Has Anyone Ever Run TWO Identical Pairs of Speakers ?

I did this for about a dozen years using Paradigm and Polk speakers.  The end result was very nice SQ. The upper mids and highs of the older Polk 5jr speakers added to the lower mids/bass of the Paradigms 7se speakers.
Later tried various speakers to see if I could get the sound I want thru only one pair.  Bought Monitor Audio Silver, Paradigm SE1s...ended up playing them together as individually, each lacked a bit.

While it was an eye sore to look at multiple speakers, I enjoyed the sound.  Today I run 1 set of speakers made by Focal.  Also have a set of Triangles.  Each does well on their own.

Very bad idea. First of all you will only get an additional 3 dB out of it. Worse, you will permanently damage whatever imaging you have. You can split up woofers that way because the wavelengths they operate at are very long but, you can not do that with midranges and tweeters. At shorter wavelengths the speakers start speaking in two voices instead of one. Tweeters have to be no farther than 1/2 inch apart to speak in one voice up to 20 kHz. When you move them apart like you plan on doing you are listening to a choir instead of a single voice and you smear the image and detail. 

mijostyn - You are absolutely correct in theory and the higher the frequency, the more it matters. My question is have you tried it? Sometimes the benefits outweigh the image issue. Just my 2 cents.

In the early 1970's, I ran stacked Advents (tweeters adjacent), powered by a Phase Linear 400. These speakers (and stacked was popular), were flat enough to not add too much of anything anywhere in their frequency range.   A decade later, I ran the Phase linear through stacked B&W DM 14's (Also tweeter adjacent) for many years (25?), including years that I also owned Acoustats or Maggies.  It works well with speakers that do not accentuate anything too  much, but it is a horrible thing to do with some speakers that do have noticeable peaks and valleys. 

you are talking about an old thing people used to do
 one example is Quad   many others also  Now we have   MTM  type speakers
  I would not go looking for any  unless you trip over a pair you like     

Fiesta, it is not theory. It is solid acoustic management. Yes, I have done it. I have two pair of Mirage speaker in my workshop. I got them in 1987 as stop gap speakers while I was waiting for my Apogee Divas to be made.  I tried stacking them one on top of the other with the top speakers upside down trying to get the tweeters as close together as possible. It went plenty loud. Low bass was missing and the imaging was vague. To get more midrange power a D'Appolito array is the best way to go if you have a strong enough tweeter. You could do a linear array of tweeters stacking small tweeters in a vertical line ala Pipe Dreams otherwise a single tweeter is always best which is why so many very expensive speakers do just that like Magico, Wilson and YG. This is my chief argument with Tekton speakers. Tweeter arrays like they use may get cheap tweeters to go loud but imaging goes right down the tubes. They might pay $2.50  for each one vs $300 to $400 for real tweeters. Real speaker designers are laughing their a---- off. You have already seen multiple Tekton buyers relating that they are very unhappy with the purchase. 

I'm certainly not saying multiple tweeters are the way to go, in fact I like both vertical and horizontal driver alignment best. Just said sometimes the benefit outweighs the imaging issue, like volume when I was still in college.

I have 2 pairs of HPM-900's  identical in every way, even the re-capped x-overs are the same. So I tried the side by side method, not a very good outcome, but when I tried the vertical stack I was impressed, kinda like 2 big PA stacks at a concert, sort of a wall of sound if you will.

Actually, ran 3 pairs of inexpensive Pioneer bookshelves...hung in my shop for something to drown out the saws, routers, sanders.  'Low rent concert stacks'....vertical, natch...

An improvement on what they were, until the guys blew one of them in a fit of enthusiasm.

Going to knock them down to 2 pairs and add a CV I’ve been gifted with as a ersatz sub. It’s about what it’s worth doing with, anyway. ;)

Pretty much the same for the ’neers....*L*

Rude experiments in cheap audio; not ’phile, just tunes.

Oh, Sony receiver and 5 CD changer.  An old SAE 2 band paraEQ to smooth it out a bit.  Plug one's cell into it, not too bad in a 40x24 steel building with 13' ceiling....

I have two pairs of Magnepan MG 1.7i speakers. Since they are about 4 ohms I hooked these up in series to make an easier load for the amp, The room is about 20'x27'. Side by side on the narrow end of the room sounded about the same as one pair hooked up in the way the manufacturer suggests. I moved the second pair about one-third of the way out from the original position facing in the same orientation as the original pair. The system sounds bigger. My wife agrees. I also have two Velodyne 12R BG subs in the system to handle the bottom octave. The subs are connected in two-channel mode. The Berning EA 230 sounds better at low volume than the McIntosh MC 2105. I am currently using the 2105 because it has more power. I do not listen at very high volumes. The real piano in the room sounds very similar to the pianos on many recordings if they are well recorded even with one pair of Magnepans.

I've played with multiple drivers a lot over the years and found single drivers for each frequency range, sound the clearest. Get them as close together as possible, in vertical alignment. As mijostyn pointed out, multiple tweeters smear and fracture the sound (not his words) mine. This is true for the midrange as well and also for the bass above say about 100Hz. or so. I modified my system to reduce the number of drivers to one per frequency range and found a significant improvement in clarity and detail without changing anything else. This was true whether running the drivers in parallel, series or a series-parallel combination. While high efficiency is important and desired for hi-fi audio, multiple drivers for the same frequency range is NOT the way to go. For those using multiple drivers to cover the same frequency range using ANY speaker manufacturers drivers, please try a single driver for the same frequency range. You will see a noticeable improvement in clarity. Use the same source material, preamp and power amp or amps for this test. For me, I use 3 stereo amps in a 3-way, 2-speaker stereo configuration. I use an analog active crossover at the amp inputs and no crossover, only straight copper wire from the drivers to the individual amplifier outputs. I have A/B'd the configuration of single drivers versus multiple drivers of the same manufacture, the results are conclusive for me. I will never go back to multiple drivers for the same frequency range for listening levels up to about 105dB SPL. I invite all on this forum to try it, and to make it more convincing, use an SPL meter. Best wishes in your pursuit of excellence!

Back in mid May I asked a question “Has Anyone Ever Run TWO Identical Pairs of Speakers ?” I was considering buying an extra pair of tower speakers identical to the ones I currently own.

Now, I can hear the sneers, derision and laughter from those who think I am batshit crazy to run DOUBLE Polk’s for my Left, Centre, and Right channels. All I can say is your inability to imagine something that is unconventional might be better instantly identifies you as someone with limited intellectual ability akin to the naysayers who were convinced Columbus was going to fall off the earth.

Some history: I was almost ready to drop $20,500 plus tax on a pair of Revel F328Be’s and their matching C426Be centre channel, but an opportunity arose for me to acquire an additional pair of mint Polk RT-2000p’s for only $450. So my wonderful wife says to me, “I don’t care if you buy the Revel’s, but since you (and I) like the Polk’s so much, would FOUR of them sound better than the Revel’s you are itching to buy? You’ve found a second pair for only $450, so you could experiment with adding a second pair before you buy the Revel’s. The cost of finding this out is only $450, and you might end up liking them better than the Revel’s.

Now, IMHO the Polk RT-2000p speakers are phenomenally good sounding speakers that never got reviewed by the "Audiophile Press." A single pair can create an unbelievably realistic sound stage (assuming a good recording) with imaging that stretches from wall-to-wall and depth that goes wayyyy back behind the speakers. Their only weakness is a tendency towards a somewhat loose and flabby bass, but this can easily be rectified with appropriate use of multiple subwoofers. I run five subwoofers, so realistic bass is a non-issue for me.

So, I heeded my wife’s advice, and my Revel dealer grew a long, sad face and he almost burst into tears when I related my findings to him.

What I experienced is that while a single pair of the F328Be’s handily outperform and ARE better than a single pair of the RT-2000p’s, a DOUBLE pair of the RT-2000p’s are astoundingly better than a single pair of F328Be’s. All genres of music, in my room went from what I thought was really good sound to astoundingly good sound at virtually any volume level. I was astounded at this remarkable increase in sound quality just by adding another pair of RT-2000p’s to my system.

And when I run the math, $20,500 vs. $450 plus another $100 for an extra Polk CS-400 centre channel, I am left with an extra $20 Grand to put back into my investments.

