Am I the only one who thinks B&W is mid-fi?

My 2 cents worth:
1. Older B&W's seemed to be "voiced" like what you would expect from a British loudspeaker. They seemed to have a rich, laid back midrange with an acceptable level of clarity and detail.
2. Newer B&W's use metal dome tweeters and kevelar midrange drivers which tend to have less warmth. They require more careful matching of electronics and cables to sound their best. However, the level of clarity and inner detailing has improved and lower priced B&W's seem to offer solid value for the money.
3. The sound of newer B&W's is very dependent on what they are fed with.
4. I own B&W DM602s2 speakers. I "downsized" to these from larger, more expensive speakers. With a solid state integrated amp, they sound like mid-fi. With budget tube separates, the sound is very different and is competitive with high end systems. I prefer the sound of my speakers with tubes vs the sound of Nautilus 804's I heard in a dealer showroom driven by a high power solid state receiver.

I spent an afternoon with the current B&W 803's (with a Chord amp and then moved to a larger room with huge Pass Labs monos). I had the same sonic impression as some of the others who found them somewhat veiled (blanket over them--I think some have been saying). They also had to be really pushed by beefy amps to get up and convey much musical emotion. Boom and sizzle? I did not hear any. The 804's and 805's also did not sound that way. Maybe some other B&W's sound that way with bad electronics....

Set up matter a lot, though. Perhaps the 803's weren't set up to their optimum potential.

Other speakers offer much more interesting possibilities to me-and most of these are cheaper: Coincident, Totem, Pro Ac, Ruark, Joseph. Every time I hear models from these makers, they offer some tangible musical merit.

As for Linn, I agree that speakers whose designers play the "grab your attention" game usually sound pretty bad over the long haul. But if a listener needs to be coached to listen a certain way to appreciate a speaker's strengths, I become suspicious. I agree that subtly counts. I agree that the expected result is not always the real result--especially in Audio. But where Linn is concerned, I don't get it. Maybe that makes me a cretin. I don't hear anything worthy of their fame from the Linn setups I've heard. They sound like basic, good quality stuff afraid to make a mistake and in so doing, sound too polite. Too much work to enjoy.

Perhaps, I have yet to hear a properly setup Linn rig. Setup matters, oh yes,...to a certain extent. Perhaps I really am a cretin.

Blackie, Linn has never claimed that speakers are unimportant - or that they are the least important part of the chain. They just see how pointless it is to begin with a bad signal all the way from the source. "Start as you mean to finish", I think is how Ivor describes it. It's a matter of avoiding the magnification (amplification) of errors, that ultimately will be presented (or blurted out) by the loudspeaker.

With respect to Linn speakers sounding 'murky'. All I can say is I urge you to listen again - and make sure that the system is set up well. Try listening to some natural sounding recordings of chamber music. The Dorian label has some very good uncompressed unadulterated recordings that will reveal the true potentials of Linn's speakers. Then listen to something like Radioheads OK computer and you will be amazed at how different the same speaker can sound. Both recordings are great but are vastly different - and this difference is only appreciable on an accurate system. The more you listen the more you will discover that what you might be calling "murky" or "dark and closed in" (unless the setup is sloppy) is actually the absence of candy-coating in the treble range and the nature of that particular recording. With an open sounding recording I'm sure you would be astonished by the sense of openness and transparency, and with a flat compressed recording you will wonder what the engineers were thinking; but you will always be impressed by the speakers ability to communicate the music. Even with flat sounding recordings such as old jazz classics from the 40's or 50's, (or almost any of REM's recordings) the musical message will be get through as it should. I make these comments with reference to Keilidhs, Kabers, Ninkas, and Katans as these are the ones I have experience with and can vouch for.

Ps: Try listening to Ry Cooders 'Buena Vista Social Club' on a carefully set-up active Ninka or Keilidh system - I'd love to hear your impressions after this ;-)

Preconceptions:

When someone listens to my Linn system for the first time they are seldom bolled over by what they hear. It took me a long time to get used to the sound of my system and to learn how to make it sound right(through speaker placement - not tweaks). At first I found myself missing that "hi-fi" sound. A tonal richness and sparkle from every recording. At this point I found myself constantly listening to other speakers for comparison - to try and figure out what I was missing. I began to realize it was my own preconceptions based on brief encounters I had had listening to speakers in hifi showrooms. I had memories of sounds so seductive, warm and rich that I built my expectaitions around these fleeting impressions. After more critical listening I soon discovered that this seduction was entirely superficial and was achieved at the expense of the music. Now when I listen to many other speakers I can hear straight through them. JM Labs, B&W, and Monitor Audio are the guiltiest parties with high credentials that I have had considerable experience with.

There are few speakers that sound as good to me as the Keilidhs for anywhere near the price. Where the Linn's show weakness it tends to be through errors of omission - not addition. For reference and comparison, speakers that to me sound better than the Keilidhs are: Joseph Audio's floorstander, Audio Physic Tempo3, Aerial Acoustics model 7, ProAc's response series, and Linn's higher level speakers.

Listening to my Keilidhs friends have noted how clear and accurate the sound is - even non-audiophiles have commented on the midrange quality, but they are seldom blown away by an all-enveloping soundstage, deep bass, or high frequency sparkle. Linn speakers are often refered to as being 'dry' or having a 'shut in' sound. I can see where these observations are coming from when comparing Linn speakers to many others. With certain recordings this can be the case - although the musical message is always conveyed. If the recording lacks depth and fidelity that is how it will sound. If the recording has presence and tonal richness that is how it will sound. I have done numerous comparisons and have always concluded that while having less dazzle the Linn's sound much more capable, accurate - and ulitimately more enjoyable and better able to convey the message of the music.

Reference: Live, un-amplified musical performance.

Most amplified concerts grossly exagerate certain frequencies, - to make matters worse, they then exagerate the levels of ALL frequencies. I often wonder if most sound guys are half deaf. Most concerts are FAR too loud to be clearly audible - the sounds get so hardened by excessive volume levels (relative to the size of the venue) that music often becomes a hard glaze of indistinguishable noise.

Circumstances: I have a pair Keilidhs run in bi-amped active mode, as well Kabers run passively. Proper set-up and room consideration is essential for either of these speakers to sound right. I have heard these speakers sound both astonishingly good and bad. I don't know how to describe the particulars of every installation and why the results are as they are, but as with any speaker, (and perhaps more so with the Linns), speakers set-up is critical. One example of a situation that may cause Keilidhs to sound slightly muffled or even boomy is if they are situated along the short wall of a room and if they lack sufficient lateral breathing room.
There is a local Linn dealer that just can not figure out how to get the Linns to sound right - It's unfortunate because many people end up buying JM Labs instead.

Tell me about my preconceptions. What is my reference? And tell me about the 'circumstances' under which I heard them. How were they set up? Because I am wondering how Blackie and I ended with the same conclusions under different, unkown-to-you 'circumstances' and 'preconceptions'.

btw Sorry all for the half-assed comparisons. Disregarding N’s comment, I should have deleted it.

Regarding the last few comments about Linn speakers, I urge you to give them a more careful listen and don't judge too quickly. Also, like any speaker if they are set up carelessly even the best speaker can sound disappointing. If you hear them under the right circumstances and put aside your preconceptions of what a speaker should sound like I think you be singing a different tune.

At least regarding the current, new speakers my experience has been the same as Blackie's. I like the Ninkas, but they are closed in, darker, less detailed and more colored than the CDM-7se. I also found that 7se was superior to the Paradigm 100s as they are free from that bright, brittle, pent-up sound i attribute to mid-fi. The 7se is boxy sounding speaker, though, which was the reason i did not buy a pair. Superior to the 7se, that i have heard, are Hales Revelations. The Hales are brighter than the 7se, but that area seems minor compared to how much better the Hales are overall.

Blackie, I have to admit that my experience is not with the latest series of either the Linns or B&W. So my take on these may have to be taken with a grain of salt. My findings were based on listening to both on a variety of amps in an audio shop listening room with only one pair of speakers in the room at at time. The characteristics I described seemed consistent across the board for each brand of speaker. I can't account for our differences in listening impressions. Perhaps other factors came into play. I don't think that Linn is the ultimate speaker maker either, but I had more listening comparisons with them than any other, vs the B&Ws, so that is why I used them as an example.

TWL, what Linn & B&W speakers are you referring to? In the past I have sold B&W and Linn speakers through a few generations, including the lastest ones, and find your descriptions the complete opposite of what I've found. The Linn speakers are murkier and more closed in sounding than any recent B&W speaker I've heard. The older Tukans were grainy on the top end and had thin bass, the newer Katans very warm and soft sounding, the Keilidhs were tubby in the bass and the newer Ninkas are just dark and closed in sounding. The B&Ws (the comparable priced CM & CDM series) were far more neutral with a more extended top end and more controlled in the bass. I am not anti-Linn either, I think they make some great components (I own a Linn CD player) I just feel that their speakers are not where their strength is. Linn's own philosophy is that speakers are the least important piece in the audio chain (with the source being #1) which I think is reflected in their offerings.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll put them on my list.

Cdc, this is a very subjective topic. I have not heard all of the speakers out there, so I am somewhat limited in the statements I can make. In direct comparison, in similar price ranges, to the B&W products, the Linn speaker line was far more open, dynamic, detailed, and natural. During my time at the audio store, I owned Linn speakers and was very happy with them. I had many opportunities to A/B them against alot of competition such as ProAc, Dahlquist, Quad, B&W, Boston Acoustics, ADS, B&O, etc., both mid-fi and high end stuff. While all had their good and bad points, the Linns did everything better in combination than the rest. Of course, nothing(or very little) matches the Quads for midrange at lower volumes. I don't use Linn speakers now, because I have moved to single-driver speakers. I think alot of the advantage that the Linns had over the B&Ws is the Scanspeak tweeter that Linn uses. Very open and detailed. This advantage of the Linns was true at all price points in comparison to the B&Ws. I am sure that many other high end speakers are also capable of exceeding B&W, but I have less experience with them so I'll let someone else talk about that. But, don't get me wrong, I don't think B&Ws are bad speakers. You can just get better for similar money. And if your system is really bright and bass weak, then the B&W might work out by adding a little warmth and smoothing the edges. To each his own.

CDC:
I just heard the Totem Wind. They retrieved more info off the ESQ's Schubert's 14th String Quartet CD, then any other speaker I have heard including my beloved Acoustat 2+2. The soundstage and imaging where right up there with Avalon.
A slight veil and a little dynamic compression, but much better than I expected from such a small box speaker. Hey, they even did a credible job on Nirvana's Teen Spirit. A little pricey for $6500.00, but the fit and finish were first rate. Also, I actually liked the NAD silver series
amp/preamp/cd combo they were played with.

Highly recommended from someone who usually hates box speakers!!!

Twl, so what is better than B&W? I agreed about the "blanket over the speaker veiling". What speakers can you recommend that are clearer but still play music, not just notes?
I'm always searching, thanks for the help.

Yes, I understood that you meant midfi-ish. To interpret otherwise, and to think that someone offering an opinion respectfully on a "thing" somehow implies a personal attack on "you" because you possess that thing, is, well, a symptom of bias in interpretation beyong this place (say, on a couch with a psychologist might be more appropriate). Also, to say that its just another opinion and all are entitled to an opinion does not imply that some opinions aren't more true than others. Admittedly, context is important (listening experience and system).

Does anyone know anyone with a top flight tube-gear'd NOS'd system that uses B&W as their preferred reference? The predominant answer might to tell you something about the relative musicality of the B&W line versus others. If you like SS and listen to a variety of music, but tend towards classical, and don't want to keep looking on and on, want to retain reasonable resale and like the comfort of a historically proven brand, then B&W should be listened to - and maybe kept. If you are sensitive to mid to upper band lack of air (enveloping quality not volume, progressively greater as you move down the line) then you may want to look elsewhere. Caveat: I have not heard the Nautilus in sufficient number of systems to comfortably put forth an opinion there.

I used to work at an audio shop that sold B&W speakers. They weren't the best and they weren't the worst. In my opinion, they are better than mid-fi, but nowhere near the best. The main problems are tubby bass and blanket-over- the-speaker veiling, obscuring detail. Build quality is superior in all respects, and appearance is very nice. You could do alot worse. But on a sonic scale, they are about a 6 or 7 at best.

Just some remarks.... many here say they owned a couple B&W speakers that they didn't like. Why bought them in the first place? Second: I don't feel the number of posts on this board by a single person is of any importance. Third: buying speakers is so easy: listen, and if you'll like them, buy them. And last: BMW means Bayerische Motor Werke, where B&W stands short for Bowers & Wilkins. I don't think B&W tried to copy BMW...

As a very happy owner of N 805's I would like to add a few thoughts to this discussion. B&W speakers have always evoked emotional responses from people who consider themselves "audiophiles". For better or worse everyone seems to have an opinion regarding this brand.

They are and always have been very very fussy concerning the electronics that drive them. Cables too are critical.
I believe that most of their models compete with anything out on the market provided they are driven properly.

Mid-Fi, give me a break!!!

I'm with John, My B&W 602's have boomy bass , muddy mids, and absolutly no sparkle to the treble. Seas woofers and ribbons in kits easily blow away any B&W's and most commercials. Audio Aero is superior digital, Jadis is superior tube. Electrocompaniet is superior solid state...same in drivers you've got superior and the so-so. Just opinion nothing more.

[its all good ] NOT A BIG FAN BUT THEY MAKE OK SPEAKERS FOR THE CASH I HAVE OWNED A FEW PAIRS BUT WILL PROBLY NEVER BUY ANOTHER PAIR YOU CAN GET BETTER SOUND ELSE WHERE

I have B&W 802 Matrix III's and they don't have "boom & sizzle" at all. The bass is very tight and defined, and the high end is not bright at all; that is, with high quality recordings. You do hear all the flaws with lesser recordings, and they aren't pretty. But I found that to be the case even with Vandersteens I owned before.

Garbage in ---- Garbage out. You must be sure your whole SYSTEM is good. Speakers are like chameleons - they change their sound drastically with different equipment.

Lots of responses to the B&W question. I own the 803s and have not compared them to that many other speakers. They do require specific equipment to make them sound magical and I do not mean big $$$. First a good high current amp is necessary, second, silver interconnects and cables open them up quite a bit. All of the other speakers everyone mentioned are also great but it all comes down to personal preference, etc. My 2 cents worth.

The original premise of this discussion was that the instigator (that sounds harsh doesn't it !) proposed that s/he thinks B&W is mid-fi. Through violent agreement I think we can summize that some of their products may be mid-fi while others certainly are not. The fact that you may be able to get better price/sound-quality from competing manufacturers and that BMW was founded before B&W are irrelevant to the original discussion point. That being said isn't the internet and (some) discussion boards entertaining ?

B&W are, and IMHO, will always be a great speaker company. How many companies went under? B&W are still around just by making speakers. The N802 which I happen to own, has to be about three feet from the wall, (many people just don’t have that much room to spare), and toed in correctly in order to sound their best. This takes many days, weeks even, to get them to sound properly. The room has to be taken into consideration as well, such as, furniture, carpet, drapes or curtains, not to mention interconnects, components etc… These speakers aren’t for everyone, most individuals prefer to plug their speakers in and listen right away. Most will not, and can not match components together properly. Others just can’t afford certain things hence the bashing. The sizzle and honk goes away in time when broken in, this also, takes a while. These speakers have to be driven with adequate power. If you starve them they sound horrible. If you have enough juice under the hood of the amp they sound heavenly, even at low volumes, no honk, no sizzle, just musical bliss. Are there other companies that make great speakers as well, absolutely. Choose what you will, but I’ll keep my N802s.

its all about system matching and placement. i had the n805's. build quality was great. hard as hell to setup and make them sound correct. i let a friend use them for about 6 months and he was much more successful than i. very revealing of components. i thought they were punchy in the mid bass. they would play rock great. dynamics were excellent. musical ??? maybe not like my decapos but some of the things that the b&w's did i miss. some i dont. they need a "lot" of clean power before they come alive. great resale value. all and all i think a very fine speaker. not a great speaker just a nice one.

I should qualify some of my statements - I don't think B&W is mainstream mass-fi stuff like Bose or Polk. In terms of quality I think it is far better. But I just don't think they are purists, even in their top-flight range. I tried to like B&W - as mentioned earlier I brought the 805's home when the new series came out a couple of years ago. What an overpriced speaker the 805 is!

My main point here, and if I am correct the point of this thread, is that there are so many other speakers out there that are overlooked because too many people don't look past the name and the marketing - and actually listen to some of the better sounding better valued stuff out there. Many quality companies are struggling because too many people have the herd mentality and are brainwashed by mid-fi boom and tizz sound. Successful companies got that way because their products are proven is bu%@s*it! Just look at the companies that sell 95% of the electronics out there. Big 'reliable' names that produce mass produced crap.

Sadly, some companies that do make, or started out making good stuff, are forced to alter their sound in order to appeal to mainstream tastes or they'll go under.

To be fair once again - B&W is not bad, but I urge you to listen to some of the others, give them a good chance so that you can get used to the different type of sound before you draw conclusions, and eventually you will hear what you have been missing.

I wanted to like the N803 when I went speaker shopping. I still think it is one of the best looking speaker lines. But...I found the Thiel CS6s so much more detailed and accurate with command of the low-end, it was a no-brainer for me.

I would not call B&W mid-fi. I just didn't like the sound. At all.

BMW was established in 1916 and started making cars after they stopped making aeroplanes during WWII. However the name was well established and prestigious long before that, perhaps not in the USA - but certainly in Britain, and long before 1966. Nevertheless I admit it may just be coincidence and my little jab and may not have any real merit. But the fact that BMW 'America' was established in 1975 has no bearing on matters - as neither is an American company. (it just shows how long it took Americans to realize how bad their own cars were.)

The speaker manufacturers I mentioned are not small fledgling companies - they are well established hi-quality high-end companies who's speakers put most of B&W's to shame - for the money. They probably put a greater proportion of their revenues into r&d than B&W. And because they do not waste resources on designing umpteen speakers to fit avery niche in the market, they can put their resources into designing the best speakers possible. Period. B&W's strategy is to design speakers to 'sell right' - not to sound good. Of course B&W's top speakers are good. Pioneer could make good stuff if they wanted to - and they do - it just costs a fortune and is poor value - and they probably just contract the work out to companies like Linn anyhow (that is what Leouwe does in Germany).

Speaking of Linn, I would say they are the rare company that makes some of the best products available with a strong underlying ethic of sound engineering, simplicity, functionality, beauty, and practicality - AND they have a marketing appeal that is the envy of the industry - largely due to Ivor's personality. But the underlying philosophy of everything they do involves the reproduction of best possible sound. Their products stand up to the test. They have to - you can't get away with being as obnoxious as they are if your goods don't deliver. Just because they are not in the esoteric audio camp - in that they are willing to integrate comfort, convenience and user interface into their designs - doesn't mean they thay are not as focused on sound quality as some of the more dogmatic high-end companies - nor does it mean they are a sell out like Bose or Kakamichi.

The premise that B&W speakers are mid-fi misrepresents the entire range that B&W present to the market. The 800 series speakers are NOT, IMHO, mid-fi. When one works down the ranges then there's a fuzzy line between hi-fi and mid-fi depending on ones definition of mid-fi. But consumers only buy speakers once (with noteable exception of folks in this arena). If you're going to buy one pair of speakers you're less likely to take a risk with less established companies and hence are directed to more main-stream companies with a wider product offering when one can make a more informed price/performance/quality/cost of ownership decision. I don't doubt that there are better deals (especially if the only decision point is sound quality) available out there from manufacturers who don't have the overhead of an establlished R&D department of the caliber of B&W's or who are entering into the market (hi-fi magazines make this easy by giving glowing reviews to new companies while appearing a little more critical of established marks - but that's a different topic).

Incidentally B&W was founded in 1966 so any coincidence of naming similarities the BMW is erroneus - BMW America was founded in 1975. Did BMW want to leverage B&W's name ?

ps. Introducing Linn into the equation of hi-fi is likely to garner some flames in this discussion - they're almost as controversial as Bose (who have the best marketing in the 'hi-fi' market) on these boards. Incidentally I have a Linn deck and B&W speakers. My wife wants a Bose radio.

Why do people need to bash certain brands?
Mikez gave several good reasons in his innitial post for this thread. Too many earnest companies that make great products never fly because mass-fi brands like B&W are so good at convincing the masses that they are buying 'the best'. Most consumers are not savvy enough to consider better less well-known options - instead they are further swindled into dabbling in expensive esoteric cables once the boom and tizz starts to take it's toll.

Where I currently live there are only a couple of hi-fi retailers due to the small market. One of the shops was considering bringing in a new brand - they were considering JM labs, B&W, and Monitor Audio,- all overhyped brands that first and foremost aim to sell LOTS of speakers - rather than accurate musical speakers. I suggested that they look into brands like Castle, Joseph audio, Linn, Audio Physic, Aerial acoustics, Harbeth, Nova Audio, Rega, Dali, Royd, Wilson Benesch, Vandersteen, Totem, ...to name a few, but to no avail - people don't know these brands and they don't sell themselves. If people don't educate themselves and start to discern the mass-fi from the hi-fi, Mikez is right, we won't be able to find any decent sounding stuff in the future.

The brands mentioned above represent a wide range of prices - I've lived with several of them and have had considerable experience with all of these (friends, extended demos etc). I've also listened to many B&W speakers, from the bottom of the line all the way up to the Nautilus 805 and 802. (I actually considered buying a pair until I gave them a good listen) B&W's basic approach is wrong - they are not aiming for a natural, rythmic, musical presentation -- these are qualities that don't immediately impress but take time to appreciate and therefore are not an effective marketing approach (given the sad state of consumer knowledge and sophistication). What sells is impressive etched detail, sibilant treble, and excessive bass and warmth - and that is what B&W delivers - better than the competition -(Polk, Boston Acoustics, Bose, Klipsch at one end - and JM Labs and Monitor Audio at the other).

There are many other speakers that are both less expensive and superior to B&W's - at any point in B&W's extensive product range (a huge product range itself is a tell-tale sign of a market oriented product). I don't know why anyone would even consider Bose, er I mean B&W. (Isn't it cheesy enough that they use a moniker that is a blatant homophone of BMW - even if B&W actually does stand for something. (Bowers and Wilkins ?)

B&W 800 series speakers are good - but a pair of Joseph Audio's - at half the price, would STOMP them. My Castle Durhams at 900$ were a better sounding speaker than the 805 - at a fraction of the price. The Durhams are not as efficient and don't have the power handling abilities, but they are far more musical and involving. - Start talking Aerial Acoustics or Linn and there's no contest.

ohlala...you've stated the answer to your question in the last part of your post

The Bose is even more wife friendly. Since you like them better than B&W you should buy them.

if we are searching for the BEST SOUND for our dollar...then you can skip B&W...the hi-fidelity imaging is not there...i own the 602's and have heard the entire line...they have problems in the highs the mids and the lower frequencies...they make a great "family-wife" speaker..nice cabinet...however if the choice was between B&W and the top of the line BOSE...

Is the consensous among the 'mid-fi' camp that the Nautilus line sounds worse than the Matrix, that other manufacturers that are now making better speakers, or that B&W was never particularly good?

Keymetric, we agree with you. We own the Nautilus 805's
with REL stadium III for the bottom end. We love what
we hear. The speakers disappear. The sound stage is
huge. We get every bit of detail which the amplifier
is capable of delivering.

"They must have done something right in order to stay afloat all these years."

Jayt...I guess we could make the same argument about Bose too, right? *They've* been "afloat" for a long time. Perhaps we've just never heard them setup with the right electronics, in the right environment, with the optimal barometric pressure....

I'm picking up a pair of 901s right away!! I'm sure that they'll be great...one day...when I find that perfect synergy. What a glorious day that will be.

Speakers are very room sensitive. That's why even if you use exactly the same set up as your other friend's, they can either sound better or worse in your room. Manufucaturers/designers can fool some people some times ( when they bring out a new product for marketing reasons ) but they cannot fool all the people all the times. Good or bad, B & W has been around many many years. They must have done something right in order to stay afloat all these years. It's one thing to condemn a line of speakers, but it's also another for you to reflect how well can you put together an audio system with good synergy and good environment. Spend sometime to understand your environment and learn how to maximize it, you'll be surprised how much better the same speaker can sound and how unfair you've been by saying all these negative things about certain line of speakers until now !
Take this as an advice, not criticism. Good luck.

I think B&W has gone downhill in their crossover design in the current line. This is partially because they changed the way the make them. In many cases they mass produce them on separate circuit boards and then plug them in. They use to make them indivdually in each speaker. This helps production in larger quantities; but it looses something in changing how they traditionally designed them. They are a victim of their own success I guess.

One of my systems has a pair of the original CDM-1. It has a first-order crossover not found in the CDM-1SE or CDM-1NT. I have heard the newer versions and they are not quite as musical. They probably work better for HT though. The original CDM-1 was the one that won all the audio awards including Loudspeaker of the year in Europe, but they don't tell you that in their marketing materials; they make it sound like the current models are award winning.

I think B&W are great speakers. But I can't imagine owning one, for the same reason I won't ever own a Sony television. Both are high quality products, but I think both of these products are saturated with a "technicolor" effect. Neither of these components are very natural in their presentation of sources. This is coming from someone who loves Brit speakers such as KEFs and Tannoys.

Blackie,

The Tannoy Definition and B&W Nautilus series have a similar sound, that sound that belies thier studio monitor heritage. However the Tannoy Definitions are superior in almost every way. The Tannoy's have higher sensitiviy, can be driven by tube amps, much better in low-level detail retrieval, and they don't have the tizzy highs of the B&W Nautilus line.

Certainly not high-end to my ears (except for the original Nautilus Prestige). In my opinion the Nautilus line is tonally impressive (except for the forward, metally sounding tweeters) but not very musical/coherent, soundstaging is below average and way overpriced. Sounds like they're designed on a computer to be tonally correct, but they lack a heart and magic like JM Reynaud for instance.

It worked. We all learned something here didn't we? I Borrowed a pair of N 805's and paired them with a dynaco 80 amp, an audioresearch pre-amp, andRega cd player. It sounded nice, not my cup of tea, but I could have lived with them. We also learned that B&W and Levenson don't work well together. And that's what it is all about, us growing as audiophiles.

B&W is a big speaker company because of what sells below the Nautilus line (CDM down to the 300 series). Being a British speaker, they tend to sound good with most amps with a British heritage including Creek, Arcam, Cambridge Audio, Musical Fidelity, NAD, and Rotel. This short list is basically all of the major players in budget and mid-fi audiophile gear. It is no wonder B&W sells so many units. They also have great resell value and sell quick when it is time to upgrade; usually 66% to 75% of list. If you buy a used pair you can most likely get most of your money back.

What speakers have people picked over the B&Ws? I've done alot of auditioning to very good speakers (Dynaudio, Revel, Audio Physic, Sonus Faber, etc) before choosing the N803s. The B&Ws had the most natural sound to my ears but I will have to second (or third) the fact that they have a long break in time and that they are very critical of the electronics put in front of them. What speakers do you find to be consistantly a better value? From the $450/pr DM601 to the $11K/pr N801 I've found them to be very strong in their respective price points.

I agree. IMHO B&W sound is not very special at all and overpriced. Note I listen almost exclusively to classical music supposedly the domain of the of B&W.

I have to admit that I tend to agree with Mikez. Let me explain. I bought my current system almost 5 years ago. The bug started when I auditioned B&W804 Matrix run with Classe/CAL labs elecrtronics at local high-end shop here in LA. The system sounded real good to me compared to my then Yamaha and Cerwin Wega 'system'. I wanted more bass so I listened to 801 matrix. Even better I thought. I asked salesman to show me some more. And he let me listened to Dunlavy V's run all Classe electronics (higher product line) and I thought ' B&W sounds Hifi' . I bought the V's and Classe electronics. Then the Nautilus series came. I frequent the shop often and Auditioned the 802N's and 801's and 805's with Classe and Rotel Electronics, with Rel storm subwoofers( at different instances) and inspite of myself, I blurted out ' But Mark, this sounds like Hi-fi!!, Could you switch-in the IVA'S With every thing remaining same?" Presto!, The 'hi-end' sound was back. Now I do believe in Synergy and that could be the reason. Remember my auditioning took place in last 5 years in diffrent combinations, different rooms, after gaining lot of listening self training. This is just my opinion!. And is not meant to bash B&W speakers. Honest!( I assure you I am not biased, since I like other brand of speakers and electronics that I have successfully auditioned)

Models? What did you listen to? Break-in & electronics make a huge difference. I have no idea what models you listened to, but, I can tell you that I have heard N800's sound good and bad depending upon the electronics, amount of break-in time, and setup. The Nautilus line seems to need at least 200 hours of break-in and the more current the merrier.

My own experience is that Wattage is not as important as the ability to deliver large amounts of current. The change in my system from a 125 W/per channel to a 200 W/per channel had more to do with the new amp's ability to deliver current and it made a great difference. I probably never use more than 10 Watts continuous power at any time, but, you CAN hear the difference with the higher current amp. No compression in the bass or limits in the high-end.

Using Levinson electronics may not be optimal with the Nautilus line and is no guarantee that they were driven correctly. Why not condemn the electronics instead of the speakers? Or, perhaps better yet, condemn the person who setup the system as not understanding the requirements of the speakers - as being terminally "mid-fi"?

Lastly, the difference between speaker sound with my B&W N802's from day one until now is unbelievable. The "honk" & "sizzle" is gone, bass response is greatly improved and the speakers make a large sound stage. B&W will tell you that setup is also important and you must play with the toe-in, etc.

It's easy to setup speakers incorrectly, drive them incorrectly and then blame the speakers. It's a chain and if there is a weak link or incorrect equipment choice, unfortunately, the B&W's will show you that.

The only thing that i will contribute to this "fiasco" is that i agree with a previous comment. That comment is that i think that the B&W "house sound" has changed quite noticeably over the years. Whether or not someone likes their earlier work ( which has gone through various stages ) or their more recent or current product line is strictly a matter of personal taste and system synergy.

Tis the beauty of having our own personal music system: we are all allowed to listen to whatever suits us. Sean
>

There's a lot of great gear out there, I would bet that at any price point one could find a majority of folks prefering another brand to any speaker one might name. Room, associated equipment, and musical preference are all bigger factors than the last few drabs of musical perfection. If you dig your B&W's or your JBL's, God bless you and screw the labels.

I am intersted in knowing what Mikez finds better than B&W at the vaious price points.

I have owned the speakers in the lower B&W ranges. I bought them after comparing them to true mid-fis like Paradigm and Klipsch. I can see why someone may like the B&W as their sound is distinctive and they manufacture on a different level than most other hi-fi brands, but i have found them to be very competitive. To me, they are less distorted and more open sounding than the majority of speakers in that range.

I find B&W a little less competitive is in the upper leagues. I like the 800 series, but Thiel and others are a tough bunch.

I personally don't care for B&W sound either. I have compared them extensively with several others in an unsuccessful attempt to see what all the clamor is about with the B&W sound. In a direct A/B comparison, the Thiel 2.3's sounded much better (to my ears) than the N802's. To each their own though, right???