Bowers & Wilkins 607 S2 Anniversary Edition Review

[DSJR]

My memory may be faulty so perhaps you can help, but I think I recall one of the engineers at Abbey Road bemoaning the loss of the Tannoys and saying that the replacement B&W were only good for holding the fire doors open.

Although personally I have heard quite a few B&W speakers that I liked.

There was definitely a situation I've read of where a visitor to Abbey Road saw an N801 propping a door open. The Studio 1 control room used to have some Soffit mounted Quested monitors I recall from pictures I once saw, but maybe these were ripped out in a refurb - a quick glance at some (studio 1?) control room pics seem to show the 'gear' was updated regularly and that B&W speakers have featured for some decades now. I heard a tale that one or two engineers there bemoaned the fact that ATC 150A's were taken away from there in the late 90's when the B&W's became the main speakers, so I suppose it depends whom you talk to and maybe kind of confirms what I said about experienced engineers able to 'hear through' the monitors despite their faults (as all speakers have) to the recording mix played through them. [Edit - ] Engineers use monitors as tools for a job rather than speakers for pleasure-listening. I gather that some engineers like domestic speakers very much but find them too 'safe' or 'warm' sounding for monitoring purposes.

I think many agree that the original and Matrix series 801's were very good, but the posher looking N series did start to go wrong for me. I heard N801 and N805 and didn't care much for either - I lost touch with their higher models but remember the 68 budget series sounding very boxy to me and the CM models a bit tight a*sed. The slightly older CDM speakers could be nice if listened to on axis but to me, this weas the beginnings of the tweeter being spiced up a bit too much... Just my subjective vibes of course.

 

[Mart68]

I must be getting stories confused, it was at least 20 years ago. Agree re the Matrix 801, they got that one just right.

 

[TrevC]

[QUOTE = "TrevC, príspevok: 819597, člen: 30329"] Som si istý, že B&W v dnešnej dobe používa vo svojich crossoveroch kvalitné komponenty. [/ QUOTE]
tak ich začni pitvať ako ja a potom už len ostáva smiech cez slzy

Prečo nepoužívaš skutočný jazyk?

 

[preload]

Really ? That’s pretty much already established.

Can’t you choose from any of these ?
View attachment 136470
We can even narrow it to less choices. Let say you choose from Olive-Toole and Harman(not plotted), the variations won’t be night and day, and will be well within an aceptable margin of tolerance for “preference” deviation.

Really. Harman applied 4 different room correction algorithms and obtained listener preferences under blind listening conditions. There was quite a bit of difference and I believe for at least one of them, it actually made the sound less preferable!

Oh, one more thing. It's a myth that a room target can be represented by a thin line, like in your chart. In reality it should be a shaded area vs frequency. I started a thread showing this, I'm just too lazy to link it.

As long as you apply any house curve with downfall slope, smooth transition, and phase/timing alignment, I would call it a day over just unboxing the speakers and listening to the stock sound.

Harman research does not support your perspective. Nor do the incredible number of folks on online forums who have tried out these room correction products and found it made things worse.

I use Audyssey xt32 on my home theater setup and I like it but i do need to tweak the house curve. Btw the audyssey curve is not in your chart l above.

 

[preload]

That speaker is 22 years old, but it performs better than 607 S2.
https://audioxpress.com/files/attachment/2624

Sorry but you can't determine that this loudspeaker sounds better than the 607s2 based on eyeballing a couple of FR charts, particularly since the charts aren't even the same cea2034 components.

I also posted stereophile measurements from 3 different speakers a while back to see if people could predict which one would sound superior and responses were all over the place. 1 of them was a 20 yr old B&W bookshelf.

 

[Ageve]

Sorry but you can't determine that this loudspeaker sounds better than the 607s2 based on eyeballing a couple of FR charts, particularly since the charts aren't even the same cea2034 components.

