|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I have been reading the forum for a long time and I have really been getting the feeling lately that there are some poeple who hate/dislike/loathe B&W speakers. Whats gives?Speakers are all very subjective as it is, but I have owned or listened to a lot of speakers and B&W's do have a certain sound,
which depending on the model do a pretty sweet job.
Follow Ups:
Wow, I never thought I'd get this thread going this far!Thanks for all the opinions!
If you think that B&W's are hard to deal with try Maggies!
Here is my current setup in my 13'x15' room with rug on concrete floors, with room treatments in corners, behind speakers and along
side walls, speakers located 5.5' from rear, 3.5' from side, with tweaters focused to shoulders of listenerStereo Mode:
*B&W N803's on Sound Anchor stands biamped with
*CJ MV-60 (Synergistic Research Squared Designers Reference Power cord,
Resolution Reference Point 5 speaker cables, Resolution Reference X series active interconnect) and
*CJ MF-5600 (Synergistic Research Signature #2 speaker cable, Resolution Reference Mk II interconnect and Tara Labs Prime RSC power cord)
*Toshiba 9200 DVD/CD player in 2 channel Analog mode (Synergistic Research Designers Reference active interconnects, Resolution Reference Mk II power cord)
*Sunfire Theater Grand II (Absolute Power Cord)
*pair of Carver Audio Knight Shadow subwoofers
Like me it takes auditioning eight different amps amd pre's, ten different cd players, and six cable brands to find a combo that works. Not to mention I've speant the last two years moving the speakers around the room and placing them to the nth degree for the best balance of soundstage, imaging, and bass responce. Tell you the truth I'm almost ready to start over with a different brand, but I will have to say that there will always be a special place in my heart for the little n805's that started it all. The only time they sounded bright was with Bryston electronics (w/ Transparent cable) and the new PS Audio amp was a BIG waste of time and talk about a gimmick. I even let the bugger sit with the stereophile burn in cd playing for two weeks, and neither my girlfriend or I could stand being in the same room.B&W 805 w/24" Sound anchor stands
Sony 333es
Proceed PRE
Musical Fidelity A3cr
Cardas netural refrence speaker cable
Cardas cross icThere is something happening between these different components that makes magic in my room. God I must have drove my local dealer mad:)
I will have to say that the biggest differences were SACD, the cardas cable (best I've ever heard) and the Musical Fidelity amps. The amp being the largest difference.
Have a good day
Keith
I've posted quite often here over a year or so as I have tried to get my N801's set up. Its been a real challenge but they are going very well (to my ears) now. I listen in the nearfield - about 8 feet, with the speakers slightly wide of equilateral. In this way I minimise room reflections and largely overcome the effects of an assymetrical room. I have elevated them about 6 inches - this was absolutely the answer to overcoming excess bass, yet preserving the ability to provide tight bass and slam. I biamp them (300W amps) though this is a secondary gain - I eq out a couple of minor room modes in the bass only.As now setup, with thanks to all who have helped, they do very well. I recently had the opportunity to listen to five 100K plus systems in a hifi shop in North America - none achieved anything close to the bass extension I get routinely at home. In some, mids and highs were better but they were much more expensive set ups and speakers.
I have never heard my 801's overemphasise a single mid or high note - other hi end speakers I have heard do this and it is diabolical to me as once heard the speaker is history in my opinion - you latch on to that note and it bugs you forever.
The 801's sound very live and life like further back in the room and in the adjacent kitchen they are beautiful to listen to. They have power and authority and reproduce low stage noises that most systems don't know exist which greatly adds to the feeling of a live event.
Well that doesn't stop me listening to other systems and expoerimenting to get better - but they are much better speakers than some who are perhaps less experienced at working with them to make them sing would have you believe. The 801's are certainly hard to get right in a room though - especially without prior experience.
Just my 2c. Am off to listen to some RM40's tomorrow (kindly demoed by Brian C) just in case they are heaps better so I'm not closed in my outlook at all.
All I can say is I'm envious of you. B&W takes a beating but I too have heard breathtakingly expensive systems from Cabasse and JM labs and Legacy etc and none of them really beat the 801s if the set-up is bang on. And I also notice that the store that brings in the B&W competition a year later still only carries the B&W line as all the others get thrashed. Now they simply carry Monitor Audio and one other for the lower end models.To me the B&Ws are the best boxed speaker I've heard...though the Reference 3a MM De Capo I like a lot better than the 805...but the 805 is no 801. Still I'd be interested to hear the La Suprema one day.
The REAL competition for B&W comes from esoteric Horn companies or Electrostats that offer a different sound entirely...different however doesn't mean better.
Interesting - I agree - the speakers that I listened to last week that really stood out were Acapella Campaniles - horns at around 3 - 4x the cost of 801's. The mids and treble in those seemed to be a rather different league - or maybe I'm just hooked on them and thats what I want to think.My work takes me on rather strange set of towns over two weeks permitting listening to Acapella's in Canada, VMPS in SF and hopefully Soundlabs in SLC - couldn't have asked for better and I didn't arrange it!!!
Even more jealous now??
Thankfully, I try to listen to only the stuff that I can afford or costs no more than a Honda Civic. It's frustrating to have Rolls Royce taste when you take the bus. LOLAnd now that I've quit my Accounting career to go back to school live on student loans to become a teacher, I make it a point to listen to lesser gear and strive for something like the MM De Capo. It helps keep me sane...and for the money it is a wonderful speaker.
Horns, my speakers use horns...Wharfedale. LOL I know. I use them for rock and dance and shift to my HD 600s for everything else.
You're probably right about the horns you listened to, not saying the 801 is the best speaker available but it's not outclassed by speakers for the same money. I might go an elecrostat route...and those Avante Garde Horns are quite a delight as well.
Have not heard Acapella, VMPS or soundlabs. Maybe that's a good thing.
yep - think you are right - its a balance and I shouldn't have listened to the Campaniles when my budget doesn't go there - but its fun and if you and the dealer are clear on this then it sort of sets the ground rules.Brian kindly let me have a listen at his house today - it was a bit brief due to flights etc, but the RM40 speakers performed, I thought, well beyond their price range. Unfortunatley his choice of layout across the short end of the room doesn't suit my normal (long end)listening (results in a lot of room sound mixed in), but the speakers played some very difficult music very well, and orchestral extremely well.
If I didn't already own the 801's I'd be keen. Being already an 801 owner, the change would have some positives and some negatives I feel so couldn't be justified in my case I'm afraid. One thing I learnt is that when speakers are well set up to suit YOU, hearing someone elses set up places those speakers at a disadvantage.
Good luck with your studies and career change!
Murray
1.) You show your intuitive "audiophileness" by dispariging B&W's (a reference standard) while touting a brand that you personally like as beinn 2000% better because YOU like them.(Really, if you're truly an audiophile, you'd own a pair of speakers made by a recognized "speaker genius" who died after hand-making only the pair that you own. That way, no one could claim that they've heard other speakers that sound better. And why don't you??- snob on brother.)
2.) As was pointed out previously, most B&W speakers don't seem to be setup correctly in an audio showroom situation. (Why? we don't know, it's just the facts - OK - deal with it.)
3.) They need A LOT of current from a soft/smooth amp to sound "right" (to my ears).
4.) They are room interactive and, again as was pointed out previously, it takes a lot of time to set them up correctly (see #2).
5.) Despite what you want to believe or calculate, they take a LONG time to break in. If they are not broken in, they sound like shit...(see #2).
6.) They are brutally honest. If the CD has no bass, they don't make any extra. If the electronics driving them are unstable or wicked-bad - that's what they reproduce (see #2).
7.) B&W has an engineering philosophy about how they want their speakers to be built and sound. Personally, I don't like their lower end speakers, but, the N800 series are really hard to beat at the same price point when driven and setup correctly.
SOAP BOX COMMENTARY: Bail out now if you don't want to be offended -
They have invested and inordinate amount of money in R&D associated with the speakers, including having the only true anechoic chamber and laser interferometer owned by a speaker manufacturer. They have 30 research engineers who work on their products, and to lightly write-off that they make the speakers sound -
"Looking objectively...they are voicing for what sells...a very flashy, hi-fi sound. Furthermore, gimmicks really sell (nautilus tweeters, kevlar cones, flowports etc.) so B&W incorporate as many as possible into their designs"
is to discredit the amount of work that went into the choices made by the engineers, who in fact, redesigned many of the "gimmicks" not as gimmicks but to solve, what they feel, are real acoustic problems. When you have YOUR physics PhD and can refute the choices made - and can prove it - get back to me.
That "GIMMICKY" claim alone is specious given the low volume of the N800 series speakers that B&W actually expects to sell. They are privately owned and do not have to answer to investors, stock brokers, etc., and basically have the luxury of doing almost whatever they want. They don't sell speakers by the truck load, and as most of you know, don't give price breaks ("Wally Woofer has a truck load sale this weekend so come on down").
They are however, the 3rd largest speaker manufacturer in the world and the largest in Europe. They are not "boutique speakers" and do not have that cachet which is soooooooooo important to many "audiophiles" to impress their audiophile friends, so that they can prove that they are part of the select few who can "really hear the difference." Pardon me if that sounds snobby, but it's not far off the mark given the quotes about B&W only wanting to make flashy, gimmicky speakers - etc.
Lastly, if you compare the B&W N800 series to speakers in the same price range, and all of the caveats have been met (setup, electronics, etc.), they will either match or surpass the speaker being compared - UNLESS, of course, you expect them to sound like an electrostatic or horn loaded speaker - but of course, we're all way tooo smart here to be that dumb - aren't we?
...I believe people tend to generalize "B&W" (and some other speaker manfs.) models as all sounding very similar. The most recent Matrix lines sound much different overall (to me) than the Nautilus lines; even within the Matrix line (e.g., 803/2 vs. 802/3) there were some noticable differences. (You say yourself you don't like the lower-end lines.) So when people say "I don't like B&W, or Thiel, or Dynaudio, or...", I generally take an extra grain of salt with their statements; when they start talking models & electronics, that's much more meaningful.
I think some listeners actually do object to the distinctive "sound" of the kevlar coned drivers (the constant in many B&W models) and to a lesser degree the "sound" of B&W tweeters. After living with a B&W design for many years (and auditioning all the rest), I can say that the kevlar cone driver is probably the speaker's weakest ingredient. These drivers just don't sound smooth at the top of their passband (where they flex and break-up). Most manufacturers try to keep the driver motion pistonic, but B&W seem wedded to the kevlar driver; touting the in-band break-up behavior as a "benefit." It may be a benefit to the speaker's measurements. They measure well (at least from some axis), but they don't "sound" that good between 2 - 4 kHz (the top of their passband and the band of frequencies where the human ear is most sensitive).B&W engineer a beautifully dry and neutral bass into every model. So, why can't they perfect the mid-range response (which would mean dumping the kevlar drivers) and the treble (use less beamy and resonant tweeters)?
your opinion since of all the big names out there like Paradigm etc use their typical off the shelf drivers and NONE of them have midrange neutrality that approach the level of B&W. In fact the midrange is where I find the B&W strength to be. All the reviews seem to back that up, all the people I know agree, and you seem to be saying the measuerments(which I admit I never even look at)are supporting that as well.It sounds like you call them bright drivers...which is fine I find ALL speakers using metal tweeters to have serious problems of some sort...most ring(Studio series, PMC to a lesser degree)etc. B&W gets around that with their inverted tube...but it is a little on the bright side. It's obviously bright enough to annoy you, but not everyone.
As for Kevlar it's another driver that has its pluses light and tough and even. Though I'm not sure about the overall durability.
And I own the only speaker that doesn't have Kevlar or the metal tweeter the DM 302 - and I liked it better than the 601 that I was going to buy...for some of the reasons I think that you hear. So I don't disagree necessarily with what you're saying but I don't think the problem is with the driver, since to me their speaker lines all sound quite different. The 600 series is a bit bright, but so is almost everything for the money...except maybe Castle and Mission.
Actually I don't find B&W speakers particularly bright. The company seems to voice for a hot or peaky on-axis balance in the high treble to compensate for the lack of wide-dispersion in this passband. If you sit just a little off axis of a B&W tweeter you get a fairly dry (ruler-flat) result. Unfortunately though, the treble seems too dry and as you move off-axis, high treble response falls off quickly. This puts less power into the room at the very highest frequencies resulting in a lack of air and high frequency "wetness." Whether or not this is noticeable, depends on how much of your high frequency hearing you still retain. Some manufacturers use additional "ambience" tweeters to compensate for lack of high frequency dispersion (but not B&W).What I think is more audible and objectionable are the power flares that occur in the lower treble. Specifically, these metal domes show wide dispersion in the bottom of their passband, which drops off steadily with higher frequency. You might see 180 degree dispersion in the 4-8 kHz passband, which narrows to 90 degree dispersion at 10 kHz and narrows to less than 20 degree dispersion at 15 kHz and so on. Consider that the kevlar cone produces 90 degree dispersion at 1 kHz and very rapid changes of dispersion through the actual crossover, you end up with some pretty drastic changes of dispersion through the upper mid/lower treble. This will not load the room evenly, resulting in too much energy in the lower treble passband and too little above. The human ear is ten times more sensitive to lower treble frequencies than to high treble frequencies. This uneven power response will irritate.
Yet, I don't have a problem as much with the quantity of the treble produced by these metal domes as its quality. The domes need better damping. I am sure loading the dome with a column of air (the Nautilus transmission line) is helping to lower the resonant behavior of these domes, but I still hear a residual chromium plated edge in the lower treble (which coincides with the domes peak power). The domes are ringing ever so slightly at the bottom of their passband around 4 kHz (visible in time domain graphs). The domes need to be damped better. Perhaps they need to be lighter to resist ringing better. It can be done. Focal have succeeded in producing high quality metal domes that resist this low treble ringing (probably by careful use of damping compounds applied to the dome), resulting in a less fatiguing low treble sound.
Getting back to the kevlar cones…they seem to be fine up to around 1-2 kHz…then they go into break-up. B&W run them all the way up to 3 or 4 kHz, but the cones are not behaving in a linear fashion in this crucial passband. This is far, far more audible than any problem occurring in the treble (due to the extreme sensitivity of human hearing at these frequencies – the nails on a chalk board passband). As a result (depending on your listening angle) violins can screech unnaturally or sound unnaturally dull. The lack of linearity in the presence passband creates colorations of the human voice…the pinched or nasal coloration that we are somewhat used to from loudspeakers. Presence band instruments like trumpets and trombones can sound very synthetic and unconvincing due to power anomalies in this passband (even though technically the speakers might measure flat on-axis). The results…the sound…speaks for itself.
A speaker designer absolutely MUST get the upper crossover right for the speaker to sound coherent. Otherwise the music will separate into treble and mid-range. It's a delicate balancing act. Ideally you DO NOT want to stick a crossover between 2-4 kHz, but if you MUST…you will need to spend all your time and effort getting the drivers to work together in phase over a useful range of vertical and horizontal angles. B&W solved this problem (and many others) in the original Nautilus by dividing the audible spectrum into four bands (using four drivers); all of which behaved as true pistons in their operational passbands (no in-band break-up modes a la kevlar). If I were designing "Nautilus" speakers, they would follow the original design much more closely.
As you can see, the designer in me causes me to think, "how could I improve the sound of these speakers?" Before starting, I would need to identify those areas that needed help. If I listen to a loudspeaker long enough, I am usually ready to re-engineer it. I often think, "if I could combine that speaker's treble, with this speaker's mid-range, with that speaker's bass…and avoid crossover irregularities, I'd have a really good product." It can be done; especially when you don't have to design by committee or design based on what sells or the latest trend. In my world-view, speakers need to be accurate…period.
Hello,
Your argument is interesting. I admit I know diddley about tests frequency responses and the like. But I just wonder what baseline measurments are....such as listening distance, room size, and decibel levels.I have a suspicion that a lot of times the bigger nautilus speaks like n803-n800 are probably played at volumes well below what they were designed for. I don't have a big room for my 801's. But I notice that with better recordings I can turn up the volume higher than usual and the system kicks into another gear.
Remember I talked about human hearing being non-linear? We perceive sounds at 3-4 kHz as louder than at other frequencies. Since the speakers put less energy into the room in this passband, its easier to raise the volume significantly without pain. If you position your head just so (and keep it there) you can get the response to flatten out more or less (around the crossover point), but the lack of a smooth power response will always be a handicap.I don't want to give the impression that I am picking on B&W designs. I analyze every speaker this way. I have heard much worse. The (difficult) trick is make the design coherent at the crossover. Using a kevlar driver (or any non-rigid driver subject to flexing) makes this much more difficult.
I concur with everything said by xenon101.Bashing B&W speakers seems to be a common habit of 'seasoned audiophiles' who ironically often blame them for sounding too 'hi-fi', whatever this means :)
Regardless of my personal taste or choice I admit B&W makes wonderful speakers.
(I should say that I do not and never use to own a B&W, as well as a BMW :).
When I was embarking on my audiophile boat (or in other words was in the early stages of 'the disease':) one of the first speakers I heard were the B&Ws.
Then after years of going circles and hearing tens and tens esoteric brands of which many an audiophile raved, including here on AA, I have come to the conclusion that B&W in fact makes great speakers and many (but not all!) specialist brands are overhyped, sold to people who for some reason want to buy anything but the popular brand (just to be different?).On the other hand, I must admit that unlike many other speakers that can seduce you immediately, B&W speakers are much more finicky.
Unlike many others (which sound more or less the same in different contexts), B&W speakers require more attention and effort to get the best sound out of them - room, positioning, electronics etc.
I found the B&W speakers to be very chameleon-like in character.
This could explain such polarized opinions on their sound.
It's easy to reject a B&W speaker after a short audition at dealer's and walk away saying - 'this Nautilus is a piece of shit, my ears were bleeding! How come they got all those good reviews?'
But if you persevere you'd be rewarded.My conclusion - it is (relatively) safe to buy a speaker from B&W at any price (hence my IBM analogy).
Especially if ones starts his/her system from a speaker end this might be a good way to start
I regret I did not do it when it was appropriate, too late now - I want a 802 but have no money to buy it and a room to put it in :).
If you want to seriously improve the sound, you could do so by choosing proper electronics and treating your room, but B&W speakers won't let you down.
Basically, it's safe to build a system around any given B&W speaker.
I am talking about general requirements to the speaker, not some extreme lust for something very very special and very very different.
That's where one might resort to some esoteric brands.
You forgot one thing. a lot of the music you listen to that is recorded on any of the formats, be it vinyl or compact disc was recorded to the Nautilus 801 sound. So if we want to reproduce the mixers vision of what the recording is supposed to sound like then you need B&W.Seriously though, room set-up and speaker set-up is really overlooked with B&W and people assume they are easy becasue they are a typical box speaker. Well the 801 better be placed about 6 feet from the rear wall and have no side walls within about 15 to 20 feet on either side for best effect(at least when I've listened. Now sure if you treat the room this changes. Also the equipment is critical especially IMO the amplifier. People say you need tons of power yet the best set up I've heard involved an 11 watt NuVista tube integrated and naturally the Linn Sondek CD player. I would like a higher power tube amp set up to be able to play louder with more authority than what I heard but hey it's only money. Very few speakers I think could match what I heard in the system. Dianna Krall is in the room and the speakers were not...given their size that is incredible, given the price still incredible all things considered.
Oh yeah - for all of the people who are going to answer with the very clever, "Oh yeah, well I still think they sound like shit." Noted, "bite me."
The other day we were biasing up an Audio Research VT 100 mk3 amp for a customer before he picked it up. We had it running on the little B&W 303 speakers on firm filled stands. Now usually no one would ever hook up a 6000 dollar tube amp to a 299 dollar pr of speakers. You should have seen all the customers faces transfixed as we played Lou Reed cd after cd it was an amazing combination period forget about price. When all the folks
in the room learned they were only $299 a pair all agreed yes they are truly special and then a voice from the background," Kelly the girl who works hear" proudly replied those are the speakers that I own.
B&W makes speakers you can be proud to own.
Hey Johnny,
Not selling Vandys today? I agree with you, I have heard the 303`s sound pretty good. of course a good amp never hurts. Bought some 604 series 2`s not too long ago and never could make em sound good in my room. Wound up takin back. B&W`s are a step up from JBL`s and maybe Infinity`s but most arent high end. Such a big deal is made about the N series, ever take one of those tweets taken apart Johnny? A plastic tube with stuffing in it. Their not bad, but there are sure better out there.
at least that's what i believe. anything that is popular loses its "cachet" and so they would want no business getting mixed up with that. Look at the damn (pretentious) name they give those speakers (and associated equip.) and you'll realize they scream esoteric...and so they are priced to be kept upthere. BW, paradigm, and others will be held low in the eyes of many audiophiles, eventhough they perform at similar or better level than those esoteric speakers.
Fact is, those fancy speakers DO sound better...but only to the ears of the audiophiles whose very exclusive equipment generates a positive attitude. They know it so, occasionally, they will come down on fancy speakers as validation of their objectivity or refutation of their bias. Wilson's and Bose reside at both end of the spectrum but both, generally, suffer the same contempt.
BWs are somewhat up the curve but being more popular, thus more scrutinized, will encounter a higher rate of negative criticism.At the end of the day many including myself are guilty of this but remember...they DO sound better (the marvels of the placebo effect and self delusion...hey, they don't call this board the asylum for nothing :) ).
everyone is entitled to an opinion.I have found B&W to excel at almost every price point and would most likely make my final 5 in speaker evaluation for a purchase. They may not always be my first choice but it depends on the price point.
It also depends on what we're comparing them too and the type of music. Entry level B&Ws strive to offer a big sound for the money making them all rounders...they will do most things well but perhaps nothing exceptionally well. OK, you may find the Mission entry level will sound smotther for classical music but throw on a dance track and the life gets sucked out of them do to smaller dynamic ability.
all speakers are a compromise...for a big name speakr manufacturer they are probably the best or right up there...especially considering the competition is from Paradigm, JM Labs, Energy, Dynaudio, Totem etc. All of those have issues that in most cases annoy me more than the compromises made by B&W.
I have the DM 302s which I felt were better than the dozen or so loudspeakers at the price. That said the Nautilus 805 seems overpriced to me when you can buy the Reference 3a MM De Capo for the same money. The 805 is a very good speaker but you can do better for the dollar...The competition gets very stiff in the 3kCDN range.
The two speakers that I feel owned the market at the price when I was shopping was the 302 and the CDM 1SE. At the price point and for standmount speakers I heard zippo that could touch them. Now both have upgraded but others have been coming along...the margin is getting tighter. Wharfedale and Mission etc has some competition for the 303...and both are cheaper than the 303. The 1NT has some Danes to worry about etc.
Still to say they are a bad speaker company like a BOSE is simply assinine and people stating that are no hopers.
I agree. I had heard negative comments about B&W from various sources. A friend of mine has a pair of 600 series floor-standers (I am not sure exactly which one). I was surprised at how good they sounded after broken in. My feeling is that they were as good as any of the other speakers at that price point. Not having heard all of the other models, I can't speak about them. From this I would guess that they are as worthy of a listening as any other speaker at a given price point. Only your ears can tell you what is right for you.
I would say ignore the negative and use your ears.
Both Wilson and B&W make some great speakers. B&W IMO makes speakers comparably good to Wilson at significantly low prices, N801 being an example compared to WP6. I wouldn't mind owning N801, N802, N800, WP5.1, WP6, or WP7 purely on musical basis. All of them can sound stunning if you know how to set them up with the right electronics.Unfortunately, both brands charge too much $ and I'd rather pay less :)
Each their own I guess.
They are too well known. Here the obscurity factor weighs in as a big evaluative criterion. B&W needs no pundits.
For those who don't like them:
I have to agree with Sean that maybe the posters have mainly been people who have not liked B&W's sound, and that those who love them have been silent. I can understand both the objections and the praises of the posters as I seem to have learned one thing in my search for the perfect sound...it, like everything in the world, is subjective. There are tons of great speakers out there that excel in certain fields and lack in others. A "great" speaker really depends on what qualities you are looking for out of the speaker...whether laid back or forward, heavy bottom or bright top. Your chain store Bose cubes may be the perfect sound to you if you are looking for its particular qualities...whose to say that it is big "B" Bad, in an absolute sense. Really, all you can say is that a particular speaker is pleasing to you or not; you cannot say it is a Bad speaker unless it is broken. Something else to note is that B&W for a while has been kind of a standard in hifi and with a greater influx of more disparate brands...Finish, Italian, French, etc...people are finding different sound qualities that they like and are lashing out against the standard. Although I am not a B&W fan, they still produce great speakers; I just prefer a different sound.
There are those that don't like the sound of current N series B&W speakers. I had DM7s many years ago and loved them. The only other B&W speaker that I heard and really liked was the Matrix 804.
The criteria, with which we evaluate loudspeakers, is not as subjective as it might seem. A great speaker sounds like...music. If you can close your eyes and be transported...to symphony hall, to a rock concert...these are the hallmarks of a great speaker. I don't think that B&W have any "great" models right now. Looking objectively...they are voicing for what sells...a very flashy, hi-fi sound. Furthermore, gimmicks really sell (nautilus tweeters, kevlar cones, flowports etc.) so B&W incorporate as many as possible into their designs. This market driven emphasis is a classic sign that a company that has grown too large. A speaker company this large and sophisticated could voice for musical realism if they wanted to. B&W needs to get back to the basics and concentrate on putting out a quality product. If they spent as much time perfecting off-axis response and smooth power response as on-axis response, B&W would have a better product. I greatly respect B&W, but success can be deadly to a companies health.
Nautilus series looks like they were designed by an artist, not engineer. They are not worth 1/2 the retail price IMO.
B&W`s are gimicky, ever take apart a Nautilus tweeter? Its a plastic tube with stuffing in it. B&W`s are OK, but for the money better speakers can be had. To me they just dont sound like music. Wilson`s are much nicer sounding but dont get me going on why $300 worth of drivers winds up costing $7000.
I understand your point, but again...who says that transporting you to the concert hall means big "G" Good. You may be the type of person who finds concert halls ghastly or prefers chamber music, in actual small chambers, or loves the proximity of headphones. Everything is relative and no one has "the" opinion. What you say about gimmicks is true...they sell. But is that not the aim of business, to make money...remember Bowers and Wilkins are not musicians doing it for art's sake...they sell speakers. I think if you do not sell out to some degree, you do not sell and then have a very short, but noble, lifespan producing art. Also, who is to say that materials have such objective standards...if I prefer to listen through a paper cup and string, can you really argue with me? Ok, I may seem ridiculous but you cannot argue if I find the sound pleasant. I never said that you have to find it pleasant.
I was under the impression that B&Ws sound more "honest" and don't color the sound. Is this not the case? Also, would off-axis response introduce compromises? I would rather have a speaker with the best on axis response.
Jeff
JeffMO,I would not say that, in my case, N801's, don't have a sonic signature. They do I'm sure. But what I do know is that these speaks simply give you, IMHO, a clear window to the recording. My experience has been that cable changes, and electronics changes are easily heard vs. the "romantic" speakers out there that seem to butter everything up.
I have found that, unfortunately for some, including myself, these speakers take some work to set up properly. It will take some time and patience for most. I have never heard these sound good in a dealer showroom. But I bought my 801's because of the driver compliment and power handling. I intended to drive these in a big room with big high-watt monoblocs. I believed in what the speaker could do. After almost 15 months, I finally figured out how to set them up properly. ( rookie mistakes)
I'm sure these won't be that last pair of speakers I will own. But they have given me a great monetary and entertainment value over the last few years. For what you can buy these (n801's) for used, to me, they seem like a bargain for a full range speaker.
BTW: B&W expects that you will honor their fine speakers by supplying only the best in high current amplification.
Could you tell me what you learned about setting yours up? I have DM 560s so my situation is extremely different from yours but am curious as to what you learned by trial and error. I know for sure mine don't have good components driving them and they are very bright because of it. But other than that I love the speakers. Someday I would like what you have or at least N803s so I try to learn what I can from people so I'll be ready.
Jeff
Jeff,
Please see all posts above. These are great posts. They tell the truth about what to expect when using the Nautilus line.
Good luck!
Take any of the Nautilus series. They have been engineered to produce ruler-flat on-axis response (as are all B&W speakers). On-axis they do sound "honest" to the source material (painfully honest as far as some are concerned). Unfortunately, most listeners listen in the far field, a little bit off the reference axis. The off-axis response of the N-series suffers, particularly around the upper crossover point. This creates gross tonal balance differences between the on-axis response and off-axis response (i.e. phasiness). This is not good (and not what you would expect in a "top of the line" product). Some individuals are more sensitive to phasiness than others, but its difficult (for anyone) to avoid big changes in tonal balance with position (with this series). You only get ideal tonal balance in one position - so be prepared to lock your head in a vise for the duration of your listening session.Getting the upper crossover right (flat response - drivers working in phase, wide dispersion or at least dispersion matching adjacent frequency bands i.e. even power response) is fundamental to the success of any loudspeaker. It's the starting point for every design - step 1 in the design. For B&W to deviate from this standard recipe indicates design by a (very) different set of standards.
Also look at that kevlar driver (used in most B&W models). It allegedly shrinks as it works higher in frequency (avoiding the break-up modes and cancellations of traditional drivers). Yet, it only approximates this ideal behavior on the reference axis. Off-axis, these drivers are displaying problems with break-up modes leading to uneven response around the crossover point. Their response becomes more and more chaotic, the farther you move off-axis. Usually, you get response cancellations in the off-axis break-up zones which the ear would perceive as "politeness." Yet, move your head just an inch, and your ear could be zapped by a response peak. Ouch! This is what many B&W haters report (without really knowing what the phenomenon is). This chaotic off-axis behavior is not good.
A company this sophisticated could abandon the kevlar gimmick and chose better behaving drivers and engineer better designs overall. The reference should be live music, but right now it seems B&W are engineering speakers that will sound impressive to the most people (to non-audiophiles); speakers that are voiced to sell (but not necessarily measure or sound accurate). I think B&W can do better, and I don't think it will hurt their bottom line to voice speakers for accuracy. Then again, with a large volume company (a mass marketer) that may not be entirely true. So, B&W have an identity crisis. Do they go the way of the consumer mass marketers (like JBL) or do they stick to their specialist, audiophile roots? The choice would be easy if I were running the company. I would stick to my roots, but I definitely see that as these companies get larger and larger, the pressures to go mass-market increase dramatically. In my opinion, there are enough mass marketers to go around. B&W should perfect what they do best (providing a quality product to audiophiles).
Have you actually measured their off-axis response? The reason I ask is that both Audio Magazine and Hi-Fi News reviewed the speakers and measured their off-axis response with identical results. At 15 degrees off axis they both found the response commendably flat and essentially identical to the on-axis response. Even at 45 degrees off axis, they both found the response to be quite good. I understand that we are all appropriately skeptical of magazine reviews, but their lab tests are are accurate.
Some tests are more exhaustive than others. I have the Hi-fi News tests reports by the way. Off-axis problems in the upper crossover of the N801 are noted (this was not the case with the N802). Each model must be slightly different in terms of implementation of the upper crossover. Yet, the problem seems to be a consistent theme in every N800 speaker with the exception of the N802. Sometimes reviewers spot it (especially if they conduct extensive off-axis testing). Sometimes not.The problem afflicts both horizontal and vertical dispersion, but seems most severe in the vertical plane. The vertical dispersion of these designs seems unusually narrow (or at least the arc of coherent frequency response seems unusually narrow). Note Stereophile's published measurements of the N801; particularly figure 6 (horizontal dispersion) and figure 7 (vertical dispersion). Figure 6 shows deep cancellation notches centered at 3 kHz as you move off the reference axis, followed by a power "flare" at 6 kHz, followed by deep cancellation notches at 13 kHz as you move off the reference axis.
Stereophile comment on the vertical dispersion in fig. 7, "Fig.7, which shows the changes in the B&W's response in the vertical plane, normalized to the tweeter-axis curve, reveals that as long as the listener sits with his or her ears between the tweeter axis and the midrange axis, the perceived balance will not change too much. But if you sit so you can see the top of the speaker, or---horrors---stand up, a deep suckout appears at the upper crossover frequency (indicated in this graph by the cursor). This lack of vertically off-axis energy in the presence region might also lead to the speaker's reverberant energy being too politely balanced."
It's my contention that these "changes" in response relative to the reference axis create the synthetic sound (lacking natural timbre) of the Nautilus speakers. The suckouts and peaks are not devastating problems in and off themselves, as long as the tonal balance of the off-axis sound remains the same as that of the on-axis sound. The N800 series speakers do not, however, achieve this kind of even power response. The "changes" in tonal balance with listening angle destroy the illusion of accurate timbre.
By the way, I "measured" all of these problems just by listening to the speakers. At first it registered as a general, "something is not right about the sound," but over time it's easy to pin-point that the problem occurs at the upper crossover point. Furthermore, looking at the published measurements of the N805 and N800, it's possible to spot the same kinds of problems (differing only in degree). B&W need to address these problems in order to banish the synthetic, boxy quality that afflicts the N800 speakers.
PS: Look at Soundstage's measurements of the inexpensive B&W Model DM303. The on-axis frequency response is not flat but note how the off-axis response tracks the on-axis reponse to 75 degrees (there are no big timber changes). This speaker will sound a lot more coherent as a result of its smooth power response (the ratio of on and off axis response). If B&W can engineer this into their most inexpensive model, they could do the same with the top of the line N800 series.
Soundstage Measurements of DM303
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/bw_dm303/Stereophile Measurements of N801
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?207:9Stereophile Measurements of N805:
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?168:7Stereophile Measurements of N800:
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?600:7
I should have been clearer. The lab tests I referenced were for the N802, and its off-axis response was very good as measured by both Audio and Hi-Fi News. Audio's lab tests were clearly the most exhaustive of any hi fi magazines. My personal experience is with the N802 and N804 (both of which I own along with a pair of CDM-7NTs). I have never seen a lab test faulting their off-axis response, and I have never experienced the off-axis tonal imbalance that you refer to in listening to the speakers I own. (I spent some time last night specifically trying it out by moving vertically and horizontally off-axis and found the overall tonal balance to remain remarkably constant. I also frequently listen to music while doing other things in the house in other rooms, and I have found the sound to be excellent).
I think that I am beginning to understand...this thread is really ticking off owners. I had not anticipated that (perhaps because I also own a set of these speakers). I sometimes forget...that I have an extreme love of music that overides brand loyalties and loyalty to any one idea, set of ideas, or design techniques. Not everyone loves music to this degree. I sometimes overlook the fact that accurate instrumental timbre, the accurate timbre of the human voice...these things may not be as important to others as they are to me. I almost regret having started the discussion (or having joined it). Almost.If its any consolation, very few speakers produce accurate timbre. Most speakers are designed pretty much the same way and they all struggle with the kind of issues that I have highlighted with these B&W designs. I do believe that speakers in general can be better, but I accept that the majority are good enough for most people. Perhaps...this extreme concern on my part for accurate timbre and accuracy period...sets me apart. I am not an equipment-phile, so much as a music-phile. I accept that I am probably a small minority. To each his own.
