Dave Plowman said:

Strange. You've obviously never heard decent stereo imaging, as the 901 is
*utterly* incapable of producing it.

If the worst you can say about 901s is they don't image well, you
haven't got a lot to say.

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:
Strange. You've obviously never heard decent stereo imaging, as the
901 is *utterly* incapable of producing it.

If the worst you can say about 901s is they don't image well, you
haven't got a lot to say.

Only wish I could say the same about you.

--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:57:23 -0000, Peter Sammon
wrote:

snip

It was such drool and bull**** that I've decided to snip the whole
post. I am no expert on sepaker design, accoustics or physics, I trust
my ears and common sense.

Common sense tells me that most audio engineers use direct radiating
speakers for 'monitoring' their creations, therefore it makes sense to
me to use the same 'design' of speaker to hear their work.

My ears tell me that Bose (accross the range) sound overly bright,
with little to no definition of mid-range and a total lack of anything
approaching quality bass. If they (901's) were priced at £100 they may
just be worth it, if only for the 'unique design'. I would guess that
ANY speaker of direct raditaing design, of a similar price would
outperform them.

I'll stick to B&W's thanks very much. At least most of their design
decisions are based on scientificly sound principles of accoustics,
physics and materials.

Ray.

Bose speakers are designed so that unknowledgeable people can spend
lots of money to impress their unknowledgeable friends.

Bose and B&O - HiFi for the deaf....

Now I really like my KEF reference speakers....
and I spent ages listening to many speakers before I decided to buy
them.They cured me of being a "hi-fi " addict I now just listen to the
music.The only trouble is it takes two people to move just one of 'em.
....but coupled with a REL sub and some other 7 speakers provides good
surround for dvd etc and great stereo by themselves.
I'm a KEF fan but wouldn't write too much more than that.



However I have to say that this thread must be commercially
generated......who else would bother to write such a diatribe??....Bose
whatever it sounds like ( average to me ) also LOOKS so bloody awful.
Have you seen their radio thing you get advertised in the likes of the
telegraph supplement??
Looks like a 1950s breadbasket!

Well it takes all sorts.........
As they say in France one mans fish is another mans poison !

Barry










"Tim S Kemp" wrote imessage
...
Bose speakers are designed so that unknowledgeable people can spend
lots of money to impress their unknowledgeable friends.

Bose and B&O - HiFi for the deaf....

Nutter wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:57:23 -0000, Peter Sammon
wrote:

snip

It was such drool and bull**** that I've decided to snip the whole
post. I am no expert on sepaker design, accoustics or physics, I trust
my ears and common sense.

Common sense tells me that most audio engineers use direct radiating
speakers for 'monitoring' their creations, therefore it makes sense to
me to use the same 'design' of speaker to hear their work.

My ears tell me that Bose (accross the range) sound overly bright,
with little to no definition of mid-range and a total lack of anything
approaching quality bass. If they (901's) were priced at £100 they may
just be worth it, if only for the 'unique design'. I would guess that
ANY speaker of direct raditaing design, of a similar price would
outperform them.

I'll stick to B&W's thanks very much. At least most of their design
decisions are based on scientificly sound principles of accoustics,
physics and materials.

Ray.

I have often seen Bose pseudo science ads and noted that they fail to
mention prices. Presumably they are stupidly expensive? Just how much do
they sting the idiots who buy a pair of 901s??

Ian

barry wrote:

Now I really like my KEF reference speakers....
and I spent ages listening to many speakers before I decided to buy
them.They cured me of being a "hi-fi " addict I now just listen to the
music.The only trouble is it takes two people to move just one of 'em.
...but coupled with a REL sub and some other 7 speakers provides good
surround for dvd etc and great stereo by themselves.
I'm a KEF fan but wouldn't write too much more than that.



However I have to say that this thread must be commercially
generated......who else would bother to write such a diatribe??....Bose
whatever it sounds like ( average to me ) also LOOKS so bloody awful.
Have you seen their radio thing you get advertised in the likes of the
telegraph supplement??
Looks like a 1950s breadbasket!


I have seen them often enough. They never mantion prices. Just how much do
they ask for one of those plastic radios??

Ian

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:06:38 -0000, Peter Sammon
wrote:

Peter Sammon wrote in
:

http://www.epinions.com/content_105506836100

I love it when people say that Bose is not taken seriously by the rest of
the industry...of course if you are referring to the so called HIGH
END...there is a great reason why...because the high end hates Bose and the
901 and generally will go to great lengths to deter people from giving the
speakers any credibility by using the same stupid excuses like "older
technology", Direct/Reflecting sound obscures the image rather than
enhances it, no direct competition in the particular store of purchase etc.
etc. I, for one DO NOT play politics

You just did.

THUD

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:25:18 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

Strange. You've obviously never heard decent stereo imaging, as the 901 is
*utterly* incapable of producing it.

If the worst you can say about 901s is they don't image well, you
haven't got a lot to say.

I would add that they don't sound well, note.

--
td

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:06:38 -0000, Peter Sammon
wrote:

I love it when people say that Bose is not taken seriously by the rest of
the industry...of course if you are referring to the so called HIGH
END...there is a great reason why...because the high end hates Bose and the
901 and generally will go to great lengths to deter people from giving the
speakers any credibility by using the same stupid excuses like "older
technology", Direct/Reflecting sound obscures the image rather than
enhances it, no direct competition in the particular store of purchase etc.
etc. I, for one DO NOT play politics nor will I succumb to these ploys by
the so called experts who have their noses too high in the air that they
cannot even smell what life is made of. Thanks anyway for your comments.

No--I would say they're not taken seriously because they sound utterly
****.

--
td