🚀 go-pugleaf

Well hopelessly muddled treble is not a complaint  my ears would throw
at the 901's  I personally have found the treble very listenable and
not too unlike the sound that the instrument makes.
the Bass is low it may not be critically clean but the lows can be
felt in the gut where it should be felt, the higher bass is not
overblown nor boomy, I've never needed to over drive them, has
dynamics that are very reasonable and certainly better than those over
priced glass jobs from the celestion co that some rags were raving
about last yr, imho I would only give them garage room as a staging
post to the corporation tip .
nor have I experienced poor sound staging when set up correctly.
I agree that they lack a proper high tweeter so they can never be over
bright (grin)  and the legals are pretty evil.  Over priced -
definitely,  but they've got to pay for that marketing some how.
And they are: one of the few manufactures in this game that are making
very good money from their products, shame more of the other weren't,
some good manufacturers have gone to the wall due to lack of financial
imperatives, but that's another discussion.
But would I use them for a 6+1 if I had the room ? and the money? most
probably !  But then again im a nutter, i must be, im here (grins
again).

Chris

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ofCdnWYVU-PHmrfcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:nd0ji0drvpec06c35idl84istvrerrg84g@4ax.com
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:06:45 +0100, "chris"
> > <chris@delkasystems.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Oohhh "technical competence" again !!
> >> sinewave and meters:-  here we go again !!  - they have NEVER
proved
> >> listenabilty, quality -beyond THD, or very much else!
> >
> > They have however been an essential part of *designing* any
> > decent-sounding gear.....................
> >
> >
> >> Whilst I will not deny that in some circumstances BOSE have been
> >> superseded.
> >
> > Actually, try to name one circumstance in which BOSE has *not*
been
> > superceded!
> >
> >> What is incompetent about the bose designs then:-
> >
> > Almost everything.............
> >
> > To deal with the 'classic' 901:
> >
> > The use of multiple full-range drivers leads to smeared midrange
and
> > hopelessly muddled treble. The use of heavy EQ to get *some* kind
of
> > bass response out of those fundamentally poor drivers leads to
> > horrible distortion of any high-level bass notes. The use of one
> > forward-facing and eight backward-facing drive units leads to a
very
> > vague soundstage. Also, the 901 was always *grossly* overpriced -
as
> > is true of everything Bose ever made. A company driven entirely by
its
> > marketing and legal departments, and with a *very* nasty attitude.
>
> The Bose 901 active equalizer's response curve has changed over the
years. I
> don't know of one that is online, but there is one online for the
901s
> professional audio sibling, the 802.
>
> >http://www.audiorail.com/802_controller.gif
>
> Bass rolloff must be -3 dB at about 100 Hz, and treble rolloff is -3
dB at 7
> KHz.
>
> The weak spot of the 802 is probabably  more in the treble where it
takes
> about 15 dB boost to do just 12 KHz. Pushing a drum kit with cymbals
through
> this could
> be a recipie for disaster. Just guessing, but I'd suppose that the
system
> designers were from an era where drum kits were acoustical
instruments and
> there was no such thing as an electronic drum set or they weren't in
> widespread use.
>
>