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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.