2. speakers
  3. 1017107530

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

I know that title sounds pretencious. By all means, everyones taste is different and I can grasp that. However, I find B&W loudspeakers to sound extremely Mid-fi ish, designed with sort of a boom and sizzle quality making it not much better than retail quality brands. At price point there is always something better than it, something musical, where the goals of preserving the naturalness and tonal balance of sound is understood. I am getting tired of people buying for the name, not the sound. I find it is letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In these times of dying 2 channel, and the ability to buy a complete stereo/home theater at your local blockbuster, all of the brands that should make it don't. Most Hi-fi starts with a retail system and with that type of over-processed, boom and sizzle sound (Boom meaning a spike at 80Hz and sizzle meaning a spike at 10,000Hz). That gives these rising enthuists a false impression of what hi-fi is about. Thus, the people who cater to that falseified sound, those who design audio, forgetting the passion involved with listening, putting aside all love for music just to put a nickle in the pig...Well are doing a good job. Honestly, it is just wrong. Thanks for the read...I feel better. Prehaps I just needed to vent, but I doubt it. Music is a passion of mine, and I don't want to have to battle in 20 yrs to get equipment that sounds like music. Any comments?
mikez
twl
3,251 posts
 
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.
shubertmaniac
350 posts
 
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!!!
cdc
1,821 posts
 
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll put them on my list.
blackie
221 posts
 
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.
twl
3,251 posts
 
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.
More to discover