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

Showing 2 responses by sugarbrie

sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
No you are not insane...The answer is probably "Yamaha Receiver" or some other component in your system.

System matching always matters. The B&W's are fine. They most likely do a very good job of accurately reproducing the sound produced by the receiver and your other components. In other words, they just might be too good for your sources. The Boston Accoustics while very nice speakers could be masking some of the system's shortcomings, which is fine when taking the system as a whole.

I do find it interesting that a lot of people will praise or place blame on whatever specific component they are trying out; and never consider the other components in the signal chain.

There is a consumer review of the CDM-1 at AudioReview.com, where the writer claims the bass on the CDM-1 is terrible. He was using home-made speaker stands made of wood and marble. Both of these materials resonate their own sound when they vibrate. But he blamed the bad sounds he heard on the speakers.

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