Lol...sure I am going to have a bad time on a forum. Now what are you peeps going to do then? Lynch me?If you signed up to this forum specifically to obsessively defend one particular model or brand of speaker, you're gonna have a bad time. Just FYI.
Yeah...I think I just called the Revel Salon2 irrelevant, since there was a "textbook perfect speaker" for a way lower price according to Geert. Now they are all pissed at meunless the brand is revel or genelec
But surely you can agree with me that disregarding the positive aspects in both measurements and listening experience cannot simply be neglected. And if you cannot, we'll that's too bad.
Yes, I was referring to the positive aspects (both measurements and listening experience) as mentioned in the stereophile review.If you mean that there are still positive aspects of the speakers, even though they are bad compared to 24 year old models, well then you are right. The drivers still have low distortion, and the cabinets are well made.
I don't know if it's still true, but they used to be among the best in the industry when it comes to pair matching (within 0.5dB). The crossover components are "audiophile" parts from Mundorf. But the problem is that they don't sound very good compared to better designs. It has nothing to do with poor quality control. It's clearly how B&W wants them to sound.
By revel's own standards the f228 bested and f208 is as good as the salon 2 so you didn't step on any toes.Yeah...I think I just called the Revel Salon2 irrelevant, since there was a "textbook perfect speaker" for a way lower price according to Geert. Now they are all pissed at me
I find this post interesting. Do you think the forum founder places measured response before listening impressions or build quality? I have tinnitus and likely wouldn't care for the B&W, but can't help to think they know something.If you mean that there are still positive aspects of the speakers, even though they are bad compared to 24 year old models, well then you are right. The drivers still have low distortion, and the cabinets are well made.
I don't know if it's still true, but they used to be among the best in the industry when it comes to pair matching (within 0.5dB). The crossover components are "audiophile" parts from Mundorf. But the problem is that they don't sound very good compared to better designs. It has nothing to do with poor quality control. It's clearly how B&W wants them to sound.
I would say no, but Amir afaict does expect a reasonable correlation between measured response and listening quality and has commented when they didn't match as well as expected. As far as preference not matching measured response (which is say reasonably flat response and good dispersion and to a lesser degree low distortion) most, but not all here subscribe to Toole's observations and published papers that found that most people (>80%) prefer those characteristics vs. uneven frequency response and dispersion.I find this post interesting. Do you think the forum founder places measured response before listening impressions or build quality? I have tinnitus and likely wouldn't care for the B&W, but can't help to think they know something.
I find this post interesting. Do you think the forum founder places measured response before listening impressions or build quality? I have tinnitus and likely wouldn't care for the B&W, but can't help to think they know something.
amirm said:I have a scale for how much measurements matter for each category of products:
DACs: 100%
Amplifiers (headphone and speaker): 80 to 90% due to variability of available power. Hard to internalize how much power is available/enough without listening tests.
Speakers: 70 to 80%
Headphones: 50 to 80% (measurements too variable)
This is why you see me do listening tests for the last two categories and half of second (headphone amps).
I agree. I auditioned a Salon2 and a 801 D3 for a month in my acoustically treated music room. I sent the B&W back and kept the Revel.Salon 2 is a great speaker. 804 D4, nope...
Overall, however, I found the 804 D4's sound seductive. This is a loudspeaker you need to audition.
It's usually the other way around for me.It takes me 4 pages to say what you just did in that paragraph.
And if the room size dictates adding two W371 SAMs @ $9,000 each...ASR doesn't pay much value to subjective opinions, especially when executed without controls.
A speaker that impresses ASR measures likes this:
That's close to textbook perfect. They're about 60% of the price of 804 D4's.
And if the room size dictates adding two W371 SAMs @ $9,000 each...
I think there is a common misunderstanding about the purpose of control rooms in recording studios. I was recently in the control room at Abbey Road Studio 1. The B&Ws in there(800 D3) sound fine, they get the job done. They're certainly not amazing, and the room itself is a bit too dead to really sound good for stereo anyways. That probably helps the speakers since off-axis response doesn't matter as much. The seating positions of the various people working on the recording are all over the place. The room is not optimized for great sound either, as stated by the senior recording engineer on duty at the time. Not my opinion. The large glass window causes undesirable reflections and the large console causes bass issues.
During the process of recording, they're not EQing the sound or adjusting microphones based on what comes out of those speakers. They're for monitoring the music that is being recorded -- what typically gets adjusted is the musicians playing the music.
The place where the sound of the final output is decided is the mixing/mastering studios. Some of those(especially classical ones) do still use B&Ws, but many do not. And in general, most competent studios are going to check music on several different models of speaker before finalizing it, not just 1.
Not sure what I'm supposed to do with this post or what purpose it's supposed to serve, but what I said was correct. If you don't believe me I guess that's more of a personal problem.With all respect. I think there might have been a misunderstanding or two while speaking with the engineer.
Yes, control rooms with big consoles and large windows have their issues with acoustics but saying that the room is not optimized for great sound is a huge understatement. Bunch of incredibly skilled people are putting their knowledge. effort and resources to make any control room of that calibre as good as it can possibly be.
Also stating that things don't get eq'd or mics moved based on what's coming out of control room speakers is as wrong as it can be. That is exactly what its for, hence 'control room'. Things get EQ, compressed, limited, distorted and processed in every conceivable way during the recording process and every judgement concerning these decisions are made from behind the console and with the speakers in hand. In Abbey road's case with 801's as midfields and choice near fields to suit the engineers needs.
Microphone placement (as well as microphone selection) would be considered as a form of EQ. That would be monitored in the control room.Not sure what I'm supposed to do with this post or what purpose it's supposed to serve, but what I said was correct. If you don't believe me I guess that's more of a personal problem.
There are no nearfield monitors in the control room, either, only the B&Ws(and some ceiling mounted surrounds). You seem to have mixing and recording confused or something.
Not to mention, a tiny bit of research would show that EQing at the recording stage varies based on the engineer and studio, some really don't like it, some do, and the amount varies. As with everything else in the music industry, there's few standards and many opinions.