There are more measurements in the linked review, done by Joseph D’Appolito. The review is 20 years old though, so it's not on par with modern spinorama measurements.

There are several issues with the speaker, but the measured performance was good at the time, considering the price.

I used to like B&W speakers. The Nautilus 800 and 800S/D were nice, but unfortunately it's no longer the company it once was.

 

[TrevC]

That speaker is 22 years old, but it performs better than 607 S2.
https://audioxpress.com/files/attachment/2624

"Notice that the tweeter response is quite smooth. The woofer that is out of phase with the tweeter at this point causes the sharp system response dip at 6kHz.
...
Second-harmonic distortion was below 1% over most of the audible frequency range. Below 100Hz second-harmonic distortion did rise to 1.3%, but this is still a very low figure. Third-harmonic distortion was 0.7% or less. This is an excellent result.
...
IM products appeared at 6.4, 9.1, and 10.4kHz at a level of 0.07%, the lowest figure I have measured so far in the series of tests.
...
These speakers are a great example of good engineering. Given their size and price, they get the basics right without trying to reach for the sky."

The crossover is visible in the Youtube video. Again, there's nothing wrong with those components. The thin particle board cabinet is far from ideal, but it was common back then.

I should also add that I didn't really like these speakers. They were lacking in imaging and the treble was rather "sharp".

View attachment 136454
View attachment 136460

That's the one that, according to GR Research, has 'cheesy' components in the crossover. Whatever that is supposed to mean. Not pointlessly expensive?

 

[Dackel]

Good day to everyone. I am a new member here but I have been following with interest many of the topics which you are discussing here. I am a great believer in science rather than a lot of voodoo which get banded around in the audio community. A few months ago before I knew about this forum I splashed out an bought a pair of 606s2. This is the larger "brother" to the 607. I know this thread is more concerned with the 607s but I suspect that they are similar in the way they are built and voiced. Obviously I cant be sure whether that is the case but If I had known how badly the 607s speakers measured I probably would not have bought mine. Oddly though my subjective experience with the 606s does not correspond with the measurement findings here. Listening to some well recorded jazz the sound was warm and lush. Classical and especially strings seem to come across very very realistically. Yes the violins are bright sounding but that is how they sound in real life. Rock and electronic is punchy. Everything sounds very transparent/dynamic and nothing is dull but nothing is fatiguing either. btw please don't call me a fan boy or anything I have a few other makes of speakers too. I am wondering now how this discrepancy can actually be. Is it something with my room ? or did I go deaf ? lol (btw that is a joke I actually have pretty good hearing).

 

[TrevC]

Good day to everyone. I am a new member here but I have been following with interest many of the topics which you are discussing here. I am a great believer in science rather than a lot of voodoo which get banded around in the audio community. A few months ago before I knew about this forum I splashed out an bought a pair of 606s2. This is the larger "brother" to the 607. I know this thread is more concerned with the 607s but I suspect that they are similar in the way they are built and voiced. Obviously I cant be sure whether that is the case but If I had known how badly the 607s speakers measured I probably would not have bought mine. Oddly though my subjective experience with the 606s does not correspond with the measurement findings here. Listening to some well recorded jazz the sound was warm and lush. Classical and especially strings seem to come across very very realistically. Yes the violins are bright sounding but that is how they sound in real life. Rock and electronic is punchy. Everything sounds very transparent/dynamic and nothing is dull but nothing is fatiguing either. btw please don't call me a fan boy or anything I have a few other makes of speakers too. I am wondering now how this discrepancy can actually be. Is it something with my room ? or did I go deaf ? lol (btw that is a joke I actually have pretty good hearing).

The 606 is a larger beast than the 607 reviewed here, so they probably do sound different. If you like the sound then that's the end of it.

 

[dfuller]

The 606 is a larger beast than the 607 reviewed here, so they probably do sound different. If you like the sound then that's the end of it.

Ultimately, for home audio this is all that matters. For studio use, that's another ballgame - but home audio, nah, not that big a deal.

