Absolutely I've changed! As the audiologist so nicely put it, my hearing is within the average range for people my age, and that age is quite different than when I started in the hobby in the 1970's. The suggestion that I referenced was that Bose may have been targeting an older audience with the particular frequency balance they built in to some of their products, Wave products in particular. Whether they did or not, it's a voicing that works well for me and some of my similarly aging family and friends.
I don't know that I would ever call the sound impressive, which to my mind suggests some kind of wow factor to the experience, but vocalists and musicians are fairly easy to follow and understand, which keeps music interesting record after record, and with a sound that is rich, smooth, and non-fatiguing. I would characterize the sound as "satisfying" rather than impressive.
You can youtube a myriad of explanations on treating ears and hearing.Was wondering if you could expand on this, I for one would be very interested in any information you might be able to provide. How do you find a qualified practitioner, number of treatments that may be required to obtain desired results, are the results "durable", or are continuous treatments required? Anything you could tell us would be greatly appreciated!!
Fortunately, the answer is quite simple and replaces not only electronics, but speakers as well. The choice depends mostly on the size of room you're wanting to fill with sound. Up to about 400 square feet, the Bose Wave music system IV is all you need. For larger rooms, the Bose Acoustic Wave music system II might be preferred. I bought both some years ago on their 30-day trial, and ended up preferring, and keeping, the smaller unit, returning the larger one for a full refund. A friend of mine found the larger unit to work best in his home. I also bought the SoundLink adapter to receive wireless music and other audio entertainment from my computer; it looks like they offer similar or even more advanced capability in their Wave SoundTouch system IV.I'm convinced. Selling all. Should I replace my electronics with Pyle, GPX, Innovative Technology, Crosley or some other brand?
Never quite understood that criticism, particularly with respect to the 901's since published tests showed very good, even response from about 40 to at least 14,000 Hz. I've read that research shows that a frequency range of 60-8000 Hz will give me 90% of what a full symphony is capable of playing, and that 40-14,000 Hz represents virtual perfection. The DIN standards for high fidelity specified a response range of 40-12,500 Hz. A lot of small speakers won't make it down to 40 Hz, but Alan Shaw of Harbeth makes a compelling case for the satisfactory sound that can be had even when all frequencies below 60 Hz are eliminated, and limiting low frequencies to 60 Hz is said to be more neighbor-friendly in living situations in which you must share walls.The audiologist has a way with words that both soothes and irritates... diplomatic. I used to work in the business which involved a busy sales floor and the sales people had an expression for Bose... 901's at that time... that went 'no highs no lows must be Bose'.
You can youtube a myriad of explanations on treating ears and hearing.
For instance,Good Luck!
Never quite understood that criticism, particularly with respect to the 901's since published tests showed very good, even response from about 40 to at least 14,000 Hz. I've read that research shows that a frequency range of 60-8000 Hz will give me 90% of what a full symphony is capable of playing, and that 40-14,000 Hz represents virtual perfection. The DIN standards for high fidelity specified a response range of 40-12,500 Hz. A lot of small speakers won't make it down to 40 Hz, but Alan Shaw of Harbeth makes a compelling case for the satisfactory sound that can be had even when all frequencies below 60 Hz are eliminated, and limiting low frequencies to 60 Hz is said to be more neighbor-friendly in living situations in which you must share walls.
Well, I can't defend the 901's too much. After all, when they could still be found in hifi shops, I compared, preferred, and purchased Klipsch La Scala rather than 901's (though I later ended up liking the little Linn Saras better than the Klipsch). But it's interesting that even the rather derogatory review put out by Stereophile found them impressive in a way, saying, "The 901 sounds fantastically open and spacious, with a big, fat low end and a socko you-are-there presence that seems to put the performers right in the room, surrounded by the original auditorium.". . . I did like the sound of the Bose 901 series, but do not think they are capable of delivering high impact extended frequencies like others listed.. which is okay, but Bose marketed them as though they did. . ..
Well, I can't defend the 901's too much. After all, when they could still be found in hifi shops, I compared, preferred, and purchased Klipsch La Scala rather than 901's (though I later ended up liking the little Linn Saras better than the Klipsch). But it's interesting that even the rather derogatory review put out by Stereophile found them impressive in a way, saying, "The 901 sounds fantastically open and spacious, with a big, fat low end and a socko you-are-there presence that seems to put the performers right in the room, surrounded by the original auditorium."
https://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/425/index.html
Having read a few posts lately regarding people having trouble hearing high frequency sound when they age, I am certainly on the same boat here. I did some hearing tests and found that I could only hear up to 10-12Khz these days, I think mostly because of working in noisy heavy industry at young age. ... This has generated my thoughts, do we turn to low-fi systems to satisfy our needs when we are aging?
Yeah.. the Stereophile review. I agree about the spacious but the rest is a bit overdrawn. If I had a suitable spare room I'd like to have a set of 901s. They can be very pleasing... thing is, they have such a different sound it's hard to compare them to anything else. The right spacing behind them, wedge back, in an open room they sound very airy.. can look right at them and they hardly seem to be the sound source. It is amazing what they were able to do with nine four inch drivers in that little wedge shaped cabinet. I remember when they first came out... reading the literature before seeing the product... everyone sort of laughed at the idea of nine pumped up little drivers with a couple of hundred watts... like if Sound Design suddenly decided to make a big version of one of their ideas and marketed them against big name Hi Fi. Listening though they had a pleasant sound all their own...but they didn't produce the presence of impact of a quality floor stander.... which some people do not want. Women sure liked them..... would say the word Bose almost reverently...
Ultra high fidelity ain't my be-all
That doesn't seem terribly off-topic. Whatever response anomalies the 601 II's had to make them sound unlike anything else you had, even if their measured response might not be in keeping with what we think of as high fidelity, they made music fun. This is in line with the OP's finding greater enjoyment in a system and pair of speakers that he doesn't feel reproduces the incoming signal with as great a degree of fidelity as some of his other equipment, saying, "it has more forward (in your face) sound. With smaller and close proximity of the listening space, the sound it produces has compensated my hearing loss on high frequencies in my opinions." The one review I saw of the Ditton 15 seems to agree, "Pretty little speakers with relatively clean and bright sound. Quite unbalanced though, with treble dominating over all other frequencies."Very off topic, but I miss my Bose 601 II's I restored (and sold for a healthy profit). While they didn't sound like anything else I had, they sounded......fun? If I was less discriminating, I'd have kept them.