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

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???

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.

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.

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.