Is purchasing B&W 702 S2’s a bad idea?

[Chromatischism]

And then there are studios like Abbey Road and Lucasfilm that use 800-series speakers as monitors.

 

[fpitas]

I don't doubt what you heard. There are a lot of people (again, particularly on this forum) that don't like the B&W's they heard, for whatever reason. And there are lots of people who DO like B&W. And then there are studios like Abbey Road and Lucasfilm that use 800-series speakers as monitors.


Right, and I know the idea that a B&W speaker can be preferable to a Genelec is not welcomed by many on this forum. So, I expect these types of "oh but you didn't do it blindfolded" responses. Whereas, if someone says they heard Revel XXX or Kef XXX speakers and they sounded good, how often do we see that observation challenged with "oh but you didn't do it blindfolded."

Studios use a wide variety of monitors, often with known sonic flaws. They have a very different use case than a home listener.

 

[preload]

View attachment 228914

Exactly. And so the 800 lb gorilla in the room with all of these types of conversations is what type of music do you listen to, and how was it typically mastered? Because if the studio engineer, with B&W monitors, made adjustments to optimize the sound for playback on his B&W's, but you're playing the music back on Genelecs, it may not sound as good as playing back on B&W's (and certainly not as the recording engineer heard, by definition). The Circle of Confusion explains why there is likely a lot of legitimate variation on how people perceive the sound quality of different loudspeaker brands.

As an aside, if you read the Harman studies, they all seem to use the same handful of test tracks, like Bird on a Wire, over and over again. This makes sense from a research standpoint, to eliminate the listening sample as a confounder across studies, but how well, then do the conclusions of their experiments really generalize to music that is recorded differently from, say, Bird On a Wire? For instance, perhaps I like to listen to crappy pop music and old school techno? Were the recordings I listen to most often mastered in a different way? Were they mastered on B&W speakers or other speakers that have a BBC dip? Thanks for bringing this up.

 

[Koeitje]

Exactly. And so the 800 lb gorilla in the room with all of these types of conversations is what type of music do you listen to, and how was it typically mastered? Because if the studio engineer, with B&W monitors, made adjustments to optimize the sound for playback on his B&W's, but you're playing the music back on Genelecs, it may not sound as good as playing back on B&W's. The Circle of Confusion explains why there is likely a lot of legitimate variation on how people perceive the sound quality of different loudspeaker brands.

The circle confusion sucks super hard, because the situation wouldn't be as bad if studio's used more neutral speakers. If the entire studio world would use JBL M2, Genelec, Neumann or other speakers designed following the same principles and with proper acoustic and room correction there will be much less deviation.

As an aside, if you read the Harman studies, they all seem to use the same handful of test tracks, like Bird on a Wire, over and over again. This makes sense from a research standpoint, to eliminate the listening sample as a confounder across studies, but how well, then do the conclusions of their experiments really generalize to music that is recorded differently from, say, Bird On a Wire? For instance, perhaps I like to listen to crappy pop music and old school techno? Were the recordings I listen to most often mastered in a different way? Were they mastered on B&W speakers or other speakers that have a BBC dip? Thanks for bringing this up.

They use many different tracks and different genres at Harman. You also miss the point that well designed speakers respond to EQ better and allow for better EQ correction to deal with artifacts of the circle of confusion. Because B&W doesn't spend any time on designing any directivity control they struggle when you have to correct for music that isn't mastered on them.

 

[fpitas]

The circle confusion sucks super hard, because the situation wouldn't be as bad if studio's used more neutral speakers. If the entire studio world would use JBL M2, Genelec, Neumann or other speakers designed following the same principles and with proper acoustic and room correction there will be much less deviation.

They use many different tracks and different genres at Harman. You also miss the point that well designed speakers respond to EQ better and allow for better EQ correction to deal with artifacts of the circle of confusion. Because B&W doesn't spend any time on designing any directivity control they struggle when you have to correct for music that isn't mastered on them.

The studios have a different problem than we do, in that they need to produce a product that sells to a wide audience. Here we represent 0.0001% of the listening audience. The rest have nasty squawk boxes and stuff from the big box stores.

 

[preload]

They use many different tracks and different genres at Harman.

You sure about that? As stated, I'm referring specifically to the published Harman studies. These were the 4 tracks used to determine Olive's regression model (AES 2004), clearly all variants of a single genre of rock. Did you read the actual paper and just forget, or did you just decide that I wouldn't know?

Artist	Track	Music Genre
James Taylor	That’s Why I’m Here	Folk rock
Little Feat	Hangin’ On to the Good Times	Blues rock
Tracy Champan	Fast Car	Folk/Blues rock
Jennifer Warnes	Bird on a Wire	Country rock

You also miss the point that well designed speakers respond to EQ better and allow for better EQ correction to deal with artifacts of the circle of confusion.

No, I understand the point very clearly. The ability to EQ effectively is one of the advantages perpetuated strongly in this forum. "In theory," this should have given the Genelecs, which have computerized calibrated mic EQ, a huge advantage. But that didn't pan out either.

 

[Sancus]

And then there are studios like Abbey Road and Lucasfilm that use 800-series speakers as monitors.

Those are the default monitors in their recording control rooms, but that doesn't mean they were used for mixing or mastering. At Abbey Road, one of their rooms uses Focal SM9s, some of their rooms use PMCs, and they also have a lot of floating equipment from different manufacturers, including Genelecs, Adams, ATC, KRK, etc. Plenty of content "recorded at Abbey Road" will be mixed in some other studio entirely.

Frankly, it's not possible to know what was used in the mixing and mastering stages for most content without asking the engineers that did the work. Your best bet is to pick monitors that can actually be EQed easily and then adjust when necessary.

 

[Koeitje]

No, I understand the point very clearly. The ability to EQ effectively is one of the advantages perpetuated strongly in this forum. "In theory," this should have given the Genelecs, which have computerized calibrated mic EQ, a huge advantage. But that didn't pan out either.

No you clearly don't. You could have equalised them to deal with the B&W recordings. But you went for an accurate response, which you aren't used to at all.

The studios have a different problem than we do, in that they need to produce a product that sells to a wide audience. Here we represent 0.0001% of the listening audience. The rest have nasty squawk boxes and stuff from the big box stores.

And you don't know what these users have at home, so better to mix neutral.

 

[preload]

No you clearly don't. You could have equalised them to deal with the B&W recordings.

You appear to be making a lot of assumptions here. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they don't understand a concept. For instance, how do you know that I haven't applied PEQ on my Genelec's to match the room response curve of my 802D's, and then compared? I mean, did you think you were the only one ingenious enough to figure that one out?

Also, when you say "deal with the B&W recordings," what does that mean exactly, does it mean that you know which recordings were produced in B&W's in the studio? How do you know?

But you went for an accurate response, which you aren't used to at all.

See here you go again. How do you know that I'm not used to an "accurate response?" By accurate, do you mean matching what the mastering engineer heard? Because if so, the most "accurate" reproduction would be obtained by using a loudspeaker similar to the mastering monitors (for instance, B&W's, if B&W's were used). Or by accurate, do you mean a loudspeaker that adheres to the principles perpetuated in this forum related to directivity and preference scores? Because thanks, I have a pair of DCA Stealth headphones too - are those accurate/neutral enough for you? I like them just fine, thanks.

Also, just because someone doesn't share the same loudspeaker preferences as you do, doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't used to what accurate response sounds like, or they have defective hearing, or they don't understand concepts, etc.

 

[Chromatischism]

Exactly. And so the 800 lb gorilla in the room with all of these types of conversations is what type of music do you listen to, and how was it typically mastered? Because if the studio engineer, with B&W monitors, made adjustments to optimize the sound for playback on his B&W's, but you're playing the music back on Genelecs, it may not sound as good as playing back on B&W's (and certainly not as the recording engineer heard, by definition). The Circle of Confusion explains why there is likely a lot of legitimate variation on how people perceive the sound quality of different loudspeaker brands.

If you listen to music on B&W's that was mastered on B&W's, you will double up the frequency response errors. The effects are additive. It's amazing how no one seems to catch onto this.

 

[preload]

If you listen to music on B&W's that was mastered on B&W's, you will double up the frequency response errors. The effects are additive. It's amazing how no one seems to catch onto this.

No.

Mastering does not involve recording the transducer output of the monitoring loudspeakers with a mic, which would result in "doubling" of frequency response deviations.

Mastering involves making adjustments to the electronic audio file so that it sounds right to the studio engineer on his monitoring loudspeakers. So, if the audio file was manipulated so that the end product sounds "correct" on the B&W monitor, then it's only going to sound "the same" on a playback speaker similar to that B&W monitor (ignoring the room, of course...use B&W headphones as an example if that's clearer).

Think about it some more.

 

[test1223]

I have had similar experiences with speakers which "shouldn't" sound good but they did like the bigger B&W speakers.

I think I have some parts of an explanation why this is the case and it is more like the circle of confusion only.

To my experience the difference in the frequency response of the head related transfer functions between direct sound and diffuse sound definitely plays an important role if you discuss what sounds neutral and sounds good. The claim that a straight line frequency response is the only legitimately target of the room response curve is IMHO very narrow minded, since our hearing doesn't provide a linear function between the direct sound and diffuse sound perception and with stereo you try to trick your mind to accept a two channel system as being "real" with some amount of reflections from the recording side and some amount from the playback system. The room acoustics and listening distance of the speaker setup plays therefore an important role. How much diffuse sound do you have at the listening position and did the recording provide the experience of diffuse sound and has some reflection cues on it. This should define if a deviation between the direct sound frequency response and the room curve of the speaker setup should sound better or worse. The frequency response deviation should follow the difference between the direct sound perception and the diffuse sound perception in this case.

@preload

Did you try a similar equalization on your B&W like the one in the following link?

Measurements for speaker Bowers & Wilkins 802N

spinorama.internet-box.ch

Or did you try an eq which provides a linear direct sound frequency response to your B&W?
If yes which version of the speaker did you like best? To my experience one of the two equalizations should improve the sound.

Can you give us the listening distances of both of your set-ups?

Do the Harman test tracks sound good on the B&W speaker and on the Genelec speakers?

Did you have the chance to hear a ME Geithain speaker? It should sound neutral and very good within the right listening distance.

 

[Chromatischism]

No.

Mastering does not involve recording the transducer output of the monitoring loudspeakers with a mic, which would result in "doubling" of frequency response deviations.

Mastering involves making adjustments to the electronic audio file so that it sounds right to the studio engineer on his monitoring loudspeakers. So, if the audio file was manipulated so that the end product sounds "correct" on the B&W monitor, then it's only going to sound "the same" on a playback speaker similar to that B&W monitor (ignoring the room, of course...use B&W headphones as an example if that's clearer).

Think about it some more.

I don't know if you understand what I'm saying. I was not talking about recording the speakers with a mic.

If someone in the studio compensated for the massive crossover cancellation by boosting the region, and reducing the high-frequency levels, I guess listening to the same speaker would just cancel out what was done in the studio and you'd hear your B&Ws. But you certainly won't be getting what the studio intended in any case.

However, we don't know if that's what they would do. If no such corrections were made because they liked the way it sounded, your home B&W speakers would indeed compound the problems because the audio track itself was not neutral in balance.

 

[Chromatischism]

I have had similar experiences with speakers which "shouldn't" sound good but they did like the bigger B&W speakers.

I've noticed it depends on the series.

Some of them are better than others: https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=18

 

[preload]

If someone in the studio compensated for the massive crossover cancellation by boosting the region, and reducing the high-frequency levels, I guess listening to the same speaker would just cancel out what was done in the studio and you'd hear your B&Ws.

Correct - you'd hear exactly what the recording engineer intended. The corrections made to the electronic audio file are made so that the end product (played back through his B&W monitors, in this case), sound "correct" to the engineer.

But you certainly won't be getting what the studio intended in any case.

No, by definition, playing back on the same speakers (or headphones) that were used as monitors to make the studio corrections would allow you to hear what the engineer intended. And THIS dilemma is one of the pillars of the Circle of Confusion theory, by the way.

 

[preload]

I have had similar experiences with speakers which "shouldn't" sound good but they did like the bigger B&W speakers.

Thank you! You and I may be among only a handful of folks here who have figured this out.

I think I have some parts of an explanation why this is the case and it is more like the circle of confusion only.

To my experience the difference in the frequency response of the head related transfer functions between direct sound and diffuse sound definitely plays an important role if you discuss what sounds neutral and sounds good. The claim that a straight line frequency response is the only legitimately target of the room response curve is IMHO very narrow minded, since our hearing doesn't provide a linear function between the direct sound and diffuse sound perception and with stereo you try to trick your mind to accept a two channel system as being "real" with some amount of reflections from the recording side and some amount from the playback system. The room acoustics and listening distance of the speaker setup plays therefore an important role. How much diffuse sound do you have at the listening position and did the recording provide the experience of diffuse sound and has some reflection cues on it. This should define if a deviation between the direct sound frequency response and the room curve of the speaker setup should sound better or worse. The frequency response deviation should follow the difference between the direct sound perception and the diffuse sound perception in this case.

Right, exactly, and the balance between direct and reflected sound makes a difference, particularly if the room is less than optimal.

@preload

Did you try a similar equalization on your B&W like the one in the following link?

Measurements for speaker Bowers & Wilkins 802N

spinorama.internet-box.ch

No, I didn't try to equalize the B&W 802D because: a) I like the way it sounds to begin with, and b) people here would be angry that I tried to EQ a speaker that doesn't "behave well" off-axis.
However, I have tried EQ'ing both the B&W 805D2 (bookshelf speakers) and the Revel M126be to match the Harman in-room response target, and I did prefer the Genelec 8351B over both.

Or did you try an eq which provides a linear direct sound frequency response to your B&W?
If yes which version of the speaker did you like best? To my experience one of the two equalizations should improve the sound.

What I did was I took MMM measurements of the B&W with an UMIK-2 and then applied EQ to the Genelecs (which is supposed to respond to EQ nicely), to match the in-room response of the B&W. I preferred the B&W-corrected response of the Genelecs to the Genelec corrected just by GLM.

Can you give us the listening distances of both of your set-ups?

I'd have to measure. Ballpark is 8 foot triangle for the B&W's and Genelecs spaced 6 feet apart with MLP about 8 ft away.

Do the Harman test tracks sound good on the B&W speaker and on the Genelec speakers?

Really really good question. I'll have to take a listen one of these days. Very curious how they'll sound on non-Harman speakers. I believe blind listeners rated the older B&W 802N (different model) somewhat lower than a Revel floorstander (forget which), on Harman-selected tracks.

Did you have the chance to hear a ME Geithain speaker? It should sound neutral and very good within the right listening distance.

Will keep an eye out.

 

[test1223]

You and I may be among only a handful of folks here who have figured this out.

Thank you for your reply. Yes a lot of people don't trust their ears any more since they found out that there is a significant sighted preference bias. But if you are trained to listen critically you can at least spot bigger differences pretty well. It is indeed a problem to spot very small differences without doing it blind.

No, I didn't try to equalize the B&W 802D because: a) I like the way it sounds to begin with, and b) people here would be angry that I tried to EQ a speaker that doesn't "behave well" off-axis.
However, I have tried EQ'ing both the B&W 805D2 (bookshelf speakers) and the Revel M126be to match the Harman in-room response target, and I did prefer the Genelec 8351B over both.

I think you can improve the sound of the 802N with eq if you eq the direct sound under about 10° horizontal 0° vertical to a linear target in the bass to about 500Hz. The eq from the link should be almost there. Edit: The eq from the link doesn't do that I was wrong it should sound worse with this eq. The estimated in room response is almost perfect in the higher frequencies without eq.

I'd have to measure. Ballpark is 8 foot triangle for the B&W's and Genelecs spaced 6 feet apart with MLP about 8 ft away.

Seem to be a good distance a lot of people choose a distance which is to far away.

Really really good question. I'll have to take a listen one of these days. Very curious how they'll sound on non-Harman speakers. I believe blind listeners rated the older B&W 802N (different model) somewhat lower than a Revel floorstander (forget which), on Harman-selected tracks.

Report back what your thoughts are. To my experience also these tracks should sound better with the B&W. As I claimed earlier the circle of confusion is on part but the BBC dip around 2.5kHz is also a part which is derived by testing the playback of a neutrally recorded voice. And the dip is a part of the perception difference between direct sound and diffuse sound. The loudspeaker at a certain distance where some amount of diffuse sound is created needs to adjust the sound power for that (at least the 2.5kHz part).

Edit: now compare this with the estimated in room response of the B&W

 

[test1223]

I've noticed it depends on the series.

Yes some of the lower priced B&W speakers are really bad sounding. I don't remember the model numbers but it sounded that awful to me. It might be the case that the listening distance and room wasn't a good fit at all, but I am very skeptical if these models can sound good at all.

It is really stunning to me that a lot of the so called high-end speakers sound also that awful wrong. You don't need a second to hear it. The middle priced speaker are not that often that wrong but some B&W provided exactly this.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Hi. I’m considering purchasing B&W 702 S2 speakers. I heard them at Best Buy recently, then again at a local shop. I kept coming back to them over others. Then, while researching them on this forum, I saw a post from someone about having wasted money on them prior to knowing the importance of measurements. That surprised me. Is that a known thing? I’d love to know more so I don’t waste money. Isn’t hearing them all you need (versus measuring)?

I appreciate any advise you can give!
-Justin

The way they sounded at the store will be different from home. Make sure your amplifier has sufficient power to drive these speakers before proceeding. You really need to audition them at home for more than a few hours. While auditioning play with positioning until optimized - either by ear or ear and measurement. If you find you are satisfied and purchase the speakers you are done.
At this point consider carefully whether your brain is easily swayed by reading about measurements of the speaker or what other folks say about them. If you are easily swayed, then you might consider stopping reading these things and enjoy what you have.

 

[ctrl]

As I claimed earlier the circle of confusion is on part but the BBC dip around 2.5kHz is also a part which is derived by testing the playback of a neutrally recorded voice. And the dip is a part of the perception difference between direct sound and diffuse sound. The loudspeaker at a certain distance where some amount of diffuse sound is created needs to adjust the sound power for that (at least the 2.5kHz part).

The extreme sound power dip of the B&W speakers, due to the different perception of direct and diffuse sound, cannot be justified with the "Zwicker curve", since it says exactly the opposite of what your PIR example shows.
In the frequency range 2-4kHz the sound pressure level in the diffuse field must be increased by about 2dB compared to the sound pressure level in the direct field to perceive equal loudness. Here is the text to your quoted diagram:

Source: Zwicker, Fastl - Psychoacoustics

I agree with you that the frequency range around the human ear canal resonance plays a special role in the sound perception of a loudspeaker and that the SP frequency response should by no means be increased in this range (contrary to what the Zwicker curve says - to justify this would go beyond the scope here...), but B&W exhibits an extreme dip in this range, which may still sound pleasant to many, but is immediately identified as "not right" by many.

This was shown by two binaural blind listening comparisons conducted here in the forum:
Binaural blind comparison test of 4 loudspeakers - I
Binaural blind comparison test of 4 loudspeakers - II

But, if one likes the sound of the B&W speakers, the "strange tuning" of the B&W speakers should not keep one from buying.