|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
128.115.190.40
In Reply to: RE: Interesting article on Amar Bose posted by DavidLD on March 24, 2016 at 07:41:35
I remember going to a lecture by AB in the early 70's. He came to the place I worked at the time (Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab), and gave a talk in the main auditorium. He was a very convincing speaker. I enjoyed the lecture, but still didn't find his loudspeakers (he talked about the design philosophy of the 901's) that compelling. I went to the lecture with a friend I worked with who had a pair of 901's, and he loved them. Thought they were the greatest thing since sliced bread. To each his own, I suppose.
Follow Ups:
901's are (were) either loved or hated. Almost no one was indifferent, even in the early days.
In 1977 or 8 I went to the local audio salon with my copy of the Sutherland/Pavarotti Turandot and listened to side 4 with an A/B switch in hand. This was in their "big room' with all MacIntosh and a Linn table.
The speaker choices were the Bose 901 - IV and a new Canadian company (forget the name) that had it's own PhD and a fancy new anechoic chamber. The salesman was in love with them.
The Canadian speakers were all treble and detail, the Bose made music. I consider myself a musician. Took home the Bose to meet the Dynaco.
I traded a pair of 901's for AR3a's. The guy who got the 901's thought they were great; I thought the AR3a's were great. We were each happy with the trade.
The 901 had an impressive effect but when I heard classical music through them, it did not sound much like what I hear in a live concert. I know from my experience as an audio equipment salesman, that another person might think exactly the opposite. Different people use different cues to determine if something sounds real.
Dave
He determined that at the concert hall, 89% of what was heard was reflected and only 11% was direct. So that's how the speaker radiates.
Which ignores the fact that good recordings capture ambience in the process along with your room providing some. Now you get "reflected squared" where instruments get smeared across the entire back wall in gigantic form. Perhaps fun for some, but never real to these ears.
I do, however, like the full range design even if they don't exactly offer an "airy" top end using massively equalized midrange drivers (20 db at the bottom and 20-30 db at the top!)
"You could say Bose Corp. owes its massive success in high-end audio to a serious case of buyer's remorse."
Bose's success is greatly overrated. It has had an inconsequential impact on high-end audio.
The company's core competency is marketing at which they most certainly excel!
I agree. He was a master marketer. More people than there are audiophiles believe that Bose 901 are the best speaker ever made.
Dave
As if to prove your point; this article smacks to me of a Bose-sourced document given a sympathetic exposure to the populace via the cnbc site. Self promotion but published by a third party.
....The vast majority of loudspeaker companies that prospered in the 60s through the early-mid 70s are long gone, AR, Advent, epi etc. Bose is one of a tiny handful that survived and prospered, part by changing with the times.or not changing, as the 901.
One cannot argue with their success as a company. The issue is the contention that they have had an impact on high-end audio and, despite the assertion of the writer, the truth is that their role in high-end was transient and well in the past.
The market there is pretty small, relatively speaking. I'm guessing the Bose marketing department was going for the largest audience possible.
There is no beer in food, but there is food in beer.
Originally, yes. Then, he really got smart. ;-)
Popularity is not directly proportional with quality. Sometimes it is inversely proportional.
Dave
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: