Bowers & Wilkins 607 S2 Anniversary Edition Review

[preload]

I also tried the B&W voicing with my Genelec speakers and actually thought I enjoyed it for a week or(clear that I really didn't when I switched back).

And as an additional data point (which I think Richard12511 you know), I actually prefer the sound of my Genelec 8351B's when they are eq'd to match my B&w 802d room curve measured by REW. But I have to say that even small deviations in the eq'd curve made a big difference in SQ, particularly the balance of treble vs midbass or when making the BBC dip. It was pretty time consuming to get the curves matched up. Also, interestingly, the smaller room that the Genelecs are in needed more midbass than the B&W's in a large room to sound similar. So it may be possible that if you're meticulous with the curve eq'ing, you might actually like the B&w curve for more than a week. And I switch back and forth all the time (it's easy to do in Roon).

 

[richard12511]

And as an additional data point (which I think Richard12511 you know), I actually prefer the sound of my Genelec 8351B's when they are eq'd to match my B&w 802d room curve measured by REW. But I have to say that even small deviations in the eq'd curve made a big difference in SQ, particularly the balance of treble vs midbass or when making the BBC dip. It was pretty time consuming to get the curves matched up. Also, interestingly, the smaller room that the Genelecs are in needed more midbass than the B&W's in a large room to sound similar. So it may be possible that if you're meticulous with the curve eq'ing, you might actually like the B&w curve for more than a week. And I switch back and forth all the time (it's easy to do in Roon).

Indeed. That’s what compelled me to try it.

 

[BWard]

I'm pretty sure that B&W use quality components in their crossovers nowadays.

GR Research had a pair of these "Anniversary edition", "Speaker of the Year", speakers sent in to determine if they could be modified to improve their sound. He said they had the cheesiest, cheapest parts you can use in a crossover; he showed the crossover and the cheesy parts in the video. He said, "You would have thought that with "The Anniversary" edition of a speaker they would have at least put in some better quality parts. But no, the same nickel and dime parts they use for many of their speakers.
He found that same thing in a $3000 pair Dynaudio speakers. Extremely cheap, low quality parts in the crossover. Even the, supposedly superior, Dynaudio drivers measured terrible. Bad drivers, cheap components but the veneered box looked nice. I guess they are trying to fool people with a pretty cover but don't judge a book by it's cover or a speaker company but it's slick marketing.

 

[FeddyLost]

It's a recording mastering engineer making decisions about eq adjustments based on their monitor speakers. If the studio is using B&W monitors and that's what the engineer is hearing

So, if I understand your position right, you suppose that mastering engineer, who have to make as neutral and translatable track as possible (for the living, day by day), will just come into studio with some predefined monitoring chain and will start to work without even knowing how flat and correct frequency response in his listening point?
I hope you are wrong. Such ignorance is inexcusable for anything more serious than bedroom EDM producers.
At least a lot of people in GS forums are interested in achieving most even and balanced sound in their studios regardless of size and investments. Finally, maybe I just prefer to think that commercial engineers are aware of transfer function of their control equipment chain.

 

[TrevC]

GR Research had a pair of these "Anniversary edition", "Speaker of the Year", speakers sent in to determine if they could be modified to improve their sound. He said they had the cheesiest, cheapest parts you can use in a crossover; he showed the crossover and the cheesy parts in the video. He said, "You would have thought that with "The Anniversary" edition of a speaker they would have at least put in some better quality parts. But no, the same nickel and dime parts they use for many of their speakers.

I can't find that video, if it ever existed, but Danny tends to replace a heck of a lot lot of components that don't need replacing. Wirewound resistors and film capacitors for ones that cost more, inductors that are the right inductance rejected because of their ferrite core.

 

[preload]

So, if I understand your position right, you suppose that mastering engineer, who have to make as neutral and translatable track as possible (for the living, day by day), will just come into studio with some predefined monitoring chain and will start to work without even knowing how flat and correct frequency response in his listening point?

Please don't take my word for it. The Circle of Confusion comes from Floyd Toole and Sean Olive - you heard of them?
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

I hope you are wrong. Such ignorance is inexcusable for anything more serious than bedroom EDM producers.
At least a lot of people in GS forums are interested in achieving most even and balanced sound in their studios regardless of size and investments. Finally, maybe I just prefer to think that commercial engineers are aware of transfer function of their control equipment chain.

1) This isn't GS.
2) Sorry to be the one to break this to you.
3) Take a look at all the B&W loudspeakers they use in the mastering rooms at Abbey Road Studios. Be sure and contact them to tell them how "ignorant" and "inexcusable" (your words) are, and perhaps you can teach them how to properly set up their studio.
https://www.abbeyroad.com/mastering

 

[richard12511]

GR Research had a pair of these "Anniversary edition", "Speaker of the Year", speakers sent in to determine if they could be modified to improve their sound. He said they had the cheesiest, cheapest parts you can use in a crossover; he showed the crossover and the cheesy parts in the video. He said, "You would have thought that with "The Anniversary" edition of a speaker they would have at least put in some better quality parts. But no, the same nickel and dime parts they use for many of their speakers.
He found that same thing in a $3000 pair Dynaudio speakers. Extremely cheap, low quality parts in the crossover. Even the, supposedly superior, Dynaudio drivers measured terrible. Bad drivers, cheap components but the veneered box looked nice. I guess they are trying to fool people with a pretty cover but don't judge a book by it's cover or a speaker company but it's slick marketing.

Crossover seems to be mainly about implementation, not part quality. See @ctrl 's excellent series on the audibility of crossover components:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Assuming the unit measures as B&W is intending, it seems foolish to waste money on better crossover components that make no audible difference. In fact, I'd rather they not, since that cost will be passed on to me .

Danny is a great speaker designer. It's unfortunate that he sells these snakeoil crossover part upgrade packages , but I do understand he has a business to run. I think the reason that his upgrade packages measure different(often better) is because he usually redesigns the crossover and internal bracing, not because of the exotic parts he uses.

 

[richard12511]

Please don't take my word for it. The Circle of Confusion comes from Floyd Toole and Sean Olive - you heard of them?
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html



1) This isn't GS.
2) Sorry to be the one to break this to you.
3) Take a look at all the B&W loudspeakers they use in the mastering rooms at Abbey Road Studios. Be sure and contact them to tell them how "ignorant" and "inexcusable" (your words) are, and perhaps you can teach them how to properly set up their studio.
https://www.abbeyroad.com/mastering

I took his original point to mean that Mastering studios almost always equalize the direct sound to be perfectly flat, regardless of the speaker used(ie directivity and distortion profiles are what matter). I honestly have no idea if that's true(never been to one), but if it is, then consumers would have to EQ their 800D3s to flat on axis(removing the presence dip and treble shelf) to get a similar experience.

 

[preload]

I took his original point to mean that Mastering studios almost always equalize the direct sound to be perfectly flat, regardless of the speaker used(ie directivity and distortion profiles are what matter). I honestly have no idea if that's true(never been to one), but if it is, then consumers would have to EQ their 800D3s to flat on axis(removing the presence dip and treble shelf) to get a similar experience.

Richard, I don't think that's the common interpretation of the Circle of Confusion, if that's what you're referring to. As much as I hate quoting blogs, this is what Sean Olive wrote specifically related to loudspeakers in recording studios:
"A random sampling of ones own music library will quickly confirm the variation in sound quality that exists among different music recordings. Apart from audible differences in dynamic range, spatial imagery, and noise and distortion, the spectral balance of recordings can vary dramatically in terms of their brightness and particularly, the quality and quantity of bass. The magnitude of these differences suggests that something other than variations in artistic judgment and good taste is at the root cause of this problem.

The most likely culprits are the loudspeakers and rooms through which the recording were made. Some misguided recording engineers monitor and tweak their recordings through low-fidelity loudspeakers thinking that this represents what the average consumer will hear. Since loudspeakers can be mediocre in an infinite number of ways, this practice only guarantees that quality of the recording will be compromised when heard through good loudspeakers."

The Circle of Confusion also considers the resulting recording and the playback equipment/speakers and how those feedback into influencing recording engineer decisions, but I'm focusing on the studio monitors (again, pointing out that many recording/mastering studios use B&W speakers as monitors).

 

[Kvalsvoll]

Mastering studios almost always equalize the direct sound to be perfectly flat, regardless of the speaker used(ie directivity and distortion profiles are what matter). I honestly have no idea if that's true

They don't. Some may use some kind of correction, many do not. Also, acoustic properties of studios varies a lot. Some prefer dead, some prefer a more live room. Some have full-frequency range speaker systems, some use small near-field speakers.

Since speakers and room and placement all can be different, it will also be impossible to "eq-to-flat" and achieve similar sound.

 

[phoenixsong]

Richard, I don't think that's the common interpretation of the Circle of Confusion, if that's what you're referring to. As much as I hate quoting blogs, this is what Sean Olive wrote specifically related to loudspeakers in recording studios:
"A random sampling of ones own music library will quickly confirm the variation in sound quality that exists among different music recordings. Apart from audible differences in dynamic range, spatial imagery, and noise and distortion, the spectral balance of recordings can vary dramatically in terms of their brightness and particularly, the quality and quantity of bass. The magnitude of these differences suggests that something other than variations in artistic judgment and good taste is at the root cause of this problem.

The most likely culprits are the loudspeakers and rooms through which the recording were made. Some misguided recording engineers monitor and tweak their recordings through low-fidelity loudspeakers thinking that this represents what the average consumer will hear. Since loudspeakers can be mediocre in an infinite number of ways, this practice only guarantees that quality of the recording will be compromised when heard through good loudspeakers."

The Circle of Confusion also considers the resulting recording and the playback equipment/speakers and how those feedback into influencing recording engineer decisions, but I'm focusing on the studio monitors (again, pointing out that many recording/mastering studios use B&W speakers as monitors).

I don't understand- from what you said above, aren't you proving that just because a recording studio uses a certain speaker (B&W in this case), it does not *necessarily equate to the speaker being "right/great"? And as a result of this, just because you enjoy the subjective sound from a particular speaker on a particular recording, it does not *necessarily mean that either the recording or speaker you used is "correct"?
*Added for clarity on position

 

[phoenixsong]

In other words, there's simply too many variables to draw meaningful conclusions from

 

[richard12511]

Richard, I don't think that's the common interpretation of the Circle of Confusion, if that's what you're referring to. As much as I hate quoting blogs, this is what Sean Olive wrote specifically related to loudspeakers in recording studios:
"A random sampling of ones own music library will quickly confirm the variation in sound quality that exists among different music recordings. Apart from audible differences in dynamic range, spatial imagery, and noise and distortion, the spectral balance of recordings can vary dramatically in terms of their brightness and particularly, the quality and quantity of bass. The magnitude of these differences suggests that something other than variations in artistic judgment and good taste is at the root cause of this problem.

The most likely culprits are the loudspeakers and rooms through which the recording were made. Some misguided recording engineers monitor and tweak their recordings through low-fidelity loudspeakers thinking that this represents what the average consumer will hear. Since loudspeakers can be mediocre in an infinite number of ways, this practice only guarantees that quality of the recording will be compromised when heard through good loudspeakers."

The Circle of Confusion also considers the resulting recording and the playback equipment/speakers and how those feedback into influencing recording engineer decisions, but I'm focusing on the studio monitors (again, pointing out that many recording/mastering studios use B&W speakers as monitors).

Sorry, I didn't mean Sean Olive when I said "his original point", I meant @FeddyLost . I thought he was saying that Mastering studios apply EQ to make direct sound flat, so only dispersion and distortion really matter. I could be wrong about his meaning, though.

Also, like I said, I have no idea if that's true. I know nothing of the professional mix/mastering side and how things are done.

 

[Ageve]

GR Research had a pair of these "Anniversary edition", "Speaker of the Year", speakers sent in to determine if they could be modified to improve their sound. He said they had the cheesiest, cheapest parts you can use in a crossover; he showed the crossover and the cheesy parts in the video. He said, "You would have thought that with "The Anniversary" edition of a speaker they would have at least put in some better quality parts. But no, the same nickel and dime parts they use for many of their speakers.

There's nothing wrong with the quality of the crossover components, and replacing them with expensive parts wouldn't make it a better speaker. The problem is the implementation. B&W has decided that fewer components = better (it's not).

B&W speakers used to measure quite flat in the past (Matrix, Nautilus 801, 805, 705 etc). It went downhill with the 804 Diamond, and it's only gotten worse since.

 

[Helicopter]

The natural mollusk shapes look really cool on the Nautilus and on a lot of the B&W tweeter housings. Pretty sure that's what got them into Abbey Road. I really hope they are EQ'ing them there. Studios that are serious about performance normally use speakers with a good i.e. flat frequency response from the likes of Genelec, Neuman, maybe JBL or Focal. Flat FR is one step toward breaking the 'circle of confusion.' Pretty sure Olive (in his blog) isn't advocating using the same bad speakers as the studio to get things right.

 

[zajogungster]

[QUOTE = "preload, post: 819733, member: 16063"] Tu sú prechody z B&W 802d. Nie ste si istí, odkiaľ ste dostali nápad, že spoločnosť B&W spravidla používa lacné crossovery vo všetkých svojich modeloch. [/ QUOTE]
skúste sa vrátiť na základňu tohto vlákna. Neporovnávam neporovnateľné! tak hovoríme o cene cca 700eur! Ale stále som bol schopný vylepšiť 802: D

 

[BWard]

I can't find that video, if it ever existed, but Danny tends to replace a heck of a lot lot of components that don't need replacing. Wirewound resistors and film capacitors for ones that cost more, inductors that are the right inductance rejected because of their ferrite core.

My bad, it was 2 other B&W speakers he took apart and found 5 cent parts. He said the particle board on one, 602 s2-$600/pair, was so thin and bad that it had a bunch of voids in it. It was a $600 speaker when new and of course got rave reviews from What Hi-Fi. B&W is all marketing and cozy relationships with the audio press.
Danny frequently changes the crossover in order to correct bad frequency response. I thought that was something people on this site thought was important.
He also will make changes to the crossover to improve the impedence. He did a crossover change to a Magnepan to bring up the impedence from 1.9 to 4.4. I'm sure many amplifiers will think that is important.

 

[BWard]

There's nothing wrong with the quality of the crossover components, and replacing them with expensive parts wouldn't make it a better speaker. The problem is the implementation. B&W has decided that fewer components = better (it's not).

B&W speakers used to measure quite flat in the past (Matrix, Nautilus 801, 805, 705 etc). It went downhill with the 804 Diamond, and it's only gotten worse since.

He doesn't just swap out cheap parts for expensive parts. There is some design work involved.
He tests the speaker and if it measures poorly, he will do a crossover redesign in order to correct the frequency response and he also makes changes to correct impedence problems. He thinks the higher quality parts make even further improvements and everything I've read from his customers is that they agree. Many claim night and day difference and are very happy with the couple hundred dollar investment.

 

[zajogungster]

But how many of you are actually using measurements here? disassembles the switch, measures each component and measures the actual resonance of the parts and so on? conjecture will remain conjecture, and yet it is about truth and sound. Not about marketing and idea. It is difficult to connect and come to a conclusion, but it is certain that every B&W speaker can be improved, they are really catastrophic in terms of reality and its approach.

 

[preload]

I don't understand- from what you said above, aren't you proving that just because a recording studio uses a certain speaker (B&W in this case), it does not *necessarily equate to the speaker being "right/great"? And as a result of this, just because you enjoy the subjective sound from a particular speaker on a particular recording, it does not *necessarily mean that either the recording or speaker you used is "correct"?
*Added for clarity on position

Thanks for asking for clarity. What I'm hoping to illustrate is that:
1) Since B&W's are often used in mastering studios, and adjustments are made to the recording based on the curves and "tonality" of B&W speakers, there is definitely merit to using B&W speakers at home to attempt to reproduce what the recording engineer intended.
2) The Circle of Confusion is a major problem that prevents loudspeaker measurements from being able to reliably predict blinded listening preferences. This is to address the misconception here that a loudspeaker's sound quality can be interpreted simply by staring at measurement charts.