Joeb, Live music is a great reference, but it pretty much works best if that live music is un-amplified. You've undoubtedly heard the cliché: 'Live, acoustic instruments in a real space,' (paraphrased). There is a reason why live, un-amplified music is so popular for evaluating audio gear--at least in theory: it reduces the variables to a manageable level.
I agree that live, arena rock shows and even live blues at smaller clubs almost always sound worse than studio efforts. But I don't believe that's what most folks are talking about when they compare a given system to live music. Speaking for myself, I mean live acoustic jazz, orchestral, and chamber music.
I think the theory is that rock/pop involves electronic amplification in the studio plus the reinforcement of giant PA systems at a live show as part of the total sound result; therefore, there are too many unknown variables involved. This makes a given audio playback system pretty difficult to compare to anything else as a reference other than different audio gear.
Unknown variables also enter into the equation with acoustic music: hall, mic types and placement techniques, recording methods, mastering, etc., but those all exist in electronic-based music as well PLUS all the vagaries of the intervening electronics. You can usually readily recognize whether system X or Y comes closer compared to live acoustic music or not. This seems to be a bit harder with "originally amplified" music compared to a live show with yet more PA electronics and speakers.
Some people only listen to electronic-based or music. Totally cool. I like rock/blues/pop, too, and I use it to evaluate gear: macro dynamics, pace, bass speed, and 'slam.' But I don't stop there; the heart-of-the-matter evaluation, for me, has to be done with acoustic music compared to live as a base-line. |
Tvad, I think one eventually gets to the point in audio where happiness has more to do with what's going on inside your head than outside. |
After talking with other people, here's a ththought about Nautilus. First I get don't measure a spike at 80 and 10,000 hz as Mikez says. And the BBC dip at the presence region is measured anechoic and may make actual in-room response more flat. In any event, compared to Merlin VSM, instruments and vocals aren't as actile like they are right in room. So I don't know if the frequency response is the reason.
But B&W runs the midrange into breakup because of the high crossover frequency. As shown at the B&W site, the driver produces a broad band type of pink noise at breakup which may raise the noise floor of the speaker.
I thought it had to do with the compliance of Kevlar vs metal making the fuzzy sound. But it may be the breakup mode instead. So the weave of the driver reduces harmonic distortion to 1% or less but converts the distortion into "pink noise".
I was disappointed to hear PSB Image 4T's sound clearer than my B&W. Clearer but not as clean. Meaning there was more distortion. So maybe it's a tradeoff. Thiels are clear but Stereophile, for example, always seems to find some fault. Maybe poor design or maybe the clarity is a double edged sword.
I realize many people find B&W bright. This may be a setup thing. They are bright compared to Dynaudio, Silverline, and Reynaud. For the record, I have never had anyone ever complaint my Nautilus is bright. On good recordings, there are sort of bland. But they make poor recordings listenable and still invite me to listen into the music which is important to me. Auditioning other speakers dealers have complained about my bad recordings but they actually sound okay on B&W. But maybe the "mid-fi" sound could also be because of their lack of razor sharp clarity and/or distortion.
But I find they are less bright than other studio monitors, other than ATC, Alesis, and KRK. Talking with a recording engineer, he told me he'd rather have a bright speaker and eq. it down than try to brighten up a dark speaker. So for real studio monitors brightness is a better alternative. |
The only B&W speakers I have used are a little set of 550 (6.5 inch woofer in sealed box and titanium dome tweeter). These were when my living accomodations were greatly downsized. I now have an array if three MG 1.6, plus other stuff, and I like that setup.
However, I must say that those little boxes reproduce one thing, a violin, better than any speaker I have ever heard.
Possible reasons are (a) The baffle size is just about the same as a violin. (b) The Titanium tweeter has a slightly metalic sound, that resembles the violin's metal A and E strings (the two highest of four). |
original B/W 801 speakers with crossover mods sound simply wonderful..the later 802 was very good, too; but, that was 25 years ago.... |
FWIW, in response to the original poster's "I am getting tired of people buying for the name, not the sound." I'd just like to say both my wife and I used our ears (and to a certain extent my wife's aesthetic sense!) to decide both our surround sound speakers and hi-fi speakers.
She had never heard of any of the names on offer and I wasn't familair with the brands and in both instances, at our (mid-range) price point the result came out B&W. |
I think that Gryphon Speaker systems put Bower and Wllkens to shame as well as several others I have created myself using Seas, Scanspeak, Focal, Accuton, Resonant Engineering, Eton, even some HIVI Research drivers soo many better options in my opinion. |
what are you driving them with a receiver? |
Did you look to see how old this thread is? :-) |
I note my answer back in '03, and reiterate...no, you're not the only one who considers B&W mid-fi.
Actually, to me, it has several of the more annoying of colorations which disqualify them from being musically enjoyable, for my taste.
Larry |
IÂ’ve been pondering this thread for some years now, and have come to the conclusion that some B&W products are mid-fi, and some are hi-fi. |
02-08-11:
I note my answer back in '03, and reiterate...no, you're not the only one who considers B&W mid-fi.
Actually, to me, it has several of the more annoying of colorations which disqualify them from being musically enjoyable, for my taste - Lrsky
Funny you should mention this Larry, i was having a very similar conversation with others the other night and we all felt the same way about Genesis speakers, most of their models are heavily colored and dead sounding.
regards, |
Ive lost interest in my current B&W's and hated some of the new ones I have listened too. I think I am switching my current system out for ELAC 248's now. |
I've no experience with them, but today Peter Gabriel posted a photo on FB from the studio where he's mixing his new album. Featured prominently in the pic is a ginormous B&W speaker. |
Any speaker will sound like mid-fi if it's setup wrong. The better B&Ws, when setup right, are definitely hi-fi.
Whether or not they are the right speaker for "person X" is another topic. |
Hilarious but that is what the internet is for.
B&W spends more on research and development than alot of other companies do on total sales.
All 800 series products always have been and still are reference quality - studio quality speakers.
Don't like the idea that a company makes lower lines to fill niches?
Regardless of the model level all B&W speakers demand the best in electronics driving them in their respective price category. From folks I have talked to this has been the biggest reason they switched. Their gear was not up to par to get the most out of them.
If you choose to hook yours up to your kit and it doesnt crank your chain you should be happy that you could probably sell them for what you paid if you bought used based on the kind of company B&W is - their history, reputation and quality. |
Agree i wouldn't consider B&W mid-Fi ..... |
b&w is certainly a polarizing proposition--unlike, say, psb or vandersteen, which everyone seems to like, people either love b&w or think they're overpriced/overrated. to my skewed ears, the curious thing about b&w is that some of their lower-priced offerings often sound better than their totl nautilus stuff. i auditoned the 804s (which i think cost $9k) against much cheaper magnepans and theils and didn't think the b&ws were in the same sonic league. on the other hand, i thought their $1k 683/684s were a really nice, well-balanced floorstander and a great value. again, purely my opinion and no disrespect to b&w's many fans. |
I can see why many listeners would love them, and why others like myself would be less enthusiastic. It is all in the individual ears of the listener. I find them to sound kind of dry, but I do believe that they make a quality product, just not for me. |
Loomisjohnson,
Polarizing, yet not 'ugly' as some threads can become.
I find B&W's 'house sound', to be very colored, to the point of being annoying.
Having designed speakers, I know that it's not that hard to eliminate such colorations...I can't fathom why this supposedly august group of engineers would release their products with this very strong house sound.
Neutrality is good for Switzerland AND loudspeakers.
Best,
Larry |
Maybe because it sells products larry, something B&W does better than all others combined.
Regards, |
One local dealer sells B&W speakers, but won't bother to bring in Classe electronics, which, imo is bass-ackwards ! |
|
Listen to a B & W CM10 which sounds fantastic at a price below the 804D, 803D,802D and 800Ds which ALL sound great. I suspect your snobbishness has gotten the better of you. Oh and there are other hi fi bargains such as the Rega turntable, The OPPOS 103 and 103D CD/DVD players, Kimber Kable 4TC and 8TC but you would have to listen and the $$$ might no be enough for you, Cheers |
Ummm....these people are all dead now. |
LOLOLOLOLOL Sometimes Audiogon is unreadable, like when someone says that speaker A "blows" speaker B (this is actually happening in another thread, right now), as if the music from speaker A is so amazing that it causes speaker B to literally fly away in some kind of tornado event, and then sometimes you get a thread like this, spanning more than a decade, culminating with Jaxwired taking the cake for post of the week. |
Hmm. That would make you 1 of a kind! |
Well we are custom builders and just completed a line of speaker that we have branded the Intimidator-2, because replace his complete 7.1 speaker system with our 2-way bookshelf speaker. Don't know if they would be considered mid grade but I do compliment the Intimidator speaker model by E.C.S. Anyone interested I can send photos and specs. |
Some brands like B&W might be a victim of their own success to a certain extent in that many are sold at various price points and probably only a small percent are ever really set up properly to maximize their potential.
Hifi has always been this way to a certain extent. People spend a large % of budget on the "best" speakers they can afford and the rest suffers in comparison due to insufficient budget, lack of knowledge, low expectations, etc.
I've owned B&W, and while not my preferred, line I could probably do what is needed to be able to live with them if needed.
So teh line is NOT mid-fi, but the end results in many cases may end up that way for the reasons above. |
Layman has critiqued the B&W sound quite intensively within the last decade or so. |
