tweeters.

Area = pi * r^2

One 15" driver = 176.7 in2
Nine 4" drivers = 12.566 * 9 = 113.1 in2, about the same as a 12" driver

My current sub is about 3 dB down around 12 Hz in my room. I have never measured that low from a 901.

I have heard many 901-based systems over the years and compared to many others. I would assume many others posting here have also heard and compared. To me the 901's sounded impressive at first listen, but the high and low end just didn't compete with other speakers, and I couldn't get past the imaging that turned a solo into a chorus. Experiences and tastes vary.

All IMO (well, except the number of drivers and areas) - Don

The pro-sound 801 version had eight drivers, all facing outward. They were fairly common in the 80s, most are by now land fill. Just like the 901 no other company ever copied them, as they weren't worth copying. By comparison the 901 was nice. The 801 was a good 10dB shy of the sensitivity required for PA use, and its four across driver configuration resulted in a nightmare of comb filtering.

901s' drivers are 8 at 0,9 ohm. One more driver can make the difference in power handling (voice coil more efficient). And a more easy load power amps will be gratefully). I don't know if 801 (as the Bose 802) has an Acoustic Matrix, the 802 not, in fact, the 802 in empty. It's only a "container".
The 901s can generate heavy bass due to the presence of this particular "multi-chamber". One driver is in communication with other 3. The front driver works alone, in a separate chamber.
In certain musical passages, the Acoustic Matrix can generate from the reactive columns some air turbulence until 100 km/h.
His drivers, 11,5 cm diameter, are very heavy, aluminum voice coil, helicoidal, flat and wire wound.
One piece center pole and backpole. This driver is little, but his ceramic magnet is 5,3 lbs. Very heavy.
18 of them provide a more powerful magnetic field than other speakers, seems to be impossible the 901 cannot generate low frequencies.
The "basket". Plastic. Yes!! An injection-molded plastic frame, avoid distortion to the magnetic field, it's an inert material.
Well, I suspect, some people here has listen 901s without their Active Equalizer....

I was sure it was 800, foggy memory from 40 years ago... Anyway, mine were practically given to me, used a few times, then blew up -- not their fault, guy came in late and set a chair on the amp line, killing amp and speaker. Most venues (dives) I was doing back then, comb filtering was the least of my worries... Never even thought of getting a new pair, went with JBL.

It gets worse when you consider the comparative xmax.

Though in the end: there's no reason that 113in^2 can't do 20Hz.. at low spl.

JerryLove, 901 System must be considered as only one "spheric emitter", forget the single loudspeaker. Not nine, but eighteen driver you must include in your calculation.
And then, you must consider the inner Acoustic Matrix, implemented to expand and control low frequencies.
En example in pro applications is the Bose Acoustic Wave Cannon. A relatively little woofer (12") is mounted into the inner center of this big tube, due to his particular project, an earthquake can be generate from him!
Edited by dadox - 1/31/13 at 12:56am

Who says the Bose marketing department isn't efficient....

Nicely played...

It's not marketing. Some people like Bose sound, some other dislike it.
Simple.

The 901 will be in production as long as there are fools willing to buy them. The human race has no shortage of fools, nor is the supply likely to dry up anytime soon.
That's because this is the head of their marketing department:




Edited by Bill Fitzmaurice - 1/31/13 at 5:39am

If only discussing frequencies where all 18 drivers are within 1/4 wavelength of each other and playing a mono-source. And it's hemspheric unless you have your speakers suspended from a string high above the floor.
To improve coupling. You say that though as though no other speakers use similar methods. I have a Mass-Weighted Transmission line myself; and the folded-horn improvements are more impressive still.
That's a transmission line. Anything else is marketing language and shows a lack of real knowledge.

Liking Bose is fine and no one has taken issue with that. Making unsupportable claims about the performance of Bose speakers, on the other hand....

Really? I guess it depends on how you would define "taking issue":

Bill Fitzmaurice said "The 901 will be in production as long as there are fools willing to buy them."
Flying_Fool said "The biggest problem is that you're thinking the 901's are going to sound good. The simple fact is that they are pretty lousy speakers. Sorry."

IMO, the latter statement is taking issue with "liking Bose" and doing it in quite a rude manner. The first statement is obviously just downright insulting.

As for " Making unsupportable claims about the performance of Bose speakers", Who did that? Dadox and myself have simply related our experience with and opinions about their performance. Is it numbers and graphs you need to feel good about your loudspeakers? Personally, I am much more concerned with how a speaker sounds to my ears than with how it measures.