What a truly special and unique individual you are! How wonderful and exalted a position you occupy among an otherwise unrefined and unsophisticated populace! If only I could (for but a brief instant) be able to discern, appreciate, and love music with the purity and passion that you do. Ah, but I am a mere mortal. I will never be able to love as you do. My spirit will never soar to the dizzying heights that yours does. My weak and coarsely tuned senses will never be able to accurately measure timbre with the scientific precision that comes so naturally and easily to someone of your nearly superhuman abilities. I stand in awe and admiration of you and your wonderful abilities.
... is that the ears derive timbre not only from the first-arrival (on-axis) sound, but also from the reverberant sound in the room (the off-axis sound).Live instruments create a reverberant field that has the same tonal balance as the on-axis sound (horn instruments are something of an exception to this). This tonally correct reverberant field contributes to the timbral richness of live music. Reproduced music seldom has this quality because most speakers don't recreate a tonally correct reverberant field.
The current emphasis on good on-axis response stems from psychoacoustic research in the 60's and 70's that established the on-axis response as the primary contributor to perceived timbre. What has been overlooked by most designers is the still significant role the reverberant field response plays.
The old argument used to be flat on-axis response vs. flat power response, and unfortunately the latter called for on-axis peaks to compensate for driver beaming. The flat on-axis camp pretty much won out. But a more useful analysis would have been to look at what happens over time, and to design for similar tonal balance in the first-arrival and reveberant (later-arrival) sound. There are relatively few designs that get the reverberant field right, but those that do tend to excel at long-term fatigue-free listening.
If you'd like to easily evaluate a speaker's reverberant field response, crank it up a bit louder than normal and walk into another room, leaving the door open. If it sounds convincingly like live music back in there, then that speaker has very good reverberant field response (and very good dynamics, too).
DUKE,
In the evenings, I often listen with the music cranked up a bit, down the hall in another room where another computer is. The solo vocalists seem to sound very very real with prescence...kinda like standing right outside of a live jazz club.
Sounds to me like your 801's are making the magic happen! In my experience not many speakers do what you describe, but good sound from another room (or even down the hall) is a fairly reliable predictor of long-term listening enjoyment.
I think I am getting the best sound ever from my system in my room. Its not perfect. But it's working out pretty well right now.I can't believe how many variables and equipment choices it takes to get the sound right. Its really crazy and actually unfair. Its easy to give up and try something else. Fortunately for me, I live in a victorian home with 3 flights of stairs. There is now way I can move these suckers without professional help! So, they must stay and learn to behave and acquire some manners. :)
You say in your post: "A great speaker sounds like...music. If you can close your eyes and be transported...to symphony hall, to a rock concert...these are the hallmarks of a great speaker."If that isn't subjective, then I don't know what is. I would argue that speaker comparisons are more subjective than objective. This is not so at the extremes (I'm sure most people would say it is objectively true that Wilson Grand Slams sound better than Bose cubes), but for speakers of approximately like quality, it's pretty subjective.
I agree. It does become...pointless comparing speaker a with speaker b with speaker c if their is no objective reference. In my opinion, that reference is live music. If this (live music -just go to a concert to remind yourself what it sounds like) is the standard by which all speakers are measured...you have a pretty objecttive standard of reference to say, speaker a comes this close, speaker b comes this close and so on.
Different people will relate to different aspects of what a live experience sounds like to them. Also a live experience is determined by the acoustics of the venue and the sound system. Bottom line: our ears (and even less so our minds) are not objective gauges, they are subjective interpreters.
This is the ancient "what is quality?" question and I think we all realise that determining good sound takes education on our part. Even realising the differance between a true to life sound and a boxy, processed sound takes an education on the listeners part. Many people cannot tell a 'bad' wine from a 'good' one and may prefer the 'bad' until they take the time to educate the palate!
I agree. There is clearly an important aspect of education involved. However, when you get to speakers of approximate like quality, I believe it is largely a matter of subjective impressions and personal taste. Speakers in patrticular each have very unique tonal qualities. Whether you prefer the B&W N802, the Dynaudio Contour 3.3, the Proac Response 3.8, or the Revel Studio is, I would argue a matter of subjective perception and personal taste, not of objective truth.
We'll agree to disagree on this point
This seems to be a pretty common thing here on this forum, which you have obviously noticed. There seems to be a feeling among several that B&W's possess certain characteristics that people don't like or care for. Some say B&W's have a very dry tonal balance, lack in the bass department and can sound bright. Some say they come across as being at times analytical, lack emotion and can sound too hi-fi. I've heard several pairs of B&W speakers from the bottom lines on up and I have found a lot is dependent on the electronics driving them. I personally think that the reasons behind the "negative vibes" are a tad bit overblown myself. It's a very subjective thing, as you said. The Asylum just happens to have a lot of people who do not care too much for them, although there are several here who love them. I've owned a few pairs in the past myself and thought they made music pretty well. It's all subjective!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: