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
Blackie, Linn has never claimed that speakers are unimportant - or that they are the least important part of the chain. They just see how pointless it is to begin with a bad signal all the way from the source. "Start as you mean to finish", I think is how Ivor describes it. It's a matter of avoiding the magnification (amplification) of errors, that ultimately will be presented (or blurted out) by the loudspeaker.

With respect to Linn speakers sounding 'murky'. All I can say is I urge you to listen again - and make sure that the system is set up well. Try listening to some natural sounding recordings of chamber music. The Dorian label has some very good uncompressed unadulterated recordings that will reveal the true potentials of Linn's speakers. Then listen to something like Radioheads OK computer and you will be amazed at how different the same speaker can sound. Both recordings are great but are vastly different - and this difference is only appreciable on an accurate system. The more you listen the more you will discover that what you might be calling "murky" or "dark and closed in" (unless the setup is sloppy) is actually the absence of candy-coating in the treble range and the nature of that particular recording. With an open sounding recording I'm sure you would be astonished by the sense of openness and transparency, and with a flat compressed recording you will wonder what the engineers were thinking; but you will always be impressed by the speakers ability to communicate the music. Even with flat sounding recordings such as old jazz classics from the 40's or 50's, (or almost any of REM's recordings) the musical message will be get through as it should. I make these comments with reference to Keilidhs, Kabers, Ninkas, and Katans as these are the ones I have experience with and can vouch for.

Ps: Try listening to Ry Cooders 'Buena Vista Social Club' on a carefully set-up active Ninka or Keilidh system - I'd love to hear your impressions after this ;-)
I spent an afternoon with the current B&W 803's (with a Chord amp and then moved to a larger room with huge Pass Labs monos). I had the same sonic impression as some of the others who found them somewhat veiled (blanket over them--I think some have been saying). They also had to be really pushed by beefy amps to get up and convey much musical emotion. Boom and sizzle? I did not hear any. The 804's and 805's also did not sound that way. Maybe some other B&W's sound that way with bad electronics....

Set up matter a lot, though. Perhaps the 803's weren't set up to their optimum potential.

Other speakers offer much more interesting possibilities to me-and most of these are cheaper: Coincident, Totem, Pro Ac, Ruark, Joseph. Every time I hear models from these makers, they offer some tangible musical merit.

As for Linn, I agree that speakers whose designers play the "grab your attention" game usually sound pretty bad over the long haul. But if a listener needs to be coached to listen a certain way to appreciate a speaker's strengths, I become suspicious. I agree that subtly counts. I agree that the expected result is not always the real result--especially in Audio. But where Linn is concerned, I don't get it. Maybe that makes me a cretin. I don't hear anything worthy of their fame from the Linn setups I've heard. They sound like basic, good quality stuff afraid to make a mistake and in so doing, sound too polite. Too much work to enjoy.

Perhaps, I have yet to hear a properly setup Linn rig. Setup matters, oh yes,...to a certain extent. Perhaps I really am a cretin.
My 2 cents worth:
1. Older B&W's seemed to be "voiced" like what you would expect from a British loudspeaker. They seemed to have a rich, laid back midrange with an acceptable level of clarity and detail.
2. Newer B&W's use metal dome tweeters and kevelar midrange drivers which tend to have less warmth. They require more careful matching of electronics and cables to sound their best. However, the level of clarity and inner detailing has improved and lower priced B&W's seem to offer solid value for the money.
3. The sound of newer B&W's is very dependent on what they are fed with.
4. I own B&W DM602s2 speakers. I "downsized" to these from larger, more expensive speakers. With a solid state integrated amp, they sound like mid-fi. With budget tube separates, the sound is very different and is competitive with high end systems. I prefer the sound of my speakers with tubes vs the sound of Nautilus 804's I heard in a dealer showroom driven by a high power solid state receiver.
As perhaps the largest speaker manufacturer existant, it would make sense that some of B&W products would be marketed to the mid-fi(?) segment. That association does not necessarily bring down the quality of their more ambitious products. There is good argument to use them if you want to try and hear recordings as the recording engineer did while making the recording, as they have been used as recording monitors more than most other speakers. That said, except for one glorious occassion, I have never enjoyed B&W speakers. To each his own. B&W fans is it true, that B&W's like tubes but need solid state?
Joe b has what I feel to be a very accurate description of what B&W sound was and has become. Neubilder, I have heard many Linn systems (having sold them for 2 years, I should have!) in many different circumstances and I stand by my description in previous posts. Although placement is important, a properly designed speaker should not sound wrong unless it it is placed in that magic (or majik) window. Linn does make some fine products but they are not the be all end all in sound reproduction, they are just equipment designers like everyone else not audiogods! There is a cult of Linn (and Naim too) where for some that like their products get to a point where they feel that the companies can do no wrong and stop listening critically. All Linn/Naim, all the time! Even their shady speaker cables and interconnects. Did the audiogod whisper the secrets of sound in Ivor's ear and everything he makes is the final word? There are many others that design as good as or better products out there but one must remember to keep ones ears (and mind) open. Oh, and keep acoustic, unamplified music (which I play, Neubilder) as a reference. Thank you and good day.