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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.