The much debated 901 has been criticized for its lack of quality components, over touted marketing hype, lack of bass and treble but what about its design? Does the design for reflecting sound add to the audio experience in a way other speakers can/do not? What other speakers utilize reflection?
I consider the 901 to be like a full range speaker which lacks both high and low extension. Some music this is fine but bass and tweeter support can easily be added.
Would it be worth while to design and build a speaker similar to the 901 but using superior components? Maybe just 3 drivers, two on the angled rear baffles and one on the front, padded to achieve the 88:11 ratio of reflected:direct sound. Use either full range or just a mid and forget about trying to achieve below 150hz and above whatever the natural ability is of the driver, no EQ to compensate. This enclosure could be half as tall as a 901.
Ok, I'm ready, flame away.
I consider the 901 to be like a full range speaker which lacks both high and low extension. Some music this is fine but bass and tweeter support can easily be added.
Would it be worth while to design and build a speaker similar to the 901 but using superior components? Maybe just 3 drivers, two on the angled rear baffles and one on the front, padded to achieve the 88:11 ratio of reflected:direct sound. Use either full range or just a mid and forget about trying to achieve below 150hz and above whatever the natural ability is of the driver, no EQ to compensate. This enclosure could be half as tall as a 901.
Ok, I'm ready, flame away.
Nice nick btw
(puts up flame shield)
IMO the key of Bose designs lies in reflected sound. The 801 is the 901 without the forward woofer but all woofers pointing towards the listener, the 301 has 2 tweeters - one pointing forward and one pointing backward.
Sony actually has a speaker with 100% reflected sound also.
Reflected sound seems to boost the feeling of space at a huge expense of everything else. But given certain situations, this may be critical. I actually have my bookshelves pointing backwards angled outwards due to lack of space on my table, or more specifically, the computer chassis.
In the case of 901 the massive time smearing resulting from drivers pointing in all directions probably gives the same effect as a large hall.
(puts down flame shield)
But that's about it for the reflection part. Even for those without drivers pointing backwards, Bose speakers have characteristic Bose sound which you already mentioned. I'm interested in knowing how they produce that kind of sound also.
I've seen before an Audax speaker following the 301 design (can't be sure if it can be considered a clone of one of the series's)... so there might be slight chance that a 901 clone exists.
But still, why would you want that kind of sound if you can do better. I wouldn't call your designed anywhere near a 901 as it is. I'm also partial to having reflecting tweeters than woofers.
And what this person said might be useful:
(puts up flame shield)
IMO the key of Bose designs lies in reflected sound. The 801 is the 901 without the forward woofer but all woofers pointing towards the listener, the 301 has 2 tweeters - one pointing forward and one pointing backward.
Sony actually has a speaker with 100% reflected sound also.
Reflected sound seems to boost the feeling of space at a huge expense of everything else. But given certain situations, this may be critical. I actually have my bookshelves pointing backwards angled outwards due to lack of space on my table, or more specifically, the computer chassis.
In the case of 901 the massive time smearing resulting from drivers pointing in all directions probably gives the same effect as a large hall.
(puts down flame shield)
But that's about it for the reflection part. Even for those without drivers pointing backwards, Bose speakers have characteristic Bose sound which you already mentioned. I'm interested in knowing how they produce that kind of sound also.
I've seen before an Audax speaker following the 301 design (can't be sure if it can be considered a clone of one of the series's)... so there might be slight chance that a 901 clone exists.
But still, why would you want that kind of sound if you can do better. I wouldn't call your designed anywhere near a 901 as it is. I'm also partial to having reflecting tweeters than woofers.
And what this person said might be useful:
http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/p/23793/196423.aspx
Fred Toole has a lot to say about the importance of reflections for home audio Ir makes one start to think that the idea of the 901 isn't as far off as many think. (i'm only to Chapter 9, and i have the feeling that he is going to push surround speakers with the "reflections" synthesized in the recording).
But i've heard a few 901s, and i think there is too much reflection. A bipole or omnipole , i'm guessing, provide a better balance.
If you use 3 drivers, 2 rear wired in series, in parallel with one on the front, gives equal level front & back with a more diffuse sound than a single rear-firing driver.
dave
But i've heard a few 901s, and i think there is too much reflection. A bipole or omnipole , i'm guessing, provide a better balance.
If you use 3 drivers, 2 rear wired in series, in parallel with one on the front, gives equal level front & back with a more diffuse sound than a single rear-firing driver.
dave
Cal Weldon said:
What did the enclousure look like? Were the rear baffles angled etc. ?
The large woofer enclosures I'm working on are also stands for the 901's I have. If I'm not happy with the 901's at some point I will replace them with a better full range or multiples of full range drivers. This is for a large room, 25' x 25' with 10' ceilings and I listen to it not while sitting but rather doing other stuff and in other rooms sometimes.
Does a rear firing woofer about 12" from the back wall need a deflector on the wall or does <300hz not matter so much?
Here are three threads about indirectly firing fullrange concepts:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121385
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10962
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123132
An interesting driver for rear firing in a 901-like speaker would be the Ciare HX160 which has a high sensitivity (rising up to 100 dB towards the top) which has a strange dispersion pattern and images much better when rear firing compared to front firing. The front driver could be something with lower sensitivity like a little Jordan/Bandor/Mark Audio.
For the enclosure one could think about two really large bamboo bowls mounted to a UFO-like structure like Manger once did for their bipole.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121385
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10962
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123132
An interesting driver for rear firing in a 901-like speaker would be the Ciare HX160 which has a high sensitivity (rising up to 100 dB towards the top) which has a strange dispersion pattern and images much better when rear firing compared to front firing. The front driver could be something with lower sensitivity like a little Jordan/Bandor/Mark Audio.
For the enclosure one could think about two really large bamboo bowls mounted to a UFO-like structure like Manger once did for their bipole.
Back in 1973 I built a "better version" of the 901.
I used a twin line of drivers, in a vertical array in the rear. Built both 2 x 8 and 2 x 10 in the rear, two drivers on the front, wired in series parallel, iirc 3 in series then paralleled.
The idea was to improve the horizontal dispersion by making a better polar response, due to the double wide line array.
At the time I used the Ted Jordan designed Maximus woofer, an alnico magnet driver with a 1" VC and a 3" cone with a 1/2" surround, total mounting hole was 4.5" size, iirc.
I also added a mylar dome tweeter to the array, one on each rear line.
This made a taller, thinner box. The bass was EQ'd, the highs not.
Worked quite nicely back in the day... sweet midrange with that driver.
Today Tang Ban seems to have a number of candidate drivers for such a project, as well as some other companies... I think I'd experiment a bit with low cost drivers before committing big $ to a Bose 901 redo...
I'd rather listen to a real line source than a reflecting speaker today... or actually even in 1976, when I went to a direct radiating line source. You can see an image of that in the Archives section of my website - latest version Firefox users will have to go into prefereces and make an "exception" to unblock my site, it is free of malware now, they will take their time unblocking it.
_-_-bear
I used a twin line of drivers, in a vertical array in the rear. Built both 2 x 8 and 2 x 10 in the rear, two drivers on the front, wired in series parallel, iirc 3 in series then paralleled.
The idea was to improve the horizontal dispersion by making a better polar response, due to the double wide line array.
At the time I used the Ted Jordan designed Maximus woofer, an alnico magnet driver with a 1" VC and a 3" cone with a 1/2" surround, total mounting hole was 4.5" size, iirc.
I also added a mylar dome tweeter to the array, one on each rear line.
This made a taller, thinner box. The bass was EQ'd, the highs not.
Worked quite nicely back in the day... sweet midrange with that driver.
Today Tang Ban seems to have a number of candidate drivers for such a project, as well as some other companies... I think I'd experiment a bit with low cost drivers before committing big $ to a Bose 901 redo...
I'd rather listen to a real line source than a reflecting speaker today... or actually even in 1976, when I went to a direct radiating line source. You can see an image of that in the Archives section of my website - latest version Firefox users will have to go into prefereces and make an "exception" to unblock my site, it is free of malware now, they will take their time unblocking it.
_-_-bear
901Fixer said:
Yes, if looked at it from the top they were the shape of home plate in baseball (from the pitcher's perspective) with two drivers on one part of the back, one on the other and one driver on the front. Nothing on the sides. It gave you the opportunity to switch them around depending on how wide you placed them and what kind of "imaging" you wanted. Like most of those projects from long ago, I made one, it was a rough plywood box and I found better things to do with the drivers in the long run. It deserves revisiting as I am considering a new livingroom speaker and am considering the fostex FF85 driver for the mids in a similar if not the same configuration. Hard to say, I have two OB mid speakers now and it might be hard to go back to a box.
Cheers.
I have Bose 901 series V which I bought back in 1985. I have modded them to work as direct firing speakers. I replaced the back heavy cloth with wide gap nylon screen so that the sound will not be blocked. I turned the speakers around so all 8 speakers are facing forward. I mounted them to the wall using CRT TV wall mounts that can be adjusted horizontally and can be tilted up or down. They sounded like different speakers. The highs are alive and the sound dispersion is so wide that it feels the room with sound quite nicely. Hardly a hot spot or dead spot. Later on I augmented the sound with Klipsch subwoofer and a BBE 362 Sound Maximizer. Wow. The Denon Reciever that I've been using is only 100 watts per channel but no need to drive the amp all the way now. The sound is full, excellent mid range and highs. Voice sounds are incredible that sometimes it gives me goosebumps listening to the artist singing. I've never heard Michael Jackson's voice that different when he was singing his love songs. Totally sounded different. The songs are 20-30 years old and never heard them sounded like that. I almost gave up on these 901's. But not anymore. I just want to share the experience.
Ironic how so many extensively designed things end up working better at something else or in a way not intended. I'll have the option of turning each of my 901's in which ever way I choose and they will be high up, sitting on 4' tall woofer enclosures, just below ear height while I'm standing.
I suppose from a geometrical stand point having them turned around and the baffles being ~120 degrees the dispersion is similar to how it is first reflected off of the back wall. It will come down to what sounds better after all options are tried regardless of the theory or design. This has been my experience with most of the things I've built so I try to incorporate that into my ideas, leave room for adjustment and try not to be too proud to ignore it when it happens.
How far are the speakers spaced from each other, the wall behind behind them, side walls, the floor/ceiling, the listener etc. ?
What are the dimensions of the room?
I suppose from a geometrical stand point having them turned around and the baffles being ~120 degrees the dispersion is similar to how it is first reflected off of the back wall. It will come down to what sounds better after all options are tried regardless of the theory or design. This has been my experience with most of the things I've built so I try to incorporate that into my ideas, leave room for adjustment and try not to be too proud to ignore it when it happens.
How far are the speakers spaced from each other, the wall behind behind them, side walls, the floor/ceiling, the listener etc. ?
What are the dimensions of the room?
I've consider this design before. Back in the day, there was a speaker component company that was selling Bose Clone kits. Though the speakers were nothing special. I had a friend who bough the array of speakers and the cabinet design plans and made some pretty good speakers considering how cheap they were.
But with that speaker combination they were an impedance nightmare. The worked fine at normal indoor party volumes, but for outdoor parties, they kept shutting down the amp.
I always assume a better configuration would have been three speakers on each side in the back, and two speakers spaced across the front for a total of 8 speakers. That at least would result in a reasonable final impedance.
But then I took it one step further. What if you used a combination of 4" and 3" full range speakers. Then combined one or two tweeters on the front.
The tweeter could either be in combination with all the speakers, so one 8 ohm tweeter with a gang of 8 midbass. Or, one 4 ohm tweeter with each gang of two 4" midbass, meaning two 4 ohm tweeters on the front.
The idea was that with the 4" full range, you could get a trace more bass extension with them. The result of adding the tweeter is obvious. If one wanted to cheat a bit, you could add one of the Piezo tweeters and skip the crossover. Though Piezo tweeters typically need a little taming.
So, in the two tweeter configuration, the tweeters would be combined with the larger full range speakers, and in a separate gang, the 3" full range would stand alone.
As an example, the Tang Band 4" (264-812) has a low end of about 65hz. The similar Tang Band 3" (264-812) has a response of about 100hz. 65hz isn't great, but it is some improvement. That would give you a resulting speakers with a 65hz to 20khz response.
These alternate Tang Band 4" and 3" (264-828, 264-844) speakers have corresponding low ends of 60hz and 105hz.
So, using 8 speakers, and making half of them 4", and mounting two of the 4" on the front, plus tweeters on the front, should certainly make a reasonable full range system.
This is never going to have great bass response with those small speakers, but it could be made acceptable, or more acceptable. I've got some cheap bookshelf speaker that have a rated low cut off of 80hz, though they also have a response bump above 80hz, and they actually sound like they have pretty good bass - all things considered.
If a person really wanted to put some money into it, a better quality full range like the Fostex might work better.
Me, I'm always looking for a way to do it on the cheap.
Steve/bluewizard
But with that speaker combination they were an impedance nightmare. The worked fine at normal indoor party volumes, but for outdoor parties, they kept shutting down the amp.
