Has Anyone Ever Run TWO Identical Pairs of Speakers ?


I’m considering buying an extra pair of tower speakers identical to the ones I currently own. I would wire them as 4 ohm speakers powered by about 250wpc,

Each set of two speakers would be placed next to each other so there would be 2 identical left channel speakers and 2 identical right channel speakers, with each pair separated by about 1/2.” 
My listening chair chair can be as close as 8’ from the “center” of the speakers to as far back as 20’ from the “center” of the speakers.

And the actual distance between these two seperate pairs of speakers could range from 6’ from each pair to as much as 18’ for each pair. I would of course spend a great deal of time ‘dialing” them in for the best sound.

Has anyone ever tried this, and what were your results?

I’d appreciate your collective informed thoughts.




128x128vinyl_rules
Post removed 
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
Post removed 
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.