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

ohlala...you've stated the answer to your question in the last part of your post

Why do people need to bash certain brands?
Mikez gave several good reasons in his innitial post for this thread. Too many earnest companies that make great products never fly because mass-fi brands like B&W are so good at convincing the masses that they are buying 'the best'. Most consumers are not savvy enough to consider better less well-known options - instead they are further swindled into dabbling in expensive esoteric cables once the boom and tizz starts to take it's toll.

Where I currently live there are only a couple of hi-fi retailers due to the small market. One of the shops was considering bringing in a new brand - they were considering JM labs, B&W, and Monitor Audio,- all overhyped brands that first and foremost aim to sell LOTS of speakers - rather than accurate musical speakers. I suggested that they look into brands like Castle, Joseph audio, Linn, Audio Physic, Aerial acoustics, Harbeth, Nova Audio, Rega, Dali, Royd, Wilson Benesch, Vandersteen, Totem, ...to name a few, but to no avail - people don't know these brands and they don't sell themselves. If people don't educate themselves and start to discern the mass-fi from the hi-fi, Mikez is right, we won't be able to find any decent sounding stuff in the future.

The brands mentioned above represent a wide range of prices - I've lived with several of them and have had considerable experience with all of these (friends, extended demos etc). I've also listened to many B&W speakers, from the bottom of the line all the way up to the Nautilus 805 and 802. (I actually considered buying a pair until I gave them a good listen) B&W's basic approach is wrong - they are not aiming for a natural, rythmic, musical presentation -- these are qualities that don't immediately impress but take time to appreciate and therefore are not an effective marketing approach (given the sad state of consumer knowledge and sophistication). What sells is impressive etched detail, sibilant treble, and excessive bass and warmth - and that is what B&W delivers - better than the competition -(Polk, Boston Acoustics, Bose, Klipsch at one end - and JM Labs and Monitor Audio at the other).

There are many other speakers that are both less expensive and superior to B&W's - at any point in B&W's extensive product range (a huge product range itself is a tell-tale sign of a market oriented product). I don't know why anyone would even consider Bose, er I mean B&W. (Isn't it cheesy enough that they use a moniker that is a blatant homophone of BMW - even if B&W actually does stand for something. (Bowers and Wilkins ?)

B&W 800 series speakers are good - but a pair of Joseph Audio's - at half the price, would STOMP them. My Castle Durhams at 900$ were a better sounding speaker than the 805 - at a fraction of the price. The Durhams are not as efficient and don't have the power handling abilities, but they are far more musical and involving. - Start talking Aerial Acoustics or Linn and there's no contest.

The premise that B&W speakers are mid-fi misrepresents the entire range that B&W present to the market. The 800 series speakers are NOT, IMHO, mid-fi. When one works down the ranges then there's a fuzzy line between hi-fi and mid-fi depending on ones definition of mid-fi. But consumers only buy speakers once (with noteable exception of folks in this arena). If you're going to buy one pair of speakers you're less likely to take a risk with less established companies and hence are directed to more main-stream companies with a wider product offering when one can make a more informed price/performance/quality/cost of ownership decision. I don't doubt that there are better deals (especially if the only decision point is sound quality) available out there from manufacturers who don't have the overhead of an establlished R&D department of the caliber of B&W's or who are entering into the market (hi-fi magazines make this easy by giving glowing reviews to new companies while appearing a little more critical of established marks - but that's a different topic).

Incidentally B&W was founded in 1966 so any coincidence of naming similarities the BMW is erroneus - BMW America was founded in 1975. Did BMW want to leverage B&W's name ?

ps. Introducing Linn into the equation of hi-fi is likely to garner some flames in this discussion - they're almost as controversial as Bose (who have the best marketing in the 'hi-fi' market) on these boards. Incidentally I have a Linn deck and B&W speakers. My wife wants a Bose radio.

BMW was established in 1916 and started making cars after they stopped making aeroplanes during WWII. However the name was well established and prestigious long before that, perhaps not in the USA - but certainly in Britain, and long before 1966. Nevertheless I admit it may just be coincidence and my little jab and may not have any real merit. But the fact that BMW 'America' was established in 1975 has no bearing on matters - as neither is an American company. (it just shows how long it took Americans to realize how bad their own cars were.)

The speaker manufacturers I mentioned are not small fledgling companies - they are well established hi-quality high-end companies who's speakers put most of B&W's to shame - for the money. They probably put a greater proportion of their revenues into r&d than B&W. And because they do not waste resources on designing umpteen speakers to fit avery niche in the market, they can put their resources into designing the best speakers possible. Period. B&W's strategy is to design speakers to 'sell right' - not to sound good. Of course B&W's top speakers are good. Pioneer could make good stuff if they wanted to - and they do - it just costs a fortune and is poor value - and they probably just contract the work out to companies like Linn anyhow (that is what Leouwe does in Germany).

Speaking of Linn, I would say they are the rare company that makes some of the best products available with a strong underlying ethic of sound engineering, simplicity, functionality, beauty, and practicality - AND they have a marketing appeal that is the envy of the industry - largely due to Ivor's personality. But the underlying philosophy of everything they do involves the reproduction of best possible sound. Their products stand up to the test. They have to - you can't get away with being as obnoxious as they are if your goods don't deliver. Just because they are not in the esoteric audio camp - in that they are willing to integrate comfort, convenience and user interface into their designs - doesn't mean they thay are not as focused on sound quality as some of the more dogmatic high-end companies - nor does it mean they are a sell out like Bose or Kakamichi.

I wanted to like the N803 when I went speaker shopping. I still think it is one of the best looking speaker lines. But...I found the Thiel CS6s so much more detailed and accurate with command of the low-end, it was a no-brainer for me.

I would not call B&W mid-fi. I just didn't like the sound. At all.

I should qualify some of my statements - I don't think B&W is mainstream mass-fi stuff like Bose or Polk. In terms of quality I think it is far better. But I just don't think they are purists, even in their top-flight range. I tried to like B&W - as mentioned earlier I brought the 805's home when the new series came out a couple of years ago. What an overpriced speaker the 805 is!

My main point here, and if I am correct the point of this thread, is that there are so many other speakers out there that are overlooked because too many people don't look past the name and the marketing - and actually listen to some of the better sounding better valued stuff out there. Many quality companies are struggling because too many people have the herd mentality and are brainwashed by mid-fi boom and tizz sound. Successful companies got that way because their products are proven is bu%@s*it! Just look at the companies that sell 95% of the electronics out there. Big 'reliable' names that produce mass produced crap.

Sadly, some companies that do make, or started out making good stuff, are forced to alter their sound in order to appeal to mainstream tastes or they'll go under.

To be fair once again - B&W is not bad, but I urge you to listen to some of the others, give them a good chance so that you can get used to the different type of sound before you draw conclusions, and eventually you will hear what you have been missing.

its all about system matching and placement. i had the n805's. build quality was great. hard as hell to setup and make them sound correct. i let a friend use them for about 6 months and he was much more successful than i. very revealing of components. i thought they were punchy in the mid bass. they would play rock great. dynamics were excellent. musical ??? maybe not like my decapos but some of the things that the b&w's did i miss. some i dont. they need a "lot" of clean power before they come alive. great resale value. all and all i think a very fine speaker. not a great speaker just a nice one.

B&W are, and IMHO, will always be a great speaker company. How many companies went under? B&W are still around just by making speakers. The N802 which I happen to own, has to be about three feet from the wall, (many people just don’t have that much room to spare), and toed in correctly in order to sound their best. This takes many days, weeks even, to get them to sound properly. The room has to be taken into consideration as well, such as, furniture, carpet, drapes or curtains, not to mention interconnects, components etc… These speakers aren’t for everyone, most individuals prefer to plug their speakers in and listen right away. Most will not, and can not match components together properly. Others just can’t afford certain things hence the bashing. The sizzle and honk goes away in time when broken in, this also, takes a while. These speakers have to be driven with adequate power. If you starve them they sound horrible. If you have enough juice under the hood of the amp they sound heavenly, even at low volumes, no honk, no sizzle, just musical bliss. Are there other companies that make great speakers as well, absolutely. Choose what you will, but I’ll keep my N802s.

The original premise of this discussion was that the instigator (that sounds harsh doesn't it !) proposed that s/he thinks B&W is mid-fi. Through violent agreement I think we can summize that some of their products may be mid-fi while others certainly are not. The fact that you may be able to get better price/sound-quality from competing manufacturers and that BMW was founded before B&W are irrelevant to the original discussion point. That being said isn't the internet and (some) discussion boards entertaining ?

Lots of responses to the B&W question. I own the 803s and have not compared them to that many other speakers. They do require specific equipment to make them sound magical and I do not mean big $$$. First a good high current amp is necessary, second, silver interconnects and cables open them up quite a bit. All of the other speakers everyone mentioned are also great but it all comes down to personal preference, etc. My 2 cents worth.

I have B&W 802 Matrix III's and they don't have "boom & sizzle" at all. The bass is very tight and defined, and the high end is not bright at all; that is, with high quality recordings. You do hear all the flaws with lesser recordings, and they aren't pretty. But I found that to be the case even with Vandersteens I owned before.

Garbage in ---- Garbage out. You must be sure your whole SYSTEM is good. Speakers are like chameleons - they change their sound drastically with different equipment.

[its all good ] NOT A BIG FAN BUT THEY MAKE OK SPEAKERS FOR THE CASH I HAVE OWNED A FEW PAIRS BUT WILL PROBLY NEVER BUY ANOTHER PAIR YOU CAN GET BETTER SOUND ELSE WHERE

I'm with John, My B&W 602's have boomy bass , muddy mids, and absolutly no sparkle to the treble. Seas woofers and ribbons in kits easily blow away any B&W's and most commercials. Audio Aero is superior digital, Jadis is superior tube. Electrocompaniet is superior solid state...same in drivers you've got superior and the so-so. Just opinion nothing more.

As a very happy owner of N 805's I would like to add a few thoughts to this discussion. B&W speakers have always evoked emotional responses from people who consider themselves "audiophiles". For better or worse everyone seems to have an opinion regarding this brand.

They are and always have been very very fussy concerning the electronics that drive them. Cables too are critical.
I believe that most of their models compete with anything out on the market provided they are driven properly.

Mid-Fi, give me a break!!!

Just some remarks.... many here say they owned a couple B&W speakers that they didn't like. Why bought them in the first place? Second: I don't feel the number of posts on this board by a single person is of any importance. Third: buying speakers is so easy: listen, and if you'll like them, buy them. And last: BMW means Bayerische Motor Werke, where B&W stands short for Bowers & Wilkins. I don't think B&W tried to copy BMW...

I used to work at an audio shop that sold B&W speakers. They weren't the best and they weren't the worst. In my opinion, they are better than mid-fi, but nowhere near the best. The main problems are tubby bass and blanket-over- the-speaker veiling, obscuring detail. Build quality is superior in all respects, and appearance is very nice. You could do alot worse. But on a sonic scale, they are about a 6 or 7 at best.

Yes, I understood that you meant midfi-ish. To interpret otherwise, and to think that someone offering an opinion respectfully on a "thing" somehow implies a personal attack on "you" because you possess that thing, is, well, a symptom of bias in interpretation beyong this place (say, on a couch with a psychologist might be more appropriate). Also, to say that its just another opinion and all are entitled to an opinion does not imply that some opinions aren't more true than others. Admittedly, context is important (listening experience and system).

Does anyone know anyone with a top flight tube-gear'd NOS'd system that uses B&W as their preferred reference? The predominant answer might to tell you something about the relative musicality of the B&W line versus others. If you like SS and listen to a variety of music, but tend towards classical, and don't want to keep looking on and on, want to retain reasonable resale and like the comfort of a historically proven brand, then B&W should be listened to - and maybe kept. If you are sensitive to mid to upper band lack of air (enveloping quality not volume, progressively greater as you move down the line) then you may want to look elsewhere. Caveat: I have not heard the Nautilus in sufficient number of systems to comfortably put forth an opinion there.