So, this is my experience. Yours could be different if you choose to try it. As for any comments anyone chooses to make, I am NOT INTERESTED in your comments on Polk speakers UNLESS you have ACTUALLY LISTENED to a pair of Polk RT-2000’s. Commenting on the sound of a speaker you have NEVER heard makes you the worst kind of audio drug store cowboy.

And I am not claiming my double Polk’s are the absolute best speaker system available, I’m simply saying that IMHO they outperformed some very expensive, well-regarded speakers I was almost ready to purchase. As always, YMMV 😎

I have two sets of speakers and the sound is superb. Key, IMHO, is that the speakers be of the same manufacturer as mine are Martin-Logan Motion 40's coupled with the 35XTi bookshelf speakers.  The 35's are on stands and are same height as 40's. I use two amplifiers. An NAD C 375BEE and a Parasound 2125 v2. 

There is no phase delay or issue with the sound that I have read others in this forum to fear. The reason I did it was because my basement listening room is large and two speakers with one amp did not fill the room out with sound. I also have a listening couch and a Bar in the same room, so I can point the speakers to where I want the sound to be most pleasing. It is my belief that if speaker manufacturers wanted to make the BEST speaker they ever made - without constraints - they would make two speakers that reacted as one. IMHO, the sound stage, imaging, clarity, etc. - everything sounds better when you have additional drivers and more power. 

Very bad idea. First of all you will only get an additional 3 dB out of it. Worse, you will permanently damage whatever imaging you have. You can split up woofers that way because the wavelengths they operate at are very long but, you can not do that with midranges and tweeters. At shorter wavelengths the speakers start speaking in two voices instead of one. Tweeters have to be no farther than 1/2 inch apart to speak in one voice up to 20 kHz. When you move them apart like you plan on doing you are listening to a choir instead of a single voice and you smear the image and detail.

Imaging is far better with four speakers than two. If your speakers are using identical technology (martin logan uses ribbon tweeters and both pair of speakers I use are of same impedence and sensitivity - 4 ohm and 92 db) then you are simply adding more speakers without disturbing the manufacturers musical aim/result. It is akin to setting up a for a concert with the need for more speakers and more power to push them because you have the space that will allow for it. You should be cautious about placing two differing  mfg amplifiers in the same system. I researched and found that the NAD 275BEE and the Parasound 2125 vs are pretty close to being identical in nature, especially in output. The Parasound is great for the 35XTi bookshelfs because it comes with a filter that I use to negate any frequency of 40Hz or lower from getting to the bookshelfs as the 35XTi's only go down to 50Hz. All of my speakers are bi-wired with AudioQuest 5 wire.

So, yes, mixing various brands of speakers together with different amps and wires and whatnot, will likely degrade the sound. But if you pay attention to specification detail and only mix like sounding manufacturers, the result will not have any of the negative issues others have brought up in this thread. 

Even with the same brand speakers, you are wrong. I agree with mijostyn on this one, and we don't agree on much. You REALLY need to A/B these configurations with a switch and dB meter. Trust me, you will not go back to multiple drivers spaced apart. It's so much clearer with only one set!

Even with the same brand speakers, you are wrong. I agree with mijostyn on this one, and we don't agree on much. You REALLY need to A/B these configurations with a switch and dB meter. Trust me, you will not go back to multiple drivers spaced apart. It's so much clearer with only one set!

There is zero issues with the sound being lucid. You can hear all the instruments and distinguish them from one another. There is no muddiness or thing that makes you go ..mmm.

Not sure why I would need a dB meter. Both amps are 150 Watts per channel and both amps have gain levels (both L & R) to match the sound level with other amps in your system. 

With that being said, my bookshelf speakers sit approximately 3 feet behind the tower speakers. The Parasound is a bit brighter than the NAD, and that was not an accident. The NAD amp on it's own is a laid back amp, but the Parasound, with the 35Xti's, provides liveliness and excitement. 

It is easy to listen to one pair, then the other pair, and then both pairs together. If you were like everyone else, it is a no-brainer. Four speakers is "clearly" better than two. 

The use of an SPL meter will make the comparison more accurate. Four speakers appear louder, but not as clear. Please try it.

I give up! Happy listening...

Point, counter point. Good point though.

It has been interesting to read the discussion my OP engendered.

Now, I’ve read the sneers, derision, alleged technical deficiencies why my plan would not work, and laughter from those who think I was bat-shit crazy to run DOUBLE Polk’s for my Left, Centre, and Right channels. 

But don’t forget that I was almost ready to drop $20,500 plus tax on a pair of Revel F328Be’s and their matching centre channel, but then fate intervened. An eBay opportunity arose for me to acquire an second pair of Polk RT-2000p’s (in mint condition) for only $450. 

IMHO Polk RT-2000’s are phenomenally good sounding speakers that never got reviewed by the "Audiophile Press," although Tony Cordesman gave them a rave review in the May 1998 issue of Audio magazine. Probably like most of you, I think some audio reviewers are more skilled at communicating what they hear than other reviewers. Whenever I’ve had a chance to actually listen to something Tony’s reviewed, I’ve generally found myself hearing everything he described in his written review. And I heard the same things he did when he reviewed the Polk RT-2000p speakers. Following are some of his comments from his review:

(1) The RT-2000p is able to sustain unusually good imaging and a sound stage that is not localized around the speakers.

(2) I found the RT-2000p to have a relatively “flat” overall timbre that was very smooth. Its treble was accurate rather than forgiving and seemed unusually free of minor irregularities. The tweeter exhibited none of the ringing or slight edge I’ve heard from some metal-dome tweeters. Upper octave dispersion was excellent and transparency and detail were excellent. In the high-end of the spectrum performance was consistent from low to super-loud levels.

(3) This dynamic consistency was also a strength of the RT-2000p’s midrange which was very neutral and uncolored . . . Far too many speakers, even those at higher prices, change character with signal level, altering their timbre and apparent speed; they begin to sound colored at signal levels of 90 dB SPL or higher. The RT-2000p’s midrange didn’t. What it did do is handle transients and rapid musical changes very well. Its speed was well-matched to the tweeter’s, allowing each driver to reinforce the other’s strength’s. I was surprised to discover how well this 6 1/2 inch driver performed at the lower limit of its range, where it was a lot smoother than many speakers that have 8- and 10-inch drivers. This lower-midrange performance gave the RT-2000p an unusually good ability [emphasis mine] to reproduce piano, lower strings and woodwinds, and male voice.

(4) The dispersion of the treble and the mid-range drivers was wide, without beaming, yet the sound was unusually free of room interaction effects. As with all speakers having really good transparency and dispersion, I had to experiment a bit with angling to get the best to get the best possible focus. 

(5) The RT-2000p’s soundstage and imaging did not blur at high sound levels; I could really crank up sonic warhorses like the Saint-Saëns “Organ” Symphony without losing soundstage size or detail. . . . the RT-2000p was excellent at reproducing large choral and full orchestral passages at high volume; this is one affordable speaker that lets you enjoy Beethoven’s Ninth and Mahler’s Eighth.

(6) . . . Loud is scarcely the goal in music, but natural is. And a speaker like the 2000p that can handle the most demanding passages in orchestral music, jazz, and rock is simply more fun and exciting than one that can’t.

(7) The 2000p’s performance made home theater a hell of a lot of fun. The Polk was one of the few affordable speakers that enabled me to hear the mist dramatic effects in Dolby Digital and DTS sound, particularly the most extreme passages in Jurassic Park.

(8) The Polk RT-2000p may not be a near-perfect speaker but for $1,900 a pair it does offer darn good value for the money. Its greatest strengths are its sound stage and deep bass and the exceptional dynamics and transparency of its treble and midrange. (I suspect many audiophiles will be surprised by just how good this speaker’s midrange and treble really are.)

Tony Cordesman summarized his review of the Polk RT-2000p’s by stating The Polk’s Greatest Strengths Are Its Soundstage, Deep Bass And Exceptional Dynamics. I couldn’t agree more.

And if you disagree with Tony’s review here’s another review where the reviewer heard ALMOST EVERYTHING Tony heard, and was even MORE ENTHUSIASTIC about the Polk’s than Tony was: https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/polk-rt2000i_e.html

And I’m NOT claiming these are the end all/be all in audio speakers. IMO a single pair of the Revel’s bests them. And I would suspect DOUBLED Revel’s to sound even better!

So, after picking up my this second pair of RT-2000p’s two weeks ago, I installed them in my listening room, picked out some music, and sat down to see if I’d wasted $450 and a two-day drive, or did I now have a better sounding system?

I was not expecting the dramatic improvements I was now hearing, particularly after reading some the negative comments posted in this thread. The biggest improvement I was hearing was a significant increase in what I would deem the “fullness” and “richness” of the midrange. My soundstage was even better than before, I heard even more front-to-back image depth, and there was an increase in dynamics. From my perspective it was a great increase for only a $450 investment.

Now the challenge was to go back to the Revel dealer and re-listen to the Revel’s without being unduly influenced by what my double Polk’s sounded like.

All I can definitely say is to my ears, a single pair of the F328Be’s are better than a single pair of the RT-2000p’s, but a DOUBLE pair of the RT-2000p’s are significantly better than a single pair of F328Be’s. When I run the math, $20,500 vs. $450 plus another $100 for an extra Polk CS-400 centre channel, it’s a no brained even a cave-man could figure out.

And in response to all the technical reasons this should not work and that I have destroyed the imaging and sound staging, my wife and I ONLY HEARD IMPROVEMENTS.

And I’ll let her make the final comment: We both cook. TWO of the smelliest ingredients we use when cooking Chinese or Korean or Japanese food are Fish Sauce and Shrimp Paste. By themselves, alone, the both smell AND taste terrible!. Combine them in a dish we’re cooking and absolute magic happens. It’s a case where the TWO are significantly better than ONE.

Unless you have ACTUALLY LISTENED to doubled RT-2000p’s, you’re just another Drug Store Audio Cowboy Clown and your thoughts carry less weight than the electrons you wasted posting your thoughts.

And as always, in this crazy hobby of ours, YMMV 😎

All I can definitely say is to my ears, a single pair of the F328Be’s are better than a single pair of the RT-2000p’s, but a DOUBLE pair of the RT-2000p’s are significantly better than a single pair of F328Be’s. When I run the math, $20,500 vs. $450 plus another $100 for an extra Polk CS-400 centre channel, it’s a no brained even a cave-man could figure out.

Stereo is defined as a sound directed from two or more speakers that seems to surround the listener and to come from more than one source; stereophonic sound. 

However, if you are a baby-boomer -  and I would say with fair certainty that many audiophile products are aimed at this demographic - then two speakers hooked up to one amplifier is, and has been, the status quo. 

Surround sound, believe it or not, was incorporated into the movie soundtrack "Tommy" in 1976. That was the beginning of what we all now know as five channel surround sound. However, as we all know, 5.1 did not make it to living rooms until mid-1990's at best. Personally, I did not have a 5.1 system until 2005.

My two amp; four speaker setup has nothing to do with 5.1 as I have a separate setup for TV watching. But many self described audiophiles use the two fronts for stereo if the amp allows for it. Quite plausible nowadays to not have two systems as the costs can be exorbitant. 

Speaker manufactures have generally stuck to the selling of two speakers due to the history of stereo, but by doing this, they do a disservice to those that have large listening rooms or simply have a want to fill a room with more sound than two speakers can provide. There is scant articles written about this for a reason, no manufacturer wants to sell you four speakers - they want to sell you two. Yes, there is an argument that relates to the loss of symmetry and the room acoustics become much more intertwined with the success of keeping the sound "as if it is coming from one source". But that is all part of the fun, IMHO. 

Every speaker manufacturer stair steps their product line. You generally have between 3-6 offerings, each stepped up in price. If a speaker manufacturer offers a specific technology (say ribbon tweeters) in their base product, and their top of the line speaker offers the same technology (most do), then it goes without saying that you may very well be better off buying four base speakers instead of two top of the line speakers from that manufacturer. In every case, you will spend less money to fill out sound in a large room. 

As it is, my two amplifiers each allow for 4 speaker hookup (4 speaker binder posts). Meaning, I could add four more speakers without adding anymore amplifiers. 8 speaker stereo - now that is unheard of!! - but one that the amplifier manufactures seem to have no issue with.

Thank you for this thread, vinyl_rules. Apparently, there are not many of us. I would never go back to two speakers and everyone who has listened along with me can attest to the sound of four vs. two in my system setup. If it sounds like a concert, and I am sitting front row, then my efforts are rewarded on a daily basis because I took a chance that no one else seems to understand. But you do! Good luck!

I have done this with (2) Sets of Infinity IRS Betas. I was meticulous in matching components. I ran them from a McIntosh C70 and a pair of Mc275 VI's powering the 4 mid/high panels, and (4) Bryston 7B ST mono blocks powering the Bass towers. Everything consistent.
This enabled me to A/B each set vs both with the dual outputs of the C70.

Here's my thoughts:
I too was looking to reproduce live music sound and impact levels. I think I achieved it.The sound was complementary and matched, but much fuller. It was an awesome wall of music. The imaging wasn't quite as sharp, but still VERY good. Both sets seemed to be performing as one.

Then, I got greedy and added a C1100, Mc 2301's, Legacy Wavelet, (3) Legacy I-V2 amps and an additional set of Beta Bass towers. I could not pull all this together consistently. Something was always off. Was endlessly tweaking instead of listening.

Ended up selling the extra bass towers and one set of Betas to fund the best front end and amplification I could gain from the funds for the single set.

Now, I'm down to a single set of speakers. Powered to the extreme and dialed in. Very happy and satisfied, but wouldn't trade the "journey" and won't ever knock someone for giving it a shot.

I've also owned the RT2000p's. (4) of them. I never ran them together in stereo, instead they were front/rear towers with their big center that I ran 5 channel stereo through a Denon 5700. Very nice and underrated speakers. I sold them to a gentleman in Raleigh, NC. So, if yours are from Raleigh, they may be mine. I've also run a double center channel with a Definitive set up I had that added so much more than the single.

I'm endlessly confused by those that have never had first hand experience with something that can offer such an absolute opinion on it. I would ask these people, have you had first hand experience to support your conclusion. If they don't, then they don't matter.

Hope this helps.

goodlistening64,

Thank you for the feedback The decision to try this only came about after the Polk’s popped up on eBay in early June. I have these particular Polk’s in my eBay watch list and usually the one’s that pop up are in poor condition and/or the BIN price or starting bid is more than I was willing to pay. This purchase was both an experiment to acquire a second set to run in a double front speaker combination, and if that didn’t work sonically, I would simply have an extra pair as parts and/or backup.

Now I have a problem: They sound so good that I guess I now need yet another pair for parts/backup! 😳😳😳

Now I have a problem: They sound so good that I guess I now need yet another pair for parts/backup!

Vinyl_rules - That is funny. Like me, I assume you are analytical and when a plan comes together, you worry about ensuring that the plan can thrive for a lifetime. Too good to lose! All your efforts will be lost without that crossover! lol :)

Similarly, when I built my bar in my basement some 10+ years ago, I found that the space between my cabinets - behind the bar - was perfect for a 37-inch TV. In 2010, 37-inch TV's were widely available. Over the scant years since then, I became worried that once my 37-inch kicked the bucket, I would not have a suitably-sized TV to fit in that space and so what should I do? Worry on a daily basis, or take the appropriate action to reduce my stress?

Of course, I went on craigslist and drove long distances to subsequently purchased 3 more 37-inch TV's. I think I have all of the great 1080p, 37-inch TV's from the 2010 era! - the Samsung red touch and the superior Panasonic TV's, of which I have two slightly different models. In any case, this led to alarm from my wife as I seemingly was on a mission to ensure I had cornered the 37-inch TV market many years later - after it's peak! She was mystified; I was feeling smug. 

Fast forward to a couple years ago when I realized that there were 40-inch TV's - that I believe they still make today - that would fit in that space due to the reduced bevel size around the TV, making a 40-inch real close to the size of bygone era 37-inch TV. That made me feel a bit ashamed that I did not see that coming, or that I have 3 TV's in storage that will likely never see that light of day.

That experience has pretty much stopped me from meddling in my own affairs. It provided me with a focus on enjoying what I put together and listening without a compelling voice in my head saying things like, "I wonder what it would sound like if...". I have found, for the time being, peace! lol :)

fiesta75, yes, it works great, in a disco.

Fiesta75, you are a loser and a bully. I thought you gave up? Just leave the guy alone. Get a life 

fiesta75 wrote
”To be honest, I've not heard ANY Polk's that sound good... 2¢ Good one mijostyn.”

Son, you are an adolescent troll in this discussion amongst the big boys,  AND you personify the definition of a Drug Store Audio Cowboy: One who criticizes and/or offers opinions on products they HAVE NEVER LISTENED to, and is perpetually standing outside the grown ups listening room enviously staring in.

As I previously stated, unless you have actually LISTENED to Polk RT-2000p’s, any thoughts you have regarding them carry less weight than the electrons you wasted posing your drivel here. Be gone, troll😩😩😩


 Report this

Re: Bose 901I’d like to nuance the Bose 901 evaluation in this thread - intrigued also by the ’super bose’ system described above by g_nakamoto .

I used 901 mk 2 in the 70s and 80s. Were they bad? Well, in some respects, not others. I eventually changed to conventional speakers later, including Dynaudio Consequence.

So what about the 901s? I found that:

1 They needed to be setup exactly right. The wall behind the speaker played a surprisingly large role - solid slightly uneven brick wall gave the best sound (e g better than a wood wall).

2 They sounded good on "big music". Turn on Pink Floyd, and my friends would be impressed, back in the 70s. Even more so, when I changed from a Revox A78 2 x 40 w amp to a Yamaha 2 x 120 w, resulting in better and beefier sound. "Beefy" is maybe the catchword here. Not pinpoint by any means. But quite impressive.

3 What eventually drove me nuts was the equalizer supplied with the 901 speakers. Yes, it flattened the frequency curve, but it just did not sound good. I came to hate it, and in the last years, I often just disconnected it, even if the frequency curve then became A-formed. I never found a good alternative equalizer. At that point, and listening to the gradually improving conventional designs among my audio friends, I sold them, and bought speakers resembling Proac 3.8, and later, the Dyn Consequence.


But this is a nuanced story of an interesting product which wasn’t "terrible" or "deeply flawed" even though it had a lot of problems.

We had a lot of fun, back then, I could bring the 901s to parties, plus a good amp, and they would certainly get people dancing.

It is not really surprising that the 901s sound very different depending on the wall behind them. They mainly play "through" this wall - through reflected sound. I did read the engineering concept texts made by Bose, for the innovative 901s - but even for me, it was a surprise to hear them - should we say - "grasp towards pinpoint" - optimally placed with a totally solid stone / cement back wall, and also, a wall with some uneven dispersion, like a brick wall where the bricks are maybe half an inch out from the cement. I discovered this, bringing them along to an event at the University of Oslo. I never heard them that good, at home. 

No affiliation to Bose - or anyone.

I had previously written Now I have a problem: They sound so good that I guess I now need yet another pair for parts/backup! 😳😳😳

As fate would have it, yet another pair of Polk RT-2000p’s fell into my lap for only $250, so now I really do have spares for parts, etc.

And doubled speakers are not a new concept. Advent, in particular, comes to mind. Double Advents were a popular and very good sounding system back in the 70’s and 80’s: You had to spend quite a bit more to get something that sounded substantially better than double Advents. And even the ultra-high-end dabbled in doubled speakers with the introduction of Mark Levinson’s massive HQD system.

More recently, Wharfedale is suggesting double Linton speakers (https://www.audioemporium.com/wharfedale-linton-iterations/) and one of the UK’s top reviewers I occasionally correspond with listens to doubled BBC LS5/3A’s at home. IMHO, doubling LS5/3A’s makes perfect sense as you get +3dB more volume, a big plus in generally smaller rooms in UK homes. And I can only imagine how much better a doubled pair of LS5/3A’s sound compared to a single pair of the already great LS5/3A’s. As always, YMMV 😎

vinyl_rules OP

I had one speaker upside down so the tweeters of both speakers were in the middle

Same, this is what you should do turn the top one upside down and with Blutac between them, stick it on top of the other one so all tweeter are as close as they can be, so now you have a large tower speaker. (nick named fliped stacking)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LJCyveJbuZA/UX-LSoq8TvI/AAAAAAAAASc/9ZzAxPs_OIo/s1600/100_7508.JPG

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/r84ynSuFt6g/maxresdefault.jpg

Cheers George