Am I the only one who thinks B&W is mid-fi?

I spent an afternoon with the current B&W 803's (with a Chord amp and then moved to a larger room with huge Pass Labs monos). I had the same sonic impression as some of the others who found them somewhat veiled (blanket over them--I think some have been saying). They also had to be really pushed by beefy amps to get up and convey much musical emotion. Boom and sizzle? I did not hear any. The 804's and 805's also did not sound that way. Maybe some other B&W's sound that way with bad electronics....

Set up matter a lot, though. Perhaps the 803's weren't set up to their optimum potential.

Other speakers offer much more interesting possibilities to me-and most of these are cheaper: Coincident, Totem, Pro Ac, Ruark, Joseph. Every time I hear models from these makers, they offer some tangible musical merit.

As for Linn, I agree that speakers whose designers play the "grab your attention" game usually sound pretty bad over the long haul. But if a listener needs to be coached to listen a certain way to appreciate a speaker's strengths, I become suspicious. I agree that subtly counts. I agree that the expected result is not always the real result--especially in Audio. But where Linn is concerned, I don't get it. Maybe that makes me a cretin. I don't hear anything worthy of their fame from the Linn setups I've heard. They sound like basic, good quality stuff afraid to make a mistake and in so doing, sound too polite. Too much work to enjoy.

Perhaps, I have yet to hear a properly setup Linn rig. Setup matters, oh yes,...to a certain extent. Perhaps I really am a cretin.

Based on Neubilder's comments, it seems I will have to seek out another listen to some Linn systems. A local shop carries Linn--and B&W for that matter. While I am at it, I will try to get a better education about Naim. Both makers seem to have a cult-like appreciation that tends to be lost on the majority of the audio-addicted. Everything is worth another listen.

From my experiences with Rega and Ruark (my fave shop carries them and friends own both brands), I could possibly live with a system comprised of only these manufacturers' gear. (My personal bent currently is for tubes [pre- and power amps] and Coincident Speakers, but I am open to possibilities.)

Maybe I misunderstood something. Neubilder said, "Despite the Joseph's retail being almost twice that of the Keilidh's..." And then later in the same post, "...(since it has been discontinued the Keilidh can be had for roughly 25% of the new price of the Joseph)."

Which is it, 50% or 25% less?

Something else struck me as a odd: If I didn't pay too close attention to the sound of a system (as Neubilder suggests one should do when listening to a Linn system), would not most systems become fairly pleasing? Unless, of course, a system made some horrible mistake.

Again, we are encouraged to listen to a Linn system a certain way--maybe a 'non-audiophile' way (?). We are perhaps asked to focus on the tune, the music, and not sweat the details of the sound. That's legitimate because it should be about the music, right? Yes, but much cheaper gear than Linn will also convey this music-not-hifi message really well. Rega comes to mind.

I will seek out another go with Linn (and Naim). Maybe I'll 'get it.' Neubilder expresses his point of view well. He sounds credible. I will just have to hear it for myself.

Neubilder, I get the 50% and 25% less part, now. I read your statement earlier as '25% off' instead of '25% of.' I should have known better... Please accept my apologies for the aggravation I must have caused.

What did the Linn Keilidhs cost new? Let's compare retail-to-retail prices--even though the Keilidhs are now discontinued (right?).

Otherwise, we should be comparing used Joseph prices to used Linn prices.

OK, I promised to go out and listen to both Naim and Linn systems. I heard a NAIM system whose retail cost is about $11,000 and a Linn one of about the same cost on the same day within minutes of each other with the same music material.

The Naim sounded very much like the "feeling" of live orchestral music. Not the same dynamic range, but the over all tonal balance and character of acoustic instruments in a real space was captured quite well. No spatial or visual ability at all. I believe imaging is not even on the list of goals at Naim.

The Linn system sounded just horrible. Sorry to say this, but it sounded worse than a well set up mid-fi system (second system) I have at home. The Linn system sounded splashy, fatiguing, terribly out of balance with itself, poor bass, confused midrange, etc. I chalk this up to poor room conditions and inattentive setup by the dealer. A much cheaper Musical Fidelity and Dynaudio monitor-based system at the same dealer sounded embarrassingly better. I only report what I heard.

I am sure Linn makes very good gear. I have heard other Linn stuff on other occasions and they did NOT sound as bad. If fact they sounded quite subdued and polite--a la typical English stereotypes.

As for Linn speakers taken out side of a Linn system context, I would like to try them out. There are just so few opportunities to do this.

Back to Naim. I noticed that lots of audio folks get Naim electronics but pair them with non-Naim speakers. If I had to guess, I would say this is so that the listener can get some imaging going with all the Naim musicality thrown in. Naim and Spendor seem to be popular with the Art Dudley - Listener Magazine group.

This recent experience and others in the past lead me right back to where I have been spending most of my efforts: tubed pre- and power-amps, efficient speakers, and an turntable front end. This, to me, represents the cheapest, most direct way to get to the most realistic and gratifying musical experience from reproduced sound.

Just because Thiels, Triangles, and (I'll add) Chapman T-7s might all be bright, does not mean the B&W Nautilus 803's are not bright. All four could be bright. Some manufacturers seem to favor a bright-ish presentation.

Brightness and detail don't necessarily go together--as others have pointed out. Some of the more revealing speakers I've heard are also relaxed sounding: Ruark Solstice, mbl 101, and Maggie 3.6.

I spent an afternoon with the N 803's. Amplification was either Chord or YBA. "Bright" did NOT come to mind. Somewhat dull and uninvolving did. They seemed to need lots of power to come alive. Both rooms were large--no near-field listening. Cabling, rooms, and associated equipment could have accounted for my impression.

Nothing about the N 803's seemed worthy of their price nor the notice they seem to garner. Perhaps another audition under different conditions would prove otherwise

Joeb, Live music is a great reference, but it pretty much works best if that live music is un-amplified. You've undoubtedly heard the cliché: 'Live, acoustic instruments in a real space,' (paraphrased). There is a reason why live, un-amplified music is so popular for evaluating audio gear--at least in theory: it reduces the variables to a manageable level.

I agree that live, arena rock shows and even live blues at smaller clubs almost always sound worse than studio efforts. But I don't believe that's what most folks are talking about when they compare a given system to live music. Speaking for myself, I mean live acoustic jazz, orchestral, and chamber music.

I think the theory is that rock/pop involves electronic amplification in the studio plus the reinforcement of giant PA systems at a live show as part of the total sound result; therefore, there are too many unknown variables involved. This makes a given audio playback system pretty difficult to compare to anything else as a reference other than different audio gear.

Unknown variables also enter into the equation with acoustic music: hall, mic types and placement techniques, recording methods, mastering, etc., but those all exist in electronic-based music as well PLUS all the vagaries of the intervening electronics. You can usually readily recognize whether system X or Y comes closer compared to live acoustic music or not. This seems to be a bit harder with "originally amplified" music compared to a live show with yet more PA electronics and speakers.

Some people only listen to electronic-based or music. Totally cool. I like rock/blues/pop, too, and I use it to evaluate gear: macro dynamics, pace, bass speed, and 'slam.' But I don't stop there; the heart-of-the-matter evaluation, for me, has to be done with acoustic music compared to live as a base-line.