"My real complaint no matter what, I've never heard great imaging... they will produce a soundstage, but proper image placement is non existent."
Timlub is right of course. If you turn any speaker toward the wall, no matter what else happens the imaging is pretty much gone. That fact is why, in my opinion, 901s are so controversial. What they do quite well, though, is accurately reproduce tonal balance. My frame of reference is that in my music room there is a piano and a set of drums. In addition there is a wide array of hand percussion instruments. The voicing of the piano is clearly delineated on the 901s. Many times it is necessary to look to determine if the sound is coming from the speakers or the piano. Another example is a triangle which has an amazingly complex progression of overtones. Listen to the real triangle, then listen to the playback and there is no appreciable difference. Cymbals are very difficult to capture and reproduce. 901s get this right too. Another observation, most performing musicians don't worry about sound stage, rather we worry about tonality, particularly being in tune with and in synch with our fellow performers. When the conductor wants to hear the balance of the entire ensemble, which happens before every performance during rehearsal, he or she invariably walks back from the stage to the center of the hall, or even further back. Again, the priority is on tonal balance. Imaging is just not much of a concern for the majority of musicians. In my experience, this is true irrespective of the genre of the music. Mind you there is nothing wrong with wanting good imaging from our speakers at home, any more than it is wrong to want to sit up front at Symphony Hall. It gets down to individual preferences. 901s do a lot of things right for me, but clearly they are not for everybody. I just wish people would quite bashing them for contrived and incorrect reasons.
Timlub is right of course. If you turn any speaker toward the wall, no matter what else happens the imaging is pretty much gone. That fact is why, in my opinion, 901s are so controversial. What they do quite well, though, is accurately reproduce tonal balance. My frame of reference is that in my music room there is a piano and a set of drums. In addition there is a wide array of hand percussion instruments. The voicing of the piano is clearly delineated on the 901s. Many times it is necessary to look to determine if the sound is coming from the speakers or the piano. Another example is a triangle which has an amazingly complex progression of overtones. Listen to the real triangle, then listen to the playback and there is no appreciable difference. Cymbals are very difficult to capture and reproduce. 901s get this right too. Another observation, most performing musicians don't worry about sound stage, rather we worry about tonality, particularly being in tune with and in synch with our fellow performers. When the conductor wants to hear the balance of the entire ensemble, which happens before every performance during rehearsal, he or she invariably walks back from the stage to the center of the hall, or even further back. Again, the priority is on tonal balance. Imaging is just not much of a concern for the majority of musicians. In my experience, this is true irrespective of the genre of the music. Mind you there is nothing wrong with wanting good imaging from our speakers at home, any more than it is wrong to want to sit up front at Symphony Hall. It gets down to individual preferences. 901s do a lot of things right for me, but clearly they are not for everybody. I just wish people would quite bashing them for contrived and incorrect reasons.