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

WOW!..looks like you touched a "chord" here with Audiogoners! Indeed B&W must sell lots of speakers by the response they got here.

So the only 'honest' owner of B&W speakers is the one that doesn't like them ? Or does it just conform to your point of view ? I like my N803s. Honest !

Nice to hear an honest owner of B&W speakers. Good luck and happy listening with your new speakers.
Cheers!

Had my N803's FR for nearly 2 years. Not happy at all. Started off with N805's but they were no good so relegated them to being back speakers in my surround system. Thought I'd give some time to like them but really couldnt. Good for Home Cinema but awful for music. Currently in the process of selling off all my Home Cinema gear since I listen to more music know. Will buy Revel Studios instead...will sound good when I get my Cello Performance II amp!

Hi, Mikez!

I agree with you when saying "B&W is mid-fi".
There are some very good models but only in the very high price regions (the "bigger" Nautilus models). The one, and perhaps the only I really liked, was the B&W 801 matrixIII loudspeakers-they were truly great speakers in their time (and very good even these days, i believe).

The majority of their speakers over the past years are left behind many, even smaller, speaker brands soundwise. Where I think they excell is finish and especially marketing. They allways look very pretty(what is a good thing but don't make them sound better) and impressive.

But thats my oppinion (and oppinions are just that - nothing more)... I'm sure there are people out there who like their B&W speakers and it's good so.

Best regards to all of you,
David.

I'd like to know what specific speaker model(s) the original poster listened to. The B&W line sound very different across the board, as just about any line of speakers. What kind of equipment was driving the B&Ws? A speaker's sound is only relative to what's feeding it, especially B&Ws.

Back while I was in college in the late 80s, wanting to upgrade my entry level bookshelf speakers, I auditioned Polk, Infinity, Canton, B&W, etc. The B&Ws I listened to were mid level floorstaninding ones in their line. They were ok, but didn't impress me in any way and could be catagorized as "mid-fi". The sound wasn't very balanced. The lows were a bit overpowering and not as well defined as I would've liked. I was disappointed. But, for kicks I had the salesman switch to the 801s (then B&W's flagship). He switched the speaker cables to the 801s and turned up the amp. WOW! Unbelievable. Very open and revealing. Didn't sound boxy. The highs, mids and lows were very well balanced in relations to each other. The highs were unbelievably clean and not fatiguing at all. The mids were very smooth and the low end was well defined and not boomy at all.

After listening to the 801s I was ruined for anything less, especially the B&Ws I auditioned just before the 801s! But a college student like myself could never dream of affording the 801s....

Truth be told, after being tired of auditioning speakers at various dealers, I settled on a pair of Bose 6.2s (you can bash that one too) and tried desparately to forget about the wonderful music the 801s put out. They (the Bose) sounded okay in the dealer's showroom, but sounded much better at home. That's when I learned one of the cardinal rules of audio: if possible, audition in your home. There are a lot of variables when audtioning equipment at various dealers, but the one constant is what you have at home, in terms of both equipment and acoustics. Years later and being in the market to start a whole new system from scratch, I'm going to take a serious look at B&W's Nautilus line, perhaps the 805s.

Audio, like anything else is relative. People who are musicians hear differently than people who aren't. Musicians who play electric instruments hear differently than musicians who play acoustic instruments, etc.

L

I have heard alot of B&W speakers.Ihave never been impressed.They are good at marketing to yuppies, thats about it!

To Spluta,
first of all, no wonder you didn't like the N801's, driven with a measly 200W! The 801 requires at least 300 and even more before they begin to open up. That particular model could really benefit from bi-amping. This thread just amazes me how ridicoulously biased it is toward a fantastic speaker iine. Any of the Nautilus line from the 804 on up is very revealing, "junk in = junk out" The electronics matched have a lot to do with the end result. I recently heard a set of 802's powered with a Krell, it was muddy. the same set powered with a Threshold was majical. I have a set of N804's powered with a Classe 300 amp, Classe pre and CDP and the synergy is great. I will agree that the BW line tends to be overpriced, but the Nautilus line of speakers are definetly not the kind of junk some of you want to portray it as.

Upgraded My Polk Monitor 10B speakers to the B&W Matrix 802 series3. Using B&K ex442 and ARC LS-7 No fancy wires or tweaks. Let me tell the sound is fantastic you guys have jaded ears. Yeah there might be better out there, but you have to spend mega bucks to get better sound. Yeah maybe I could upgrade the amp or cables, but you have to know when to leave well enough alone. You wouldnt upgrade your wife for a better model, would you? (although youd like to ). I had the Polks 10 years. Probably Have the B&W's another ten. Used, they're the best Value around, Period!

B&W's success lies in their aggressive marketing tactics...a large number of studios use their monitors...but then again...Mcdonald's is the worlds largest restaurant chain...too many equate "bigger with better"...the majority of their sales is based on name recognition...and I would have to agree with some of the above posts...at their prospective price points...and without much effort...one can always find a speaker that outperforms the equivalent B&W (often for much less)...they are for many....a "safe" choice...like Mcdonalds...for better or worse...you know what you are getting...my gripe is less about their sound...more about their inflated price...to catergorize them as "mid fi" is a bit harsh...

I first heard the N802 when they came out at my dealer with McIntosh and I didn't like them. I finally took the plunge and sold my Matrix 801 III w/North Creek crossovers for the N802's. They are very realistic sounding like nothing I ever thought I would hear like them. With my Krell there is so much information musically revealed that I have never looked back or moved to sell anytime soon. I have owned Kef, ML, Magnepan, Pro Ac and have heard Wilson's and more. I hated to see my tweaked 801's go but these are definately worth it :-)

Cdc..

I definetly was not impressed with Mc and 801 sound.
My expectations were very high for 801 and i was really
dissapointed. I looked for pwr conditioner.. They did have one hooked up. So i couldent blame that. If i get the chance
i will listen closely to B&W's with some different amps.

I also had a much different take on the F30's and M20's. With different amps. The F30's were paired with Proceed amp and pre. The M20's were paired with Rotel gear (yeah i know).

I was really impressed with both especially bass and midrange on F30's. But the M20's really stood out as much better than I expected. Especially with the gear that was running them. Overall i would rate them both very high on my list. Im very confident my amplification could really get them where i want to go.

I do understand the effect's different gear can have on
any good speakers. I always try to take that into consideration.

I will check out Paradigm's also...

Thanks,

Steve

Spluta, that was my point about B&W revealing the source. I went right from my listening room (N804 / Musical Fidelity) to the dealer who had N802 and McIntosh. McIntosh threw a big veil over the sound. Some people like this.
Aball, Krell could be tiring. I heard Classe on Revels F30 then deasler switched to Musical Fidelity / M20. Lost a lot of high frequency energy. Maybe that is better.
Paradigm is great for the money.

Cdc - first off I had a Krell KSA100 with 250p and just got tired of the sound. I then had a Classe CA100 for a while, tried a bunch of borrowed amps, ended up getting McIntosh 7100 and 712 from acquaintances which I really like and the B&W sounded pretty decent - they do change with components so maybe I just never got the right ones for it. Then I got rid of the B&Ws and got Paradigm Reference 100.2 for a sweet deal new and am very satisfied. For the price they are downright amazing. Sold the 802s locally for the same as what I paid. CD was always the same - Sony ES 5-disc. Arthur

Without a doubt, B&W speakers are FAR from top notch sound.

I have been on the lookout for a new set of speakers to replace my NHT 2.5i's (which sound pretty darned good, but somewhat sterile) I'm replacing them b/c my current room is actually too small for them (they need room to breathe).

Listened to B&W's (804's, I think) with a variety of amps (bryston 4bst, musical fidelity (not sure which), anthem). While I was certainly able to distinguish sonic attributes amongst the amps, the speakers were very, VERY disappointing. Sure, they are able to set up a semi - 3d soundstage, but overall the sound was flat, lacklustre and veiled. These speakers lacked in dynamics and overall performance left me wondering why anyone would spend so much money on the B&W line.

Maybe it's just my taste (which I admit is very likely). But in my opinion, I can find much MUCH better sound at a fraction of the cost.

And no, I'm not new to the audio game. I've been fiddling with this stuff for 17 years, so I do know what I'm looking for.

It funny you asked that question.
I am looking to upgrade speakers. I have middle
of pack Infinity's they have done a great job
for price point but im looking to get to next level.
I specifically had four speaker brands in mind
before i heard the B&W'S now i have three. Revel,
Martin logan and Infinity MTS series.
I recently had a chance to listen to the 801's
they were being driven by a Macintosh something
i was told about 200wpc. The first thing i noticed
was a Velodyne sub parked between them so i asked
the salesman to turn off sub and re-direct all bass
to 801's. I was shocked how they sounded. The only
thing that stands out in my mind was a haze that seemed
to cover music and a real lack of low end. It took me
a total of about 60 seconds to take these of my short
list. VERY DISSAPOINTING. I will say that the room
was not ideal and I would guess my Bel Canto EVO6 would
do a much better job of driving them but there was just
nothing that appealed to me about them. Sorry i dont
mean to flame anyone who has purchased B&W's just my
opinion.

Ok, I'm new to the chat room, not the classifieds but I had to tell you, I have owned the 801 matrix 2 for 11 years and have had them with Threshold SA1 , Krell KSA 250, CJ EV 2000 and now the CJ MF2500A solid state amp with the Premier 17LS pre, XLO cables and I can't tell you how good it sounds. I have been through so much gear over the years and the 801's are the only thing to stay around. They really are system dependent from electronics to especially cables believe me I have tried a lot and it does make a BIG difference. The only bad thing is B&W no longer is supporting making replacement parts and speaker replacements. I just blew a woofer and it cost me $500.00 to replace it. (rock and hard place) I still don't know what I can get to replace them however. I have checked out Theil, Spendor, Dynaudio, Totem but still from top to bottom on ALL types of music I just love these things!!! Anhybody got replacement cone repair kits out there??

I agree with Danny. I've heard the Matrix series powered by cheesy amps like Sunfire and other hometheater amps. They were definitely veiled.

I also heard them powered by Nakamichi PA-5 and PA-7, Rowland... dunno model, and White Audio. The Matrix(es) sounded damn good. Still not as good as the Von Schweikerts that we were comparing them to head to head though.

I have listened to various B&W for over twenty five years, including the original 800's 801's, 802 etc. I also listened to the one that looked like, and it may have had an electrstatic element in it. Most of the systems I have heard that had B&W in them sound veiled and cloudy; this observation included WFMT's system in Chicago.

Then I heard a friend's 801 system that consisted of Roland Amps, Basis Table and Cal CD Player. This system had depth, imaging and transparency. it sounded like no other B&W system I had ever heard. It was truly impressive. I Have subsequently only heard one other B&W system with the new 801 Series or whatever its called sound spectacular. This system was an all Meridian system.

I have heard newer systems that again had the veiledboomy and cloudy sound. I can only say these speakers must be very picky about electronics. The sound was that dramatic from great to mid-fi.

I agree, personally I find the B&W + Levinson (383, etc.) combination very bland and uninvolving (and I own and am very happy with N803s). Remember that system matching is probably THE most important aspect of good sound. It isn't as simple as good speakers + good amp = good sound.

I had the same reaction. I listened to 803s powered by a Mark Levinson integrated amp and was terribly unimpressed. Muddy, confused sound stage, and no high end were my first impressions.

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

Cdc, At the time (2001): Modded Rotel 855 on Neuance through Pass Aleph P and 2 monos. It wasn't the upstream chain, as other speakers sounded better, and equally detailed...and imaged better (better pair-matching and coherence in the nearfield). Yes, Triangles and Thiels (exc the new 1.6) are too bright for me, too, but the Nautilus tweeter is just insufficiently padded, even in my very damped room....
BTW, sitting slightly OFF-axis exacerbates the brightness with the Nautilus 803-5 as the upper cross is at 4kHz, so the wider-dispersion tweeter REALLY flares out off axis as the already-recessed fine midrange driver further weakens in the upper mids as it progressively gets beamy.
Maybe putting a couple of grillcloths over the tweeter could take it down a dB or so? Would be a good start, eh?
Good night. Ern

Subaruguru what amp/CDP/cable combo? Many comments about B&W being bright but that can have a lot to do with other components, room, or music.
Triangles aren't bright? Paradigms aren't bright? Von Schweikerts aren't bright? Thiels aren't bright?
I found aiming the speakers so they cross behind my head is better.

After NOT reading all the above posts, I must agree that I found the N803 WAY too bright in my room in the nearfield.
Interestingly their power response was superb, as they sounded GREAT from an adjacent room! Yeah, that damned tweeter's awfully hard to tame, the midrange is too shelved, and the woofers cross too high, so coherence in an issue, as well that seringly-bright tweeter EQ.
Interestingly their DM602S3 is darned good for the $ if you can stand their awkward industrial look.

Aball, what was you pre / amp / and CDP?
So what's better than N803 Bigkidz? I'm still searching. Only ATC so far. But if you're into tubes the new Coincident Victory really kicks butt. Or maybe Von Schweikert DB100 (haven't heard them)

For my $0.005 I agree that they seem bright and not too involving. I had N802s for a while and was glad to get rid of them (now I know why I got such a good deal on them from the last guy!). For their retail price, they were not good. For the used price, they were ok. I have only auditioned the N801s and N804s with the latter being like the 802s and the former pretty good but at what price? I am basically finished with having my ears strained by B&W. They do look darn good however. Arthur

Asa and Unsound, B&W speakers in general do not mate well with tube amps. Mostly the speakers require a high current amp (not wpc but current) to make them open up and sing. See the Enjoy the music review of the Pass X-250 amp where they feel the high current amp really makes the 803s sing. As always, what sounds right for one does not always sound right to another. I own a pair of 803s and know there are better speakers out there. I also know that I need a very good components and system matching to get the best performance that I am looking for from my system.

Peace.

I think everything is relative. If youre worried about the price vs. performance ratio on speakers i.e. B&W you can do what I did, and wait a few years and get a mint used pair at a much lower price. Hey, its the same with cars, would you spend a hundred grand on a Ferrari that gets you from point A to point B When a Chevy or Toyota Will do the same For a lot less. It's all about what the market will bear. Although B&W is expensive the sound quality is what matters. The R&D that goes into the speaker insures the technology will be cutting edge for years to come. Look how long the Matrix 801 has been in class A. And now the silver signature. Yours in audiodom, Poloman.

Nik, that sums things up kinda nice. But i don't give B&W as much credit as you. Frankly there are not many reasonably priced speakers that are class "A". If you don't know what class "A" is or don't even believe in such a hypothesis, well then what can i say. The French lab, Traingle claims Class "A" for one of their models, $2K. One member says they deliever, vs the Theil 1.6's that fall way short of the mark in the lower bass region. But are the Traingle class "A"??, hard to say. Here's my opinion, nothing more, maybe not even worth 2 cents, the Seas kit called Thor is class "A". That's a reference speaker for the price group under $3K. Now Vandy's 2ce, over B&W, yea that's acceptable. Maggies, no go. ML's, with a big Krell, yes,$$$. But its not for me. B&W's are not class "A", lets leave it at that.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 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

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.

"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.

The Keilidhs were 1500$ USD.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?