• Please note that Audiokarma will be offline briefly for updates early on Monday morning, September 28th.

"Rodney Dangerfield" Bose 901 II

Peter W. said:
Now, consider the essential idiocy of making any product that requires equalization in order to perform anywhere. What is wrong with this picture?

Sorry for actually having a strong opinion on this issue, but a stupid product remains a stupid product no matter what it might cost, and who might be its victims.
Click to expand...

Given your logic, EQ's, active or not, crossovers, active or not, and tone controls are useless? The crossover switches on the rears of my KLH Sixes and Seventeens are stupid?

To me, 901's were fun, and when a memeber picks up a complete set for a C note, it is cause for interest here. I am sure Duncanoe was not trying to start a bashing thread, nor was I.

:deadhorse
 
Urizen said:
Given your logic, EQ's, active or not, crossovers, active or not, and tone controls are useless? The crossover switches on the rears of my KLH Sixes and Seventeens are stupid?

To me, 901's were fun, and when a memeber picks up a complete set for a C note, it is cause for interest here. I am sure Duncanoe was not trying to start a bashing thread, nor was I.

:deadhorse
Click to expand...
Crossovers isolate signal to the most appropriate driver. Equalizers bunge the signal into a speaker to "make up for" some faults. The proper use of an equalizer is to make up for faults in the listening area, not faults in the speaker. A speaker should, by design, be flat and uncolored. Why does this essential difference in function between a crossover and an equalizer escape you? That the Bose requires an equalizer kinda-sorta misses the point. But it is a cute gimmick. And it sure sold a Mess-O-Speakers. As H.L. Menken said so succinctly: Nobody ever went broke over estimating the vulgarity of the American Public. And Bose is/was a Rich man as a result of it.

The horse may be dead, but its killers still do not understand what killed it. Sorry if you feel that this is "bashing" but even expensive junk is still junk. Buying junk for a fraction of the OEM price does not change its essential nature... Junk.
 
Peter W. said:
Junk.
Click to expand...

Sir, I understand the difference and have for years. I don't value those old 901's for their pinpoint imaging, or wide bandwidth. In the late 60's and 70's Amar was thinking outside the box, and I appreciate that. I agree with you on all the technical aspects. My Tivoli Model One doesn't have a flat bandwidth or reach depths of bass. It sure sounds good for what it was designed for, as does the 901, in the right room, amp, and properly positioned. The build quality on the models I and II is far superior to the later models. I would think them very collectable, also.

And that's all I have to say about that.
 
Last edited:
Peter, for god sakes man you gotta relax!

I’m pretty sure that most here, myself included don’t believe that the Bose 901 will provide you with the magical voyage to sonic nirvana.

4 - reasons I bought them…

1) Once again, I purchased them because for good or bad because I wanted to hear what they sounded like. Not screaming away in some bar and myself half -baked, but on my own term’s with my own gear. Then and only then will I be able to give someone my honest opinion of their performance or lack of it.

2) Like it or not the Bose 901’s were/are a part of audio history. More than just a footnote. In the automobile world they would be considered more Edsel than Cadillac but historic non-the less.

3) The 901 gets people like you all lathered up. That alone is worth $28.00

4) THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON IS THE FOLLOWING:
I can, at the drop of a hat I can list these for auction on ebay. People will line up around the block to spend their hard-earned money on them. I will at least double my investment and I have only owned them for a few months. That my friend is commerce and I love commerce. Let’s see your 401K kick that kind of ass.

RC
 
Last edited:
To each his own, but its amazing how these speakers can get some folk's blood pressure up.

I happen to like them, but if I didn't, it would not be because Bose uses an EQ to arrive at the sound the 901 produces. It would be because I didn't like the way they sounded.

One person's junk is another's treasure. For example, I wouldn't spend $20 on a top of the line Sansui G Series receiver (except to resell it). But I love the 9090DB and the AU-717.

What matters about speakers: whether you like the way they sound.

What doesn't matter: whether other folks like the way they sound, how they arrive at the sound, or measured specs.

Cheers.
 
I've always wondered at the equalizer attack. It is nothing more than a device to adjust the frequncy response output of the system. In reality its job is no different from a tone control, multiband equalizer such as the JVC S.E.A. etc., an active crossover, passive crossover and even the crossover. It simply shapes the signal. All different designs for essentially the same result. Other companies have used them including some of the finest McIntosh speakers, the ML series. I personally don't see a problem provided the device itself does not compromise the sound quality. I.E. most bass and treble controls destroy the sound unless only used in the most minimalist way while a 1/3rd octive equalizer from most companies provided not used to the extreme shape the sound but do not destroy the quality as a tone control does. Whewn Amar developed the 901 multi small woofer systems were not around and he explored the concept. Today multi-small woofer systems are common. My issue with the design is the driver. It is a shame he could not had used a high quality full range system. I'd like to see a set of them developed using say a Fostex or even a Lowther. I have heard the 901s in well set up systems that will preserve instrument placement and have very good soundstage as well as the large sweetspot so I am not sure the design concept is not totally off the wall. Even the theory is not totally unigue. Dipoles are common design but almost all are a design for a driver to radiate for both the front and back surface. He simply used a driver not designed as a dipole radiator in system and designed a system to use it in a dipole.
 
Exactly Bordeno, Im not sure about what my results will be with the EQ even. I think that for one application or another these are going to be just fine. I wont be using them for my mains. Im sure that some here would think my Altec's sound like shite, and would'nt be running them either.

Brian, One of the finest loudspeakers that I have owned incorporated a EQ into its design. It sound like crap without it in my opinion. That speaker was the KEF 104/2. The EQ was more of a bass management peice w/ contour control and whatnot but thats still a EQ.

RC
 
I like 901s because of the way other people react to them. They're either really impressed, or really annoyed by them.

Does anyone know where to get cheap cloth surrounds for them? I'd rather not pay $60 on ebay if possible. They must be getting them from somewhere and they probably cost less than $1 each. Hell, I'd rather buy 60 at a dollar each than 18 for the same price!
 
another speaker using an integral eq is the dbx sf-10, which i have been using for just about a year now. had to do an intense search for the eq on the net, but the eq really woke things up when i finally got one into the system. i recently watched another sf 10 eq by itself go for 175 on ebay. AK'er emaidel was part of the team that marketed the sf 10 and he knows a good bit about them; all i'm saying is that an eq'd speaker system is not to be sniffed at until heard set up the right way.
 
doucanoe said:
When its all said and done it will be @ $110.00 total "investment" for speakers and EQ.

I will let ya's know about the vast improvements provided by the EQ when it gets here! :D

RC
Click to expand...
The last time I spend $110 for speakers, it included a pair of AR-3as in excellent condition as well as a 'throw-in' pair of early Scotts. This was in April of this year.

As to cloth surrounds... do you mean grille-cloth or actual speaker surrounds? You can determine whether a fabric is 'acoustically transparent" by two basic characteristics: a) it is a woven (not extruded, stamped or perforated) fabric.
b) if you hold it at arm's length, you can read newspaper headlines through it clearly.

Too fine or close a weave, it will tend to wipe out highs. Unwoven and loose, same thing.

Metal or plastic (rigid) grilles are a different issue: With those, you want to be able to see though them much more clearly, so you should be able to read 16-point bold type, at least as described above.

As to actual surrounds (between the cone and the frame), there are a number of outfits out there that are not eBay: http://www.speakerworks.net/kits.html will sell you a Bose Kit for $48, which translates to only $2.67 each surround, and comes with the cute little knife, the 'correct' glue and a brush. I have used several of their kits over time and found them to be excellent and with accurate instructions. BTW, the instructions _DID_ vary with the speaker, something that I found comforting.
 
Peter W. said:
...As to cloth surrounds... do you mean grille-cloth or actual speaker surrounds? You can determine whether a fabric is 'acoustically transparent" by two basic characteristics: a) it is a woven (not extruded, stamped or perforated) fabric.
b) if you hold it at arm's length, you can read newspaper headlines through it clearly.

Too fine or close a weave, it will tend to wipe out highs. Unwoven and loose, same thing.

Metal or plastic (rigid) grilles are a different issue: With those, you want to be able to see though them much more clearly, so you should be able to read 16-point bold type, at least as described above.

As to actual surrounds (between the cone and the frame), there are a number of outfits out there that are not eBay: http://www.speakerworks.net/kits.html will sell you a Bose Kit for $48, which translates to only $2.67 each surround, and comes with the cute little knife, the 'correct' glue and a brush...
Click to expand...
the actual speaker driver surrounds of the original & series II 901's are made of cloth. unless mistreated, i haven't heard of 'em failing & needing replacement.

doug s.
 
Well I can see this thread comming to a end.

I will never now know how the 901 sound improves with the use of the EQ. They were sold last night. The new owner wants the EQ when it shows up at a already negotiated price. :D

RC
 
Someday I will get the EQ for my franken 901 series IV's. Untill then, l'll take take the honors of killing the thread, thank you very much. I think I have about a 50% kill ratio. :loser:
 
can i safely assume the buyer is looking at the 901's as more than just a novelty? if so, they will get maximum enjoyment out of them, which is a very good thing. i was looking forward to your impression of the 901's with the EQ though. i still have fond memories of 901's from 30 years ago......
 
Someday I will get the EQ for my franken 901 series IV's. Untill then, l'll take take the honors of killing the thread, thank you very much. I think I have about a 50% kill ratio.
Click to expand...


:lmao: Ok Strawman, its all yours!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom