• 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!

KEF R3 OR BOWER & WILKINS S706 s2 ???

bodhi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 11, 2022
Messages
973
Likes
1,371
Only research a company actually needs is whether or not certain sounding speaker will sell a lot of units. It seems that boosted bass and treble sells units so you need pretty convincing reason to stop producing them and start making new ones which adhere to some preference research.

As I said before I think the B&W 706 sounds just fine and is a big step-up compared to any cheapish mainstream solution like bluetooth boomboxes, soundbars, gaming oriented computer speakers and the like. I don't think I'm too far off if I guess that about 99% of people buying speakers are not interested at all in measurements, audio research or accuracy of the speaker.
 

Ageve

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2021
Messages
192
Likes
640
Location
Sweden
I only know of few white papers of some older 800 series.

I think the last white paper they released was for the original 800D series.

Laurence Dickie had already left the company at that time.

800D:

Skärmavbild 2023-01-18 kl. 13.26.54.png

A modern B&W speaker, for comparison (805 D4):

fr_on1530.png

Top curve: on-axis response
Middle curve: 15 degrees off-axis response
Bottom curve: 30 degrees off-axis response


edit: B&W image scaled to match the Soundstage measurements (50dB vertical, 20Hz-20kHz horizontal):
800d_805d4_comparison.png
 
Last edited:

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,273
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
Could you please concretize this? I only know of few white papers of some older 800 series.
My statement was meant to imply that if B&W had done a lot of unpublished research we wouldn’t know. Hence “For all we know”.
 

Frewat

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2022
Messages
26
Likes
15
I’m not convinced that you can take any speakers, put them in any room, and just EQ them to taste. The speakers you choose have to be able to take that EQ and still work in that room.

If you need a rising treble response plenty of speakers have that and are likely to be a better starting point for you with or without EQ.
I agree that there may be better loudspeakers as a starting point if you want raised tremble as an example. With a flat frequency response however, the tone controls(which 99% of all avr, stereos, pre-amps and whatnot have) makes wonders on such loudspeakers.

Want more tremble? Tone control.
Want less tremble? Tone control.
 

HarmonicTHD

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
3,326
Likes
4,829
I think the last white paper they released was for the original 800D series.

Laurence Dickie had already left the company at that time.

800D:

View attachment 258033
A modern B&W speaker, for comparison (805 D4):

View attachment 258034
Top curve: on-axis response
Middle curve: 15 degrees off-axis response
Bottom curve: 30 degrees off-axis response


edit: B&W image scaled to match the Soundstage measurements (50dB vertical, 20Hz-20kHz horizontal):
View attachment 258081
Why is this impressive in a technical sense? (Not arguing about individual preferences or tastes please)

Many of the speakers tested by Amir and Erin exhibit a much more even on-axis response.

1674061878905.png
 

Ageve

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2021
Messages
192
Likes
640
Location
Sweden
Why is this impressive in a technical sense? (Not arguing about individual preferences or tastes please)

Many of the speakers tested by Amir and Erin exhibit a much more even on-axis response.

I agree.

The 800D was still ok though. The 10 kHz peak was introduced in the successor, the 800 Diamond series (in 2005).

edit: I know this is obvious, but it might be helpful for those who want to learn the basics of room interaction.

This is what B&W has to say about corner placement (I'm not saying I agree with everything in that blog):

If you have to place your speakers close to a wall, or a corner, you might find your buying choices are rather limited.**

Why? Simply, because every loudspeaker will interact with its physical environment, and especially with nearby boundaries – chiefly, walls. Place your speakers close up to a back wall, and in almost all cases you’ll find the level of bass increases, but this can be at the expense of openness, stereo imaging and speed. Bigger speakers will simply exacerbate this effect***, sounding bigger and more bass-heavy than ever. Conversely, place small speakers too far out into the room, and they can sound lost – again, because they’re being asked to drive too much air (and may have been designed to rely on that so-called ‘boundary reinforcement’ from the walls as part of their bass tuning****).

For that reason, it’s vital you plan where you propose to put your speakers before you buy: the precise science of positioning can vary, often being influenced by cabinet design, but most manufacturers and dealers will be able to give you guidelines. One rule almost everyone will agree on is that placing speakers in corners – or even close to, and equidistant from, side and rear walls – is a definite no-no: the horn effect this creates will causing significant amounts of ‘boom’, this becoming the dominant element of the sound.


** Those "limited choices" that you should consider If you need to place them in a corner, are not B&W speakers. That's not what they're saying.

*** By "bigger" they most likely mean speakers with deep bass. The guide is clearly written for beginners.

**** B&W speakers are not designed to rely on boundary reinforcement from the walls.

There's no way to alter the bass response of passive B&W speakers, without moving them, or without using EQ. With a "big" B&W speaker, in a corner, you would be in the same situation as Amir was, with the KEF R3, Revel F35 and Salon 2.

One way of solving the problem in a passive speaker, is using a boundary setting, like Revel did with the F208:

Skärmavbild 2023-01-19 kl. 13.45.33.png


More info from the F208 user manual:

Skärmavbild 2023-01-19 kl. 13.59.34.png


Skärmavbild 2023-01-19 kl. 14.02.45.png
 
Last edited:

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
Many loudspeaker companies do some kind listening benchmarking comparisons but in my limited experience in a quite primitive way. Also the question is if they did with favorable results, why wouldn't they use it for their marketing, as Harman does.
No, the question is if a private for-profit company had data and methods to optimize performance of their product, why on earth would they share it to aid their competition? I am certain that B&W and other successful loudspeaker companies have their own secret recipe books, so to speak.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
I agree that there may be better loudspeakers as a starting point if you want raised tremble as an example. With a flat frequency response however, the tone controls(which 99% of all avr, stereos, pre-amps and whatnot have) makes wonders on such loudspeakers.

Want more tremble? Tone control.
Want less tremble? Tone control.
I think you have that backwards. 99% of stereos nowadays do NOT have tone control. And even if they did, they are still very crude adjustments.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
Like in the headphone section, some people criticise the Harman listening tests and methodology (even I do on some issues) but on the other hand we have to admit that unfortunately no other audio company/group is doing similar controlled listening tests which wouldn't be too difficult especially for the big players, so it makes one wonder why they don't as it would be also a great marketing tool. ;) Also till then all alternative views about listeners preference belong rather to anecdotal stories and speculations.

Till then I can also only recommend every real interested enthusiast to do their own tests and find their own preferences. For example in the last 2 decades I have been strongly experimenting with different loudspeakers and EQ/targets and despite thinking my initial strategies were better than what Toole recommends would be better, I ended up preferring what he recommends, namely loudspeakers with smooth response and directivity equalised to a flat direct sound above room transition frequency. Having also had few stronger voiced loudspeakers like after 2000 B&Ws in my past I can also fully understand someone getting used to their voicing as it makes even older recording sounding not aggressive but personally I enjoy more flat direct sound with good recordings as it sounds closer to my experiences of live voices and instruments, having switchable EQ makes such comparisons easily achievable. Also can only recommend to do such comparisons at several days and listening to the different choices for a similar time as after listening for a long time to even a very sounded setting makes at the switching even a neutral setting sounding strange for a short period. By the way I don't want to claim that my above experiences can or should be generalised as also for my case this is unfortunately not a controlled study with many participants so till then even if my results would differ from the Harman ones (which it seems they don't), I would never use such to deny them but hope for more research.
Thanks for sharing this. Out of curiosity, do you listen mostly to rock music?
 

Frewat

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2022
Messages
26
Likes
15
I think you have that backwards. 99% of stereos nowadays do NOT have tone control. And even if they did, they are still very crude adjustments.
What I mean with tone controls is the simple tremble adjustments that you only can select + or - a couple of dBs. What tone controls does is adjust bass or tremble. When using tone controls bass is everything under 1khz and tremble everything over 1khz. It's been like that forever.

That's why it's important for a loudspeaker to have a flat frequency response because then you can adjust the whole tremble range. With KEF for an example, if you find them to "dark" sounding you can just turn upp the tremble a few dBs. You can't do that with B&W or other non flat frequency response loudspeakers without making it just worse.
 

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,273
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
What I mean with tone controls is the simple tremble adjustments that you only can select + or - a couple of dBs. What tone controls does is adjust bass or tremble. When using tone controls bass is everything under 1khz and tremble everything over 1khz. It's been like that forever.

That's why it's important for a loudspeaker to have a flat frequency response because then you can adjust the whole tremble range. With KEF for an example, if you find them to "dark" sounding you can just turn upp the tremble a few dBs. You can't do that with B&W or other non flat frequency response loudspeakers without making it just worse.
I’ve had amps with and without tone controls down the years. I found that I never used them in practice.

But they make sense more in compensating for a recording than for a loudspeaker or room. They affect too wide a range. And if used that way, it’s unlikely that the speakers’ response will throw things off much.

You need something more precise to compensate for a loudspeaker issue.
 

Frewat

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2022
Messages
26
Likes
15
I’ve had amps with and without tone controls down the years. I found that I never used them in practice.

But they make sense more in compensating for a recording than for a loudspeaker or room. They affect too wide a range. And if used that way, it’s unlikely that the speakers’ response will throw things off much.

You need something more precise to compensate for a loudspeaker issue.
I agree with you. The thing is that mics are omnidirectional so what we see when we measure at the MLP is more of the room then the direct sound. It's hard to compensate with EQ over a certain frequency because we hear more of the direct sound then the room thanks to how our brain and ears work. The best way to fix a bad in room response is to fix the room with acoustic treatments and use EQ to fix issues with the loudspeakers non flat frequency response.

When you look at measurements and see the estimated in room response, that is the closest to how you will hear the loudspeakers in the room except for the bass region of course.

If it measures badly when you look at the estimated in room response you'll have to fix it with EQ at that stage. That's why you can use tone controls to lift or lower the tremble of a flat frequency response loudspeakers and not on non flat frequency response loudspeakers.

With a non flat frequency response loudspeaker you have to use precise EQ with adjustable Q, band and dB. Not tone controls! Just like you wrote.

Because what tone controls are, is a shelf that lifts or lower everything under or over 1khz. It works as a way to compensate the Harman curve if you find it to "dark" or the other way around, if the loudspeakers follows the curve but are under it by a dB or 2, you can fix that to.

Summery, EQ is great for bass adjustments but over a certain frequency (differs from room to room) you must treat the room before EQ your loudspeaker. That's why you'll want (in most cases) a loudspeaker with a great estimated in room response.

Audio is subjective, if you like how the B&W sounds, then that's what you like. The most important thing is for the end user to be happy and satisfied with its purchase.
 
Last edited:

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,273
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
I agree with you. The thing is that mics are omnidirectional so what we see when we measure at the MLP is more of the room then the direct sound. It's hard to compensate with EQ over a certain frequency because we hear more of the direct sound then the room thanks to how our brain and ears work. The best way to fix a bad in room response is to fix the room with acoustic treatments and use EQ to fix issues with the loudspeakers non flat frequency response.

When you look at measurements and see the estimated in room response, that is the closest to how you will hear the loudspeakers in the room except for the bass region of course.

If it measures badly when you look at the estimated in room response you'll have to fix it with EQ at that stage. That's why you can use tone controls to lift or lower the tremble of a flat frequency response loudspeakers and not on non flat frequency response loudspeakers.

With a non flat frequency response loudspeaker you have to use precise EQ with adjustable Q, band and dB. Not tone controls! Just like you wrote.

Because what tone controls are, is a shelf that lifts or lower everything under or over 1khz. It works as a way to compensate the Harman curve if you find it to "dark" or the other way around, if the loudspeakers follows the curve but are under it by a dB or 2, you can fix that to.

Summery, EQ is great for bass adjustments but over a certain frequency (differs from room to room) you must treat the room before EQ your loudspeaker. That's why you'll want (in most cases) a loudspeaker with a great estimated in room response.

