![]() ![]() What bothers us about the 901, though, is the amountof compensatory boost that has been used, rather than the fact that it is used at all. Equalization of this kind is fine, of course, if only a small amount is needed to add the last nth degree of perfection (?) to a system, and if the loudspeakers can take it without swapping extended range for increased distortion. One of these is the use of electrical equalization to compensate for deficiencies in the speakers at the high and low ends of the audio range. If I lived in a HS gym, those would be on my A-List, for sure.There are two other things about the design of the 901 that we question, too. But for a high school gym, they pretty much did the trick. That said, one of the best auditorium sound systems I remember featured two 'pro' Bose loudspeakers, that looked like 901s, but with the angled multiple drivers (if that is what they incorporated) turned toward the audience. Plus a pair of 301s I owned for a few weeks, and that I couldn't really figure out how to work. I don't even remember where I got them, or what I did with them. My own 'living with with Bose' experience was a short lived set of 'Interaudio by Bose' box speakers (standard air suspension woofer plus two free standing angled tweeters, as I recall) you could say they were average sounding, for the time. Those were advertised as an 'easier to accommodate' 901-certainly less expensive. I remember hearing 501s in a couple of living rooms. One guy turned the multiple drivers forward, because that was what he liked best. I knew folks who owned them, but they were always placed up against a back wall, in a corner, or such. However, we doubt that the 901 will appeal to perfectionists who have developed a taste for subtleties of detail and timbre.Īs far as Pearson? His idea of sonic excellence was a set of Infinity IRS in a rather smallish room-some said it was really a closet, leading many to speculate that it was more like listening to headphones.Īs popular as the 901 was, I never heard it in an 'ideal' listening situation, which many rooms, because of decorating schemes, couldn't supply. It is ideal for rock enthusiasts to whom sheer sonic impact is of paramount importance, and for classical listeners who want the next best thing to ambient stereo without the cost and the bother of rear-channel add-ons. ![]() This no doubt explains the very widely conflicting reactions of different listeners who auditioned the Bose 901 in stores or purchased them for use at home. Thus, some 901 installations will have deep, tight, and quite well-defined bass, while others (in the majority) will exhibit uncontrolled bass resonances at frequencies which are entirely a function of the room dimensions. Gordon Holt was equivocal to a degree, writing: Bose took them to court over it, arguing libel, which was a pretty stupid thing to do- at least back in the '70s, a time when there was more concern over press freedom for diverse opinion. For their part, Consumer Reports complained how they couldn't really get into six foot long violins (or whatever it was) due to the loudspeakers unusual sonic presentation. It wasn't just Julian, however-the press in general were enthusiastic- Hans Fantel writing for the NYT comes to mind. ![]() Hirsch took a lot of heat for his 901 review (as he did with his L100 write up), leading many to suspect advertising shenanigans. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |