 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
OK to use B&W speakers with tube amplification? Thought B&W speakers were power hungary and might need some SS bulldogs. Thanks!
Follow Ups:
I have heard a couple of really amazing setups with ARC and B&W's. The first was a Classic 60 with 3rd gen 802's. Amazing. Then he moved up to a VT 100 and it was even better.The last one I heard was the big VT 200 with new 801's. He actually had ALL ARC gear from the transport to amp and it was so revealing. The only thing he did not have that was ARC was a Well Tempered turntable.
Robertc88,B&W speakers require high current amps not high power amps. To get the best sound out of your B&W speakers, this generally requires a very expensive tube amp compared to the price of SS high current amps. You may want to use a tube preamp with a SS amp on B&W's. You can call B&W and ask them what they use to demo their speakers and why. They are very helpful. Here are some SS amps that sound good with B&W's: Classe are good amps for the $$$, they will lack some dynamics and are considered to produce a little rounder sound. Krell amps. Even the KAV-250a (now the KAV-2250) is a good match for the 803/804/805. Use the FPB series on the 802/801. Krell amps will give you great bass slam, very detailed sound, very analytical sounding, some consider them to be dry and non involving. Tube preamps help them out greatly. Try the Hovland 100. Levinson similiar to krell a bit more laid back sound vs the Krell in you face. Rowland makes a great M112 amp that is detailed, involving and musical, kind of between Krell and Levinson. Last Pass Labs makes the X150/X250 amps etc. that have a differenct presentation but very good sound. Less analytical than Krell, not as laid back as Levinson. Last, try a Blue Circle BC26 or BC8 mono's. ALSO, THE BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK SETUPS FOR B&W'S ARE THE Music Fidelity AC3 seperate pre and power amp (120wpc) $3,000 total lsit price for both and the ROWLAND CONCERTA II INTEGRATED AMP (150WPC) List $6,500 (the inte is basically the M112 with their Synergy II preamp (they would cost you over $10K combined). Differences being MF very musical, warm sound vs the Rowland more detailed, faster and more dynamic (notes linger longer, you notice the volume changes soft to loud and loud to soft more). Amp preference also depends on the type of music you listen to, how much detail you like, do you like to hear the fingers on the guitar fingerboard? or does that make you tired of the sound after long listening periods?, etc., your buget and where you need to be with your system, are you a person who needs to upgrade every year or so?
Hope this helps you. Email me at bigkidz@juno.com with any questions.
I've found that speaker cables have a significant impact on the B&W N804 & N802 speakers run with my VAC Avatar (60 tubed watts). After trying cables ranging from cheap ratshack 14 guage to Kimber Select with poor results, I found that low impedence Goertz MI2 did the trick. Great sound at any volume level.Might not help with your system/room synergy but it would be worth doing some demos.
apercu
Absolutely nothing wrong on CERTAIN recordings which is the case that should surprise no one in the audio world. Running Rogue 66 pre and 88 power amp with B&W 603S2 speakers. Certain recordings I have to crank to get the music to come out. In my apartment abode especially at night, I cannot do that. I'll give the case on a jazz recording that is tenor sax in the foreground with the rest of the instruments not very audible unless I turn the volume up. Then everything is fine. The Rogue 88 power is 60 watts, 30 watts in triode mode. B&W rated sensitity rated at 90 for 8 ohms. Not sure other speakers would be the answer if it is the recordings as it may be a similiar problem and I'd have to crank the volume anyway.
My CDM1SEs sounded great with a Dynaco ST-70. Although I too have heard that the newer versions with the nautilus tweeters were better driven by lots of watts. I heard the N801s driven by a Bryston 4BST which sounded fantastic and also by a Krell FPB600. The latter set up had a HUGE soundstage but was too damn bright for my tastes. Balanced Audio Technology might be a good way to go if you have the scratch.
Rob CThe world was made for people not cursed with self-awareness
Tubes can be fine, if they are meaty. My local dealer uses all kinds of Conrads with his demo 804s, never with any real problems, although I personally find the bass to be less than perfectly defined. (But you need a sub for the 804s anyway -- they're not even close to full-range).If you're looking for tubes to tame brightness, however, stay away from Conrads for that use -- they don't seem to tame the Nautilis tweeter any better than Krells, I'm afraid. (I've heard various Conrads versus a Krell KAV 300i in the same setup -- not much difference tonally, although the Krell had more bass...)
Is there a reason you're not considering solid-state? I bet Classe or Gryphon amps would work great with B&Ws. :)
If you want a solidstate amp to help tame the brightness of B&W speakers, try a Classe amp. They sound very similar to some Audio Research tube amps I've heard, and you get all the power you need.
With about 100 hrs on my N804s , I say that they ain't bright with my Classe' CAP 151. Even at this early stage of breakin, they have good real nice bass in my 11x13 room. Holly Cole's "temptation " on Classic LPs tells the truth about bass played on my P25/ Dyna 20x . You don't need a sub unless your room is too big .
Hello Robert,
Depending on the series, tubes may be a must to tame the tweeter,
(say that fast, ten times).
I recently spent some time with CDM-7nt`s along with a SS amp
that is considered to be dark in nature and found the top end,
well, painfull.
YMMV.
Regards,
M.F.
> tubes may be a must to tame the tweeterAre the tubes taming the tweeter or are they really taming bright source material and/or bright upstream equipment? Don't blame the messenger.
From personal experience, I know the latter to be true for B&W's Nautilus series.
Hi Corbett,
I would have to side on the former. In the case of the NT series,
that is both 7 and 9, measurements confirmed a peak centered
around the 10k region,extending .3 8/va on either side.
This is part of the speakers sonic signature.
I doubt upstream electronics would fluctuate as much.
M.F.
I don't mean to be rude, but those numbers are meaningless without knowing the parameters of the test. I don't know if it's the room, cables or upstream electronics that are causing the peak.Assuming the peak exists and are caused by the speaker, any speaker, for that matter, what does it *really* mean? Does the speaker *really* sound bad?
When I perceive music as being bright, it's usually not because a certain frequency range is overemphasized. For me, the annoying brightness is due to very nasty harmonics being introduced in the pipe. If the harmonics are in some overemphasized frequency range, the result will of course be very unpleasant.
I don't know why people insist on pardoning upstream equipment when a system is perceived as bright. Upstream electronics are notorious for introducing all kinds of distortion, especially harmonic distortion.
Then again, the easiest way to tame "brightness" is to get duller speakers, and there are lots of them around. People don't complain as much about dull speakers because they can't complain about what they can't hear.
Corbett,
As I mentioned in my previous post, the measurements taken confirmed
what I was hearing.
These tests were carried out using an Audio Precision Model 1 generator driving a Classe amplifier, with the speaker in a
semi-anechoic environment measured by a calibrated Bruel Kjaer 4000
series mic feeding a DBX RTA-1.
Although not the most scientific procedure,it is far from meaningless.
If memory serves, the 10k centered peak was in the order of 4-5db
above average.
Does that make it a "bad" speaker? Not necessarily.
With that kind of emphasis, poorly produced recordings can be
unlistenable, and I would have to agree that inferior/mismatched upstream electronics would indeed compound the problem.
M.F.
Thanks for info. At least I know you're not some guying trying to plot the speaker's frequency response using a Radio Shack sound meter in his living room.BTW, were the speakers broken in? What about the amp? I own Nautilus 802's and 805's and have heard some of the CDM speakers. I haven't detected the anomaly you've described in *any* of those speakers, which is why I am suspicious about your findings. I've detected high-frequency overemphasis in DM series speakers, but not with CDM series and higher.
For the record, I'm not saying that the CDM speakers cannot be perceived as bright because there are certainly a good number of people that "think" they are.
One published measurement from Audio magazine shows the N802 to be near the average level at 10khz. (I put blind faith in those measurements because Audio is a "respected" magazine.) The CDM series use the same tweeters as the N802, albeit with a lessor crossover, so the 4-5db deviation you claim does not seem right.
I'm sure there are other published results for the CDM speakers, but I don't have them readily available.
I've owned the CDM 1NT and A/B'ed it with N805. Indeed, the 1NT seems to have more mid-treble energy than the N805. Since the latter is regarded as the better-balanced speaker (as it should be considering its price), I think the 1NT is relatively brighter.I find that the 1NT is very revealing in the treble, so with bright electronics it is definitely annoyingly bright. But with good electronics (tube or SS), not necessarily dark-sounding ones, these speakers can sound detailed in the treble in a pleasing way... airy presentation of ambience.
About the tweeters, I already verified this with my dealer before I bought the 1NT: the CDM NT series does not use *exactly* the same tweeter as the N800 series. They are very similar, but not to the point that it is impossible for one to be brighter than the other. And besides, even the *voicing* of the speaker during design stage can make a tweeter sound brighter than it normally would.
> About the tweeters, I already verified this with my dealer before I bought the 1NT: the CDM NT series does not use *exactly* the same tweeter as the N800 series.I've been trying to figure this out ever since the CDM series came out. When I asked my dealer, he told me the tweeters were "identical". However, I never take what a dealer says at face value anyway, and this discrepancy between different dealers is just another example of why.
I'm going to write B&W and get the real scoop.
My guess is the tweeters are very similar. Since the rear of the tweeter is hidden in the CDM series, B&W may have taken steps to skimp on the rear portion of the assembly, perhaps using a shorter tube.
The tweeters within the Nautilus 800 series are "identical" for the most part, with a few cosmetic differences. The tweeters on the Nautilus surround speakers are "identical" to the N805 speakers, but with a shorter tube. The N802 tweeters use a slightly longer tube than the N805 tweeters and are encased in a more glossy and durable mylar material. The drivers are essentially identical, however.
This is what I meant when I said the CDM speakers use the "same" tweeters (I did not say they were identical or interchangeable). One person a while back wrote that the CDM 1NT tweeters were indeed "the exact same tweeters used in the N805", but I would not go about spreading this bit of info without first checking with B&W.
Ultimately, different crossover designs will make the same driver sound different. But I still can't see how the CDM tweeters can deviate so abornormally in sound from Nautilus speakers. Like I mentioned in my earlier post, I haven't detected the alleged "abnormal peak" on the CDM series.
Hello again,
At the time the measurements had taken place, there were well over
a hundred hours on them, with both music and noise as sources.
Some may argue that is not nearly enough time, where the manufacturer claims only 15 hours would be necessary.
I did notice changes as the surrounds and spiders loosened up,
but none in the top end.
It is my understanding that the NT tweeters are a Nautilus derivative,
and certainly not the real thing.
I also heard the 805,4 and 3 share a common tweeter, as do the 802
and 801.
It is interesting that you find the DM series top end over-emphasized.
I went from the 603.2 to the nt7 and 9, and found them brighter.
You must believe me when I say that I really tried hard to like
the CDM`s, but that never happened.
M.F.
Let me get my $.02 in here. I have a pair of DM 602.2's and they are not particularly bright IF they are matched up with the right pieces. (NAD C350, Sony XA1ES CD player, 12 gauge cables, Paradigm X-30 crossover, and the "right" interconnects) The sonic "signature" is very smooth in the highs, so I doubt the presence of a 4-5 dB peak at 10 kHz. I tried adding 5 dB with a graphic equalizer at 8 kHz and it ruined the sound. I, too, suspect an artifact of the measurement technique.You said it was a "semi-anechoic" environment. Like what? Outdoors? Sound absorbing panels around the speaker? Please give more detail. Next, where was the microphone aimed, and how far from the speaker was it? Also, which model of B& K microphone? Actually, I'd like to know the capsule diameter and whether it was a parallel or random incidence model? (directfield or reverberent field)
Hello Bald Iggle,
The speaker in question is the CDM-7NT, nothing at all like the DM series. Infact, I find the top end smoother on the DM`s, but less
detailed.
I conducted the test outdoors on a quiet night. Since the objective
was to measure the tweeters behavior, the shockmounted microphone
(omnidirectional capsule) was directed 0 degree`s @ 1 metre, with
test sources 20DB spl above noise floor.
M.F.
Michael,Thank you. Sorry if I sounded pushy. I'm not all that fAfamiliar with the CDM series, but I do know that the intro of the Series 2 DM's caused a sales problem for B&W on both the CDM and 800 series. Not enough improvement (if any) for the extra $$. Also the DM tweeter is recessed in a short elliptical horn where the CDM's is sort of semi recessed. A peak at 10 kHz implies a reflection at 1/2 or 1.5 wavelengths, or about 16 mm or 48 mm. Just about the edge of the tweeter housing or the top edge of the cabinet. I wonder? It would be interesting to place a baffle of sound absorbing foam or felt just in front of the tweeter with a 1" aperture to fire through and then measure the on axis response with any edge reflections eliminated.
I do have a test report on the CDM-9NT from the June issue of Hi-Fi News. They show a 1 dB dip at 10 kHz, but a peak of about 2 dB at 15-16 kHz. I(nterestingly, they thought the overall balance was a bit thick and slow, and the highs lacked something. No mention of brightness.
I have found my DM602.2's to be a little bright for my taste which was cured by cable and interconnect selection. I use the NAD C350 and dropped my Arcam 7SE in favor of my older Sony XA1ES which with the proper interconnect was smoother and tamed the highs. Since the CDM's are considered brighter than my DM602's, I probably could not bring them to the tonality I want. Doesn't square at all with Hi-Fi News' review.
Hi Again,
During the time spent with the CDM-NT`s, several inmates responded
to my distress call with some interesting advice.
After a while, I just admitted that they were not for me, and rather
than tweak, I traded them in for some JMlab Cobalts and havent looked
back since.
A speaker, or any other component HAS to put a smile on your ears
from the get go.
M.F.
Hey Michael, I remember your earlier posts now. :-)I'm glad you enjoy your new speakers.
Not really. I have ARC Classic 30 with B&W CDM1. It surely no problem. I also have B&W matrix HTM, which is same as M805 on one channel of my 30W tube amp, which also got good result.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
