Yes marketing triumphs over actual technical performance, very common in the ‘high-end’ just look at the measurements of DCS’ ‘Bartok’.
Keith
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Keith
atsmusic
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2021
- Messages
- 109
- Likes
- 85
What does the FR being how they want have to do with marketing? The technical performance as far as FR goes is how they want it to be. So not sure what you are saying really.
B&W no longer are in the business of developing measurement led designs, they are content to sell through marketing, diamond tweeters etc etc.
Shame.
Keith
Shame.
Keith
atsmusic
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2021
- Messages
- 109
- Likes
- 85
they are, they are just not the way you prefer them to measure. A lot of people like them sorry to break it to you.
I prefer competence to incompetence.
Keith
Keith
atsmusic
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2021
- Messages
- 109
- Likes
- 85
Once again that makes little sense. Because the point is they are very competent designers. Just because someone has a different design philosophy than you do doesn't make them incompetent.
Clearly not.
Keith
Keith
Yes, it sounds like she maybe has false teeth.
tecnogadget
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Yes, we are all aware of that fact at this point and I fully agree with you.
B&W can and has the full right to do whatever they want. But what they can’t have is both ways, tailoring the response with caprice and indulgence, and at the same proclaming themself as the beholders of the audio truth, the highest reference, the truest and most accurate sound out there.
It would be as simple as just changin its comunication or marketing, like stating they make great speakers that sounds marvelous for example, that could be a totally feasible claim.
tecnogadget
Addicted to Fun and Learning
The thing is, you got a line up with several generations and pretty much all of them measure less than stellar from a textbook standpoint, plus they also measure very different from each other. It really feels like a chef changing seasoning depending on the mood.
This are great speakers by industrial design and manufacture terms and indeed should sound great to a lot of people, and I feel happy for them.
But what it can’t be said is that this is the ultimate reference, and now is when I’m sorry to break it to you. This is simply because of the fact the objective performance measurement ain’t reference grade. You can resort to the main defense argument by saying that measurements are not everything, and are not sufficient to characterize its quality. The problem is that this is falling into a fallacy, simply because the response is so different between generations. With each new iteration, they claim (and in their latest video it is almost laughable) how the "new" generation is the best speaker they have ever made and so much better than the previous one (to the point of almost discrediting the previous work). When the measurements clearly show how they have gone backwards and forwards in the changes made in these 4 generations.
Then the big dilemma arises: if there is so much variation in response between each generation, which one is the benchmark? Which one is better or worse? By logic, should it always be the "latest version"? If we are talking about the true reference, the tonal balance should have been perfect from the beginning, and small incremental improvements should have been made, such as reducing distortion, etc. Simply improve small "measurable" aspects because if it is supposed to be the reference, little could be improved in the beginning. But then we find the evidence that its response and tonal balance has been undergoing changes over time.
As someone with a pair of B&W 805S speakers, I could not agree more. I’ve had these speakers for more than ten years (bought secondhand) and will not be buying new speakers until these break. I know looking at the measurements in my room and here on this site that they are not the reference. They look great, are well-made and play my music collection. The whole marketing presentation is bullshit. Same in every market for every product. The more they have to tell you how good it is, the less it is probably true.
For me they are not perfect but will do. They haven’t broken yet!
Sure, but they still market themselves as being producers of high fidelity loudspeakers while that is objectively speaking not the case. They are for the same market as high distortion DACs and tube amplifiers. They sell a story or a feeling, not hifi sound reproduction.
The problem for speaker manufacturers is that the response varies hugely with the room the buyer uses for listening. Should a typical furnished room be where you measure or should it be an anechoic chamber, and should the measurements be nearfield or further away?
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 6,903
- Likes
- 16,917
Studies have shown that most people prefer loudspeakers with an anechoic flat frequency response and smooth directivity, leaving only the preference for either wide or narrow directivity open to taste, room acoustics and listening distance.
atsmusic
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2021
- Messages
- 109
- Likes
- 85
They are obviously high fidelity speakers. Have you really heard them? they sound amazing.
High fidelity implies accurate reproduction of the source material, which they clearly do not do. If you think it sounds great that's fine, but that doesn't mean its accurate.
No, you can make pretty good assumptions of how it performs in a room above 500hz based on anechoic data. Apart from that having smooth directivity also helps the tonal balance. All research shows that you want a flat anechoic response with smooth directivity (wide of narrow is a preference).
If you sit in a concert hall you don't have a tailing off HF response, so why would you want one listening to your stereo system?
BrokenEnglishGuy
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2020
- Messages
- 1,936
- Likes
- 1,158
If BW have awesome directivity, distorsion, integration, good inert cabinet and only the '' FR '' sucks... that's perfectly fine, because the harman target at the end it's only a courple of preferences.
For example in HEADPHONES or IEMS ( which many don't care ), most of people never ask for a flat FR :
But i don't get why the D4 FR looks ugly than the D3, the D3 series are very easy to EQ.
For example in HEADPHONES or IEMS ( which many don't care ), most of people never ask for a flat FR :
But i don't get why the D4 FR looks ugly than the D3, the D3 series are very easy to EQ.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
- Messages
- 4,336
- Likes
- 6,705
I think the data is pretty clear in that they are definitely not high fidelity loudspeakers. Fidelity is about how close the output signal is to the input signal
That doesn't preclude them from sounding "amazing" to certain individuals. It just means that "most" people won't prefer them. Individual preference still matters, imo.
You can argue all day and all night about whether an individual likes their non-flat frequency response, and whether or not it's what they intentionally design for...
...but nobody can justify those horrendous port resonances. They are absolutely not intentional and are absolutely unwanted in any speaker design.
Frequency response deviations from flat are 'flavors' that some people may prefer, like salt and pepper on a steak. High amplitude, narrowband resonances are bits of gristle in a steak. You may or may not notice them, but they are never wanted or intentionally added.
So either B&W knew they were there but went ahead and released the speaker anyway because of a deadline or because its appearance was more important than its performance or because they figured most people won't notice them (especially in a short audition).
Or B&W didn't know they were there because they didn't do sufficient measurements of the product before releasing it.
...but nobody can justify those horrendous port resonances. They are absolutely not intentional and are absolutely unwanted in any speaker design.
Frequency response deviations from flat are 'flavors' that some people may prefer, like salt and pepper on a steak. High amplitude, narrowband resonances are bits of gristle in a steak. You may or may not notice them, but they are never wanted or intentionally added.
So either B&W knew they were there but went ahead and released the speaker anyway because of a deadline or because its appearance was more important than its performance or because they figured most people won't notice them (especially in a short audition).
Or B&W didn't know they were there because they didn't do sufficient measurements of the product before releasing it.
Last edited:
