Posted: 12/10/2011 5:28:25 PM EDT
|
Just sitting hear jamming again and i continue to be surprised with the sounds they make for the size. Total is well under $10 to put them back into play. I think the first one is misaligned slightly so may redo it depending on how this glue cleans up in test. Just wanted to say thanks for talking me into it. Edited thread is edited. I need to buy cmjohnson beers |
|
Quoted:
speaker thread? Just picked these up, sound pretty good. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/ScottACousino/photobucket-1571-1323458723062.jpg Black Speaker & Callout thread. IBTL&B! -SS |
|
Quoted:
speaker thread? Just picked these up, sound pretty good. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/ScottACousino/photobucket-1571-1323458723062.jpg They don't look like old junk fixed. Look new and expensive. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
speaker thread? Just picked these up, sound pretty good. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/ScottACousino/photobucket-1571-1323458723062.jpg They don't look like old junk fixed. Look new and expensive. They were new and expensive at one time, bought them used and still kind of expensive, they sound great though. |
|
Quoted: I have a pair of bose 901s I got for free. They need to be refoamed. worth the effort? I refoamed ONE set of 901s. I charged 250 bucks to do it, and that was with me keeping HALF of the total bill to the customer, so he got clipped 500 bucks for the job. The refoam was successful but I will NEVER, EVER refoam 901s again. NO WAY IN HELL. Such a pain in the ass! The paper cones (these were the blue ones, series III, I think) were thin and fragile and none of the standard adhesive removers would get the residue off the cones as effectively as on a normal job. And then the stuff started soaking into the paper cones which softened up the edges. Fortunately, they stiffened up OK after everything was assembled and the glue cured. They were a royal pain in the ass to refoam. Be sure of that. Now for an explanation about 901s, and my opinion of them: 901s consist of 9 (each) MIDRANGE drivers in a box, with one facing forward and eight facing back. Yes, they're MIDRANGES. They do not HAVE woofers and they do not have TWEETERS, either. They're not even very good midranges. 901s were sold as a system which included a box which is simply a graphic equalizer preset to compensate for the SUCK-ASS frequency response of 901 drivers. This box allows you to boost the bass and treble until you think it sounds decent. If you did not get that box with the speakers, you MUST at least use a graphic EQ with the speakers or you'll hear no highs and no lows. (Must be Bose.) It's a SHITTY way to design a speaker. I could scarcely imagine a worse way. Bose has an aversion to using separate tweeters, with few exceptions. Their version of a tweeter is a 2" cheap paper cone speaker, suitable for use in a 1970s vintage battery operated transistor radio, shoved into a little box and forced to work as a tweeter. The rest of the entire speaker industry understands how badly that concept sucks, and NOBODY else does it! Nobody! If Bose were on to something, reputable speaker makers would be doing the same thing! They also don't get much into using real woofers. The rest of the industry tends to disagree with that principle as well. What they DO do for bass is use the stupidest thing I ever heard of, practically: A seventh order bandpass box with two undersized drivers in their "bass module" which puts out a lot of bass given the size of it but it's very limited in frequency response and sounds like shit. The 901s are probably the purest, best speakers Bose ever designed, but that's not saying much. It only says that they at least didn't try to use cheap tweeters or high order bandpass boxes for bass. They just compensate for the shortcomings of the 18 cheap midranges in a 901 system by EQ'ing the living fuck out of them! They're fine for some people, but I'd rather eat a wheelbarrow full of horseshit than own any Bose product whatsoever, much less be forced to LISTEN to it! Yeah, I'm biased as hell. Your mileage may indeed vary. I'm not telling you what to do or what choices to make but I have certainly made my opinion on that manufacture and its products abundantly clear. I appreciate good sound. Enough that I've spent more on my audio equipment than most people would spend on an economical car for daily driving. My ears tell me what I like and I'm no fan of Bose business and advertising practices, plus of course my ears do not like the Bose version of sound. Not in the least. |
|
cmjohnson - what's the best source for repair kits? I have a set of these that need new woofer surrounds (JBL pro, 4412 Studio Monitors). Btw: Fun Fact: in 1981 66% of all major American recording studios used JBL's, and 22 out of Billboard's top 25 albums were recorded and mixed using JBL monitors. (web pic)  |
|
Quoted:
cmjohnson - what's the best source for repair kits? I have a set of these that need new woofer surrounds (JBL pro, 4412 Studio Monitors). Btw: Fun Fact: in 1981 66% of all major American recording studios used JBL's, and 22 out of Billboard's top 25 albums were recorded and mixed using JBL monitors.
(web pic) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v503/parshooter/4412.jpg I have a set of those...they sound great for what Ipaid (40$ for the pair). Also have a full set of decent JBLs for the home theater... Best of the low dollar options IMHO. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: cmjohnson - what's the best source for repair kits? I have a set of those...they sound great for what I paid (40$ for the pair). Also have a full set of decent JBLs for the home theater... Best of the low dollar options IMHO. Wow, you stole 'em.  A coupla' sets of these sold on eBay within the last few weeks for $600 per pair.Several of the re-foam kits are available there, I just noticed. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a pair of bose 901s I got for free. They need to be refoamed. worth the effort? I refoamed ONE set of 901s. I charged 250 bucks to do it, and that was with me keeping HALF of the total bill to the customer, so he got clipped 500 bucks for the job. The refoam was successful but I will NEVER, EVER refoam 901s again. NO WAY IN HELL. Such a pain in the ass! The paper cones (these were the blue ones, series III, I think) were thin and fragile and none of the standard adhesive removers would get the residue off the cones as effectively as on a normal job. And then the stuff started soaking into the paper cones which softened up the edges. Fortunately, they stiffened up OK after everything was assembled and the glue cured. They were a royal pain in the ass to refoam. Be sure of that. Now for an explanation about 901s, and my opinion of them: 901s consist of 9 (each) MIDRANGE drivers in a box, with one facing forward and eight facing back. Yes, they're MIDRANGES. They do not HAVE woofers and they do not have TWEETERS, either. They're not even very good midranges. 901s were sold as a system which included a box which is simply a graphic equalizer preset to compensate for the SUCK-ASS frequency response of 901 drivers. This box allows you to boost the bass and treble until you think it sounds decent. If you did not get that box with the speakers, you MUST at least use a graphic EQ with the speakers or you'll hear no highs and no lows. (Must be Bose.) It's a SHITTY way to design a speaker. I could scarcely imagine a worse way. Bose has an aversion to using separate tweeters, with few exceptions. Their version of a tweeter is a 2" cheap paper cone speaker, suitable for use in a 1970s vintage battery operated transistor radio, shoved into a little box and forced to work as a tweeter. The rest of the entire speaker industry understands how badly that concept sucks, and NOBODY else does it! Nobody! If Bose were on to something, reputable speaker makers would be doing the same thing! They also don't get much into using real woofers. The rest of the industry tends to disagree with that principle as well. What they DO do for bass is use the stupidest thing I ever heard of, practically: A seventh order bandpass box with two undersized drivers in their "bass module" which puts out a lot of bass given the size of it but it's very limited in frequency response and sounds like shit. The 901s are probably the purest, best speakers Bose ever designed, but that's not saying much. It only says that they at least didn't try to use cheap tweeters or high order bandpass boxes for bass. They just compensate for the shortcomings of the 18 cheap midranges in a 901 system by EQ'ing the living fuck out of them! They're fine for some people, but I'd rather eat a wheelbarrow full of horseshit than own any Bose product whatsoever, much less be forced to LISTEN to it! Yeah, I'm biased as hell. Your mileage may indeed vary. I'm not telling you what to do or what choices to make but I have certainly made my opinion on that manufacture and its products abundantly clear. I appreciate good sound. Enough that I've spent more on my audio equipment than most people would spend on an economical car for daily driving. My ears tell me what I like and I'm no fan of Bose business and advertising practices, plus of course my ears do not like the Bose version of sound. Not in the least. Finally someone understands what crap Bose is for consumer speakers. I know let's make a speaker where all the drivers fire backwards and the sound is reflected and colored by the walls. What a concept. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have a pair of bose 901s I got for free. They need to be refoamed. worth the effort? I refoamed ONE set of 901s. I charged 250 bucks to do it, and that was with me keeping HALF of the total bill to the customer, so he got clipped 500 bucks for the job. The refoam was successful but I will NEVER, EVER refoam 901s again. NO WAY IN HELL. Such a pain in the ass! The paper cones (these were the blue ones, series III, I think) were thin and fragile and none of the standard adhesive removers would get the residue off the cones as effectively as on a normal job. And then the stuff started soaking into the paper cones which softened up the edges. Fortunately, they stiffened up OK after everything was assembled and the glue cured. They were a royal pain in the ass to refoam. Be sure of that. Now for an explanation about 901s, and my opinion of them: 901s consist of 9 (each) MIDRANGE drivers in a box, with one facing forward and eight facing back. Yes, they're MIDRANGES. They do not HAVE woofers and they do not have TWEETERS, either. They're not even very good midranges. 901s were sold as a system which included a box which is simply a graphic equalizer preset to compensate for the SUCK-ASS frequency response of 901 drivers. This box allows you to boost the bass and treble until you think it sounds decent. If you did not get that box with the speakers, you MUST at least use a graphic EQ with the speakers or you'll hear no highs and no lows. (Must be Bose.) It's a SHITTY way to design a speaker. I could scarcely imagine a worse way. Bose has an aversion to using separate tweeters, with few exceptions. Their version of a tweeter is a 2" cheap paper cone speaker, suitable for use in a 1970s vintage battery operated transistor radio, shoved into a little box and forced to work as a tweeter. The rest of the entire speaker industry understands how badly that concept sucks, and NOBODY else does it! Nobody! If Bose were on to something, reputable speaker makers would be doing the same thing! They also don't get much into using real woofers. The rest of the industry tends to disagree with that principle as well. What they DO do for bass is use the stupidest thing I ever heard of, practically: A seventh order bandpass box with two undersized drivers in their "bass module" which puts out a lot of bass given the size of it but it's very limited in frequency response and sounds like shit. The 901s are probably the purest, best speakers Bose ever designed, but that's not saying much. It only says that they at least didn't try to use cheap tweeters or high order bandpass boxes for bass. They just compensate for the shortcomings of the 18 cheap midranges in a 901 system by EQ'ing the living fuck out of them! They're fine for some people, but I'd rather eat a wheelbarrow full of horseshit than own any Bose product whatsoever, much less be forced to LISTEN to it! Yeah, I'm biased as hell. Your mileage may indeed vary. I'm not telling you what to do or what choices to make but I have certainly made my opinion on that manufacture and its products abundantly clear. I appreciate good sound. Enough that I've spent more on my audio equipment than most people would spend on an economical car for daily driving. My ears tell me what I like and I'm no fan of Bose business and advertising practices, plus of course my ears do not like the Bose version of sound. Not in the least. True words, even if they hurt 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have a pair of bose 901s I got for free. They need to be refoamed. worth the effort? ... The Short Version: NO!  +1 And CMJ gets a +1 for feeling my Blows hate. A local joint has bose speakers set up over every table and also outside on the patio. Every time I get out of the car in the parking lot it hits me: Shit, this is the place with the crappy sound system.  |