Bose 901 Series V Speaker Review!

[hardisj]

I fired up Money For Nothin' (Dire Straits, if you live under a rock) and the synth drum pan at the beginning of the track was a good 10 feet behind the speaker. I have never, not ever heard depth like that from a conventional stereo speaker. Not even when I was playing with phased arrays (and using 20-something channels of DSP and beamsteering 3 inch full range drive-units). It's a trip.

In audio we always say "oh the soundstage was deeeep"... blah blah. Well, the 901s make a conventional stereo look like headphones in that regard.

 

[MattHooper]

I fired up Money For Nothin' (Dire Straits, if you live under a rock) and the synth drum pan at the beginning of the track was a good 10 feet behind the speaker. I have never, not ever heard depth like that from a conventional stereo speaker. Not even when I was playing with phased arrays (and using 20-something channels of DSP and beamsteering 3 inch full range drive-units). It's a trip.

In audio we always say "oh the soundstage was deeeep"... blah blah. Well, the 901s make a conventional stereo look like headphones in that regard.

Sounds similar to my experience owning the MBL omnis for many years. Even though more conventional speakers tended to do main duty in my system I just couldn't let those things go for the longest time. The vividness of their 3D effect and depth was just unmatched by any conventional speaker I've heard. (And they actually had nice tonality and crazy clarity!)

 

[Inner Space]

I brought these back downstairs so I could take a picture of how I had them set up when I demoed them in my living room. Figured I might as well fire them up again.

And dangit... they got me again. The large, hugemongous soundstage is just dumb. In a good way. The tonality is just dumb. In a bad way. But the soundstage being so wildly abnormal overrides the pretty significant tonal imbalance.

Anyway, here's the pic of that setup. The speakers were a foot off from the wall, 9 feet apart from each other and approximately 14 feet from the listening position. My wife would kill me if she knew I didn't clean things up before taking and sharing this photo. But we are all adults here. We know no one has a perfectly clean living room. Especially when you have kids and pets. Plus, I don't have a dedicated amp or receiver in my living room so wires are always just flung around while I'm doing my demos and then I clean it up and carry it all upstairs.

Erin, thanks for the fun with the 901s - and that's a really lovely built-in. Did you design it? Plus, your wife has nothing to fret about - that's tidier than my living room ever gets!

 

[hardisj]

Erin, thanks for the fun with the 901s - and that's a really lovely built-in. Did you design it? Plus, your wife has nothing to fret about - that's tidier than my living room ever gets!

I did. But I paid someone to build it for me. I was too busy laying tile and putting in the sprinklers to cut wood. Though, given it was mid-July, I should have probably opted to pay someone to do the sprinklers and me build and put up the shelving. LOL

 

[anmpr1]

The tonality is just dumb. In a bad way.

Which got me to thinking about 'tonality'--what it means and what relation it has to certain types of music. If the idea is electric rock 'n roll I wonder how important 'accurate' tone representation could be? At a live event there's typically so much processing going on that the sound is not going to be consistent from gig to gig--I mean the sound from the instruments. Many musicians play the same tune using different pedals, different preamp settings, even different guitars with different pickups depending upon their mood. For crying out loud, Joe Bonnamassa brings his entire (almost) collection with him for his tours.

I get the argument that speakers should be 'faithful' to the recording. But for high N R G rock, and the people that love it, I don't think it's that important to them. It's processed sound from the get go. It's not meant to sound 'natural' in any case. What's more important is the 'sonic feel' you get in your living room. At least I suspect it is that way for a lot of rock listeners, I'm not really into the scene anymore so I could be mistaken. For David Gilmore the 901 might be fun. For David Oistrakh probably not so much.

However it is, the 901 is not made anymore. Unless you own a pair it exists mostly in memory, representing a slice of mass market hi-fi history. FWIW I was never a 901 fan, but admit to never actually hearing them in an 'ideal' set up--spaced the way they were meant to be spaced and with a beefy amp. People laugh at them, and that's OK; they were always weird given the usual product out there.

On the other hand I personally can't relate very well to some of the more 'perfectly' designed two-way shoe boxes you sometimes read about. For a desktop workstation, sure..., I've heard them and I'd like a set of smaller Genelecs. As a viable full range living room loudspeaker?

I'm almost tempted to order a set of small 'highly rated' monkey coffins, set them up in my living room, and see if I have it wrong. I'm certainly willing to change my mind in these things. Then return them since I'm really not in the market for new loudspeakers. I'd do it, but don't want to cause a dealer the headaches and hassle. I just ordered a new guitar. Maybe next time I'm at the guitar store I'll take home a pair on trial.

 

[tomtoo]

Which got me to thinking about 'tonality'--what it means and what relation it has to certain types of music. If the idea is electric rock 'n roll I wonder how important 'accurate' tone representation could be? At a live event there's typically so much processing going on that the sound is not going to be consistent from gig to gig--I mean the sound from the instruments. Many musicians play the same tune using different pedals, different preamp settings, even different guitars with different pickups depending upon their mood. For crying out loud, Joe Bonnamassa brings his entire (almost) collection with him for his tours.

I get the argument that speakers should be 'faithful' to the recording. But for high N R G rock, and the people that love it, I don't think it's that important to them. It's processed sound from the get go. It's not meant to sound 'natural' in any case. What's more important is the 'sonic feel' you get in your living room. At least I suspect it is that way for a lot of rock listeners, I'm not really into the scene anymore so I could be mistaken. For David Gilmore the 901 might be fun. For David Oistrakh probably not so much.

However it is, the 901 is not made anymore. Unless you own a pair it exists mostly in memory, representing a slice of mass market hi-fi history. FWIW I was never a 901 fan, but admit to never actually hearing them in an 'ideal' set up--spaced the way they were meant to be spaced and with a beefy amp. People laugh at them, and that's OK; they were always weird given the usual product out there.

On the other hand I personally can't relate very well to some of the more 'perfectly' designed two-way shoe boxes you sometimes read about. For a desktop workstation, sure..., I've heard them and I'd like a set of smaller Genelecs. As a viable full range living room loudspeaker?

I'm almost tempted to order a set of small 'highly rated' monkey coffins, set them up in my living room, and see if I have it wrong. I'm certainly willing to change my mind in these things. Then return them since I'm really not in the market for new loudspeakers. I'd do it, but don't want to cause a dealer the headaches and hassle. I just ordered a new guitar. Maybe next time I'm at the guitar store I'll take home a pair on trial.

I' am absolutly shure as a guitar speaker they are much better than a 5" with a softdometweeter.

 

[anmpr1]

I' am absolutly shure as a guitar speaker they are much better than a 5" with a softdometweeter.

Well... there you have it!

 

[tomtoo]

Well... there you have it!

Nobody should laugh about them. They can make a lot of fun. Tonality? No, without dsp they where not right. And 40 years ago there was no dsp(maybe at NASA? ). I mean ask a opera singer if she would love here sound throu a Marshall amp and cab??

 

[Dialectic]

IIRC I heard the BeoLabs at Cedia a couple of years ago. I was unimpressed. I will have to ask my audiophile friend his recollection of them.

If you heard the Beolab 90s, and if you have decent ears, you'd remember. They are perhaps the best speakers available regardless of price.

The comparison between them and Bose 901s in this thread is both absurd and symptomatic of the hostility that many of the members here have against stuff that costs money.

 

[Ericglo]

If you heard the Beolab 90s, and if you have decent ears, you'd remember. They are perhaps the best speakers available regardless of price.

The comparison between them and Bose 901s in this thread is both absurd and symptomatic of the hostility that many of the members here have against stuff that costs money.

Sorry, I am pretty sure it was them. Like I said, I was unimpressed. When I get a chance, I will ask my friend his recollection.

I don't have anything against systems that cost a lot of money. JBL has had a great setup a couple of times. I believe the cost on that is over $100k. Wisdom has had some impressive demos. Most of theirs can get really expensive. I think their most expensive one was $500k.

I will call out systems that cost a lot of money, but sound like crap. If it costs a lot, then I do hold it to a higher standard than a JBL 305. I remember my friend running out of the Phase Technology booth screaming how bad it was. That is another system that costs money.

I will add that I do get feedback from others to see if I am totally out to lunch or if their is a consensus.

 

[tomtoo]

At the end of this great review we all should have learnd, dont be a speaker nazi.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

I assume that Bose no longer sues reviewers who say bad things about their products.

Dr. Bose is not with us any more, otherwise he would. He was an excellent salesman.

Met him in NY as a teenager, spoke to him several times, told him politely that his speakers were not very good. lol...

In the correct room with enough power, and the right music, (carpet on the floor, walls and ceiling, packed with audio equipment, powered by a Phase Linear 700 and playing Santana Soul Sacrifice at a deafening level) 901s were very impressive, and just about everyone who heard them, purchased a pair. (This was an audio store on Flatbush Ave in Brooklyn in the 70s.) When people got them home and hooked them up to a 40w receiver in their living room (wood floors, windows, etc) the results were a bit different!

 

[anmpr1]

If you heard the Beolab 90s, and if you have decent ears, you'd remember. They are perhaps the best speakers available regardless of price.

The comparison between them and Bose 901s in this thread is both absurd and symptomatic of the hostility that many of the members here have against stuff that costs money.

I don't think anyone is saying the 90s are not good speakers. Someone said they listened to them at a hi-fi show and didn't like the sound. That is meaningless, and really isn't something anyone should pay any attention to. Who knows how they were demo'd at the show?

And I don't think anyone is really making any sort of actual quality comparison between them and the 901. Certainly if they were pressed they wouldn't. Who would do that?

Bias against 'stuff that costs money' is a thing. No doubt about it. However, recall that 901s were expensive loudspeakers for a mainstream brand. Over 3K in today's inflato dollars. And you needed a huge amplifier to make them 'come alive'. Gordon Holt suggested the Crown DC-300, which in today's dollars would cost about five thousand dollars. So it isn't like that stuff was ever 'cheap' back then.

FWIW, I demo'd a set of the 'old' Bang and Olufsen Phase Link speakers. They sounded great in the dealer's showroom. I took them home and they sounded horrible. Boxed 'em up and took them back. Bought L100s instead, which sounded pretty much the same in both environments. Years later I heard the B&O 5 in a optimum environment and thought they were excellent. I never read a bad review of the 5.

For all I know the 90 could well be the best loudspeaker in the world. I do know that even if I could afford them I'd not want 'em just because they look too weird. It's a pretty strange looking machine. You can't discount that.

 

[Xulonn]

Santana Soul Sacrifice at a deafening level

Good observations, Rebbi. I never heard Santana's Soul Sacrifice on Bose speakers, but I did hear it live at a little fish and chips joint just off the Stanford University campus in 1969 just before the release of the first Santana Album. Rather than go further off topic, I will post more details in another thread - my "Retro" thread LINK (Scroll down to bottom of page).

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Good observations, Rebbi. I never heard Santana's Soul Sacrifice on Bose speakers, but I did hear it live at a little fish and chips joint just off the Stanford University campus in 1969 just before the release of the first Santana Album. Rather than go further off topic, I will post more details in another thread - my "Retro" thread LINK (Scroll down to bottom of page).

Live, very cool!

 

[hardisj]

Video review is up.

 

[Xulonn]

Video review is up.

I cannot believe I just watched a 25 minute YouTube review of a pair of Bose 901 speakers - good job Erin. Fair and non-judgemental.

 

[hardisj]

I cannot believe I just watched a 25 minute YouTube review of a pair of Bose 901 speakers - good job Erin. Fair and non-judgemental.

How do you think I feel about having spent 22 or more hours testing and reviewing them? LOL


Thanks, man. Much appreciated.

 

[ripvw]

I started selling hi-fi in 1976, in time to see the end of the sealed box Bose 901 Series II and the intro of the ported Bose 901 Series III. The speakers went from needing all the power a Phase Linear 700 could provide to being able to run with a low-powered receiver. A friend of mine from work had a pair of the Series II speakers with the big Bose amp (400wpc into 4 ohms) in a room with a solid cinder block wall behind the speakers - very impressive. I also heard the introduction of the Series V model in LA years later. Bose had managed to find a hotel room with 3 walls covered in mirrors - a nightmare for any other speaker but a great demo for the 901. They also introduced their new Acoustic Cannon pro subwoofer at the same seminar and let us hear the combination - lots of air being moved in that room...

here's a pdf on a newer version of the Acoustic Cannon:

https://assets.bose.com/content/dam...Wave®_Cannon™_Loudspeaker/td_panaray_awcs.pdf

manual for the 901 Series VI:

https://www.bose.com/content/dam/Bo...M195438_05_OG_901 Series VI Speaker_ENGvo.pdf

Thanks for the blast from the past!

 

[DownUnderGazza]

Thought, if one was to tackle a home brew version of the 901, what drivers might be worth looking at?
Oh, I’d assume crossing them to one or more subs and applying liberal amounts of Dirac-type correction.
Apologies if someone has already taken up this thought elsewhere