Jurassic Bose: the Bose 2201...

First, let me automate the inevitable debate that will follow. This is in C code, which is almost as old as the Bose Co. itself :)

FlameWar(void)
{
while (TRUE)
{
printf("Bose sucks!\n");
printf("No! Bose rules!\n");
}
}

Ahem! Moving right along, Soldermizer has been main-tracked, actually working on relevant DIY stuff the past few months. He just built a shelf unit for his garage. Something actually practical for God's sake! This is very out of character for him. However, his motive is pure: he now can more easily store his paint cans for his continued "faux [pas] finish" interiors, wood graining his '09 Suzuki (yes really, looks pretty good...) and water marbling with oil paint (fun and very messy.) Now what, you ask, does this have to do with Bose? Damned little to be honest, but here goes. The point is that Soldermizer hasn't devoted the usual amount of time he usually does to idiotic stereo ideas. Thus today's installment.

Everybody who knows Bose usually "knows" the first product was the 901. Not so. Two years prior was the very odd 2201. This was if I remember correctly, a pair of 1/8 sphere speakers. Each was a polyhedron of 22 active (and individually EQ-ed?) drivers. Bose was attempting to re-create a sphere diffusion or some such idea. I think he later abandoned this idea, but ... did he, or anyone else, do further research on it? Could it be that the dear Doctor, before he devolved into that phenomenally successful marketer and arch nemesis of audio snobs everywhere :darkside: , was actually onto a valid concept he abandoned too soon, you know, sort of like Tesla* giving up on his time machine (kidding!)? :clown:

Is it possible that he did not have enough technology in 1966 to adequately build his speaker? In 2015 China sells us more than fireworks :) Four dozen (small) amplifiers and the same amount of DSP filters are within the budget of many experimenters. :wiz:

This would be a fascinating area to research, even if just in the literature. Anybody ever heard if this sphere idea was developed further?

*We should all be thankful to Tesla and his discoveries. If it weren't for him, we would not have AC current and our speakers would really sound like crap with only DC current :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The Bose website actually has information on the 2201, including the owner's manual. ;)

The Bose 2201 - Bose Product Support

It was manufactured in 1966 only. Each box was powered by a built-in 50W transistor amplifier - quite a big deal in those days. The idea was that you put the box in the corner, but you could also put two of them side by side.

1830a07067a978b1f8b5cb3766f56543.jpg


You could even arrange four of them in a circle:

608bbf1580b96e6224647474b1ad77d5.jpg
 
Last edited:
There isn't really that much difference between the 901 and the 2201. Both are fullrange based with special EQ to compensate for interference canceling between drivers.
The 2201 is supposed to have been magnificent, but was too expensive to manufacture and to buy.
The 901 is the reasonable version of the idea.
All the hogwash about the difference between direct and indirect sound is just for the marketing brochures.
It's all about the dispersion.
Trouble with the reflection approach is that it eats a lot of the top so EQ has to be that much more. Also different walls reflect differently.
 
Last edited:
By the way, I've been experimenting with Bose 901 Series III Drivers and threw one in a .2 cuft vented box and measured it's FR with and without three coats of Wet Look treatment for paper cones (sold by Parts Express). That stuff makes a HUGE difference!

The beige curve is with three coats of Wet Look and the green is uncoated. The F(s) drops by ~10Hz and the response is much smoother with the coating.
 

Attachments

  • Bose 901 Driver with and without Wet Look Coating.jpg
    Bose 901 Driver with and without Wet Look Coating.jpg
    202.1 KB · Views: 504
Last edited:
wow! - do you figure Wet Look is different than Mod Podge?

They don't disclose its composition of Wet Look, but my guess is polyvinylacetate binder with some graphite pigment. The first coat gets sucked right into the paper and leaves a flat finish. Second and third coats bring out the gloss because they sit more on the surface.

I originally did this because I have 38 of these drivers and the blue color varies quite a bit from lot to lot. The idea was to make them look more uniform for a potential line array project. The good testing results were a surprise...I was just hoping not to ruin them with the stuff!
 
Bose 2201

Aloha and Hapoy Sunday!
Love your posts on the 2201. I have a set and love them. They sound amazing and really not anything like 901s. I have 901s too. The 2201 is very, very, spacious, like the 901. Because of its design, the bass does roll off, unlike the 901. Highs are pretty brittle, but hey they were built in 1964. The amp is really a 50 watt Thomas organ amp with the Amp pop rivited on the side. Speakers are the quam 5" speaker like you would see in a drive in movie speaker. I use them with both a Mac c22 and a Mac 712 preamp. We don't fire them up as much as we used to but still fun to play. I hunted for over 20 years until they found me. Then even bought a 3rd one at a garage sale in Seattle. I will probably sell them one day, but right now, they are still fun even after having them for over 25 years. There were only 32 sets made and only a few running around. I have seen 2 sets on eBay in the last 10 years. I was able to provide Bose with an original copy of the literature and an original sales letter. Dr. Bose was truly an amazing man! I worked for him for many, many, years and he was truly one of the finest men to walk this earth. It was an honor to know him. He was so amazing that once he met you, he would never forget your name. If you ever get the chance to hear or see a 2201 you too will be amazed.
Thanks for all your fun posts on this exciting speaker.
Make every day the best day ever!
 

PRR

Member
Joined 2003
Paid Member
Note that *next* Sunday's puzzle is not generally available yet, of course.

As to why I have it on Thursday: I'm not sure and I'm not telling.

I chopped-off the puzzle-bits so as not to spoil any fun. And futzed the scan/snap a bit. By Sunday you can probably find a full clear image, I think the Chicago Tribune distributes it.... ah, here is last Sunday's puzzle:
Jumble Sunday | Free Online Game | Chicago Tribune
(The image is really 2100x3700 pixels!! Big enough to frame on the wall.)
 
Last edited: