Yes. Bose is not unheard of here but they are rare. The 802s were used in a few schools but there was almost no domestic market.
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'.
The performance of the reflected sound depends a lot on the surface the sound is reflecting off, that may be plastered brick to foam backed fabric.
That will affect the highs and lows a lot.
Has anybody experienced 901s in a roof suspended installation?
That will affect the highs and lows a lot.
Has anybody experienced 901s in a roof suspended installation?
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.
Maybe the equalizer had settings bearing in mind different wall treatments would be encountered.
The OP is satisfied that the unit is improved after he worked on it.
So a goal is achieved.
On to the next problem, then....
The OP is satisfied that the unit is improved after he worked on it.
So a goal is achieved.
On to the next problem, then....
I remember seeing these for the first time and how unique they looked. I really liked the look and still think it holds up. Congratulations on your upgrades and hopefully many years old enjoyment.
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
Yeah, I heard some prefer them with the array configuration reversed. Makes sense depending on the room & preferences for some of the reflection ratio. 🙂
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
Gotta love them hooks on top, and the overall presentation of the rest of the gear says something, right?
I saw an ad long ago for some Bose 901s in California, $50 for a pair, they were sitting on a sidewalk, damaged cabinets...pitiful condition.
How much was this seller asking?
How much was this seller asking?
200$ but without the EQ box. The drivers had excellent surrounds, no damage
On those hooks, I remember Pacific stereo had a pair displayed that way up in the corners of their room back in day
however they had a hoop around the box like a potted plant to avoid the hooks
On those hooks, I remember Pacific stereo had a pair displayed that way up in the corners of their room back in day
however they had a hoop around the box like a potted plant to avoid the hooks
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).
Kinda high w/o the EQ. Maybe Nelsons FR EQ board would be a good place to start when diying one.
But sometime sit is easier just to start over.
And probably worth mentioning an East German loudspeaker, can’t recall the name at the moment, that had 8 front firing 4-5” FR (w whizzers) in the same arrangement as the (pro) 901.
dave