I always assume a better configuration would have been three speakers on each side in the back, and two speakers spaced across the front for a total of 8 speakers. That at least would result in a reasonable final impedance.
But then I took it one step further. What if you used a combination of 4" and 3" full range speakers. Then combined one or two tweeters on the front.
The tweeter could either be in combination with all the speakers, so one 8 ohm tweeter with a gang of 8 midbass. Or, one 4 ohm tweeter with each gang of two 4" midbass, meaning two 4 ohm tweeters on the front.
The idea was that with the 4" full range, you could get a trace more bass extension with them. The result of adding the tweeter is obvious. If one wanted to cheat a bit, you could add one of the Piezo tweeters and skip the crossover. Though Piezo tweeters typically need a little taming.
So, in the two tweeter configuration, the tweeters would be combined with the larger full range speakers, and in a separate gang, the 3" full range would stand alone.
As an example, the Tang Band 4" (264-812) has a low end of about 65hz. The similar Tang Band 3" (264-812) has a response of about 100hz. 65hz isn't great, but it is some improvement. That would give you a resulting speakers with a 65hz to 20khz response.
These alternate Tang Band 4" and 3" (264-828, 264-844) speakers have corresponding low ends of 60hz and 105hz.
So, using 8 speakers, and making half of them 4", and mounting two of the 4" on the front, plus tweeters on the front, should certainly make a reasonable full range system.
This is never going to have great bass response with those small speakers, but it could be made acceptable, or more acceptable. I've got some cheap bookshelf speaker that have a rated low cut off of 80hz, though they also have a response bump above 80hz, and they actually sound like they have pretty good bass - all things considered.
If a person really wanted to put some money into it, a better quality full range like the Fostex might work better.
Me, I'm always looking for a way to do it on the cheap.
Steve/bluewizard
From what I've read about Bose philosophy is that only 11% of what you hear at a live concert is direct sound, the rest is reflected sound that reaches you at different times and from varying angles. Thusly 11 + 88 = 99 so 1 + 8 = 9 or 9 drivers. I figure 3 drivers, two on the back and one on the front, with the front padded down a bit could produce the same percentage split and still be plenty loud enough.
The tweeters I plan to eventually use are Linaeum dipole ribbon tweeters that will simply mount on top of each 901 enclosure. They look like a figure 8 from above and radiate in almost a 360 degree pattern. I'll cross these over kinda high with just a cap, 1st order. I may even put these on the same channel as the 901's and use an L-Pad to keep them from screamin'.
The tweeters I plan to eventually use are Linaeum dipole ribbon tweeters that will simply mount on top of each 901 enclosure. They look like a figure 8 from above and radiate in almost a 360 degree pattern. I'll cross these over kinda high with just a cap, 1st order. I may even put these on the same channel as the 901's and use an L-Pad to keep them from screamin'.
I question the 11/88 ratio. It is not that I don't believe it as far as it has been stated, but I have to assume there is a huge context to it.
It would seem that every theater or large venue would have different acoustics. It also depends on where the measurement were taken in the venue. In front of the PA, is not the same as the balcony. Also, whether there were people there are the time the measurements were made. A full venue sounds very different than an empty venue.
Also, how did they make these measurements, and how did they determine what was direct sound and what was reflected sound. There are a lot of details left out of that basic 11/88 statement.
Further, I would think different styles of music would produce different levels of reflection. Soft acoustic, even with a PA, would seem to have fewer reflections than heavy metal, if based on nothing else than sheer intensity of sound.
Also, a living room is not a concert hall. It doesn't have the same space or acoustics.
Still, I'm not trying to discredit the basic 11/88 assumption, just saying that there are likely an endless list of variables and qualification to that particular fact.
If you want lower frequency response, you have to use bigger speakers. If you want a drivable impedance, then it has to be closer to the center of the 4 ohm to 16 ohm range. If you want better high frequencies, then you need a tweeter.
Based on my rough (very rough) calculations, using my design, we have about 25.14 In² of speaker in the front, and about 39.36 In² of speaker in the rear. Giving us a ratio of 1.00 to 1.57 (front to rear). That may not approximate a concert hall, but it does give better direct sound, lower frequency response, better impedance, but still with a degree of reflected sound that would give the music a sense of spaciousness.
It also allows you to wire the speakers so they are mechanically In-phase, which I think would be an improvement.
No it is not the exact design concept of the Bose 901, but we seem to have agreed that that design did not work all that well. But it is a similar design, based on similar design concepts, and would likely work better.
But, since I have never built it, I can't say with any certainty.
Again, not disputing the 11/88 concept, just concerned about the long list of missing variables and qualifications that go with it.
Steve/bluewizard
It would seem that every theater or large venue would have different acoustics. It also depends on where the measurement were taken in the venue. In front of the PA, is not the same as the balcony. Also, whether there were people there are the time the measurements were made. A full venue sounds very different than an empty venue.
Also, how did they make these measurements, and how did they determine what was direct sound and what was reflected sound. There are a lot of details left out of that basic 11/88 statement.
Further, I would think different styles of music would produce different levels of reflection. Soft acoustic, even with a PA, would seem to have fewer reflections than heavy metal, if based on nothing else than sheer intensity of sound.
Also, a living room is not a concert hall. It doesn't have the same space or acoustics.
Still, I'm not trying to discredit the basic 11/88 assumption, just saying that there are likely an endless list of variables and qualification to that particular fact.
If you want lower frequency response, you have to use bigger speakers. If you want a drivable impedance, then it has to be closer to the center of the 4 ohm to 16 ohm range. If you want better high frequencies, then you need a tweeter.
Based on my rough (very rough) calculations, using my design, we have about 25.14 In² of speaker in the front, and about 39.36 In² of speaker in the rear. Giving us a ratio of 1.00 to 1.57 (front to rear). That may not approximate a concert hall, but it does give better direct sound, lower frequency response, better impedance, but still with a degree of reflected sound that would give the music a sense of spaciousness.
It also allows you to wire the speakers so they are mechanically In-phase, which I think would be an improvement.
No it is not the exact design concept of the Bose 901, but we seem to have agreed that that design did not work all that well. But it is a similar design, based on similar design concepts, and would likely work better.
But, since I have never built it, I can't say with any certainty.
Again, not disputing the 11/88 concept, just concerned about the long list of missing variables and qualifications that go with it.
Steve/bluewizard
I think the design accomplished part of what it intended to do and used the EQ to force the rest.
If someone were to try and factor in the endless variables they would never build any speaker as they would never be able to settle on a design. I think the 11/88 ratio may be somewhat general or averaged but like any design after its built, the theory don't matter no mo, it either works well or it doesn't.
Let me refine my OT question. In the midrange frequencies, does the Bose901 accomplish a spaciousness and fullness that other speakers do not?
If I were to build something similar to a 901 I think it would be advantageous to have some sort of fader or L-Pad incorporated so as to adjust the 11/88 ratio. Your design, Blue Leader, with an L-Pad between the front and the back would allow adjustment for the direct/reflected ratio. I know its bad to try and pad woofers but what about mid rangers? Or is it the frequency range in question that determines it?
It would be very ironic if the 901 was a result of the combination of events described in your quote Inductor but it wouldn't be the first idea to be born in such a way.
If someone were to try and factor in the endless variables they would never build any speaker as they would never be able to settle on a design. I think the 11/88 ratio may be somewhat general or averaged but like any design after its built, the theory don't matter no mo, it either works well or it doesn't.
Let me refine my OT question. In the midrange frequencies, does the Bose901 accomplish a spaciousness and fullness that other speakers do not?
If I were to build something similar to a 901 I think it would be advantageous to have some sort of fader or L-Pad incorporated so as to adjust the 11/88 ratio. Your design, Blue Leader, with an L-Pad between the front and the back would allow adjustment for the direct/reflected ratio. I know its bad to try and pad woofers but what about mid rangers? Or is it the frequency range in question that determines it?
It would be very ironic if the 901 was a result of the combination of events described in your quote Inductor but it wouldn't be the first idea to be born in such a way.
I just stumbled into this thread looking up info on the EQ used for the 801 speakers. I found a single 801 in the trash the other day. I picked it up thinking it might make a good midrange speaker for my bass guitar rig. I have an odd little Trace Elliot amp that features a slot loaded 10" woofer and a bullet tweeter. It gets great lows and highs but no mids.
The 801 is missing all the foam surrounds on the speakers, but I see there are kids for this. I haven't checked to see if the speakers are good yet.
Anyway, I figured I post this just to show how you can take something meant to be used in a different way and find some use for it.
The 801 is missing all the foam surrounds on the speakers, but I see there are kids for this. I haven't checked to see if the speakers are good yet.
Anyway, I figured I post this just to show how you can take something meant to be used in a different way and find some use for it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.