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

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.

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.

Blackie, I can see from my last post how you might think me to be religiously pro-Linn but that's not really the case. I like the integrity of a one brand system both in terms of sound and synergy as well as visual coherance. I don't want boxes of all shapes standing all over the place. I have settled on Linn not because I think that it is the holy grail of hifi, but because I appreciate their solid sensible approach. Their stuff is well designed, simple, elegant, and it meets high standards. Most importantly, (and this is where their loyal following serves them well - particularily in light of all the bad reviews their stubborn approach has garnerered them over the years), they have not caved to homogenized mainstream standards (or lack thereof) of sound reproduction.

But Linn are by no means the only ones whom I would say 'get it'. I'm sure there are many. The few that I have heard I have mentioned in my posts above.

Kalan mentions several speakers above, and at least with respect to the ones I have heard, I agree with him. I must add that the Joseph floorstander, though slightly better in its bass resolution and range, sounds A LOT like the Keilidh. Despite the Joseph's retail being almost twice that of the Keilidh's, I think it is still excellent value and a great speaker. That would make the Keilidh in my opinion, one of the great hifi bargains out there. (since it has been discontinued the Keilidh can be had for roughly 25% of the new price of the Joseph)

As for Keilidh listening coaching classes? You don't need any. Just listen to them for awhile, a few weeks, months, (without too much concentration on the sound because that takes all the enjoyment out of listening to the music) and suddenly you will only be satisfied listening to the likes of Aerial, Audio-Physic, Joseph, Castle, Ruark, Rega,.. or Linn.

The downside is you you may be caught mumbling to yourself, "if ait-taint Scottish, aits Crrap!