 

[preload]

Ultimately, for home audio this is all that matters. For studio use, that's another ballgame - but home audio, nah, not that big a deal.

Exactly. Another example of how loudspeaker measurements are imperfect predictors of perceived sound quality.

 

[dfuller]

Exactly. Another example of how loudspeaker measurements are imperfect predictors of perceived sound quality.

Exactly why I don't put much stock in preference scores. Measurements to me are a useful indicator of whether or not a design is fundamentally broken or not and are useful for "I should/should not bother auditioning these".

 

[preload]

Exactly why I don't put much stock in preference scores. Measurements to me are a useful indicator of whether or not a design is fundamentally broken or not and are useful for "I should/should not bother auditioning these".

Thats a reasonable way to use them.
Although I will say that people here also seem to overestimate their ability to interpret speaker measurements as a predictor of whether the speaker is so flawed that they aren't worth of a listen.

 

[hifinutt]

Had and own lots of speakers . not too long ago had the harbeth p3esr . bought the 607s2 anniversary a few months back . very surprised by it actually , used with an arcam integrated it was really delightful . used with several other amps it really had a sweet treble and lovely with voices . I could easily live with it . the finish is not bad considering it costs only 449 pounds which is way less that the p3ser . So now its in an AV system and i would live another pair . highly recommended P1070344 by https://www.flickr.com/photos/158267783@N02/, on Flickr

 

[gasolin75]

 

[hifinutt]

i thought you liked them gasolin? funnily enough i was prompted to buy the 607 s2 anniversary after your review on another forum !!

 

[gasolin75]

I don't have a pair atm, if for some reason they can sound better, it would take alot of efford to get the right adjustment's, amp, mabye a mini dsp, some times it takes some weeks or a few month for me to know that these speakers isn't the right for my (different cable,amps) and sometimes it takes a few hours.

If they start to shout just by playing medium loud they are not the speakers for me.

Some say brun in often takes more than 14 days and then you can't return them, if sound hasn't improved, sometimes you have to wait atleast 14 days, i think i did it with the first pair i had.

I hoped the s2 anniversary edition would be an noticeable improvement, they wasn't , they can't get by with the reputation of being the brand used in the abby road studios. if entry level speakers have such highs and when people can't afford B&W that actually sounds good

Did you return them within the return periode hifinutt ?

 

[hifinutt]

No way would i return them . as i mentioned i had harbeth p3esr in the past which cost maybe 5-6 times as much. for less that 500 pounds i think these are great value . Ok the bass does not shake the room but its a tiny standmount

what struck me was the lovely sound with piano which was so natural. voices were lovely . i run pass F5 mono clones in one system and i must get round to trying them . I think steve G was quite right in his review of these speakers . yes they may not be as good as the 105 revel which cost 3 times as much in the Uk but for the money they are great .

as you may know i have had martin logans summit x , verity audio , tannoy and many others and i certainly rate these little fellas

 

[TrevC]

Just subjectivist waffling. He needs to show us the frequency response curves and then we can see what the (his?) problem is.

 

[Chaconne]

The latest generation of B&W speakers all seem to have the familiar 5-dB or so rise centered around 10KHz. I borrowed a pair of the 600 series' big brothers, the 706 S2. According to measurements I've seen, they share the rising top end of the 607s. I listen to classical music, which means a lot of violins, which in turn means listening to a lot of strident recordings of violins. I am very sensitive to this kind of shrillness (it's my pet peeve), and to my ears, the 706s presented a very subtle, very realistic portrayal of violins.

The speakers are a bit recessed in the brightness region, below 10KHz, but very airy and feathery around 10KHz and above. This is the sound I hear in the concert hall: a delightful, breathy, velvety sheen that hovers above the fundamental sounds. I didn't find the 706s to be shrill or strident on the music I love most. In reality, they presented a very realistic representation of real instruments. And they may be in my future!