Bowers & Wilkins 607 S2 Anniversary Edition Review

[Sprint]

Yes, they look better (to me) with the grilles on, at least they're black then. I've been contemplating Genelecs too, and frankly, pragmatism won - I live in Germany, so in case of an amp failure etc. service is readily available. Sonically both are studio tools, so sonically usually less apart in their price class than home hifi speakers, though some of those too can be good. Tonality-wise, after taming my CDM7 with Audyssey, they are not very far off - but the Neumann have much more precision and detail, understandably (waveguides, different crossover, tri-amping).

cool. I too am from DE . Absolutely agree that these studio tools are more precise and detailed. My living room is only lightly treated and the GLM does an excellent job. Many of my close audiophile friends shied away from studio monitors citing that they were too analytical. However I completely disagree with them. To me, these studio tools are more hifi than any hifi speakers producing more details and dynamics. My Genelec beats my Yamaha hifi floor standing speakers by a long mile in precision, details and dynamics. For me, it is an end game until my finance minister approves for the next upgrade which will be "The Ones" . But before that, I may first upgrade my subwoofers. Currently I have a pair of 12" SVS sub. At max I may go for 7360 but is a 10 inch compared to current SVS which is a 12 inch. Nevertheless, Genelec reps say that a GLM driven 10" will yield a better bass integration and therefore sound better than a non-GLM 12" sub. But thats for the future .

 

[respice finem]

I will be using the Neumanns without a sub, the bass suits me well, but then, I'm no "basshead" and rather leaning towards classical.
With classical, having analytical speakers is good. The only point it turns to negative (if any) are old recordings, or newer "brickwalled" ones, because they imperfections are "mercilessly" shown, much like with headphones

 

[Kegemusha]

I never liked the sound of B&W speaker, now I understand why .

 

[rubenkemp]

Oh dear. That horozontal directivity is just ugh. I hope someone at BW gets hit in the feels by this breakdown. Nothing will change though because this recipe sells and money talks.

I would like to see whether or not the R&D has followed rising revenues. Then I would like to see the marketing budget in relation to rising revenues. I think this is the result of profit-maximizing and cutting corners. Price almost seems like a random number these days.

 

[Koeitje]

There have been a lot of replies here that seem to be celebrating the non-conforming frequency response measurements from the B&W 607S2. The term "schadenfreude" was even thrown around. While I agree that the response does not predict a neutral/preferred sound signature, I am bewildered by the volume of replies that seem to focus on how Amir's measurements prove/confirm that B&W speakers, in general, sound horrible/piercing/too bright/etc.

As a couple of people have pointed out, the 600-series is not B&W's flagship line - in fact, it is the lowest/cheapest series of loudspeakers they currently manufacture. The 700-series is a noticeable step up, and the 800-series is what B&W is known for (these are the models frequently used as monitors in classical music recording studios, including Abbey Road).

How can you possibly generalize the "sound" of B&W speakers based on measurements of the cheapest loudspeaker that B&W makes currently? Well let's call it what it is - there are folks here who simply want that "affirmation" that their perceptions of B&W speakers are overpriced/too-bright/etc. are correct. There is little interest in exploring other possibilities, perhaps that the cheapest model may have different design goals, or that the flagship 800-series actually do sound pretty good, or that due to the circle of confusion theory, B&W response curves may actually be preferable on some recordings after all.

So yes, come here to have your beliefs about B&W be "affirmed," not necessarily to be "informed" (to borrow language from the outgoing editor of the Washington Post). But know this: what you are doing is not "science."

The 700 and 800 series also have a massive high frequency bump. It seems that the more recent the model is the worse this issue is. B&W's lead designers might be getting old?

805 D3

705 signature

 

[PKAudio]

I have quite recently finished the upgrade of 802 D2. I have to admit that the original loudspeakers did not sound as bad as it may seem from the measurements, thanks to large and very well acoustically treated room and powerful amplifiers. But anyway, overall sound was somehow not coherent, not soundind as one speaker, and very picky on genres. For me, after the years in this hobby, these are signs of not neutral and not well executed loudspeaker.

FST midrange, Diamond tweeter, cabinets,....it all is top notch and a lot of development clearly went into these. But their combination does not fit together.

I agree that B&W knows this, and this just their way of doing loudspeakers.

B&W have considerable resources for R&D.
I’ve been following their product releases for at least 2.5 decades. It was one of my first “to die for speakers” as I could not afford the Nautilus.

they do have a history of innovations like the over-engineered bracing in the cabinets (“matrix”), tube tapered tweeters, near surround-less midrange drivers (“FST”) drivers, Nautilus- active quad amped 4 way as early as 1993, as well as clever marketing for trickle down technologies
eg 8 series, 7 and 6 series and, for those who remember, the 3 series.

To me, it’s clear they COULD engineer a speaker that has a nice smooth amplitude response, a great spinorama or rotato-gram or “the next best thing” metric.

Even in their top speakers, but they choose not to.

here’s someone who upgraded the 802D2
https://pkaudio.webnode.cz/bw802d2/

So does This mean that the original speaker doesn’t sound great? No. I bet it sounds amazing!

but maybe not neutral.

 

[mhardy6647]

I never liked the sound of B&W speaker, now I understand why .

That's a much more accurate and diplomatic way to express oneself than (e.g.) the tack I took earlier

 

[Propheticus]

The 700 and 800 series also have a massive high frequency bump. It seems that the more recent the model is the worse this issue is. B&W's lead designers might be getting old?

805 D3

705 signature

Are these anechoic or (estimated) in-room? If the former, the in-room situation could dampen the highs quite a bit.

...Or it's a smiley curve (perceived loudness compensation) geared towards older people listening to classical music at lower volumes.
Full disclosure: I'm in my 30's and own a set of 704 S2 's (yes I bought them before I learned about ASR, thanks for asking)

 

[VintageFlanker]

Are these anechoic or (estimated) in-room?

Anechoic.

Better to credit (link!) @John Atkinson as he asked when we post his measurements.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-705-signature-loudspeaker-measurements

https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-805-d3-loudspeaker-measurements

 

[John Atkinson]

Anechoic.

Better to credit (link!) @John Atkinson as he asked when we post his measurements.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-705-signature-loudspeaker-measurements

https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-805-d3-loudspeaker-measurements

Thank you.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[mtmpenn]

It is really curious to me how many expensive speakers deviate significantly from what I, and presumably many here, consider the ideal frequency response.

B&W (or paradigm or klipsch) are a huge company. They sell lots of speakers. They undoubtedly have measurement capability and know precisely what the frequency response of their loudspeakers looks like.

It would be absolutely fascinating to understand their rationale. It’s hard to believe that it is all poor engineering, cost cutting, or an attempt to make an impression with brief showroom auditions.

 

[amirm]

I remember Dr. Toole telling a story of running into the designer of a mass market speaker company and asking him why their products were so bad. The designer answered that they were doing what marketing demanded. So likely this is the sound their marketing department is demanding.

Dr Toole and Olive ran into the same issue at Harman. They tested the marketing people and showed that they were poor listeners and their sighted results didn't match blind so that was that. These companies haven't done that.

 

[mtmpenn]

I have this image of a meeting now with the vp of marketing saying: “No, we need a bigger suck-out at 2khz. Everyone knows that a Texas-sized suck out 2-3khz is what sells - BIGGER!!!

 

[Inner Space]

I remember Dr. Toole telling a story of running into the designer of a mass market speaker company and asking him why their products were so bad. The designer answered that they were doing what marketing demanded. So likely this is the sound their marketing department is demanding.

Interesting, with two caveats: what else was the designer going to say? "It's because I'm an idiot" would take some courage. And, more widely, imagine the stress involved, where technical satisfaction lies in one direction, and profit lies in another. Which it often does, in the real world. A bit like Blue Jeans Cable and their new "audiophile" line. Again, it takes courage to leave money on the table, in favor of principle.

 

[respice finem]

More or less you are both saying the same, only in different words. Profit before "audio truth".

 

[MZKM]

The designer answered that they were doing what marketing demanded. So likely this is the sound their marketing department is demanding.

Audioholics just held a press conference with Polk for their new lineup, he asked the designer why he did a 4 woofer 2.5-way for the center instead of a 3-way, he replied bluntly that he wasn’t allowed.
Time stamped:

 

[mtmpenn]

I get that cost is a major factor. But, some of the DIY designs tested show that you do not need a lot of money in raw parts to make a speaker that measures pretty flat, at least with a 2 way design.

And, while the preference score is imperfect, it would seem to suggest that flat measuring speakers are preferred. So why is it that the marketing guys are asking for this?

 

[Helicopter]

I get that cost is a major factor. But, some of the DIY designs tested show that you do not need a lot of money in raw parts to make a speaker that measures pretty flat, at least with a 2 way design.

And, while the preference score is imperfect, it would seem to suggest that flat measuring speakers are preferred. So why is it that the marketing guys are asking for this?

I would guess

a. they are still selling lots of speakers effectively even though people would be happier with something better,

b. the marketing guys are still learning, and

c. most consumers don't know much.

 

[Inner Space]

And, while the preference score is imperfect, it would seem to suggest that flat measuring speakers are preferred. So why is it that the marketing guys are asking for this?

Great question. I think we have to conclude that experienced insiders and trained listeners grow to prefer flat-measuring speakers, but mass-market consumers in general don't really care. My rule of thumb is to watch friends, neighbors and relatives ... their choices are often inexplicable. As are mine, no doubt, in their own specialist areas.

 

[richard12511]

Thank you.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

Do you think it makes sense for Stereophile to purchase a Klippel NFS? I love that you do provide measurements, but with @amirm and @hardisj both now having an NFS and providing CEA-2034 data, I find my self only considering the speakers that they review. Not sure what y'alls profit situation is like, or if y'all could afford it, but I would definitely subscribe if y'all would provide anechoic CEA-2034 data. You don't have to be as cut-throat as Amir is in the subjective and recommendation portion, but just the data alone would make me subscribe.