There is now way to set up any room that would make 901's sound even decent. If you had them set up in the perfect room with the worlds best amp and best source they would still suck. At 14 years old in 1985 I was listening to Altec 605's my friends parents had speakers like AR 3's and JBL L300 so to even look at a speaker as poorly designed as the 901's and take it seriously that was something I could not do not even at age 14.
I'm curious to know when you last tried it?
Since you call the 901 'poorly designed' perhaps you could say in exactly which ways you're referring to?
The 901 was designed to be a relatively compact standmount loudspeaker prioritizing an increased ratio of indirect to direct radiation in the listening room -a variation on the omnidirectional theme, but with a direct-radiating forward facing drive unit to provide increased stereo localisation cues. Because it's small, to obtain bass, it uses EQ, like many other compact speakers. The price is reduced LF headroom, but that is the nature of a compact system and not everybody is in the position of being able to afford or use larger speakers. The drive units are fairlyu reasonable examples of the wideband type, with a response & distortion on a par with some other well-known types, albeit with a nominal 1ohm impedance because they were intended for series-wiring. Although they're certainly not the best compact wideband drivers ever made in FR, distortion performance etc., they aren't the worst either. The box design wasn't bad, with some fairly clever venting; build quality was 'adequate', but you can say that about a lot of others too, including some contemporary Tannoys, Wharfedales, Altecs, JBLs etc. The stand isn't a great design from the POV of stability -also like a lot of other period-designs. The EQ module appears to have been well-designed and functional for a contemporary type also. So within the context of what it was, the 901 was a reasonably well designed loudspeaker. Other people might not share its priorities (neither do I for that matter) but that doesn't make it badly designed -just a speaker that was aimed at a different audience.
Since you call the 901 'poorly designed' perhaps you could say in exactly which ways you're referring to?
The 901 was designed to be a relatively compact standmount loudspeaker prioritizing an increased ratio of indirect to direct radiation in the listening room -a variation on the omnidirectional theme, but with a direct-radiating forward facing drive unit to provide increased stereo localisation cues. Because it's small, to obtain bass, it uses EQ, like many other compact speakers. The price is reduced LF headroom, but that is the nature of a compact system and not everybody is in the position of being able to afford or use larger speakers. The drive units are fairlyu reasonable examples of the wideband type, with a response & distortion on a par with some other well-known types, albeit with a nominal 1ohm impedance because they were intended for series-wiring. Although they're certainly not the best compact wideband drivers ever made in FR, distortion performance etc., they aren't the worst either. The box design wasn't bad, with some fairly clever venting; build quality was 'adequate', but you can say that about a lot of others too, including some contemporary Tannoys, Wharfedales, Altecs, JBLs etc. The stand isn't a great design from the POV of stability -also like a lot of other period-designs. The EQ module appears to have been well-designed and functional for a contemporary type also. So within the context of what it was, the 901 was a reasonably well designed loudspeaker. Other people might not share its priorities (neither do I for that matter) but that doesn't make it badly designed -just a speaker that was aimed at a different audience.
I think the most telling event was that no major audio equipment maker made a similar unit even after the patents expired.
I may be wrong, the intellectual property may be copyrighted (Intel, for one, does that), but having got around US patents myself, it is not too difficult. So the lack of effort is evident.
Copyright runs far longer than patent rights, 50+ years is normal.
And I have not checked the sales figures, but my impression is that Bose had less than 5% of the US market, and negligible shares in the European and Australia / Japan / other markets.
I may be wrong, the intellectual property may be copyrighted (Intel, for one, does that), but having got around US patents myself, it is not too difficult. So the lack of effort is evident.
Copyright runs far longer than patent rights, 50+ years is normal.
And I have not checked the sales figures, but my impression is that Bose had less than 5% of the US market, and negligible shares in the European and Australia / Japan / other markets.
In the case of the 901, I suspect it's because the market for quasi-omni types itself is fairly limited. Witness what happened to the JBL Aquarius range (other than the cheapest and most compromised Aquarius 4). They weren't a bad idea for the '50s - late '60s, early pan-potted stereo mixes and close-mic orchestral recordings, but they can lose out for others & if you want ambiance some form of difference signal extraction through rear speakers is usually more effective.
Depends also on the market. The 901 falls into a fairly odd region between lifestyle & more dedicated audio (a bit like B&O sometimes do) & I suspect over its ~4 decades most of the sales went to people who like music & wanted a bigger speaker than you'd get with a typical music centre, but didn't necessarily give two hoots about typical hi-fi (sensible), and liked its room-filling effect, broad coverage, generaly decent balance etc. Not too many of them about now either, after the march to miniturisation, bigger TVs etc.
Depends also on the market. The 901 falls into a fairly odd region between lifestyle & more dedicated audio (a bit like B&O sometimes do) & I suspect over its ~4 decades most of the sales went to people who like music & wanted a bigger speaker than you'd get with a typical music centre, but didn't necessarily give two hoots about typical hi-fi (sensible), and liked its room-filling effect, broad coverage, generaly decent balance etc. Not too many of them about now either, after the march to miniturisation, bigger TVs etc.
When I think of omnidirectional I also think of quadraphonic bean bag chairs and lava lamps. All fads here today gone tomorrow. Bose 901's were more of a fad than a serious design. The Bose 901 speaker was so poorly designed that it needed an EQ to play flat and boost bass. No speaker is perfect but the Bose being so flawed it had to have an external EQ to sound halfway listenable that is absolutely terrible. Not to mention it was stupid looking and had cheap drivers with foam surrounds no good driver has foam surrounds foam is used as a packaging material because it's dirt cheap and rots in land fills quickly and only cheap manufactures use foam for driver surrounds. And then there are those stupid stands they made them look girly and the audience they were marketed to seemed to be the anti audiophile type of guy like my friends dad that would say something totally ignorant like my little 901's have a sound stage bigger than your Altec's and look at how small they are.
Here is an interesting little fact Harry Pearson, Jr., in the early 1980's bought a pair of first-generation 901's after reading the positive reviews in the mainstream audio press and was so disappointed that it prompted him to create Absolute Sound magazine as an alternative voice.
Name a speaker that has its own jokes beside the Bose 901's ? I still remember those jokes people would say have you heard the highs & lows of the 901's the highs are the expectation when buying the lows are when you get home listen and realize you actually paid for the speakers, Whats Bose stand for buy. other. sound. equipment. How do you stop an audiophile from breaking into your house by putting a set of Bose 901's in the window. All jokes aside Bose 901's are truly the worst looking & sounding speaker ever designed produced and sold.
To be 100% honest I have not heard the 901's since my first time 38 years ago. but look at this my way I was a young kid that heard deep purple's lazy for the first time played through Altec 605's at around 13 years old. The first time my brother in law sat me down and played Rush Tom sawyer through his JBL L300 I was 13 or 14 and in a state of shock blown away would be an understatement. The three speakers I spent my childhood listening to Altec 605's, JBL L300, AR 3 these are historically very important speakers more importantly they were incredibly well designed speakers. So at 14 when I heard 901's for the first time it did not matter what music was played through them they sucked they were horrible and 100% the absolute worst thing I ever heard until a few years ago when I heard some dumb kid with compression drivers mounted outside his car so i could here his poor choice of music a half mile away. So yea I have not heard 901's in over 30 years but I also have not had McDonald's hamburger for over 30 years and I am 100% positive that both are still absolutely terrible.
So just to be clear, what you are saying is that any loudspeaker designed to use EQ in the LF is 'poorly designed'. Even when it was intended to do that in the first place and the laws of physics mean it was impossible to do otherwise. A bit like, say, the large number of line arrays that do exactly the same thing. And all the other speakers inspired by Roger Russell and Linkwitz which also use EQ on the bass end. Assuming all of those aren't to be casually written off as 'badly designed' for the exact same use of LF EQ, why is the 901 therefore 'badly designed' for using it, and they are presumably 'not badly designed' for doing exactly the same thing?
That's your aesthetic taste. Which is fair enough, but I don't recall the global legislation which announced everybody else is obliged to share it. Personally I think it looks decent enough in a 'period piece' fashion, just like, say, Ford Capri, droop-snoot Firenza, smoked glass tables etc.
Like most speakers of its price. And price itself isn't a guarantee of quality -witness several supposedly 'high end' drivers with lousy distortion performance (duff motor design) and several relatively inexpensive ones which, like them or not, are decent performers e.g. the Vifa TG9.
Wrong. Only certain models had foam surrounds; the earliest did not. They changed the driver design & mid-period versions had that issue -like every other speaker of the era which used foam surrounds (and there were a whole lot of those). They subsequently updated the driver design again with treated types which do not suffer from that issue. All this information is in the public domain.
Are you sure? To pull a number of manufacturers names out of a hat: Vifa, Peerless, Scan Speak, Wharfedale, JBL, Seas... All of them have used foam surrounds, on & off over the years.
Ignoring the sexism, that's your aesthetic opinion again, not fact. Fact would be to say: that those vintage stands provided poor rigidity and stability.
Nothing wrong with the former -not everybody is obliged to be interested in hi-fi. Most people aren't. 'Soundstage' depends on meaning, but technically speaking they do generate very broad polars by design; IIRC the object was to ~mimic the roughly 80% / 20% indirect to direct radiation average experienced in a concert hall.
That famously accurate source of reliable information.
Interestingly, the measurements performed by many in prior reviews e.g. Julian Hirsch's (and a number of more modern ones also, by reivewers / DIYers / owners alike) were quite reasonable within the context of what it is. That some people (including myself) don't like the 901's presentation doesn't mean it's 'badly designed'. It just means that they don't suit the taste of people like you and I (or Pearson for that matter).
I don't know many about the 901. I can think of plenty about Bose as a company. Of course, people can insult the 901 for limited LF and HF if used without the EQ it was, er, designed to be used with. But that's a bit like saying 'this Ferrari is rubbish because it's designed to be driven using tyres and I think it would be a clever idea not to bother'.
After hearing the 901 speakers in probably a common environment, which didn't help the performance of most any speaker, I just didn't walk away wanting a set for myself. I did like the advertising though.
Many years later, I found myself working on a couple of Bose products for repair. Wow, just bad, low-quality parts and I suppose a compromised design as well. Having said that, I have seen the same thing happen with other decent brands, so it was not a closer for me. It still goes back to the original impression that got from the 901 speakers that stuck.
Many years later, I found myself working on a couple of Bose products for repair. Wow, just bad, low-quality parts and I suppose a compromised design as well. Having said that, I have seen the same thing happen with other decent brands, so it was not a closer for me. It still goes back to the original impression that got from the 901 speakers that stuck.
So all the hrsvily EQed line-arrays are flawed?
All loudspeakers are flawed.
But, the best i ever heard 901s (the first gen, same or simialr drivers to EPI microTower), was when delievering a new Linn LP12 i turned then so that the 8 drivers faced forward.
Each gen of 901 had improved drivers, the pro version did a decent job for the application.
dave
I thought I'd share a thread I found over at ASR forum. There are in total 3 related threads; this is the one I found first:
Bose Model 901 Active Equalizer ('68 Edition) Measurements
Bose Model 901 Active Equalizer ('68 Edition) Measurements
Sure, that was one of the suggested implementations (hanging) IIRC. I don't think they quite recommended it per se, but they implied you could run a quad, two on stands, two hanging. Given the type, if you wanted that sort of semi-omni presentation, I could see that working. We've done some variations in quadraphonics & related implementations that work better than might be thought (within that context of what it is).