B&W 800 D3 vs KEF Blade. Let's discuss.

[preload]

I also attempted something like this but did not work well - probably because the two rooms are quite different. I don't have pseudo anechoic chaber measurements, maybe those can be used..

Out of curiosity, did anyone have success in 'revoicing' speakers by eq?

I think the main reason it seemed to work was the Genelecs have a pretty flat on- and off-axis response, so EQ'ing is pretty effective and doesn't end up introducing new problems.

 

[preload]

122dB@25Hz? What subs do you have?

The dB on the y-axis are relative, not absolute. (Plus, I changed the offset of the 3 curves so they would line up).
Also, thanks for reminding me to add in the subwoofer info above.

 

[Descartes]

So why is it that so many studio recordings studio and symphony use B&W speakers if they don’t measure well?

I have never seen Revel or KEF in any recording studios!!

https://www.bowerswilkins.com/blog/behind-the-scenes-at-abbey-road

https://www.realacoustixllc.com/boston-symphony

 

[bo_knows]

So why is it that so many studio recordings studio and symphony use B&W speakers if they don’t measure well?

I have never seen Revel or KEF in any recording studios!!

https://www.bowerswilkins.com/blog/behind-the-scenes-at-abbey-road

https://www.realacoustixllc.com/boston-symphony

Good point, I saw Revel Salon 2 being used as the mastering speaker.

 

[bo_knows]

Good point, I saw Revel Salon 2 being used as the mastering speaker.

Here's some KEF:

 

[bo_knows]

So why is it that so many studio recordings studio and symphony use B&W speakers if they don’t measure well?

I have never seen Revel or KEF in any recording studios!!

https://www.bowerswilkins.com/blog/behind-the-scenes-at-abbey-road

https://www.realacoustixllc.com/boston-symphony

Very nice studio room in Boston, thank you for the link. It gave me some ideas for the room treatments (like that ceiling solution ).

 

[Ilkless]

So why is it that so many studio recordings studio and symphony use B&W speakers if they don’t measure well?

I have never seen Revel or KEF in any recording studios!!

https://www.bowerswilkins.com/blog/behind-the-scenes-at-abbey-road

https://www.realacoustixllc.com/boston-symphony

Because studios are just as susceptible to non-evidence-based approaches to audio based on mystique and cult of personality.

 

[Descartes]

I think you’d be surprised if you got a pair. My house isn’t even slightly elegant but I had a pair and I think they fit in well. Upscaled the entire room View attachment 103127

Very nice can I come for a listen!

 

[Descartes]

Good point, I saw Revel Salon 2 being used as the mastering speaker.

Nice advertising!

 

[bo_knows]

Nice advertising!

Nice advertising!

 

[Descartes]

Here's some KEF:

Ok cool room would love to hear multichannel music through five KEF Blade 2, but this video is even worst advertising especially with the plug for the cables and the cable risers Ha! Ha!

 

[tuga]

Because studios are just as susceptible to non-evidence-based approaches to audio based on mystique and cult of personality.

As opposed to what, narrow minded dogmatic views of what makes a good speaker? That sounds rather patronising. You’re right and they’re wrong, they just don’t see it and need guidance.

 

[ahofer]

the reference 5 with an msrp of 16.600EUR cost about half as the Blades so I thought the blades would perform better. I might be wrong!

I auditioned the reference 5s, and they were excellent. Not great for an apartment, tho.

 

[Zvu]

@ahofer Why not ?

 

[preload]

As opposed to what, narrow minded dogmatic views of what makes a good speaker? That sounds rather patronising. You’re right and they’re wrong, they just don’t see it and need guidance.

Exactly. Don't trust your own ears and brain to decide what loudspeakers you prefer. Instead, go with measurements that only somewhat correlate with average listener preferences to tell you if the loudspeaker sounds good to you.

And if you prefer the sound of speaker A, but Speaker B has measurements that are somewhat closer to the Harman model, then definitely choose Speaker B.

 

[Ilkless]

As opposed to what, narrow minded dogmatic views of what makes a good speaker? That sounds rather patronising. You’re right and they’re wrong, they just don’t see it and need guidance.

I reject your characterisation. Harman is not the end-all and I find their speaker designs good but thoroughly uninteresting in engineering and sound quality. I never said otherwise. Within the broad, evidence-based dictum of smooth dispersion (that Harman research happens to concur with, but there is a massive literature beyond Toole/Olive), there is immense variety in speaker engineering.

3 observations:

1. in sighted listening, preference is a composite of sound and non-auditory factors. B&W has cultivated a place alongside perhaps Wilson as the Platonic ideal of high-end loudspeakers. An image it falls short of but nonetheless has strong hold on the uninitiated, who become apologists for it, resorting to all sorts of mental gymnastics and ignoring their cognitive dissonance.

2. B&W fails to even reach the basic threshold of competent speaker engineering, with smooth dispersion. We are not talking tonality where legitimate preferences exist. We are talking design that wilfully defies how human hearing functions.

3. Evidence-based speaker design does not lead to homogeneity. If anything, there is vastly more variety as I've shown in the second link, more so than treading well-worn circles with incremental, if not dubious, improvements upon an antiquated paradigm of loudspeaker design.

 

[preload]

2. B&W fails to even reach the basic threshold of competent speaker engineering, with smooth dispersion. We are not talking tonality where legitimate preferences exist. We are talking design that wilfully defies how human hearing functions.

Can you provide some primary literature support that quantifies the contribution of “smooth dispersion” on listener preferences? I’m interested in understanding that better, but all I’ve encountered is people passing it on as gospel.
And part of the reason I ask is that in Olive’s regression formula paper, he DID have directivity AND various off-axis FR plots available for each speaker and I remember at least partial analysis and consideration for that data to be used in his formula to predict listener preferences. But in the end, directivity and off-axis response curves did NOT factor in DIRECTLY. Olive selected different variables and achieved an r of 0.86 without touching them. So this suggests that smooth dispersion isn’t as important to “competent” loudspeaker design as you think it is. And I’m open if you have literature to back up your position.

Also, I would suggest that a more open minded approach would be to consider that B&W 800 series speakers sound quite good to a lot of people and are used as monitors in acclaimed studios, yet they don’t match your theory of how good speakers should measure - and question whether your theory may not be complete or explain what you think it explains.

 

[ahofer]

@ahofer Why not ?

They are pretty huge.

 

[Ilkless]

Can you provide some primary literature support that quantifies the contribution of “smooth dispersion” on listener preferences? I’m interested in understanding that better, but all I’ve encountered is people passing it on as gospel.
And part of the reason I ask is that in Olive’s regression formula paper, he DID have directivity AND various off-axis FR plots available for each speaker and I remember at least partial analysis and consideration for that data to be used in his formula to predict listener preferences. But in the end, directivity and off-axis response curves did NOT factor in DIRECTLY. Olive selected different variables and achieved an r of 0.86 without touching them. So this suggests that smooth dispersion isn’t as important to “competent” loudspeaker design as you think it is. And I’m open if you have literature to back up your position.

Also, I would suggest that a more open minded approach would be to consider that B&W 800 series speakers sound quite good to a lot of people and are used as monitors in acclaimed studios, yet they don’t match your theory of how good speakers should measure - and question whether your theory may not be complete or explain what you think it explains.

I place very little stock in Olive's formula in itself. I prefer to rely on first principles. Per Toole:

If the spectra of the direct and reflected sounds are significantly different, the reflections are likely to be more noticeable, from subtle timbral effects up to a premature breakdown of the precedence effect, at which point listeners may be aware of two simultaneous sound images, one located at the loudspeaker and one located at the point of reflection. This is obviously not good. Over the years this is likely a factor in listeners rating loudspeakers with uniform directivity more highly than those with uneven directivity. Wide dispersion seems to be good, but especially if it is uniform with frequency and the spectra of the reflections is not substantially altered. Hundreds of loudspeakers auditioned by hundreds of listeners in double-blind evaluations have demonstrated this; it is monotonously predictable.

He is much more circumspect about dispersion width, and I am too. But smooth directivity is not a difficult ask and coheres with first principles of psychoacoustics - particularly, the precedence effect.

Bad directivity provides more discordant cues. The tonal difference between direct and delayed reflected sound is perceptible and objectively, aberrant.

Early and late reflections, determined by off-axis performance, matter.

 

[Descartes]

I reject your characterisation. Harman is not the end-all and I find their speaker designs good but thoroughly uninteresting in engineering and sound quality. I never said otherwise. Within the broad, evidence-based dictum of smooth dispersion (that Harman research happens to concur with, but there is a massive literature beyond Toole/Olive), there is immense variety in speaker engineering.

3 observations:

1. in sighted listening, preference is a composite of sound and non-auditory factors. B&W has cultivated a place alongside perhaps Wilson as the Platonic ideal of high-end loudspeakers. An image it falls short of but nonetheless has strong hold on the uninitiated, who become apologists for it, resorting to all sorts of mental gymnastics and ignoring their cognitive dissonance.

2. B&W fails to even reach the basic threshold of competent speaker engineering, with smooth dispersion. We are not talking tonality where legitimate preferences exist. We are talking design that wilfully defies how human hearing functions.

3. Evidence-based speaker design does not lead to homogeneity. If anything, there is vastly more variety as I've shown in the second link, more so than treading well-worn circles with incremental, if not dubious, improvements upon an antiquated paradigm of loudspeaker design.

Interesting list but many have not been tested independently!