|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.9.11.148
Please use the link to my (non-commercial) site below.Thanks, and happy listening.
Regards,
JerryS
Follow Ups:
Jerry, it's a little off topic, I know, but I'd like your impressions of the ADS 1230s if you've ever heard them. I got these in 1983, and have found no need to change yet. If you've heard their bigger brothers, the 1530s and 2030s, please comment about those also. Thanks.
I have the 1230 and my brother has the 1530's. The 1530's have two 10 inch woofers versus the 8 inch in the 1230's. The 1230's are very nice speakers but I have them in storage right now because I have Nautilus 802's that have replaced them which I prefer.
What I find fascinating is that the things you say are great about N804s are precisely the things I feel they do the worst.1. The tweeter has an obvious, measured peak ~9.5kHz
2. There's a dip between the midrange/tweeter causing a clear separation between the drivers.
3. There's a dip between the midrange/woofer causing a clear separation between the driver
4. The extra harmonics added by the Kevlar, combined with phase problems and mediocre off-axis response causes flaky imaging that doesn't hold up except in one spot in the room.
5. Bass is peaky and lightweight, so your room would have to be extremely complementary to sound good.
6. Construction quality isn't poor, but not nearly as good as the marketing materials and reputation, such that it is, would imply. They aren't terribly heavy speakers and aren't any more densely constructed than some well done $1000 tower speakers of similar size.
7. The harmonics and resonances produced by the Kevlar, exacerbated by the FST design, make the speaker seem tweaky, demanding, and critical. However, it's just the sound of cone resonances that you won't find on better drivers from SEAS, ScanSpeak, Vifa, Focal and others. You can read more about good speaker design at the link below.That being said, it's nice that you had good things to say, but if you can't hear any of the above, the review becomes highly suspect. All speakers have flaws and if you can't hear them, reviewing might not be your calling. I apologize, as much as I can, in advance, but Bose is proof positive that "reputation", great reviews, popularity, great marketing materials, high price, etc is not a reliable indicator of quality. Extrapolate as needed.
Not being very familiar with B&W's maybe I'm not very qualified to respond but thought I would anyway because I to feel the B&W's aren't all that. Some years ago I heard a pair of floor standing B&W's in a home then months later some smaller ones at a dealer. Don't know the model numbers/names but the big ones sounded dreadful to me. The midrange screamed like bad out of phase midrange horns too small to handle the mids. Kind of a gargle/crackle, close yet distant phasy sound and I couldn't take more than a minute of listening. The smaller B&W's were ho hum and the salesman neglected to tell me he had a subwoofer on until I asked how B&W got such good bass from such a small cabinet. The subwoofer went off and the B&W's alone didn't have much bass, or anything else for that matter. I figured to each their own and I'm not in a rush to hear a B&W again.
John...just curious as to what specific speakers you do like and highly recommend for full range dynamics (less than say $3000)? thanks
Well, I'll keep it to stuff I don't sell and have heard:1. PSB Stratus Goldis - A little dated, but smooth, powerful, dynamic. Lacking mainly in resolution and have more soundstage than precision imaging, but are an exceptional pure R&R speaker.
2. Paradigm Studio 100s (V1/V2) - Dynamic and detailed sounding. A little bright, but good construction and good integration. A good alternative to B&Ws as they're a better value, but have a similar sound, but not as pronounced and far more accurate.
3. Thiel CS2.3 - These have probably topped $3K by now, but I believe they came out under $3K originally and seem to rise in price every year. Or is that the 2.4 now? Anyway, groovy if not terribly deep bass, excellent soundstage and imaging. A little thin in the lower midrange, but they do have some superb characteristics not found in some other high-end speakers. Not good for high volume listening though as they get shrill at high volumes as the limitations of the 1st order crossover becomes apparent.
That's all I can think of off hand. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but it's not coming to me. To be honest, I'm out in BF SouthWest where there's not much good competition to listen to. One of the things that I see that is screwed up is the trend towards smaller, peakier, more midbassy drivers instead of good single large woofers that do well at low frequencies. It just doesn't make sense to use a 6" driver for a midrange and then 2 or 3 6" drivers for bass. 2.5-way designs also don't make sense. 8" is the bare minimum size for a woofer in a 3-way design, but 10" or 12" typically is better. The incredible shrinking woofer(s) has more to do with making a speaker easier to sell than actually sounding better. Women like small, narrow cabinets. The woofers on the B&W N804/N803 are too small and compromised. The woofer on the N801 is too big and was marketing driven. The N802/N800 actually make sense for the midrange.
". It just doesn't make sense to use a 6" driver for a midrange and then 2 or 3 6" drivers for bass."Umm your describing the Paradigms - I'd agree on the V2 the V1 was overly shrill and had apparently horrible treble. The V2 I found a better buy than the CDM 9NT just because the 9NT was SOOOOOOO expensive(double the price) and the 100V2 did most everything just as well. So in this regard I'd agree. You'll probably be woefully dissapointed in the V3 which has a hollow sounding effect in the midrange and poor bass and dynamics for a speaker that went up $500.00Cdn?
I do agree with you generally on your take on stacked 6 inch multiple drivers in slim cabinets. Almost none of them are good IMO. However, I will suggest you try some Dynaudio's and PMC speakers as examples of a few that do this style well. I'd suggest Totem if they would cut every model's price by 30-50%.
Your posts have made me want to re-try the Thiels - but you seem to express the limitations I heard years ago with them - so perhaps they're not suited it would seem to amplified music but prefer acoustic - this is fine if you know it going in and perhaps that's why I was dissapoined - I have too much of a wide music collection for a speaker not to play R&R at louder levels while also doing Beethoven and Vivaldi Piano, Oboe and Voilin. Then there's trance music and dance/pop.
Don't get me wrong, the Thiels aren't exactly my favorites, but they do have fantastic imaging and have low level detail, so I prefer them to the B&Ws. Triads are really great, but they don't do towers for some reason. Their sub/sats are pretty impressive. So, Thiel is a great speaker that also has significant handicaps. But the B&Ws, to me are just plain overpriced and don't have any distinguishing characteristics that would make them worth more money over good affordable stuff, except for reputation and that love it or hate it midrange coloration.I did notice a little brightness on the V1s, but not as bad as some of the B&Ws and they had solid, quick, neutral, well-integrated bass and could play loud without straing. And they cost $1800 vs $5500 N803s which would be the obvious competitor from the B&W line. I haven't heard V3s, but was disappointed with the configuration. I think they're trying too hard to try to be B&W now with the yellow cones and thin design.
Thanks very much John - your thoughts are interesting..btw, what speakers would you include that you do sell and also those > 4,000 (i might find some used)?
a
Hi John,
From your post, "...the review becomes highly suspect".I beg you to please suspect all of my reviews. Compare them your own experiences or listen for yourself. After all, if you disagree, then you have an opinion. In the end, yours is the only one that matters.
Please see http://www.10audio.com/ears.htm#Reviews_and_You
Regards,
JerryS
That's great, though I find that to be a copout. You're basically giving yourself permission to say anything you want under the guise that everyone should listen for themselves. However, if that is truly the case, why bother "reviewing" the speaker to begin with?!? You want to influence people, then say "hey, don't listen to me!". Doens't ring true, sorry.For my own involvment, let me be clear in saying that I think B&W, more than any other brand, exemplifies what is wrong with "high-end" more than any other brand of which I'm aware, just as Bose exemplifies what is wrong with "mid-fi" more than any other brand of which I'm aware. It's a well-publicized distraction from the true course, which is more natural, more realistic, more transparent sound. We'd like to ignore it, but it's gained the status of being a bigger distraction than audio is "high-end". But, if B&W or Bose build a great speaker, I'd give them credit. I'm waiting.
I wonder if John being a dealer is critical of B&W as he has to compete against them in sales, just a thought, not a flame for a flame war.I don't have tons of experience with speakers but enough to disagree with John's assessment of B&W!
I suggest you go find a pair of B&W Matrix 3 speakers and give them a good listen. Even though they are about 20 years old, they sound better in most ways than newer B&Ws. Of course, they didn't use Kevlar or porting, but they also had a much better cabinet than todays speakers. What flaws they had were flaws of subtraction, not addition.My big point is that B&W has been the recipient of a social promotion program by Stereophile because the owner/publisher of Stereophile and the chief editor were both big B&W fans and owners. And since most of the editors and many of the writers in audio went through the Stereophile school of audio writing, you'll see B&W held up as a model for how a speaker should sound. The problem is that there are a LOT of better speakers out there, especially for the same price, certainly with objectively flatter response and better quality drivers/cabinets. The flaws of the product have been twisted into "benefits", but you can look on any measurement of any recent B&W and see severe FR variations. Just like Bose is the posterboy for what's wrong with mid-fi, B&W has become the posterboy for what's wrong with high-end. So I apologize for my strong reaction, but please, there are lots of good speakers out there, give a great review to one that deserves it. Again, no speaker is perfect and if you can't hear the imperfections and comment on them, then a review is just a "promotion" or "advertisement", not a review.
Here's a link of 703 measurements, it was the closest I could find, but if you do a google search for "measurements B&W frequency response" you'll find all you need to know. People are *finally* starting to figure out via the internet that the emperor has no clothes and kevlar is a bad midrange material.
Hi John,It's no problem for us to have differing opinions. I did hear a set of Matrix series III a number of years ago and I have fond memories of them, but I do not have any extended experience with them.
It seems to me that you state Stereophile as making B&W into something they are not, yet I see the European audio press also very fond of B&W (the Nautilus line), so it must be a universal conspiracy.
I have no problem with you not liking B&W speakers, or at least their latest iterations, I just disagree with your overall assessment. Having a friend that had been to B&W this past year and listening to him talk about what he saw contradicts some of what you say.
I have an audio friend who has went through a lot of speakers over the last year or two, including N803's, S805's and Matrix (Series II) and many other brands; he purchased the Matrix speakers from fond memories and regretting selling a pair, after getting them he realized it was more of fond memories.
You'll notice that B&W and Paradigm among others don;t send them speakers for review - because they know that when faced with blunt honest opinions both brands could take a rather big beating. The 703 and new Paradigm Studio 100V3 IMO are atrocious speakers given the amopunt of money they want for them. Both should be 3 digit not 4 digit speakers IMO. I think that B&W takes a beating more so than they should but this new 700 line is much more expensive than the CDM series and IMO not any better - IMO worse and they even look worse. I don't get that. Two of the best speakers of recent years from B&W has been the DM 302 which I owned and had no kevlar or metal driver and is better than the 303, and the CDM 2SE. The 2SE I liked a fair bit given the money and it was easily better than the Totem Model 1 which cost 50% more money.I just think B&W is too expensive. The 705 is $2300.00Cdn and versus the Audio Note AX Two at $700.00Cdn I would like to know what the price justification is. The AX Two is shipped in from Europe is about the same size so shipping isn;t going to be hugely different. The AX Two is made by a much smaller company uses good vifa drivers looks very well built and has nice connectors ---- oh and sounds a helluva lot better is more efficient. The B&W's LOOK better and everyone has heard of them and not so with the AX Two. BUT, this is the point. I could listen to the AX Two long term or some lesser priced Dynaudios and Gershman Acoustics but the 705 - well I don't get it. I loved the 302 and I can recommend the N805, CDM 1NT and 1SE and 2SE(despite some problems) and Matrix 805, 801 and the Model Nautilus. But some of these big companies seem to be pricing themselves for snob appeal than sonic quality.
nt
And UHF does not seem to be homers either given the lackluster reviews they've given Bryston and some off handed put downs(or at least non drooling attitutes) to Paradigm in their advice column.I think B&W is beat up unfairly to some extent - the 600 series is in line price wise with most competitors and I prefer the 604S3 at $2,000Cdn over the Paradigm 100V3 at $2700.00Cdn. Since Paradigm is in Canada IMO there is no way it should be priced this high - it sounds like the $1500.00 Energy. But name appeal works.
...whoops, I see this was already suggested.
you're one of those pompus hifi dealers who doesn't happen to sell B&W becuase he can't.
No, I'm one of those realistic, normal, sane dealers who don't sell B&W becaue I wouldn't own it and wouldn't sell it to anyone I liked - it would be ripping off people I actually like and appreciate. I worked for a B&W dealer for over a year and spent most of my time trying to convince him to ditch the speakers for something better like Paradigm or Thiel or just about anything else.If you have something that actually refutes my statements, bring it on. Otherwise, you're attacking the messenger, not the messenger, mon ami.
BTW, one of my favorite older speakers is the B&W Matrix 3II which was an excellent design, well built, excellent design. So, I have nothing against good design, but I do have something against bad sound.
Thanks for the review. I always enjoy reading yout stuff. I purchased a pair of these about 4 months ago and am still fooling around with cables and placement. (I also want to replace my Krell KSL and KAV-2250.) I thought your comments regarding the tubes was interesting. I have auditioned a number of different amplifiers including tube pre w/tube amp, tube pre w/ss amp, and ss pre w/ss amp. Haven't had the opportunity to try the ARC equipment yet, but I have access to it and will do so in the next several weeks. Last weekend I brought the 804's to friends and hooked them up to his BAT VK-3i and VK-200. I preferred the BAT to my Krell in several areas, but I thought the Krell was better in others. Soundstaging seems to be pretty good with both combinations. I'm going to bring thre BAT over to my place later this week for a few days so I can do a side by side.I have a question which actually goes back to your review of the BAT 300xSE integrated. In that review you noted that the BAT/B&W combination's sounstage was a bit 2D and that "substituting an Audio Research VT-100 mk.3 did not significantly improve the issue of truncated height on the B&W speaker."
Can you comment further on this, please? Did you still notice the truncated height and was it of any significance? DO you think thr truncation was the result of the integated vs separates?
Hi Forrest,
Please reread that paragraph in the BAT review. The observations about soundstage height were comparing the N804 to two planar speakers: Magnepan 10.1 planar magnetic and Final 500 electrostatic speakers.When I first hear a planar speaker (a Maggie), my first thought was that I had never before heard a stereo do a soundstage like this. I haven't heard any cone type speaker that presents an illusion of height as well as the planars I've heard. This is not a criticism of the N804, just a characteristic of the cone speakers I have heard. The remarks about height were in the BAT amplifier review, and were included to let readers know that the BAT is a *very* capable component. I have not (yet, maybe) included those comparisons in the N804 write up.
Thanks for your kind comments.
I added Sound Anchor stands to N803's when I had them and these give you the ability to tilt the speakers slightly, the satnds made quite a difference in my system.
Thanks. I ordered some last week. Still have to mess with the cables. Forrest.
Thanks. I look forward to more reviews!
Thanks for you quick response. I look forward to more reviews!
Actually while these speakers are pretty good one of the problems with it is the integration of dissimilar materials errr my impression when the speaker goes from mid to high. There seems to be abn upper midrange suckout with most if not all B&W speakers - no matter the equipment or the room. The soudn is often compartmentalized - of course I hear this with most of the Paradigms, PSB, and Energy's too. But B&W is axsking quite a premium dollar.This speaker is no where remotely as good as the Mezza Utopia i heard a couple years back - but then neither is the N801 or N802. The Mezza was far easier on the ears in the treble and integrated much better IMO.
I completely agree with your point re the midrange "suckout" and compartmentalization of the sound at different frequency ranges. I have used N804s in my system for several years now, and despite a number of electronics "upgrades" have never been able to make the N804s sound like real music. Granted, the sound that they do make can be quite pleasant but there is something about them that is not quite "real". In fact, their sound is so "pleasant" at times, that it verges on frankly boring or even irritating. Thinking that there has to be something better out there, I recently ordered a pair of Merlin TSMs -- I can hardly wait until they arrive.
I used the N804s for a couple of years until I bought a pair of used Merlin TSM-Ms on Agon for an alternative set of speakers. After hearing two tunes in setting them up, I put the B&Ws up for sale on Agon.
Very nice review! I'm curious as to why you chose to review a speaker that's been around for several years and one that has been bashed with frequency on this board. I have owned N804's for the past 3 years and only recently replaced them with Harbeth M30's. I can't find myself selling the N804 because they are indeed a fine speaker and a great value. Keep up the good work!.
Thanks for your kind words. I picked the N804 for these reasons:1. Since the N804 has the same midrange and tweeter as the best 800 series speakers, I could "hear" these more expensive speakers from ~400 Hz up, and understand the progress B&W has made over the years.
2. This is the least expensive 800 series speaker to use the FST midrange. Lower cost = more inmates and readers who might be interested.
3. I usually prefer floor standers over a bookshelf speaker that requires stands. Usually a bookshelf + good stands costs about the same as a floorstander in the line.
4. I missed the earlier posts about the N804. My positive experience with the Matrix 802 Series 2 (review on 10 Audio) several years ago urged the N804 review.
Two nice speakers vinyl, what are your thoughts between the two?
The Harbeth speakers have a certain magic in the midrange that really draws you into the music. The B&W's are a bit "drier" in comparison. The N804's have more impact of course and offer more air around instruments than the Harbeths'. I would say that the N804's are a better speaker if you listen primarily to rock music, it really depends on your musical preference.I find myself missing some of the N804 traits at times but once I hear how the Harbeths' present male and female vocals and instruments in general....I realize why I bought them. They also image extremely well for their size.
Thanks for the follow up, I've wanted to hear the M30's.
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: