The Ohm Walsh, Bose 901 and other multidirectional speakers

Since these types of speakers are pretty much out of fashion (except the 901, made since 1968[?]) this is more of a "vintage" audio topic.

I've never heard such speakers set up properly and was wondering who here *has* heard them configured correctly and what they thought of them? For example.......

> what kind of stereo image, if any, did they produce?
> any problems you encountered in their set up & operation?
> if you abandoned them, why?

Here's a few of the many brands off the top of my head:

* Ohm Walsh series
* DBX Soundfield series
* DCM TimeWindow series
* 901 and 601, the model with the 4-tweeter array & angled 8" woofer on top
* Allison......sort of, since several employed an upward-facing woofer
* all those various spherical models that seemed to pop up after 2001:A Space Odyssey debuted!

And I guess bipolars like Definitive Technology, some Cambridge SoundWorks and older Mirage models and dipolars like most electrostatics and planar speakers could also technically qualify as multidirectional.

 

I had a set of original 901s for years and thought the sounded fine at the time. I do not recall any serious problems with set up or stereo imaging. Around 1988 I just decided to go with something new and bought PSBs.

 

I have a pair of RatShacks with the Linaeum tweeter. I think they sound great.

 

The 901's require a Bose EQ in the signal chain. Otherwise they sound like total crap.

 

Even with the EQ the sound is questionable. I mean, realistically, how much bass pressure can you get out of that box? And given the necessary excursion of those 4" drivers, what's the THD?

 

I used to sell the Ohms. When properly placed and driven they could provide a nicely defined 3d soundstage and the speakers do disappear. Maybe slightly better than most box speakers. The problems with the Walsh drivers is they are terribly inefficient and soak up power. They also need brute force to generate anything resembling decent bass levels. I sold the Walsh IIs and Ivs and I don't remember trying tubes on them (I would have had a cj Premier I available at the time), but that could have been a magical combination.

 

I still have a pair of 2-way Bose 501 which are no longer used in my main system. I found their stereo image muddled on most material and midrange heavy. They were replaced by a pair of Infinitys and now the Bose are used as computer speakers.

 

I had a pair for years. It was amazing the amount of low end they could reproduce.

 

I'm using the Mirage Omnisats in my home theater system, and they sound great. Equally good for music and movies.

My brother has a set of Time Windows and they are also excellent.

 

I helped a Ohm Walsh owner restore a pair of Altec 260 amps. That's about the size of tube amps you need for those things. Those, or McIntosh MI200s or MC3500s, are about the only vintage options I know of with sufficient power.


I'd go solid state.

 

I had a pair of 901'S for years but in my room they sounded better when I turned them round so speaker cluster was pointing towards you.

Never ever thought I got the best out of them as I think they need to be really driven by a seriously powerful amp. I was driving them with a QUAD 405 power amp.

_______________________
If it ain't broke don't fix it

 

I have a pair of 901's & EQ stored in the basement. I wish I had room to set them up properly - I liked them a lot especially since I paid exactly $0.00 for them. Extremely power-hungry though. They certainly did disperse the sound nicely, sounded very smooth and had a solid bottom end which made them, to me, very "forgiving" of marginal recordings. Are they audiophile quality? Probably not. That being said, many here hate them very much.

 

I used to experiment with speaker cables or any kind of cable in the mid 70's to see what difference they made to sound.

I wired TV coaxial cable up to the 901's once. Thick strand for bass and the multi strand to the treble.

Popped on Boz Scaggs Lowdown and still to this day I have never heard the synth get sucked from about 3 feet in front of the speakers straight through and out the back as I did that day.

I had a friend in the room with me who couldn't believe it when he heard. Neither could I but had to change the cable as it gave them no bass.


______________________________
If it ain't broke don't fix it

 

Those Bose 901 were the absolute top of the line speakers when i was a young teen - 1973-75 . A big dealer i knew had a pair of those and i was deeply impressed with the sound that was coming from his rig. Those days a 2 & 20 Watt amp and 2 way speakers were rated as true Hi Fidelity and costed more than one moths earnings of the average worker ....

Later on in the 80ies i heard them again - This time as the speakers in a Bar with a Dancefloor and at high levels. That sound was always a lot of fun and sounded really good while dancing near them with the average Pop Rock that was played in the days- Sure today we have different ideas about Bass reproduction- the output level in db increased about 30db.

Back then the selling point of the 901 was a pleasant Stereo Image all over the room - not only in the sweet spot.

If you would have asked me in 1974 what my idea of a Top of the line HiFi rig would be i would vote for a Thorens TD 124 with concrete body (don't remember the exact model) a BrAun Regie 520 Receiver and a pair of BOSE 901 with the Equalizer set, that came along with it.. ..
Times have changed fo sure...

 

Well AFAIK Bose designed the speakers and EQ electronics as a *system*. The 901 speakers themselves were never sold alone to my knowledge.

This is just my own theory, but I think to get a half-way decent stereo image in multiple locations requires drivers with controlled directional sonic characteristics & since a 4" cone - relative to the mids and especially the highs - is very directional, the engineer's could more reliably predict where the speakers' output would go. But obviously a conventional 4" driver cannot reproduce the upper treble spectrum all that well and needs help to do so. I'll bet bass though needs less help - nine 4" drivers are used - plus there is the contribution of the 901's funky bass reflex design. FYI: the original 901 (and I think also Series II) used a sealed enclosure and that has a reputation for really being a power sponge.

When I used to sell HT gear in the early/mid 90s, to better help the 901s disperse their sound the previous supervisor had attached 1/4" thick plastic sheets to the wall behind them in the demo room (the walls were carpeted). Due to all the other speakers nearby this addition still didn't help dispersion too much, but I definitely could better hear the sound itself........and IMO while it wasn't "hi-end" sound and wasn't ultra-detailed, I have to admit overall I thought it was nice to listen to: powerful clean bass that surprisingly went quite low, and smooth highs. I think "fun but relaxed" is a good phrase to describe them.

 

Infinity models that used a Walsh tweeter:

"Wave Transmission Line Column" (scroll down)

IIRC there were a couple more models that used this design, then the EMIT tweeter debuted and replaced it.

 

Any observations on how these speakers deal with movie soundtracks i.e. directional effects, etc?

 

I agree. My dad had a pair in our house when I was growing up (still has them actually, although they are set up totally wrong now. Thanks Mom.), and with just a 60 watt JVC receiver, I could get massive bass out of them. If you put your hand behind them in front of the ports, it felt like wind blowing on you.

I never understood the common mantra about how they didn't have bass. I suspect some of them became separated from their EQ unit and got sold or given away and people tried to use them without it. Or assumed that the EQ wasn't necessary or just window dressing. Not good that way; they sound like a cheap transistor radio.

 

Someone over at Audiokarma.org said that Bose supposedly employed the services of an aeronautical engineer to make sure the ports in later 901s* made as little noise (i.e. "chuffing") as possible, which would help explain where those tapered rods inside the port tubes came from.

Anyone have an opinion on what music sounded best on multidirectional speakers? I always thought prog rock and classical involving large orchestras would be well suited to them.


* at the risk of sounding like a shill......last year there were two commercials with classic speakers in the background: one was for.....whatever, can't remember now!....but in it was a large Acoustic Research model w/tan grill and dark walnut on a short 4-legged stand, most probably an AR3; the other was for a cell phone company & in this one were a pair of solid black 901s with Bose tapered stands. Both interior scenes were quite modern and the ARs fit right in with their Ikea-like clean/simple styling but I thought the 901s - very probably because I really like 50s & 60s "Space Age" style - looked especially sharp.

 

I think it's at least as much that people hate Bose a great deal. Most audiophiles do. But to give the devil his due the 901s were a decent attempt in their day. They had style and the theory made some sense. But they were not terribly good speakers.

Walsh was Lincoln Walsh, the man behind the classic Brook tube amplifiers and a definite pioneer. He never lived to see them reach production. Again, good idea, probably more so in the mono era where one in the center of the room made a certain sense. But terrible efficiency.

 

I heard the MBL Radialstrahler in the showroom - imaging was awesome.



"...the reach-out-and-touch-it reality produced by his mbls was unforgettable" - M Fremer/Stereophile

 

The Ohm Walsh should beat the Bose 901 hands down.

 

I have a pair of DBX Soundfield 100's. They are 20 years old and still sound great. Had them re-foamed 8 years ago. The sound stage is spectacular. There is no sweet spot, I can sit directly in front of either speaker and still hear perfect separation.

 

No they weren't. Tannoy, Quad, IMF, hell, even Klipsch sounded better and were superior. The problem was, those speakers didn't have the marketing and market penetration of Bose. So in your (at that time and experience level) limited world view (ironically the same as many of the people who still buy into the Bose mystique) they were "absolute top of the line", but they weren't that great then and they aren't any better now. Seriously, when you heard the 901s back then, or even now, what are / did you compare them against?

As far as low bass goes, people may have heard a sound, but it would have been at a fairly high distortion level. You can only get so much out of a 4" driver, EQing it with a large bass boost only makes things worse. Virtually all of the 901 setups I've ever heard had substational attenuation below roughly 60 Hz.

 

I heard a few systems with 901s back in the day (mid '70s), and they didn't impress me that much, except for one friend who had the perfect room for them.

This was a big room with Besser block (cinder block) walls that could really hold onto the sound energy and reflect those 8 rear facing drivers and support pretty decent bass. Perhaps, on reflection, a lot of what made that system sing was the old Commonwealth turntable with the big platter and 12" tone arm that he's gotten from a recording studio. I can't remember what amps he had - it was over 30 years ago.