Bose 901

One of the better hi-fi theorists (perhaps Peter Moncrieff in IAR) opined that the only way for the 901 to work as Dr. Bose intended was with a recording made in an anechoic chamber (or outdoors, I suppose). The sound captured by the recording mics would be only the direct sound of the instruments and voices, no reflections or room sound.

Such a recording then played back on the 901 could at least have a chance of working, though as Al correctly points out, the arrival time of reflections off the walls and ceiling in a small listening room are much closer in time to the direct sound than are the reflections in a concert hall.

J. Gordon Holt was of the opinion that the real answer was to capture the direct sound with one set of mics, the hall ambiance with another, the two on different sets of recorder channels. The direct sound channels would then be played back on the front loudspeakers, the ambiance channels on rear speakers.

Not to be intentionally contrary, but the $500 I spent in 1971 on a pair of 901’s was the biggest waste of money in my hi-fi life. It didn’t take me long to start hating them, and replaced them soon with a pair of 1001’s from a new company named Infinity. The 1001 was only $139/ea, and was a far superior loudspeaker.

In ’71 I had yet to discover the little underground mag named Stereophile (that transpired the following year), so hadn’t seen Gordon Holt’s panning of the 901 in the mag. Only accurate review of the speaker at the time.

The basic premise of the 901 is fatally flawed: to imitate the ratio of direct vs. reflected sound in concert halls. That idea ignores the fact that recordings made in those halls contain both direct and reflected sound---there is no way for the listener to separate the two. To then duplicate that ratio via the loudspeaker is to double the effect.

And what of recordings NOT made in halls? 89% reflected sound in studio recordings? They sound RIDICULOUS on the 901!