2. speakers
  3. 1020834751

Am I going insane?

I am not what most of you would call an audiophile, although I do appreciate a nice soundstage. I figured this was a good place to ask my questions. First I want to give you my situation though...

Last year I bought the Sony 40"XBR. I love it. Now it's time to purchase a very modest sound system for HT and 2channel. I don't have ANY equipment yet. I do know that the speakers are the first, most important piece to aquire.

So, I was at a dealer last week. I was listening to the B&W CDM NT1 series in both 5.1 and 2 channel. The sound was clear and I was pretty impressed. This is the B&W series (at least retail) that is in my price range.
Then, the fella helping me switched to the Boston Acoustics VR-M60s, with the matching center and surrounds. I thought that the BAs sounded better...much better...more free, less boxy. Both sets were being played from a Yamaha reciever (not hifi to be sure, but I can't afford good components yet). AM I NUTS? Would seperates make this setup sound better? The room was setup nicely, at least as far as my limited experience can tell.

Since then I have listened to a PSB setup, but wasn't as impressed. I also teased myself with a BEAUFIFUL Sonus Faber setup that I might be albe to afford in about 1000 years. I am looking for other options, but am limited by around a $2000 budget for speakers. If I can get something used that is higher quality (but able to be pushed from a reciever for a while), I certainly will go that way. I read similar posts as this regarding Thiel 1.5s. I am searching for a place to hear these.

I have decided to go with the Velodyne SPL800 or SPL1000 sub, as I really liked how it dissapeared in the B&W and BA setups.

Please help a really green newbie who is trying to get some bang for bucks.

Thanks,
Z
zstokes
whknopp0713
179 posts
 
You have a real advantage in that you are buying a receiver and speakers together. You should audition them that way as much as possible. Receivers from NAD and Rotel are in the same price range as Yamaha/Marantz/Denon's of the world, and are noticeably better (please ignore all power ratings, as they are truly irrelevant). The B&W's are probably revealing more of the Yamaha's limitations, and that's why, in part, you prefer the BA sound. With the Rotel, you might think the CDM's are better than the BA's. For the Yamaha, the BA's may be better, but don't eliminate the CDM's until you've swapped receivers.
danheather
108 posts
 
Here we go...

The B&W faithful (is it a cult?) are gonna' come out of the woodwork and tell you that what you really heard was the speakers revealing how poor the rest of the upstream components were. If you were listening to the Nautilus series, I *might* entertain such explanations, but the CDM series, especially the new NT version, is designed to be used in such an application. Just because *some* B&Ws are truly high-end, doesn't mean that the whole line is that way. Come on.

Zstokes...you're not crazy. One *brand* is not necessarily better than another (generalization). In your case, you got to hear two different speakers in the same room, using the same front end, etc. Plus, you got to hear them back to back. This is really the ideal way (next to in-home) to audition equipment. Just because BA doesn't have the snob appeal of some other brands doesnt' mean that they don't (or can't) make good products. PSB, Energy, NHT, Paradigm...even Boston Acoustics and Infinity (GASP) all make some pretty decent products at a very attractive price point. Phil Jones (of Acoustic Energy, Platinum Audio, Soliloquy and now AAD) was formerly the lead designer at Boston Acoustics. I say this only to illustrate that there are very capable engineers working for the big companies too. Contrary to popular belief, high dollar, boutique-style manufacturers do NOT have the corner on designing/engineering quality equipment.

Trust your ears. Don't trust ridiculous rhetoric. It's *you* who will be listening to (and hopefully enjoying) your new system. Have fun and take everything found in these forums with the proverbial grain of salt.
garfish
1,840 posts
 
Z; insanity is part and parcel of this goofy affliction, so welcome aboard. I agree that speakers come first too-- because they are the most colored and most conspicuous part of your system, you need speakers that YOU can live with and that make you happy.

I am a very strong proponent of good source and amplification components too(and wires for that matter), But as everyone has to start somewhere it might just as well be speakers-- and I agree with Bomarc, you are on the right track. Go for the speakers first and get the ones you like best. You can up-grade other components as budget, knowledge and time allow. Cheers, and Good Luck. Craig
thorty40
149 posts
 
Z, I don't know if there is a JMR dealer in your area but if you can find a pair used that would be the best route. I think they retail for about $1k right now brand new and would be driven very well with your present Yamaha receiver.

Did you read the consumer reviews of the JMR Twinn Mk II at www.audioreview.com??
sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
B&W cult? More like a bash B&W cult judging form other Agon theads. Almost every post mentions system synergy, not that B&W is better for all uses.

I owned a pair of Bostons for 11 years. They are actually an excellent choice for receiver based systems. B&Ws are not in most cases, except for maybe the 300 and 600 series. The impedence curve on many B&W speakers is more than most receivers can handle.

B&W's golden era was between 1985 and 1997. They are in some ways a victim of their own success. Some of their new designs are better for HT and not audio. They've also made some changes for production reasons to keep up with demand that have not helped in the musicality department. The original CDM-1 are better than the later SE and NT versions for 2 channel audio in my opinion.

The original post was "Am I insane" that the BA's sound better in my system. Still no, for all the reasons stated by everyone.

More to discover