I know that title sounds pretencious. By all means, everyones taste is different and I can grasp that. However, I find B&W loudspeakers to sound extremely Mid-fi ish, designed with sort of a boom and sizzle quality making it not much better than retail quality brands. At price point there is always something better than it, something musical, where the goals of preserving the naturalness and tonal balance of sound is understood. I am getting tired of people buying for the name, not the sound. I find it is letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In these times of dying 2 channel, and the ability to buy a complete stereo/home theater at your local blockbuster, all of the brands that should make it don't. Most Hi-fi starts with a retail system and with that type of over-processed, boom and sizzle sound (Boom meaning a spike at 80Hz and sizzle meaning a spike at 10,000Hz). That gives these rising enthuists a false impression of what hi-fi is about. Thus, the people who cater to that falseified sound, those who design audio, forgetting the passion involved with listening, putting aside all love for music just to put a nickle in the pig...Well are doing a good job. Honestly, it is just wrong. Thanks for the read...I feel better. Prehaps I just needed to vent, but I doubt it. Music is a passion of mine, and I don't want to have to battle in 20 yrs to get equipment that sounds like music. Any comments?
Some brands like B&W might be a victim of their own success to a certain extent in that many are sold at various price points and probably only a small percent are ever really set up properly to maximize their potential.
Hifi has always been this way to a certain extent. People spend a large % of budget on the "best" speakers they can afford and the rest suffers in comparison due to insufficient budget, lack of knowledge, low expectations, etc.
I've owned B&W, and while not my preferred, line I could probably do what is needed to be able to live with them if needed.
So teh line is NOT mid-fi, but the end results in many cases may end up that way for the reasons above.
Well we are custom builders and just completed a line of speaker that we have branded the Intimidator-2, because replace his complete 7.1 speaker system with our 2-way bookshelf speaker. Don't know if they would be considered mid grade but I do compliment the Intimidator speaker model by E.C.S. Anyone interested I can send photos and specs.
LOLOLOLOLOL Sometimes Audiogon is unreadable, like when someone says that speaker A "blows" speaker B (this is actually happening in another thread, right now), as if the music from speaker A is so amazing that it causes speaker B to literally fly away in some kind of tornado event, and then sometimes you get a thread like this, spanning more than a decade, culminating with Jaxwired taking the cake for post of the week.
Listen to a B & W CM10 which sounds fantastic at a price below the 804D, 803D,802D and 800Ds which ALL sound great. I suspect your snobbishness has gotten the better of you. Oh and there are other hi fi bargains such as the Rega turntable, The OPPOS 103 and 103D CD/DVD players, Kimber Kable 4TC and 8TC but you would have to listen and the $$$ might no be enough for you, Cheers
Loomisjohnson, Polarizing, yet not 'ugly' as some threads can become. I find B&W's 'house sound', to be very colored, to the point of being annoying. Having designed speakers, I know that it's not that hard to eliminate such colorations...I can't fathom why this supposedly august group of engineers would release their products with this very strong house sound. Neutrality is good for Switzerland AND loudspeakers.
I can see why many listeners would love them, and why others like myself would be less enthusiastic. It is all in the individual ears of the listener. I find them to sound kind of dry, but I do believe that they make a quality product, just not for me.
b&w is certainly a polarizing proposition--unlike, say, psb or vandersteen, which everyone seems to like, people either love b&w or think they're overpriced/overrated. to my skewed ears, the curious thing about b&w is that some of their lower-priced offerings often sound better than their totl nautilus stuff. i auditoned the 804s (which i think cost $9k) against much cheaper magnepans and theils and didn't think the b&ws were in the same sonic league. on the other hand, i thought their $1k 683/684s were a really nice, well-balanced floorstander and a great value. again, purely my opinion and no disrespect to b&w's many fans.
B&W spends more on research and development than alot of other companies do on total sales.
All 800 series products always have been and still are reference quality - studio quality speakers.
Don't like the idea that a company makes lower lines to fill niches?
Regardless of the model level all B&W speakers demand the best in electronics driving them in their respective price category. From folks I have talked to this has been the biggest reason they switched. Their gear was not up to par to get the most out of them.
If you choose to hook yours up to your kit and it doesnt crank your chain you should be happy that you could probably sell them for what you paid if you bought used based on the kind of company B&W is - their history, reputation and quality.
I've no experience with them, but today Peter Gabriel posted a photo on FB from the studio where he's mixing his new album. Featured prominently in the pic is a ginormous B&W speaker.
Ive lost interest in my current B&W's and hated some of the new ones I have listened too. I think I am switching my current system out for ELAC 248's now.
02-08-11: I note my answer back in '03, and reiterate...no, you're not the only one who considers B&W mid-fi. Actually, to me, it has several of the more annoying of colorations which disqualify them from being musically enjoyable, for my taste - Lrsky
Funny you should mention this Larry, i was having a very similar conversation with others the other night and we all felt the same way about Genesis speakers, most of their models are heavily colored and dead sounding.
I note my answer back in '03, and reiterate...no, you're not the only one who considers B&W mid-fi. Actually, to me, it has several of the more annoying of colorations which disqualify them from being musically enjoyable, for my taste.
I think that Gryphon Speaker systems put Bower and Wllkens to shame as well as several others I have created myself using Seas, Scanspeak, Focal, Accuton, Resonant Engineering, Eton, even some HIVI Research drivers soo many better options in my opinion.
FWIW, in response to the original poster's "I am getting tired of people buying for the name, not the sound." I'd just like to say both my wife and I used our ears (and to a certain extent my wife's aesthetic sense!) to decide both our surround sound speakers and hi-fi speakers. She had never heard of any of the names on offer and I wasn't familair with the brands and in both instances, at our (mid-range) price point the result came out B&W.
The only B&W speakers I have used are a little set of 550 (6.5 inch woofer in sealed box and titanium dome tweeter). These were when my living accomodations were greatly downsized. I now have an array if three MG 1.6, plus other stuff, and I like that setup.
However, I must say that those little boxes reproduce one thing, a violin, better than any speaker I have ever heard.
Possible reasons are (a) The baffle size is just about the same as a violin. (b) The Titanium tweeter has a slightly metalic sound, that resembles the violin's metal A and E strings (the two highest of four).
After talking with other people, here's a ththought about Nautilus. First I get don't measure a spike at 80 and 10,000 hz as Mikez says. And the BBC dip at the presence region is measured anechoic and may make actual in-room response more flat. In any event, compared to Merlin VSM, instruments and vocals aren't as actile like they are right in room. So I don't know if the frequency response is the reason. But B&W runs the midrange into breakup because of the high crossover frequency. As shown at the B&W site, the driver produces a broad band type of pink noise at breakup which may raise the noise floor of the speaker. I thought it had to do with the compliance of Kevlar vs metal making the fuzzy sound. But it may be the breakup mode instead. So the weave of the driver reduces harmonic distortion to 1% or less but converts the distortion into "pink noise". I was disappointed to hear PSB Image 4T's sound clearer than my B&W. Clearer but not as clean. Meaning there was more distortion. So maybe it's a tradeoff. Thiels are clear but Stereophile, for example, always seems to find some fault. Maybe poor design or maybe the clarity is a double edged sword. I realize many people find B&W bright. This may be a setup thing. They are bright compared to Dynaudio, Silverline, and Reynaud. For the record, I have never had anyone ever complaint my Nautilus is bright. On good recordings, there are sort of bland. But they make poor recordings listenable and still invite me to listen into the music which is important to me. Auditioning other speakers dealers have complained about my bad recordings but they actually sound okay on B&W. But maybe the "mid-fi" sound could also be because of their lack of razor sharp clarity and/or distortion. But I find they are less bright than other studio monitors, other than ATC, Alesis, and KRK. Talking with a recording engineer, he told me he'd rather have a bright speaker and eq. it down than try to brighten up a dark speaker. So for real studio monitors brightness is a better alternative.
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.
I'm very happy with the sound I get from my Matrix 805's, mounted on Audio points on Lovan Caliber stands, which are filled with micro bearings. The speakers are bi-wired with Kimber 4TC/8TC to a NAD 370 integrated amp. Music sources are NAD 540i CD player and Rega P3 TT. IC's are Signal cables. Subwoofer by HSU. I just recently completed this modest set-up based mostly on recommendations from Audiogon members for under $4500 (new and used)so a big THANK YOU to all of you out there. Compared to other, more expensive systems I've heard, I'd consider mine hi-fi, not mid-fi.
I heard the B&W N series at a NYC dealer while visiting my daughter at grad school. I did not listen to them for more than 5 minutes before I gave up on them. Their bass was boomy, the integration with the midrange was lumpy at best, and the highs were harsh. If you like bass thumping then these are the speakers for you, not refined at all for the price. They were matched mostly with MacIntosh electronics both ss and tube. Do not understand why they are so popular with the Audiogon crowd.
Great post Joeb. I prefer to taylor my music. If you hear somthing mid-fi on a Nautilus its not the speaker, its something upstream. The Nautilus is not forgiving, its a quality speaker with different voices(models)you can use to suit your taste and room. They will expose a systems weakness. What is the case more often than not is the matching of the size of speaker to the room. We tend to over-size and over drive the room. Just my 2 cents. Peace and Good Listening, Pat.
Some of you guys are trying to use "a live performance" as a yardstick to measure or categorize the quality of sound reproduced by a speaker. I for one have never liked most "live" performances. The accoustics in most halls, amphitheatres, outdoors, clubs etc. stinks! The background noise, itself detracts from the quality. A good studio recording is difficult to reproduce live. There are very few recordings of live performances that do justice to a good band. Pink Floyds "Pulse" live in Europe is one of the few, and there are others. Also, we all have differences in musical tastes, and there are physiological differences to our ears themselves, and of course our brains are all wired differently, so this argument about speaker quality seems awfully strange. I personally love my BW N803's, but I think the N805 is much too bright, and the lower line of BW is more suited to HT, but not critical listening. My 2 cents. jb
I imagine this post will make it past the moderators since the one were I said how I really feel didnt.
I auditioned quite a few speakers and I bought what sounded best to me as well. Furthermore, B & W obviously has many products at various pricepoints, isnt it obvious.
I have N802's in front and N804's and HTM1 for HT. I'm not sure that it matters if anyone else thinks they're mid-fi. I auditioned a ton of speakers, and don't waste any of my time trying to determine if any I didn't select have an undeserved reputation based on my not owning them or liking them. My ears, my room, my wallet, my choice. I believe all of us are entitled to that, and to our opinions until they are made in such a fashion as to denegrate another person's choice. There is no better or worse, there's only what each of us hears.
I see much B&W bashing on this site. I had to respond. I have been in audio for many years ~30 years to be exact. I've heard many speakers; Dahlquest, Avid, Proac, Dynaudio, Infinity, Advent (yes I'm 50), Paradigm , Thiel, JBL, Sonus Faber, ...etc. When I decided to upgrade from my Avid 103's and Proac Super Tablettes. I listened to B&W, Dynaudio (1.3SE, 1.3 MKII, Audience 52) and Paradigm Studio 20's, Sonus Faber Concerto/Concertino. I found that the Dynaudio's are much overrated. People go on and on about how B&W are expensive for what you get, but Audience 52's for $900, not even considering $3500 for the 1.3SE's. I found the Dyn's somehow mistifying, bloated bass and at the same time too much mid/high end. The Concerto was much to laid back and the Paradigm had a similiar (to my ears sound as the Dyn's, yet I liked the S20 better than the Audience 52. It seemed more balanced. Understand, I was expecting great things from the Dynaudio line, based on what I've read hear and at Audioasylum. I ended up with the B&W N805, because for me in MY ROOM, it was the best of the lot.
You are not only not the only one who thinks that B&W is mid-fi, you are one of many who make blanket statements about audio products from this or that company. Maybe just this company-B&W, in this case, but nonetheless a huge faction.
I'd much prefer to see The Ring Cycle, to pick an extreme example, live at Bayreuth. But the waiting list for tickets is 25 years. Yes, it's a noble goal to get all your musical experiences live when you want it where you want it. A hi-fi system and the related media allows one to defer ones enjoyment, or otherwise in your case apparently. This, for most folks, has a high value-add. Extremely high for some here.
So now, for those of us who are prepared to compromise and listen to 'music' via our systems, the goal is to attempt to reproduce that 'music' from available media sources as accurately as possible. Sure it's a compromize. But it's just like going to Bayreuth and having a Brunnhilde who can't hack it all the way through Gotterdammerung. It can get ugly. My B&W (N803s) enable me to come relatively close to what's layed down on the media. Whether it's music or not is subjective. It's good enough for me.
Sometimes I really wonder if most of the "audiophiles" who frequent this board and many like them have ever heard any type of real live music. If you base what a speaker is supposed to sound like on different recordings than you are missing 100% of what an audio system is supposed to be doing. And I don't mean going to a concert either, I mean real live instruments up close and personal in a room that may be not too different from the size of most listening rooms. I know that disqualifies most classical music (I am a jazz fan), but in listening to actual instrumnents in a real space weekly I have come to the conclusion that even dealers have no idea what real music should sound like. Most systems sound like hi-fi and nothing more, including some very well regarded and expensive speakers( B&W, Wilson, and many others.). And to me the argument that you have to hear a 20k speaker system in your home with the perfect components to match in order to really hear it makes absolutely no sense. Dealers are trained to set up the equipment they sell and in the case of my local dealer, a rep from Wilson actually comes down there to set the speakers up. Why are you selling speakers if you don't know how to make them sound great, especially at these prices? To my ears Wilsons are good but not great speakers, I have never believed I was hearing anything like an actual performance. And B&W speakers don't sound anything like music to me, and I have heard ( on too many occasions to count) not only the Signature 800s but the actual Nautilus speaker driven by 8! Mark Levinson Reference 33 monoblocks, an all ML Reference front end, and a Goldmund Turntable all connected with Transparent's top cabling! And I have to say that I was truly impressed by the sound, just as I am when I hear the Watt Puppy 7s driven by all Levinson electronics and amps but it never sounds like real instruments to my ears. And that especially goes for the Signature, I don't know who voices those things but music is not what they sound like in the least. Granted it is almost impossiblt to find a recording that captures music truthfully (try a Mapleshade recorded saxaphone), but still I just don't hear real music when I hear these systems. This is all just my opinion, but I say go out and hear real music in a real space and come home and listen to your system and especially your local dealer's system and do the math.
I used to work at a dealer that sold both B&W and Dynaudio and I have had ample opportunity to compare these brands. They are both excellent but they are different, one is not "better" than the other. What cannot be stressed enough is that system matching is what makes or breaks the sound and usually if the match doesn't work the speakers get blamed. The old joke is a guy walks into a demo room with unfamiliar gear and says "Nice preamp". If you haven't heard the gear in a familiar context you are judging blindly. The B&Ws are more revealing of any harshness in the electronics while the Dyns can be little more forgiving. We also sold Sonus Faber, which was easily bested by these brands in the lower price points, but once you got up the Signum and above they were on par. On that note, it really just amounts to whether you prefer chocolate or strawberry.
Let me confess to not reading all the posts here. But I have heard numerous B&W speakers, which spread enormously (like Measles?: remember we need to have had the stuff once) in Mexico City, where I write from. In my auditioning experience, for example, Dynaudio beat the B&W hands down -- the latter sounding very ordinary(mid-fi/lo-brow?) at diffrent price ranges. This might also be because the B&W stuff tends to be sold here through chi-chi superstores, which have minimal discrimination (though now AND AGAIN excellent sales-folk). It was the the last who led me to what I do own by way of speakers and amps, Margules Audio, indigenous to Mexico -- super stufff I find, but at least I am not bashing any mark/marca.
Very little offence taken. Just the tiniest bit actually. But it's Friday and I'm over it now ! Think I'll put some Wagner on and enjoy my speakers. Actually it's the music I enjoy and the speakers are just part of a enabling tool. Tough to have an emotional attachment to something inanimate. Even if they 'sound' good. But the music ...
Uh...sorry! What i meant is an honest person. Honest enough to say that it's not satisfied with it's component/s. Many people can't or will not admit that they aren't happy with some gear/system - it's always: what i got is best. Please take no offence. Sorry for the wrong choice of words! Cheers!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
