901 series 2 speakers


hi, anybody out there have any thoghts of the bose 901 series 2 speakers?
g_nakamoto
Yup, there are better choices, but I still remember the 301's. They weren't great, but they did have a nice diffuse presentation. I listened to a dorm mates system and liked them. I lusted for 901's, but then Shahanian, Ohm, Maggie pulled me away. Finally, I became a Vandy fanboy.
@Mr. Nakamoto,
I hope you enjoy your speakers, they are definitely part of Audiophile history.
B
I didn't say they were great, I said they were fun .
I'm primarily a Classical music listener, If they were all I had or could have, I'd still be happy listening to my music .
They were just ok 40 years ago today they are really bad.Good luck enjoy.
Ok. Now I'll toss out my opinion. 
I think people looking for the sonic qualities of the 901, and who have the space to spare to accommodate them, would be better served by some sort of electrostat. 
As for the suggestion that Bose is a leader in psychoacoustics, I have nothing but contempt for the though. The 901 and speakers like it are designed around the demonstrably wrong assumption that the ear is well tuned to determine the locations of reflected sounds. It isn't. It's well tuned to determining the sonic characteristics of sound based on location. So long as those sound signatures are convincingly reproduced, the actual point of their origin is irrelevant to a good degree. 

As has been said elsewhere, Bose’s primary assumption---that listeners at a live concert receive around 89% of the sound they hear not directly from the stage, but rather after being reflected off the walls, ceiling, and floor of the live venue, and that a loudspeaker should therefore mimic that ratio---one driver in the 901 facing the listener, eight facing the wall behind the speaker---is fatally flawed: It assumes a recording contains direct sound only!

The 901 ignores the microphone arrangement of any given recording made in a concert hall. There are many different recording techniques, all capturing different ratios of direct and reflected sound. If a recording contains both direct and reflected sound, and the 901 then adds 89% more reflected sound, it is not reproducing what’s on the recording, it is trying to add reflected sound to a recording already containing that sound, in effect doubling it. See what I mean? No wonder the 901 sounds so diffused, confused, and blurred! It also destroys imaging, and makes instruments sound humorously over-sized, a piano or drumset the size of the distance between the speakers.

For the 901 to work as intended, a recording would need to be made either in an anechoic chamber, or with one mic capturing the direct sound from the stage in a hall, and eight capturing the sound reflected off the walls, ceiling, and floor of the hall. Then, a nine-channel hi-fi would reproduce each channel separately, one speaker per mic. Ain’t gonna happen.

And what of recordings made in a studio, as most are? The concept of 89% reflected sound does not apply here AT ALL. The 901 makes studio recordings sound completely ridiculous---grossly bloated and smeared. I know, I had a pair in 1970-1. Hated them, got a pair of Infinity 1001’s. Half the price, much better speaker.