Seems to me that once you get to a certain standard (above the Dansette with
a penny on the arm) the differences are minor. I listen to a pair of TQWP's
and started to make a pair of Buschhorn's, comparing the two with the same
drive unit there was a difference but it was so small it was not worth
continuing with the project.

It's much the same with cameras, £5 plastic lens disposable, not so bad,
£150 SLR very good, £1500 Leica not much better.

Jem

"chris" wrote in message
...
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 a 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" wrote in message
news
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:06:45 +0100, "chris"
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superseded.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superceded!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.