Twl, so what is better than B&W? I agreed about the "blanket over the speaker veiling". What speakers can you recommend that are clearer but still play music, not just notes?
I'm always searching, thanks for the help.

CDC:
I just heard the Totem Wind. They retrieved more info off the ESQ's Schubert's 14th String Quartet CD, then any other speaker I have heard including my beloved Acoustat 2+2. The soundstage and imaging where right up there with Avalon.
A slight veil and a little dynamic compression, but much better than I expected from such a small box speaker. Hey, they even did a credible job on Nirvana's Teen Spirit. A little pricey for $6500.00, but the fit and finish were first rate. Also, I actually liked the NAD silver series
amp/preamp/cd combo they were played with.

Highly recommended from someone who usually hates box speakers!!!

Cdc, this is a very subjective topic. I have not heard all of the speakers out there, so I am somewhat limited in the statements I can make. In direct comparison, in similar price ranges, to the B&W products, the Linn speaker line was far more open, dynamic, detailed, and natural. During my time at the audio store, I owned Linn speakers and was very happy with them. I had many opportunities to A/B them against alot of competition such as ProAc, Dahlquist, Quad, B&W, Boston Acoustics, ADS, B&O, etc., both mid-fi and high end stuff. While all had their good and bad points, the Linns did everything better in combination than the rest. Of course, nothing(or very little) matches the Quads for midrange at lower volumes. I don't use Linn speakers now, because I have moved to single-driver speakers. I think alot of the advantage that the Linns had over the B&Ws is the Scanspeak tweeter that Linn uses. Very open and detailed. This advantage of the Linns was true at all price points in comparison to the B&Ws. I am sure that many other high end speakers are also capable of exceeding B&W, but I have less experience with them so I'll let someone else talk about that. But, don't get me wrong, I don't think B&Ws are bad speakers. You can just get better for similar money. And if your system is really bright and bass weak, then the B&W might work out by adding a little warmth and smoothing the edges. To each his own.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll put them on my list.

TWL, what Linn & B&W speakers are you referring to? In the past I have sold B&W and Linn speakers through a few generations, including the lastest ones, and find your descriptions the complete opposite of what I've found. The Linn speakers are murkier and more closed in sounding than any recent B&W speaker I've heard. The older Tukans were grainy on the top end and had thin bass, the newer Katans very warm and soft sounding, the Keilidhs were tubby in the bass and the newer Ninkas are just dark and closed in sounding. The B&Ws (the comparable priced CM & CDM series) were far more neutral with a more extended top end and more controlled in the bass. I am not anti-Linn either, I think they make some great components (I own a Linn CD player) I just feel that their speakers are not where their strength is. Linn's own philosophy is that speakers are the least important piece in the audio chain (with the source being #1) which I think is reflected in their offerings.

Blackie, I have to admit that my experience is not with the latest series of either the Linns or B&W. So my take on these may have to be taken with a grain of salt. My findings were based on listening to both on a variety of amps in an audio shop listening room with only one pair of speakers in the room at at time. The characteristics I described seemed consistent across the board for each brand of speaker. I can't account for our differences in listening impressions. Perhaps other factors came into play. I don't think that Linn is the ultimate speaker maker either, but I had more listening comparisons with them than any other, vs the B&Ws, so that is why I used them as an example.

At least regarding the current, new speakers my experience has been the same as Blackie's. I like the Ninkas, but they are closed in, darker, less detailed and more colored than the CDM-7se. I also found that 7se was superior to the Paradigm 100s as they are free from that bright, brittle, pent-up sound i attribute to mid-fi. The 7se is boxy sounding speaker, though, which was the reason i did not buy a pair. Superior to the 7se, that i have heard, are Hales Revelations. The Hales are brighter than the 7se, but that area seems minor compared to how much better the Hales are overall.

Regarding the last few comments about Linn speakers, I urge you to give them a more careful listen and don't judge too quickly. Also, like any speaker if they are set up carelessly even the best speaker can sound disappointing. If you hear them under the right circumstances and put aside your preconceptions of what a speaker should sound like I think you be singing a different tune.

Tell me about my preconceptions. What is my reference? And tell me about the 'circumstances' under which I heard them. How were they set up? Because I am wondering how Blackie and I ended with the same conclusions under different, unkown-to-you 'circumstances' and 'preconceptions'.

btw Sorry all for the half-assed comparisons. Disregarding N’s comment, I should have deleted it.

Preconceptions:

When someone listens to my Linn system for the first time they are seldom bolled over by what they hear. It took me a long time to get used to the sound of my system and to learn how to make it sound right(through speaker placement - not tweaks). At first I found myself missing that "hi-fi" sound. A tonal richness and sparkle from every recording. At this point I found myself constantly listening to other speakers for comparison - to try and figure out what I was missing. I began to realize it was my own preconceptions based on brief encounters I had had listening to speakers in hifi showrooms. I had memories of sounds so seductive, warm and rich that I built my expectaitions around these fleeting impressions. After more critical listening I soon discovered that this seduction was entirely superficial and was achieved at the expense of the music. Now when I listen to many other speakers I can hear straight through them. JM Labs, B&W, and Monitor Audio are the guiltiest parties with high credentials that I have had considerable experience with.

There are few speakers that sound as good to me as the Keilidhs for anywhere near the price. Where the Linn's show weakness it tends to be through errors of omission - not addition. For reference and comparison, speakers that to me sound better than the Keilidhs are: Joseph Audio's floorstander, Audio Physic Tempo3, Aerial Acoustics model 7, ProAc's response series, and Linn's higher level speakers.

Listening to my Keilidhs friends have noted how clear and accurate the sound is - even non-audiophiles have commented on the midrange quality, but they are seldom blown away by an all-enveloping soundstage, deep bass, or high frequency sparkle. Linn speakers are often refered to as being 'dry' or having a 'shut in' sound. I can see where these observations are coming from when comparing Linn speakers to many others. With certain recordings this can be the case - although the musical message is always conveyed. If the recording lacks depth and fidelity that is how it will sound. If the recording has presence and tonal richness that is how it will sound. I have done numerous comparisons and have always concluded that while having less dazzle the Linn's sound much more capable, accurate - and ulitimately more enjoyable and better able to convey the message of the music.

Reference: Live, un-amplified musical performance.

Most amplified concerts grossly exagerate certain frequencies, - to make matters worse, they then exagerate the levels of ALL frequencies. I often wonder if most sound guys are half deaf. Most concerts are FAR too loud to be clearly audible - the sounds get so hardened by excessive volume levels (relative to the size of the venue) that music often becomes a hard glaze of indistinguishable noise.

Circumstances: I have a pair Keilidhs run in bi-amped active mode, as well Kabers run passively. Proper set-up and room consideration is essential for either of these speakers to sound right. I have heard these speakers sound both astonishingly good and bad. I don't know how to describe the particulars of every installation and why the results are as they are, but as with any speaker, (and perhaps more so with the Linns), speakers set-up is critical. One example of a situation that may cause Keilidhs to sound slightly muffled or even boomy is if they are situated along the short wall of a room and if they lack sufficient lateral breathing room.
There is a local Linn dealer that just can not figure out how to get the Linns to sound right - It's unfortunate because many people end up buying JM Labs instead.

Blackie, Linn has never claimed that speakers are unimportant - or that they are the least important part of the chain. They just see how pointless it is to begin with a bad signal all the way from the source. "Start as you mean to finish", I think is how Ivor describes it. It's a matter of avoiding the magnification (amplification) of errors, that ultimately will be presented (or blurted out) by the loudspeaker.

With respect to Linn speakers sounding 'murky'. All I can say is I urge you to listen again - and make sure that the system is set up well. Try listening to some natural sounding recordings of chamber music. The Dorian label has some very good uncompressed unadulterated recordings that will reveal the true potentials of Linn's speakers. Then listen to something like Radioheads OK computer and you will be amazed at how different the same speaker can sound. Both recordings are great but are vastly different - and this difference is only appreciable on an accurate system. The more you listen the more you will discover that what you might be calling "murky" or "dark and closed in" (unless the setup is sloppy) is actually the absence of candy-coating in the treble range and the nature of that particular recording. With an open sounding recording I'm sure you would be astonished by the sense of openness and transparency, and with a flat compressed recording you will wonder what the engineers were thinking; but you will always be impressed by the speakers ability to communicate the music. Even with flat sounding recordings such as old jazz classics from the 40's or 50's, (or almost any of REM's recordings) the musical message will be get through as it should. I make these comments with reference to Keilidhs, Kabers, Ninkas, and Katans as these are the ones I have experience with and can vouch for.

Ps: Try listening to Ry Cooders 'Buena Vista Social Club' on a carefully set-up active Ninka or Keilidh system - I'd love to hear your impressions after this ;-)

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.

My 2 cents worth:
1. Older B&W's seemed to be "voiced" like what you would expect from a British loudspeaker. They seemed to have a rich, laid back midrange with an acceptable level of clarity and detail.
2. Newer B&W's use metal dome tweeters and kevelar midrange drivers which tend to have less warmth. They require more careful matching of electronics and cables to sound their best. However, the level of clarity and inner detailing has improved and lower priced B&W's seem to offer solid value for the money.
3. The sound of newer B&W's is very dependent on what they are fed with.
4. I own B&W DM602s2 speakers. I "downsized" to these from larger, more expensive speakers. With a solid state integrated amp, they sound like mid-fi. With budget tube separates, the sound is very different and is competitive with high end systems. I prefer the sound of my speakers with tubes vs the sound of Nautilus 804's I heard in a dealer showroom driven by a high power solid state receiver.

As perhaps the largest speaker manufacturer existant, it would make sense that some of B&W products would be marketed to the mid-fi(?) segment. That association does not necessarily bring down the quality of their more ambitious products. There is good argument to use them if you want to try and hear recordings as the recording engineer did while making the recording, as they have been used as recording monitors more than most other speakers. That said, except for one glorious occassion, I have never enjoyed B&W speakers. To each his own. B&W fans is it true, that B&W's like tubes but need solid state?

Joe b has what I feel to be a very accurate description of what B&W sound was and has become. Neubilder, I have heard many Linn systems (having sold them for 2 years, I should have!) in many different circumstances and I stand by my description in previous posts. Although placement is important, a properly designed speaker should not sound wrong unless it it is placed in that magic (or majik) window. Linn does make some fine products but they are not the be all end all in sound reproduction, they are just equipment designers like everyone else not audiogods! There is a cult of Linn (and Naim too) where for some that like their products get to a point where they feel that the companies can do no wrong and stop listening critically. All Linn/Naim, all the time! Even their shady speaker cables and interconnects. Did the audiogod whisper the secrets of sound in Ivor's ear and everything he makes is the final word? There are many others that design as good as or better products out there but one must remember to keep ones ears (and mind) open. Oh, and keep acoustic, unamplified music (which I play, Neubilder) as a reference. Thank you and good day.

Blackie, I can see from my last post how you might think me to be religiously pro-Linn but that's not really the case. I like the integrity of a one brand system both in terms of sound and synergy as well as visual coherance. I don't want boxes of all shapes standing all over the place. I have settled on Linn not because I think that it is the holy grail of hifi, but because I appreciate their solid sensible approach. Their stuff is well designed, simple, elegant, and it meets high standards. Most importantly, (and this is where their loyal following serves them well - particularily in light of all the bad reviews their stubborn approach has garnerered them over the years), they have not caved to homogenized mainstream standards (or lack thereof) of sound reproduction.

But Linn are by no means the only ones whom I would say 'get it'. I'm sure there are many. The few that I have heard I have mentioned in my posts above.

Kalan mentions several speakers above, and at least with respect to the ones I have heard, I agree with him. I must add that the Joseph floorstander, though slightly better in its bass resolution and range, sounds A LOT like the Keilidh. Despite the Joseph's retail being almost twice that of the Keilidh's, I think it is still excellent value and a great speaker. That would make the Keilidh in my opinion, one of the great hifi bargains out there. (since it has been discontinued the Keilidh can be had for roughly 25% of the new price of the Joseph)

As for Keilidh listening coaching classes? You don't need any. Just listen to them for awhile, a few weeks, months, (without too much concentration on the sound because that takes all the enjoyment out of listening to the music) and suddenly you will only be satisfied listening to the likes of Aerial, Audio-Physic, Joseph, Castle, Ruark, Rega,.. or Linn.

The downside is you you may be caught mumbling to yourself, "if ait-taint Scottish, aits Crrap!

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.

Kalan, the two Joseph RM22si and the RM25si floorstanders sell for 2500 and 3500 respectively. That is roughly 4x the price of a used pair of Keilidhs, which can be got for between 700 - 900$. Yes, I meant 25% of, not off of, the price of the Joseph's. That's the thing - apart from their flagship models, Linn speakers aren't that expensive.

I agree with you about Rega, they were also at the top of my list.

As for listening to a system, I'm not suggesting that you not let yourself be absorbed by the music. I just think it's important to know when to stop listening to gear and start enjoying music.

I've noticed a lot of audiogoners seem to regard music as little more than a tool to evaluate their gear; "such and such track will reveal the brightness of these cables blah blah..." - they seem to have lost sight of the fact that purpose of all of this is the music!

It seems to me to defeat the purpose if after the latest 'upgrade' one ends up sitting in the designated listening chair squinting in order to hear every subtle sonic difference that it made.

I remember back in the days of cassettes how after a session of making mixed tapes, I would often become tired of the music I just spent hours carefully recording.

I must admit, a lot of these points are things that I have to keep in mind for myself - as an audiophile (I think) we are all faced with the affliction of being fetishists to a certain extent.

From your description of the Linns is sounds like you listen to CDs. If you listen to LP, you may be dissapointed in comparison to other speakers (i was) that have more realistic dimensions to their sound, and a more extended frequency range. I can live without complaint without low bass, but the typical Linn is sad at the top (but not as sad as Ruark). If your reference is restricted to certain unamped events, I am sure the Linns will not reveal thier weakness too much. The inaccurate tonal balance that is their solution to long-term happiness runs in to a brick wall with Rock & orchestra. And Rock which to you has no reference, would be acceptable if the store was to offer a pair for half off. So, I agree with you, $700 is not bad. I am actually thinking about getting a pair for my dear mum, who just moved in to a house. She would like their politeness and ability to keep a good beat. As far as 'midrange clarity', what I think you mean is different from what I heard ( alot). Linns chase down every note and put a big stamp on them. Less colored than some, but more than others.

My Keilidhs sound better with my TT than my CDP - though I do mostly listen to CD's. I listen to a lot of small scale chamber music, jazz, tango, folk, orchestral, as well as electronica, wall-of-sound rock like Radiohead and Pulp, and occasionally pounding ambient electronica like Leftfield, underworld, faultline and even some metal like tool. They sound as good playing vinyl with fast beats and lots of deep bass as they do playing solo piano or a baroque chamber ensemble. Right now I am listening to Dvorak's Symphonic poems (on CD) with some very loud complex passages. The sense of scale you can get from a full scale orchestra played on big full range speakers is lacking in terms of thundering bass, but they still do well in other respects. They don't try to do anything that a speaker in this range can not realistically achieve.

Ohlala what would you recommend to someone with my tastes that would outperform the Linns for a similar price. If I could afford them (and if I didn't move around so much) I would probably look for a pair of big Pro-ac response 2.5's, Aerial 7's, Joseph's, or Audio Physic Virgos, but with my relatively modest budget don't you think that these beat the competition hands down? (at least when comparing apples to apples) (Please don't mention B&W's because I've been down that road and they just don't cut it for me.)

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.

The Keilidhs were 1500$ USD.

"Ohlala what would you recommend to someone with my tastes that would outperform the Linns for a similar price."

That was my point. If your taste is Linn and alike, then it easy to say they are The best speaker. I bought Hales instad of Ninkas, but not because of your version of my preconceptions. Although they have their drawbacks, the Revelations use a smaller stamp. In a small room, however, the Ninkas probably have an advantage. Also, if you get a chance, listen to a pair of Magnepans. And BTW - ProAc floorstanders are also quite high on my to-buy-when-I-start-making-real-money list.

Maggies are an astonishing speaker but there is something about electrostats that....okay, perhaps I should practice what I preach and get used to them before I say they aren't my cup of tea. When I heard them I was truly amazed and they were on my list, but I felt there was something missing with electrostats vs. conventional driver speakers - something to do with impact maybe.

I have read many opinions on these speaker's and was able to hear them using my test CD's.

There system:
Rotel Reciever($1600)
Tranparent Cable($2600)
CDM 1 & 7's(?) NT($1100)

My System:
B&K ST-202 Modifed($850)
Rotel Pre-Amp RC-960
Phillips CD-80
NEAR M15's-AQ Blue Inigo Cable
Monster Ref.30 CD-Pre Cable
AQ Ruby

Could not produce some of the sounds that were true to real lifelike

To bad they do not make NEAR's anymore!Remarkable speaker still for the money!I have since updated the Woofer\Midrange Driver's with a test Metal type and they extend far deeper in the Bass with Pinpoint Accuracy through the soundstage.Either speaker contends for less $$ than the B&W Line to the $2000 speaker range easy!The M50's are next to come to compare with.Wilsons,Hales in the used sector I would venture with.
In newer speaker's there are some I have auditioned and would like to audition!Revel,JMR,ProAc's,Meadowlarks.Von Schweikert's,ACI's to name a few!
JMHO

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.

I don't think B&w's are mid-fi at all. I'm currently running the krell kas with the 801 matrix's. Sounds hi-fi to me. But who cares about hi-fi or mid-fi. Its all about love for music.

Am I the only one who thinks Linn is the Bose of the high end?

i've listened to various b&w's and haven't felt good about any of em. My impression for all of them is that they are too warm, and too warm (to me) means too colored. Listening is such a fragile exercise because our feelings that day, our life philosophies, and too many other factors to recount, all play a huge role in our interpretations. I, for instance, prefer to hear honesty coming out of a box or planar or what have you. Coloration, to me is tantamount to the labcoat boys tampering with something that was intended to be left alone and simply passed on to my ears from the studio. I like triangle speakers. incredible accuracy. Next week, who the hell knows what i'll like.
br

Just bought a pair of B&W802,s and they are definitly not mid-fi you must be driving them with inferior electronics or listening in your closet. They are accurate, and image incredibly. they are one the best sounding speakers I have Heard!,as do most of the audiophile community. Talk about detail!!! They only get better,with upgrades comes better sound. reassess your system, and fix the weak link.

Poloman, I agree 100%. I've still been thinking about this thread as I have N804.
Mikez is probably hearing mid-fid electronics which B&W faithfully reproduce.

I’m not sure that I would call B&W mid-fi but I’m not a huge fan. I generally want sound over sight and personally I think B&W’s are expensive for the sound they deliver. For the price of a CDM9 NT I would prefer Vandersteen’s 2Ce or Magnepan 1.6’s. BTW neither of those speakers look nearly as good as the CDM and Nautilus B&W’s. That being said I have a friend, with no real hifi sense, whom is dying to get his hand on some Nautilus 804’s. Why because they have Nautilus technology and look cool. After listening to the 804 once (even good stuff can sound bad once) I was not thrilled, and I would take Martin Logan or Magnepan speakers instead. Do I think my friend is wrong. Yes and No. Yes, I think it’s dumb to buy any speaker because of a certain technology it contains (Nautilus or electrostatic for that matter). No, they do sound good, just not $3600 good. No, because he is interested in how they look. I think the CDM and Nautilus series both look really good. While I think ML’s look better they are a bit tall for some taste.

My opinion, the short version: B&W does not have good performance per dollar. B&W’s higher end speakers (CDM and up) are really cool looking. If you are willing to spend the cash B&W can sound really good.

A note about spelling: Spelling skill does not equal intelligence! Typo’s are common place and not everyone will proof read a post before sending it. Second, spelling skill is tied to how your mind processes reading. Not all people read in the same way just like not all people are right handed. I have a masters in engineering from Stanford yet I misspelled several words while typing this post. That’s why I use a spell checker religiously.