• 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!

Definitive Demand D11 Speaker Review

BYRTT

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
956
Likes
2,452
Location
Denmark (Jutland)
.....I am glad that I got the ball rolling with regards to the issue 500 - 700Hz.
I have formulated one hypothesis, some people have questioned it, that's the point and the more the merrier!
It would be great to find an explanation that is consistent with the observation...

After thinking about it, indeed the Passive Radiator looks suspicious when compared with the S400.
Also as I mentioned internal resonance are not 100% ruled out yet.....
Thanks and indeed its interesting stuff and great if users can come up with useable solutions, but before proceed a debugging process think it would be wise in general see if any D11 owner can get resolution and measure that fault that Amir's Klippel robot can resolute, what i mean is for Buchardt S400 member hardisj had his trouble get his various trial setups to resolute the fault even sample was the same as in Amir's analyze and while resonance area did show up down the road it never was resoluted exactly the same as Amir's analyze, a normal simple gated or frequency dependant window filter from farfield in a users listening room enviroment would mostly interpollate that 500-700Hz critical resonances out so some proof anybody can measure and resolute the error think would be a good start before any debugging suggestions.
.....@amirm let's exploit the NFS data.
Could you publish the balloon directivity diagram for the 536Hz and 615Hz (or in the vicinity)?
It might help us understanding the phenomenon.
It seems that the resonance at 536Hz out of phase @0deg becomes in phase at +70 down to -70deg.....
Good idea hope Amir is happy support idea and data can help a bit..
.....I am sure the clever guy at Vituix or others can figure out what to do.....
Who is the guy exactly at Vituix, not sure the creator himself is who you mean plus he is probably not so interested in that kind of support for his CAD program or whatever do i really know :)..
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,111
Likes
8,438
Location
NYC
Though it's not the D11, you might be interested in seeing in what's going on with the D9's passive radiator, as the speaker shows a similar (if not quite as dramatic) peak in the mids

D9 Bass.png
 
Last edited:

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,917
Likes
3,396
Location
Minneapolis
@ROOSKIE measure the surround of the PR if you can?
From the pictures you could also measure the thickness of the walls as well.
Hi, yes when the delivery arrives I will measure the surround on the radiator and I will take the drivers out and get a good measurement on cabinet wall thickness.
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,917
Likes
3,396
Location
Minneapolis
before proceed a debugging process think it would be wise in general see if any D11 owner can get resolution and measure that fault that Amir's Klippel robot can resolute, what i mean is for Buchardt S400 member hardisj had his trouble get his various trial setups to resolute the fault even sample was the same as in Amir's analyze and while resonance area did show up down the road it never was resoluted exactly the same as Amir's analyze, a normal simple gated or frequency dependant window filter from farfield in a users listening room enviroment would mostly interpollate that 500-700Hz critical resonances out so some proof anybody can measure and resolute the error think would be a good start before any debugging suggestions.
Right now I am only set-up to measure inside, however I could focus on the passive radiator and set-up something that likely will still have enough resolution to show changes in the 500-700 region that would be accurate enough.
Especially as I can deconstruct/recontruct the loudspeaker. I though of maybe even removing the radiator and (temporarily) sealing the top, that way I can completely remove the radiators effects. Might be telling.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,495
Location
Seattle Area
@amirm let's exploit the NFS data.
Could you publish the balloon directivity diagram for the 536Hz and 615Hz (or in the vicinity)?
Sure. Here you go:

Definitive Technology Demand D11 Bookshelf Speaker Balloon Audio Measurements.png


I assume you also need the phase:

Definitive Technology Demand D11 Bookshelf Speaker Phase Audio Measurements.png
 

Maiky76

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
441
Likes
3,708
Location
French, living in China
Hi, yes when the delivery arrives I will measure the surround on the radiator and I will take the drivers out and get a good measurement on cabinet wall thickness.

And prepare some Mineral wool?
 

Juhazi

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
1,717
Likes
2,897
Location
Finland
Though it's not the D11, you might be interested in seeing in what's going on with the D9's passive radiator, as the speaker shows a similar (if not quite as dramatic) peak in the mids

View attachment 80133
Phase plug in midwoofer seems to work - no peaks above 2kHz, but a couple of deep dips.
Reflex pipes and passive resonators almost always show these resonance peaks aroud 600-800Hz, a curse of 2-way construction. Basically flawed concept!
 

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,616
Likes
6,087
Location
.de, DE, DEU
To simplify the error analysis a bit and to exclude possible causes more easily, here are a few examples.

1. Surround Resonance
With the Satori series chassis from SBAcoustics, as little damping as possible is part of the design principle.
The data sheet says: "Soft low damping rubber surround for optimum transient response".
Therefore the dip around 1.5kHz is most likely caused by a surround resonance. The impedance peak is difficult to detect due to the low resolution.
This results in a dip in the frequency response, since the surround resonance oscillates in antiphase to the chassis cone, which leads to cancellation.
For more detail see post#53.
1598512249071.png

Source: https://sbacoustics.com/product/6½in-satori-mw16pnw-4/


2. Standing wave in loudspeaker cabinet
Even if I myself repeatedly point out possible standing waves as a cause of resonance, this is rather an "amateur error" which can be compensated considerably or completely by appropriate damping (damping material in the range of the sound velocity maximum) or an internal Helmholtz absorber (chamber with a hole in the inside of the cabinet, tuned to the cabinet resonance). Should therefore practically never occur in professional projects.

Here is an example from a forum. The red impedance frequency response belongs to an approximately 1m high, undamped loudspeaker cabinet. It is a closed loudspeaker cabinet, which excludes other possible disturbing factors.
The peak in the impedance response at 170Hz caused by a standing wave in the cabinet is clearly visible.
1598512230723.png


The green frequency response curve (the one with the most severe peaks) shows the effects of the undamped standing wave.

1598512519948.png

Source: https://www.diy-hifi-forum.eu/forum/showthread.php?15291-Stehende-Welle-im-Geh%E4use


3. Other possible chassis defects
Since a few posts ago I was asked what causes there might be for resonance peaks caused by the chassis itself (and I didn't go into detail) here is a possible cause from a Klippel paper (Klippel is always a good source for such questions).

The example shows possible chassis-cone resonances which, unlike surround resonances, oscillate in phase and thus cause resonance peaks.
AAL=Accumulated Acceleration Level

1598513394476.png

Source: https://www.klippel.de/fileadmin/kl...ture/Papers/KLIPPEL_Cone_Vibration_Poster.pdf
 

BYRTT

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
956
Likes
2,452
Location
Denmark (Jutland)
Now ROOSKIE and Maiky76 is going to wrap the inside out of D11 to find improvements here is some overlaid or modeled tech stuff for D11, first one is modeled baffle loss/diffraction and impedance overlaid Amir's spindata..

Technical_1.png


Second one is Amir's nearfield sweep of woofer and tweeter normalized to spindata and corrected for baffle loss/diffraction..
Technical_2_1x3x3x_500mS.gif


Third one is a calculated port using difference for nearfield sweep of woofer verse official spindata on axis curve, port curve set to inverted in CAD software should look like the the portion in the left side of graph and for fun added some modeled port noice below 1kHz that will make woofers passband go smooth below 1kHz, in a inverted port curve dont look absolute the same for a LP (linear phase) model verse a MP (minimum phase) model note below one is LP as is default output in Amir's spindata..
Technical_3_LP_8x1_5x1_200mS_EDIT.gif

Same as above but now model is using MP..
Technical_4_MP_8x1_5x1_200mS_EDIT.gif


Fourth one is a vertical tilt in CAD software of Amir'spindata looking for the first and most deep notch tilting downwards and then upwards, for D11 it looks be a relative high XO region at about 3200Hz with a lobe pointing forward that looks be close to symetrical, so probably some more or less in phase acoustic filter is used here as for example it could be of Linkwitz Riley target..

Technical_5_x1x1x1_1000mS.gif



Fifth one is radars with multiple of frequency overlays, first verticals then horizontals..
Technical_6a.png

Technical_6b.png
 
Last edited:

KaiserSoze

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
699
Likes
592
Yah man, I get you.
I understand your doing your thing and I am doing mine. Investigating the speakers.

You have to understand that I'm not just replying to you - I am discussing this stuff in a more general sense for the public forum. I am not misunderstanding you here friend. One thing to note is that the measurements here are always on axis (which would equate with a full toes in) and so I do like to mention from time to time that may not represent the design goals. (even if unfortunately the manual does not clarify them)

You are kind of restating you general case and I will as well. I really don't agree that it is a weird thing for a manufacturer to design a speaker that is meant for off axis listening. I suspect it is actually quite common. Many people will never place the speakers anywhere but straight ahead for many reasons and there is not really a great reason to design a speaker for on axis listening over off axis or even way off axis (zero toe). In fact there are many benefits to designing for off axis including mitigating diffraction effects. (there are also many benefits to an on axis design of course)
Dali is one manufacturer of note who at least lets people know this. They design many of their models for no toe in.

Anyway
In any case I do think it good to be thorough and have these conversations.

As said in his orignal @napilopez said "Anyway, this speaker is designed to be used with the offset tweeters on the outside edges, and appears be designed for use with minimal toe in (manual says: "Toeing the speakers in slightly, if possible, toward your listening area will also provide a stronger center image.) That's how the D9 sounded best. "

I can see you value toughness and I mean no harm but you followed by replying to him with the same quote from the Deff Tech manual.

Anyway, I will be interested to play around with these somewhat odd speakers and I most deff think you nailed the passive radiator resonances due to box dimensions. I am going to take it apart and see what can be done there to confirm.

Please note that sometime during the night I decided that I would need to get up early this morning and edit that post, which I have done. I don't think I changed the essence of it, but hopefully the points are better stated. I also desired to be kinder and gentle, but it's for someone else to judge whether I managed to be any kinder and gentler.

For the record I did not restate my "general case", as you are now saying that I did (in the pre-edited, excessively verbose version of my prior post which rubbed you against the grain). This isn't something that deserves any further discussion, but I just felt it appropriate for me to say plainly that I did not do anything remotely of that sort. If this is what you think, this probably means that you misinterpreted something I wrote earlier.

As for what the measurements here do and do not do, this obviously isn't my department so to speak but I will note that it has been explained at least twice that it is not correct that the measurements provided here fail to display the right and left off-axis responses independently of each other. The truth is much the opposite. It is manifestly true that in the graphs where you see the directivity index, the off-axis response curves from both sides are averaged together. This is a practical and appropriate thing to do, in that it is necessary in order to obtain and display the directivity index. It is also useful to me, and presumably to other people, to see a single set of curves that represent the laterally off-axis responses. Without question it is theoretically possible to do this independently for each side, i.e., one set of curves for the right side and another set for the left side. To some extent you see this in the 3-D plots that Stereophile produces, however you don't really see it there because the opposite side is obscured and you can't spin the 3-D image around to look at it from the other side. This is a drawback to that kind of 3-D representation projected onto a 2-D plane, and is no doubt a major reason that someone figured out that the same information can be represented using a color graphic, which enables the display of the right and left off-axis responses independently of each other. Amir produces these color graphics and it has already been pointed out that the information that was asked for is in fact provided in these graphs. Not only for the right and left independently of each other, but also for the above-horizontal and below-horizontal off-axis responses in the vertical plane.

At the risk of diminishing or obfuscating the meaningful content of the preceding paragraph, I will add that personally I do not see a lot of benefit in independent representation of the right and left off-axis responses. The reason is that I think that a good percentage of the time I will be positioned where the off-axis responses toward the center will be more dominant than the off-axis responses toward the side walls, while at other times the opposite will be true. And there will be times when I will be positioned such that for one of the two speakers the off-axis response directed to the center will be the more dominant of its two independent off-axis responses while for the other speaker the off-axis response directed toward the side wall will be the more dominant of its two independent off-axis responses. It all varies. If there were some way to suppress the off-axis response from one side of the speaker so that only the "good side" will ever be heard (in addition to the on-axis response), then this notion would make good sense to me. But of course there is no way to do that unless you put the bad side toward the wall and then cover the wall from front to back with sound absorptive material of some sort. I don't consider this practical, and since there isn't any way to suppress the sound from the bad side, it does not seem to me that this is a practical endeavor.

"I can see you value toughness and I mean no harm but you followed by replying to him with the same quote from the Deff Tech manual."

I did not realize that he had included that quote from the manual. Even if I had been aware of that, I would see no harm at all in my having quoted the manual. If I had been aware that he had quoted the manual I might have included something like, "In the manual you quoted ... but you did not seem to realize that what you are saying is not consistent with what is in the manual." Something like that, maybe. But this isn't the kind of thing that I'll lose any of my nap time over.
 

KaiserSoze

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
699
Likes
592
You're definitely right that I asserted that with too much confidence that the speakers are meant to listen to off-axis, so I apologize about that. DefTech isn't explicit about it, it's just how I interpreted the text and illustration of the manual. To me "toe the speakers slightly" means "you don't need to toe them in all the way." Otherwise they could just say aim to aim them at the listening position as others do, but @ROOSKIE is right that we sholdn't look at manuals too closely for advice unless they are explicit about intentions (such as Neumann, which tells you very specifically where the reference axis is, down to the millimeter). I can see why you might've interpreted that differently.

However, please keep in mind my off-axis comment was a minor point in my original post. It was primarily meant to suggest the on-axis hot treble of the D9 (which is not present in Amir's measurements of the D11 anyway) probably isn't a huge issue in practice. The bit about listening off-axis had little to do with my main point about why the measurements of the D11 are better than they appear at first glance, and the measurements I posted are all referenced to the on-axis anyway. So my larger point about the use of offset tweeters and how the close-wall reflections are perceptually dominant remain.

But as we're on the topic... I do think it's totally normal for speakers to be designed with listening off-axis in mind. So I shouldn't have said "specifically designed to be listened off-axis ," but I think my later assertment that it "appears to be designed for use with minimal toe-in" was not unreasonable.

Dennis Murphy has mentioned doing so for the BMRs, Buchardt explicitly mentions the S400 and A500 are designed to listened with no toe-in (with the default tuning for the latter), Andrew Jones does it, Dali does it, and different folks at KEF have told me three times that it designs speakers to be listened to off-axis as well (but you have the choice).

It is also worth noting that in the only study that I know that analyzes the typical positioning of speakers in home listening environments(devantier, 2002), the majority of listeners had their speakers set up for off-axis listening:

View attachment 80127

So I don't think the idea that engineers making HiFi speakers are designing them to be listened to off-axis is unreasonable.

I like this post.

You wrote:

"I do think it's totally normal for speakers to be designed with listening off-axis in mind. So I shouldn't have said "specifically designed to be listened off-axis ""

This clearly and appropriately draws attention to the distinction between a speaker that was designed such that the preferred listening position is off-axis, vs. a speaker designed with consideration to listening off-axis. This distinction is important. If the designer pays attention to the off-axis response (as they obviously should!), this is not at all the same thing as designing the speaker expressly to be listened to off-axis rather than on-axis. You have alluded to the importance of this distinction, which is good. It certainly is normal (and expected) for speakers to be designed with off-axis listening in mind. But this is clearly not the same as designing speakers expressly such that the preferred listening position will be off-axis.

Even though there is strong relatedness between listening position relative to the speaker's direction vs. the angle between the direction of aiming for the pair of speakers, I think it is best to not treat these two things as one and the same thing. It is best be as clear as possible as to whether what you are advocating or discussing deals with whether the speakers should be listened to off-axis, or deals with whether the speakers should be aimed parallel or toed in. Certainly the two things are intimately related, but in order to be clear in what you are saying and avoid confusion, it is best to be as clear as possible in this respect.

On the point about the manuals, if the desire is to learn what the manufacturer recommends (and to possibly infer what the designer was thinking), the manuals are the only place where this kind of information is available. As I previously noted, the only other realistic option is to write the manufacturer and ask for more information, but this is 99.99% certain to be a waste of time. Certainly and with strong conviction it does not make one bit of sense for a bunch of consumers of the product to get together on some web forum and decide for themselves what the designer had intended and then allow the consensus conclusion to reverberate within the group to the point where it is eventually accepted as fact.

You wrote:

"Dennis Murphy has mentioned doing so for the BMRs, Buchardt explicitly mentions the S400 and A500 are designed to listened with no toe-in (with the default tuning for the latter), Andrew Jones does it, Dali does it, and different folks at KEF have told me three times that it designs speakers to be listened to off-axis as well (but you have the choice)."

Again it is important to be clear as to whether you mean that these speakers were designed with the express intent for them to be listened off-axis, vs. designed with consideration to off-axis listening. When you obtain this kind of information from a manufacturer it is important to be exact with respect to this distinction. The answer you were given was the answer to the question they thought you were asking, and not necessarily the answer to the question you thought you were asking. They may only have been confirming that they did pay attention to the off-axis response, and not have intended to suggest that the preferred listening position is off-axis. When the manufacturer recommends positioning the speaker with no toe-in they are only confusing matters. When they do this the obvious question is whether this really means that the speakers should ideally be listened to off-axis, or if this isn't really what it means, then what the meaning is exactly. All it probably means is that people who prefer to aim the speakers straight and parallel to each other should not feel ashamed and hide this from their fellow audiophiles, i.e., they should not have to rush to look out the window to see who is at the door and then rush to aim the speaker back into the sweet spot for fear of being admonished by their fellow audiophiles for not having the speakers correctly aimed. In all likelihood this is all that some of these manufacturers were saying, and in particular they likely did not intend to advocate that you should listen to the speakers off-axis. (I do not doubt that some of these manufacturers were advocating that the ideal listening position is off-axis. I'm not denying this. I'm only trying to draw attention to the significant probability of misunderstanding when this question is asked and answered.)

You wrote:

"So I don't think the idea that engineers making HiFi speakers are designing them to be listened to off-axis is unreasonable."

Certainly this is not an unreasonable conclusion, since all you actually say here is that manufacturers design speakers as we expect, with consideration to being listened off-axis. Nothing earth-shattering about that. But are you muddling the distinction between this mundane thing and the much less mundane thing where the manufacturer has designed the speakers expressly to be listened to off-axis? Obviously it is up to you to decide whether you want to clarify, but if you do so and then make it entirely clear that you are saying the less mundane thing, please be careful that when you explain your justification that the reasons you give are not wrought with the strong possibility that the person who answered your question misunderstood what you were asking.
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,917
Likes
3,396
Location
Minneapolis
I like this post.
"So I don't think the idea that engineers making HiFi speakers are designing them to be listened to off-axis is unreasonable."

Certainly this is not an unreasonable conclusion, since all you actually say here is that manufacturers design speakers as we expect, with consideration to being listened off-axis. Nothing earth-shattering about that. But are you muddling the distinction between this mundane thing and the much less mundane thing where the manufacturer has designed the speakers expressly to be listened to off-axis? Obviously it is up to you to decide whether you want to clarify, but if you do so and then make it entirely clear that you are saying the less mundane thing, please be careful that when you explain your justification that the reasons you give are not wrought with the strong possibility that the person who answered your question misunderstood what you were asking.

I think what this all boils down to for me is tripping over our own shoelaces here.

Very few manufactures engineers clarify anything about their design goals and rarely describe the weight they have given to the listening angle in finalizing the design.
It is just as likely that a given manufacture designs with consideration to the fact that a minority - not a majority will listen on axis, essential making on axis listening the secondary design goal while some degree of off axis is the primary design goal.
The whole "listening window", measurement space that many manufactures seem to have embraced certainly suggests off axis is a major concern if not actually the primary.

IMHO whether the manufacturer designed the speaker for the "best/ most balanced/ or whatever" sound to occur with full toes toward listener( on axis, with axis being defined as the front baffle) or to some degree off axis isn't really the important.

What is important for me is whether by design or happy accident, if the speaker will likely sound "best" in a certain listening position, we discover that likely position and set-up accordingly.

I see it as reasonable not to expect the primary design goal to be on axis geared any more than it is off axis geared. The optimal listening angle/position will need to be discovered in most cases by investigation and then determined using best possible assessment of anything one has gathered due to minimal (or even zero) information from many manufacturers.

There are likely speakers expressly meant for any number of various listening angles by design - but they if actually sound better in a different configuration than I do hope that can be realized here.
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,917
Likes
3,396
Location
Minneapolis
At the risk of diminishing or obfuscating the meaningful content of the preceding paragraph, I will add that personally I do not see a lot of benefit in independent representation of the right and left off-axis responses. The reason is that I think that a good percentage of the time I will be positioned where the off-axis responses toward the center will be more dominant than the off-axis responses toward the side walls, while at other times the opposite will be true. And there will be times when I will be positioned such that for one of the two speakers the off-axis response directed to the center will be the more dominant of its two independent off-axis responses while for the other speaker the off-axis response directed toward the side wall will be the more dominant of its two independent off-axis responses. It all varies. If there were some way to suppress the off-axis response from one side of the speaker so that only the "good side" will ever be heard (in addition to the on-axis response), then this notion would make good sense to me. But of course there is no way to do that unless you put the bad side toward the wall and then cover the wall from front to back with sound absorptive material of some sort. I don't consider this practical, and since there isn't any way to suppress the sound from the bad side, it does not seem to me that this is a practical endeavor.
Yah as this goes along, I am not sure if I see the benefit in the a symmetry either.
It is one reason I wanted to try this system and have Amir measure with the expensive gear he has.
When they arrive I can play with them and see if I find anything out for myself.
I am making a couple new DIY sets and really thought about offsetting - including offset of the woofer. Generally I am finding less "yes" offset than "no" as I read what is published out there.
The thing is I like the look of off set tweeters. I dig the A-symmetrical looks.
 

Califmike33

Member
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
33
Likes
22
I just heard this speaker at best buy in the magnolia room and compared back and forth with B&W 601s and its a tough call, i give the BW the nod, but the Demand D11 sounds really really good. I dont pay much attention or choose speakers off graphs and charts but what my ears are telling me. I agree there not worth $999 i would say its a $650 to $750 speaker. I ended up choosing the BWs.
 

NoSnakeOil2

Member
Joined
May 15, 2020
Messages
69
Likes
78
I've had Def Tech speakers, and I just don't understand the company's insistence on putting those binding posts so close together and at an angle so that they are doubly difficult to access. It seems so strange that Def Tech continues with such a maddening design.
 

BYRTT

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
956
Likes
2,452
Location
Denmark (Jutland)
Technical optimize can be the reason for the tight spaceing, notice inside serious equipment wire's are normally tightly twisted or tight bonded pairs to reduce inductance loop area, of course will admit the tight spaceing of binding post makes mounting harder but technically they should be spaced so tight as possible, think a solution around this case is use Speakon terminals instead :)..
 

HJCarballosa

New Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
2
Likes
0
I would be curious if either Klippel had a recommendation on how to measure a speaker with an offset tweeter or if Definitive Technology had a response to how they think it should be measured.

There also was no mention of trying a 25 hz low pass filter or not. I assume it was tried and didn't help. Surprised to hear about the bass rattle though. Will be curious if the member hears the rattle in thseparatee other speaker.
i have 2pair of SM45, 1 from early 2000s, the other 2010s. seem built like my dear ole dad's concrete truck. able to vibrate ma' couch for decades, so these 'used' D11s may have been damaged if rattle was only in 1 sample. OR, manufacturing has taken a deep dive :(
 

HJCarballosa

New Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
2
Likes
0
I just heard this speaker at best buy in the magnolia room and compared back and forth with B&W 601s and its a tough call, i give the BW the nod, but the Demand D11 sounds really really good. I dont pay much attention or choose speakers off graphs and charts but what my ears are telling me. I agree there not worth $999 i would say its a $650 to $750 speaker. I ended up choosing the BWs.
What gave the nod to BW? can you provide a bit more detail? what kind of music did you listen to at BB? was it loud in there, or quiet?
thanks.
 
Top Bottom