Well my 2.5 cents worth here. back in the 80's I did warranty repair work on the Bose line. I must say I was appalled by the poor quality of the products. The 301 was o.k. About on par with the much cheaper stuff from Rat Shack ( where I was employed as a tech in my college years) where Bose excels at is advertising, they are almost at genius level there.
However while Christmas shopping I heard some commercial bose units in a Hollister store that were quite pleasant, nice and punchy warm sound, yes still a bit soft on the high end. A big improvement on the trashy squashed background typical of retail establishments and food type places.
Bose also made a big power amp in those days that deserves special mention.
Those things were big and heavy and built with the quality of a cheap t.v. set.
What they did best was create generous amounts of black smoke. the cheesy touch switch Bose logo was even troublesome!
However while Christmas shopping I heard some commercial bose units in a Hollister store that were quite pleasant, nice and punchy warm sound, yes still a bit soft on the high end. A big improvement on the trashy squashed background typical of retail establishments and food type places.
Bose also made a big power amp in those days that deserves special mention.
Those things were big and heavy and built with the quality of a cheap t.v. set.
What they did best was create generous amounts of black smoke. the cheesy touch switch Bose logo was even troublesome!
Might it not also be at least partially wrong to try to believe the marketing hype- I can remember the cognitive dissonance accompanying my early days in the retail trade (off & on from mid 70s to late 90s) when auditioning "name" products like Bose, certain JBLs and most all Marantz speakers, Crown (Amcron) amplifiers. Why did they sound so unmusical, when "presumptuous upstarts" such as Yamaha were gorgeously made and sounding. Takes a long time to learn to trust your own ears, when the manufactures reps, glossy ads, store owners et al have a financial interest in brainwashing the sales staff as well as customers.
"honest, it's about the mu$ic"
a friend have a pair of old Cerwin Vega, and they sound fantastic with a cheap pair of bridged Rotel amps
preamp is a big digital surround pre
and uses his PC as music source
hard to believe
and I really hate it too
but it sounds ... absolutely great
some time ago another friend came by my own place
bringing along a newly serviced B&O casette tape deck
man, I had no idea my speakers were any good
but long time since I heard such good sound
great ... and with an old casette tape deck
and I accept if you want to say I'm crazy
preamp is a big digital surround pre
and uses his PC as music source
hard to believe
and I really hate it too
but it sounds ... absolutely great
some time ago another friend came by my own place
bringing along a newly serviced B&O casette tape deck
man, I had no idea my speakers were any good
but long time since I heard such good sound
great ... and with an old casette tape deck
and I accept if you want to say I'm crazy
I would as someone who has had 901 series II's for 20+ years and have traveled with my wife to audio shows in the midwest I find the bose bashing threads full of utter nonsense, and quite literally flat out lies.
Most of us who own Bose 901's have owned other speakers, auditioned other speakers. How often do you read a 901 owner bash other speakers?
Now your going to read about one who has been quite for 2 decades.
For starters I have owned Altec Model 9's, Ohm Walsh 2's numerous Pioneers, Sansui's small AR 2's, Cerwn Vegas D11's with the 15" woofer, Bose 501's and 301's and several pairs of other speakers over my 3 decades of music.
(yes I have the disease)
I also enjoy building speakers, mainly single drivers. I like do not care for passive crossovers and active crossovers, while great for PA's are something I don't want to mess with in the house.
My amps and receivers in the early years were a Pioneer 9500 II amp, a Rotel 2000 that was worked over by one of the brightest engineers I ever knew.
I cried when it died.
Presently I use a Yamaha RX992 for my pre amp with a Carver PM700 amp power the 901's. Only 225 watts per side.
I like my 901's because no other speaker sounds like live music, as in music I hear when I play on stage or I see in a concert. I can hear everything clearly and it really doesn't matter where I sit, or stand or lay down and most importantly what volume I am using. You can sit next to the left speaker and hear the right speaker. Yes the stereo image is as wide the room. May not be the engineered stereo sound but the majority of the speakers I have listened to if your way off center you only hear the one your closest to.
Music is meant to be enjoyed, and if you enjoy something you should enjoy it more by sharing. The bose stereo field is as wide as the room. I enjoyed the Ohm Walsh 2's for the same reason, just didn't like that 4 ohm rating.
The wife and I have heard speakers that we would say sound as good, as long as your in the narrow sweet spot but they were either twice the price of 901's or dominated the room. The 1 exception was at the last AK show a vendor had some really nice drivers mounted in spheres. I never had a chance to really listen to them with music I know but they sounded extremely great. ($1500 for the 2.1 system)
Now 901's do not have that "sit hear, do not move, did you hear that sound behind you" single driver sound but we do not want that sound.
If that is the sound your after then yes 901's would suck.
I can appreciate that. I heard some B&W's books shelf speakers that were close to a grand that I thought were awesome in that scheme and like 901's you could not pinpoint where the sound was emanating from.
(something I believe should be the goal of every speaker)
I read about how inefficient they are suppose to be. At the last Audiokarma show I took my 901's and even though my room was at the end of the hallway I was told they were too loud because he could hear my system when he got off the elevator. After he found out I was only running 1 watt and 3 feet away my IPad was saying 89db he said my volume was fine.
(I took it as a compliment that my music was clearer).
The most amazing thing about that AK show was how many people did not know what 901's looked like. Mine do not have the bose badge on them.
I took some gentle ribbing about bringing 901's to an audio show but no one said they suck. They received many compliments along the line of;
"I always read how terrible those are, yours have convinced me otherwise"
The vendor next to me liked to crank his system, so I occasionally let him know that my 30 year old speakers could dominate the area.
I'll pass on knocking the speakers most people here rave about, not my style.
I will say this though, I am glad people rave about those inferior speakers because they really pay a lot of money for 3 dollar tweeters and 30 dollar woofers.
Funny someone knocked 901's about particle board, since the only speakers I have seen not made with veneered particle board was some early La Scala's a friend of mine own (sound like my PA speakers).
The old Altecs could fool you as they veneered both sides of the wood.
Now you see all kinds of speakers made out of solid wood, but those are not mass marketed speakers.
I am also a fan of 301's. I still feel those are the best buy in the $350 a pair range. Even the old 301's still sound good and at least they put a film capacitor in the crossover vs some electrolytic can crap.
I am pretty sure the reason 901 owners never knock other speakers is because we enjoy music and it is way more fun to listen to music while we read the nonsense uninformed people post.
Happy new year
Last edited:
That seems quite reasonable to me. Music comes in many different forms and there is more than one way to listen.
I would suggest that what most consider hi-fidelity sound nowadays bears little resemblance to what we might hear in a live performance, but is instead a more 'technologically constructed' sound, that is, a sound that is inseparable from the electronic equipment through which it is recorded, arranged and reproduced. What most call hi-fidelity nowadays is a kind of technologically constructed or enabled sound that can only be heard in very specialized electronic and acoustic environments (which we generally refer to as 'high-end' gear in specially designed listening rooms). I would suggest that such sound, while interesting and aesthetically pleasing in its own way, often bears little resemblance to what we hear in a live performance (e.g. the electric guitarist walking across the stage or a live acoustic performance where the horns happen to be closer to where I'm seated and so dominate the strings vs. a studio recording of the same that allows me to hear a cellist's breath or the delicate movement of a guitarist's fingers on the strings). Now while this kind of technologically constructed (e.g. studio) sound is interesting and aesthetically pleasing in its own right, some people take it as the standard against which all listening is to be measured. I think this is overstating the case.
I think the kind of wide, omnipresent sound stage provided by something like the 901's is perfectly fine for certain kinds of listening (and music representation), just as the 'hi-fidelity' gear is perfectly fine for others. It all depends on the ends, purposes, goals and so on that one has in view.
Ok, a great thread, but no one answers my question. No surprise! Mention "Bose" in an audio group is like saying "God" at an atheist convention We all have our biases: the tech who has a low opinion of Bose products primarily because he only saw the broken ones: to correctly judge reliability, you would need complete statistics of the life spans of all units in the field: probably hard information to come by. "Availability bias": we know what we know, based on what have experienced first-hand. Is a Bentley less relaible than a Nissan? I don't know. But you wouldn't get a correct answer by looking at anecdotes of mechanics who've worked on each make. Nearly everything about this hobby is subjective, which is what makes it so interesting. If only objective information were availalbe, but very little is. You must do your own investigation, and even if you were objective, everyone else will think you were subjective, so nothing is resolved :grin:
We all have our biases: the tech who has a low opinion of Bose products primarily because he only saw the broken ones: to correctly judge reliability, you would need complete statistics of the life spans of all units in the field: probably hard information to come by. "Availability bias": we know what we know, based on what have experienced first-hand. Is a Bentley less relaible than a Nissan? I don't know. But you wouldn't get a correct answer by looking at anecdotes of mechanics who've worked on each make. Nearly everything about this hobby is subjective, which is what makes it so interesting. If only objective information were availalbe, but very little is. You must do your own investigation, and even if you were objective, everyone else will think you were subjective, so nothing is resolved :grin:I have installed new Bose speakers at churches. They have great coverage but the sound isn't my cup of tea. I have personally installed 402 series II, 802 series III, DS 16, 40, 100 and the modular line array's. These new ones are completely made of molded plastic and apparently even the drivers are water proof?
They are very light which is nice on a skyjack when installing. My beef with Bose is that the software modeler often asks for two sub's to be placed in a room. This isn't easy at "high" church. I think Bose products are quite ugly.
I prefer Community speakers, they are much heavier, in my experience sound less mundane. Unfortunately, the Bose name sells itself, Community or JBL doesn't.
They are very light which is nice on a skyjack when installing. My beef with Bose is that the software modeler often asks for two sub's to be placed in a room. This isn't easy at "high" church. I think Bose products are quite ugly.
I prefer Community speakers, they are much heavier, in my experience sound less mundane. Unfortunately, the Bose name sells itself, Community or JBL doesn't.
Yes; they know how to make money. They may know how to make good products, but we will probably never find out
not sure it is so
but they always managed to survive tests
I will avoid further speculation on that
Crap? o.k. do tell. what is your vast experiance. surely you have something more valuable to input than that!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.