Audio is subjective, if you like how the B&W sounds, then that's what you like. The most important thing is for the end user to be happy and satisfied with its purchase.
We have to treat subjectivity in audio with care, and be guided to some extent by what objective knowledge we can obtain.

The current state of the audio industry, with everything from special ethernet switches to "quantum" fuses out there selling at huge prices, and apparently working for people - but never in accepted theory or measured practice, all unproven - tells us that unchecked subjectivity falls under the heading of dumb, and indeed that we cannot always "trust our ears". Let the seller provide actual evidence before spending thousands of dollars/Euros/pounds/whatever on those kinds of things.

If there seems to be no way that something can have the effect described, be very suspicious. If you like something with an unusual frequency response, take some time to make sure you're right. While people differ, generally we don't differ that much from each other. A popular "different" choice like the current B&W speakers wouldn't worry me that much, though, in practice.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,747
Likes
16,182
No, the question is if a private for-profit company had data and methods to optimize performance of their product, why on earth would they share it to aid their competition? I am certain that B&W and other successful loudspeaker companies have their own secret recipe books, so to speak.
Of course they don't share the exact recipe like they also didn't in the past with their nice white papers but they could for example show the results of their controlled listening tests.

Thanks for sharing this. Out of curiosity, do you listen mostly to rock music?
You are welcome. No, I don't mostly listen to rock music, although there are some Indie bands I really enjoy, I mainly listen to Jazz and EDM, although for testing loudspeakers also to typical tracks from other genres.
 

nygafre

Active Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
139
Likes
96
Strange. Here in the homeland of the Amphions the Heliums have always (decades at least) been considered being extremely analytical, a bit thin, treble boosted and lacking any warmth. I think the idea is that the speaker works well in small, concrete rooms.

I know the Helium very well and I can see why one would like it. It's just that I couldn't really recommend it over R3 or even for example Amphions Argon 3S as I think vast majority of people would not prefer it for long term.
As a previous Amphion-owner (I did enjoy them), and now current R3 owner, I agree with this assessment.
The Amphions are engaging, but a bit unrelenting.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
Of course they don't share the exact recipe like they also didn't in the past with their nice white papers but they could for example show the results of their controlled listening tests.
I agree that a for-profit company "could" share the results of internal controlled listening tests, but I still fail to see WHY they would waste their company resources to do this.

You are welcome. No, I don't mostly listen to rock music, although there are some Indie bands I really enjoy, I mainly listen to Jazz and EDM, although for testing loudspeakers also to typical tracks from other genres.
I see. The reason I ask is that I'm curious if some genres of music are more amenable to listeners who prefer loudspeakers engineered similar to the Harman design goals. Olive's preference score regression papers only used rock as the listening material. I almost never listen to rock, and I don't have any rock in my list of test tracks.
 
Last edited:

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,747
Likes
16,182
I agree that a for-profit company "could" share the results of internal controlled listening tests, but I still fail to see WHY they would waste their company resources to do this.
As it is good marketing when they are preferred.

I see. The reason I ask is that I'm curious if some genres of music are more amenable to listeners who prefer loudspeakers engineered similar to the Harman design goals. Olive's preference score regression papers only used rock as the listening material. I almost never listen to rock, and I don't have any rock in my list of test tracks.
Female pop rock seems to work well according to their research, although I wouldn't call all tracks they used as rock music:
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
As it is good marketing when they are preferred.
I disagree that loudspeaker ads based on "blind listening tests" can be considered "good marketing," unless you're selling to engineers and scientists instead of the general consumer.

Female pop rock seems to work well according to their research, although I wouldn't call all tracks they used as rock music:
Just want to point out that the link you provided doesn't include the specific study the preference scores were based off.
 

HarmonicTHD

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
3,326
Likes
4,829
I disagree that loudspeaker ads based on "blind listening tests" can be considered "good marketing," unless you're selling to engineers and scientists instead of the general consumer.


Just want to point out that the link you provided doesn't include the specific study the preference scores were based off.
You seem to know awfully little about the Harman studies (eg based on Rock, Olive’s Paper etc) yet you have a strong opinion that they are not correct or flawed.
:rolleyes:
 
Top Bottom