![]() It isn't even possible to localize the ringing at specific frequencies our test sample rang virtually everywhere. Its sound is more highly colored ("canned" may be the better word) and less musical than that of any other speaker. Possibly because of that, he was honest enough to recognize its limitations. Probably the most 'personal' review of the Ohm F was written by Peter Aczel, who was a principal of the company (from 1971-74). Even so, many liked the Ohm, for what it did. I don't know about running around in circles (we are not talking about stopwatching the Nurburgring, after all), however the Walsh design, while brilliant on paper, was quite limited in its real world application. However, in my own opinion, to compare the Ohm F (your example) with Bose 901, is less revealing. Your opinion is as good as anyone's in the matter of loudspeakers, which depend upon many different factors, mostly turning upon what one likes and what one does not. The Bose 901 represented a novelty and iconoclastic product in the audio market and Amir's review seems to confirm that status. the improved versions of the Model 301 continued to close the gap.Īfter that, I left audio to pursue an unrelated career (read.after receiving a college diploma, I got a real job) but remained a hobbyist. The 301 fared much better and sonically was competitive with OLA and EPI. Sound wise, it was a dawg and not competitive at the price point. The Bose marketing department immediately realized that they had significant competition from lower priced products from Advent and EPI (also RTR, Rectilinear, Microacoustics and others) and rushed the Model 201 to market. This must have sent alarm bells throughout Bose HQ and made a series of modifications and upgrades mandatory to maintain market share. That is if you had a listening room large enough to accommodate those monsters. For instance, the EPI M1000 and Ohm F, which were more expensive, ran circles around the 901. OTOH the sound stage was very wide and perceived from most locations in the room. In addition the sound stage seemed "smeared" and the imaging lacked the "realism" of other speakers. The audible distortion immediately dissuaded many younger buyers (as well as positioning problems in smaller rooms). ![]() The opening track was recorded heartbeats that the 901s massively distorted when driven by a Phase Linear 700. Which were all more affordable for younger buyers (baby boomers). The 901s were absolutely crushed in the showroom by most EPI and large Advent models (OLA). ![]() The shop was run by college students and DSOTM had recently been released and became the de facto test track when we demonstrated speakers. But it was clobbered in A/B testing especially DBT. Very wide and deep sound stage because of its iconoclastic design. The 901 sound had immediate sales appeal, they invariably created a very favorable first impression. ![]() Science was all the rage with the Moon mission and pocket calculators. I believe the target market was financially successful middle aged modern homeowners with a little scientific background and disposable cash. Their advertising campaign (using "science") was novel for the time. I suspect that they initially targeted Klipsch speakers as their primary market. Granted that under a sales floor environment they could not be optimized for room placement. They had sales volume requirements, I think, or at least that was what I was told. Bose was a difficult franchise to acquire. We had a demo pair of 901 v? (cannot recall which version) on the sales floor were I worked 50 years ago. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |