• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Bose 901 Series V Speaker Review!

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
I know the 901's can lack clarity, but I am curious about the distortion measurements and listening impressions. Is the distortion possibly from the age of the speakers? This being the Series V means the speaker drivers are at least 34 years old. The electronics in the EQ box is also at least 34 years old, that is way past the service life on those caps. I've spent plenty of time with various pairs of 901's, and while they do shit the bed in many ways, they should be able to do a 80-20kHz sweep without massive distortion issues.
In his pretty in-depth 1971 review Gordon Holt wrote (courtesy of Stereophile site):

...the amount of bass boost necessary to carry the speakers below 40Hz is quite substantial, and puts rather extreme demands on the output capabilities of the amplifier, as well as on the capacities of the speakers.

The speakers themselves produce audible distortion below 40Hz at what we would judge to be only moderate listening levels, yet on musical program material, the only subjective effect of this is to make deep lows sound a little less deep, and, in fact, the 901 is able to put out really respectable levels (even on bassy program material) without offensive distortion when driven by a modest 35Wpc with the equalizer unit set for bass cut (ie, with equalization ceasing at 40Hz), or with a brute-force power amplifier like the Crown DC-300, the 901 will deliver more than enough acceptably clean volume to satisfy anyone but a decibel fanatic.


Summing up, Gordon's negatives on the speaker were the lack of focus and detail and generally unrealistic soundstage. He didn't think they were bad per se, just not the loudspeaker for those looking for a more 'natural' sort of reproduced sound.

Thinking back on my listening (I never owned a pair but knew those who did) they were OK if a) you had a lot of power to drive them and b) your idea of great sound was live stadium rock or cheap balcony seats at an orchestra--venues and locations where you don't expect pinpoint imaging and such.
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
I assume that Bose no longer sues reviewers who say bad things about their products. :rolleyes:

I hope not. But, maybe I can turn it around on them and sue them for not improving what I think is really an interesting concept and could be made to be quite a great speaker (albeit, at probably a 10x markup). Especially with improvements in drive-unit designs and DSP correction.

Still, as a whole, even though I didn't intend it my review came as at pretty "hey, this is neat".



This review is an interesting exercise, and a nice subjective plus objective overview of a very controversial speaker. Amar Bose's contention that live music is 90% reflected sound made sense with my experiences at Davies Symphony Hall listening to the San Francisco Symphony Hall, but not with a 1978 punk rock band at Mabuhay Gardens on Broadway in SF with a stack of Marshall speakers stacked eight feet high against that small club's back wall - or with acoustic guitar played outside in a garden setting.

LOL
 

NoAudiophile

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
25
Likes
61
I'm just focused on the objective data. At 2.83v the speaker is producing 97dB(from the rear). If you are playing it that loud, you are either sitting pretty far back, and/or you much have a considerable amount of absorption on the back wall and corners. The distortion numbers look above par when you take into account the dispersion pattern of the speaker. For instance the BMR's produce more distortion than the 901s per your measurements when producing 97dB.

The quality of individual drivers is less important the more you have, because each driver works less and is in a lower distortion range of operation for a given listening volume. This was one of the base assumptions in the development of line arrays.
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
Not sure what the answer here is... or if there is an exact answer. I just know how I measured them, what the data shows and what I heard in the room. The data shows high distortion. What I heard in the room was high distortion that limited the output to the mid-90's.
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
For those interested, the 901 is discussed in passing in:
In the lecture series, one of the sessions goes into detail about the math used to balance reflections.
The Bose lectures are worth listening too even if you thought his speakers were crummy. He tells some great period anecdotes. Several I recall:

Going to a NYC 'high end' specialty shop (Lyric?) and being told his speakers were not going to be used because they sounded horrible. Amar looked and saw they were placed directly on the floor.

Visiting a major hi-fi magazine editor at his apartment, and finding out that the 'technical editor' came off like a pot smoking hippy. Really weird vibes. No names are mentioned, but I suppose he was referring to Larry Klein, tech ed of Stereo Review.

Talking to a part time sales kid at a hi-fi store who admitted they didn't push Bose speakers because they could sell others for a higher profit and got manufacturer kickbacks (Bose evidently didn't operate using incentives). Store owner directed the sales staff to push another brand, even if customers came in wanting 901s. The kid told Bose that he was poor, needed the job, and was saving his money for college. He asked Amar what he'd do if he was in his position? Amar said he felt bad for the kid, and thinking back on it would have probably done what he was told to do by the store owner.
 

NoAudiophile

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
25
Likes
61
Not sure what the answer here is... or if there is an exact answer. I just know how I measured them, what the data shows and what I heard in the room. The data shows high distortion. What I heard in the room was high distortion that limited the output to the mid-90's.

Any chance of measuring them at a lower SPL, or adding a footnote to the measurements to reflect the true output of the speakers during the test? Everything else in the review looks solid - It's just laughable that the review states that the speakers are producing 4.5% distortion at 82dB - that's just not accurate.
 

BostonJack

Active Member
Editor
Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
288
Likes
350
Location
Boston area, Cambridge, MA
Bose 901s. A mate bought a pair in 1973? ish and at the the time I thought they were sensational. He had an AR turntable, a Luxman amp (valve??). They needed to be placed a certain distance from the sidewalls and back wall as they were supposed to give most of their sound from reflections of the back and sides (The old Dr. Amar??) . The amp back then had less controls than the one shown. They needed to be played loud. "Live with me" from Get Yer Ya Yas Out by the Stones was mind blowing. The sound stage was at least 1.8x the width of the room.
In my memory they were pretty impressive, I have seen them being used as part of the PA for bands, I think they were rated at 300 W and it took a bit to get them moving.
Prior to that we had similar stuff, turntables with Shure catridges, Grace arms, Rotel amps and SEAS speakers that I built boxes for, 17 y.os think they know everything.

Circa 1973 my fraternity brothers and I (buncha MIT wannabe engineers, mainly) built a few (~10 pair) of Bose 901 knockoffs. I built most of the cabinets (pretty well constructed with mitre joints in 3/4" MDF and routed speaker inlet on the front). The equalizer boxes were a hash, we had some back-engineered schematics and a DIY circuit board, but only built two or three properly working examples. CTS of Paducah, Kentucky provided the drivers at a really cheap price. We knew at the time that this was massively stupid, but it was fun stupid.

We knew that they were not particularly good speakers, but building knockoffs for ~$200 when the original was $1000 was good fun.
901's virtues: they will play rock and roll really loud when powered by a 100 to 200 wpc amp.
interesting "sonic field"
good party speaker (i.e. LOUD)

901's faults: really too many to properly enumerate.

A handful of the CTS drivers were defective. Our standard "test" for a defective driver was to wire up a 120 VAC plug to the driver and plug it into the wall socket momentarily. The cone would fail either "out" or "in" depending upon the timing. Made a sort of short "Gak" sound.

I later built a pair of 4-way "folded labyrinth" speakers using KEF drivers from a design published in "Hi Fi Answers". These were a whole lot more pleasant to listen to and exotic for the time.
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
Any chance of measuring them at a lower SPL, or adding a footnote to the measurements to reflect the true output of the speakers during the test? Everything else in the review looks solid - It's just laughable that the review states that the speakers are producing 4.5% distortion at 82dB - that's just not accurate.

That's what the microphone measured, though. I get that this speaker has a lot of rear reflecting sound but that is also captured in the measurement. The SPL values are calculated from the mean SPL (as noted in the graphics). Remember that the FR is ALL-OVER the place and low SPL of 81dB at 2.83v. And if you look back at the step response you can see that the second impulse is within about 2ms of the first arrival; this is well within the time "window" of measurement here. Additionally, I stood in the garage when the testing was going on. It wasn't reading 81dB but actually 97dB or something of that sort. The data stands.
 
Last edited:

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,825
assume that Bose no longer sues reviewers who say bad things about their products. :rolleyes:
Is this true? They sued reviewers?
 

NoAudiophile

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
25
Likes
61
That's what the microphone measured, though. I get that this speaker has a lot of rear reflecting sound but that is also captured in the measurement. The SPL values are calculated from the mean SPL (as noted in the graphics). Remember that the FR is ALL-OVER the place and low SPL of 81dB at 2.83v. And if you look back at the step response you can see that the second impulse is within about 2ms of the first arrival; this is well within the time "window" of measurement here. Additionally, I stood in the garage when the testing was going on. It wasn't reading 81dB but actually 97dB or something of that sort. The data stands.

I am utterly confused. You state the microphone picked up 81dB, but you picked up 97dB, and you are saying the data is good?

The microphone level was adjusted for the nearfield test (0.3m converted to 1m). Would this have an effect on the SPL coming from the rear, which would have to bounce off of your garage door, then all the way back to the microphone before being picked up. Unless your window is over 30ms, you missed it, and even if you did window it in, it's dropped in relative volume with inverse square over 20-30 feet of travel compared to 1 foot. The data might stand, but from where I'm sitting it doesn't stand for much.
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,825
apparently they like to sue a lot of people. But this is one that’s relative to this product.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Corp._v._Consumers_Union_of_United_States,_Inc.
Hmm.
The Massachusetts district court had heard testimony from an author of the article that the instruments heard through the 901's speakers tended to wander "along the wall," rather than "about the room," as had been stated in the article; and found that this constituted a publication of a false statement with the knowledge that it was false. It had found Consumers Union liable for damages.

On appeal, Bose had argued that the district court's findings of fact could not be set aside by the appeals court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 52(a) unless the findings were "clearly erroneous." The appeals court, however, had agreed with Consumers Union that under the precedent set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the appeals court had to review the entire matter de novo in order to determine whether the false fact was published with "actual malice." As Bose had not presented sufficient evidence of actual malice, the appeals court ruled, the judgment was required to be overturned.
"Actual malice". Not likely to find that in reviewers, but the issue is familiar given that in most cases they don't feel the need to examine their reactions.

I could see the speakers being very picky about placement. If done wrong, you could easily have strong early reflections that force imaging into the walls.

It would be very interesting to look at the matter in detail. Right now, I see myself pulling for Bose.

If this happened a lot maybe the litigiousness eventually became part of the business strategy, merited or not.
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
Hmm.

"Actual malice". Not likely to find that in reviewers, but the issue is familiar given that in most cases they don't feel the need to examine their reactions.

And this is actually another reason I am a proponent of data. If I can show how I measured and what the results were and that all of it was on the up-and-up then, even if the setup was incorrect, there was nothing intentionally biased to make something perform worse than it was.
 

MakeMineVinyl

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
3,558
Likes
5,871
Location
Santa Fe, NM
The MTON test signal in the video sounds like Volumina by Gyorgy Ligeti. Maybe that's where the inspiration came for the signal? ;)

 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
Is this true? They sued reviewers?

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 8, 1983
Decided April 30, 1984
Full case name Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.Citations 466 U.S. 485 (more)
104 S. Ct. 1949; 80 L. Ed. 2d 502
Case history Prior Judgment for plaintiff, 508 F. Supp. 1249 (D. Mass. 1981); reversed, 692 F.2d 189 (1st Cir. 1982); cert. granted, 461 U.S. 904 (1983).Holding Product disparagement cases that involve First Amendment claims are governed by the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)Court membership Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist, John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Case opinions Majority Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, PowellConcurrence BurgerDissent WhiteDissent Rehnquist, joined by O'ConnorLaws applied U.S. Const. amend.

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984), was a product disparagement case ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held, on a 6-3 vote, in favor of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, ruling that proof of "actual malice" was necessary in product disparagement cases raising First Amendment issues, as set out by the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The Court ruled that the First Circuit Court of Appeals had correctly concluded that Bose had not presented proof of actual malice.
The magazine Consumer Reports had published in 1970 a review of an unusual loudspeaker system manufactured by Bose Corporation, called the Bose 901. The review expressed skepticism of the system's quality and recommended that consumers delay purchase until they had investigated for themselves whether the loudspeaker system's unusual attributes would suit them. Bose objected to numerous statements in the article, including the sentences, "Worse, individual instruments heard through the Bose system seemed to grow to gigantic proportions and tended to wander about the room. For instance, a violin appeared to be 10 feet (3.0 m) wide and a piano stretched from wall to wall." Bose demanded a retraction when they learned that Consumer Reports changed what the original reviewer wrote about the speakers in his pre-publication draft, which the magazine refused to do.
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
That behavior is a reason, i wouldnt buy bose products.

Their litigious nature is really what I was getting at in this portion (bolded) of my intro:

The Bose 901 has been around for 50+ years and has long been considered a divisive product within the audiophile community. I was born in 1982 and until this week I had never heard the Bose 901 speakers. I’d just heard about them. Everything we all have heard and read. The same old clichés. Some love them. Some love the nostalgia of them. Some despise them and everything they represent; from the company to the product performance and how it colors (no pun intended) listeners’ perception of what good sound is supposed to be.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,514
Location
Germany
You know i dont care if there products sound to this or that person good or bad. But sue someone writting his/her soundimpression is just bad style.
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,828
Likes
6,311
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
I took a look around the internet via Google, and there are a number of reviews of the Bose 901's over the past 10 or 20 years. In 2012, there was a review by Tone Publications with no measurements and bits of subjectivist B.S., and they concluded that the Bose 901 sound was similar to the old Magnepan MGII's.

The consensus seems to be that they sound good to lots of people (like my friend from the 1970's who like the big, room-filling sound), but don't measure well. A majority of the reviews and comments that I scanned wither state or imply that they are are not accurate and transparent, and if we stick with the concept of adhering to the definition of "high fidelity", I see them as being very low on the totem pole. As I said in an earlier comment, in the late 1970's, I very much preferred my big, high-end JBL speakers to my friend's Bose 901s.
 
Top Bottom