Oops! Not fatigued by B&W speakers

[DavidM1]

It turns out my enjoyment of high end realism is out of kilter with the preferred frequency response of reviewers who I respect.

B&W speakers are used in many classical music oriented recording studios including, famously, Abbey Road. I have been listening to B&W speakers for at least 20 years. I am not inexperienced with hifi speakers and have owned good quality Kef and AR speakers over the years. I am a classical musician and I hear a lot of music performed live.

How is it that Erin, for example, has some 9 reviews for Elac speakers, 21 for Kef and only 2 inconsequential B&W speaker reviews? Why is it that ASR is similarly so light on with B&W reviews and seems to be peppered with “showroom sound” criticisms. Is a little more treble than a downward tilting line provides so wrong or is it actually more realistic? Are all those highly regarded recording engineers mistaken?

Or is this just an excellent example of internet group think?

 

[Beave]

It turns out my enjoyment of high end realism is out of kilter with the preferred frequency response of reviewers who I respect.

B&W speakers are used in many classical music oriented recording studios including, famously, Abbey Road. I have been listening to B&W speakers for at least 20 years. I am not inexperienced with hifi speakers and have owned good quality Kef and AR speakers over the years. I am a classical musician and I hear a lot of music performed live.

Other than Abbey Road, which other studios use B&W speakers? And which model speaker? Do they use any EQ with them? Do they have any kind of marketing agreements with B&W?

How is it that Erin, for example, has some 9 reviews for Elac speakers, 21 for Kef and only 2 inconsequential B&W speaker reviews? Why is it that ASR is similarly so light on with B&W reviews and seems to be peppered with “showroom sound” criticisms. Is a little more treble than the Harmon line so wrong given that everyone is listening in different rooms. Are all those highly regarded recording engineers mistaken?

Both Amir and Erin tend to review what is sent to them - either by the manufacturer or by a customer.

Stereophile and Soundstage (using Canada's NRC facilities) have reviewed and measured several B&W models over the years.

Or is this just an excellent example of internet group think?

 

[DavidM1]

Other than Abbey Road, which other studios use B&W speakers?

A quick google result:

• Skywalker Sound (California): Uses B&W speakers for film audio post-production.
• Sony Studios (NYC): Uses B&W speakers for recording and mastering.
• The Gatehouse & The Front Room (Abbey Road): These specialized, smaller studios also use B&W reference monitoring.

 

[Talisman]

It's a legitimate thought. I love my Klipsch speakers, which are far from perfect, but hey, I don't have to answer to anyone.
It's a different story if you want to disguise your legitimate personal preference as objective quality by making a "right or wrong" argument.
A speaker capable of reproducing all frequencies with equal intensity without additional coloration is the most accurate by definition; there's no point in arguing about it. If you like an equalized sound, go ahead, I do too.

 

[DavidM1]

Both Amir and Erin tend to review what is sent to them - either by the manufacturer or by a customer.

I expect this is true but for those interested in objective measurements there is an obvious gap. Erin’s comments and several on ASR are critical of the B&W sound. Perhaps this is a preference born of exposure to the accepted downward tilting frequency response?

 

[Dialectic]

B&W loudspeakers may sound pleasing, especially in a heavily treated studio environment, but even in an acoustically advantageous environment, other speakers are likely to yield better performance.

Frequency response is not the only engineering problem with B&W speakers. The most significant such problem in the high-end models, obvious without taking a measurement, is the directivity mismatch between the tweeter and the large mid-range in the crossover region between those two drivers.

B&W loudspeakers were among those used by Dr. Toole in double-blind tests. Although some data produced by those tests concealed models of loudspeaker, the available evidence indicates that B&W loudspeakers fared poorly.

Respectfully, I know a lot of classical musicians, and nearly all of them have terrible sound systems. Countless studios use badly designed monitors, such as NS-10Ms and PMC products.

 

[Talisman]

I expect this is true but for those interested in objective measurements there is an obvious gap. Erin’s comments and several on ASR are critical of the B&W sound. Perhaps this is a preference born of exposure to the expected frequency response?

The users on ASR and on Erin's site are not audiophiles, they are lovers of high fidelity, they tend to appreciate high fidelity equipment

 

[DavidM1]

Respectfully, I know a lot of classical musicians, and nearly all of them have terrible sound systems. Countless studios use badly designed monitors, such as NS-10Ms and PMC products.

Respectfully, those folks are not relevant. I am referring to well equipped recording studios for classical music.

ASR is a fabulous place and it is easy to see what would constitute a high fidelity system for most components. However, the B&W sound might not measure as acceptably here as other speakers but has a good level of professional regard. Curious.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Is a little more treble than the Harman line so wrong or is it actually more realistic?

As far as B&W are concerned, I have not seen them used by recording engineers, and I have not seen them used for mixing or mastering. I have not seen them used in studios other than as main monitors, and the role of main monitors is to generate SPL and impress clients.

Come to think of it, isn't that the purpose of "showroom sound", the exact description of the newer B&Ws that you said is so prevalent here?

[Note:
As for myself, I do not use the term "realistic" to describe output. How would you know whether Infected Mushroom (or any electronica, for that matter) was "realistic"? Instead, I use the term "accurate". This means that the output of the speaker most closely resembles the input signal. That way, if what you hear is not "realistic", it means that the recording didn't have that information on it in the first place.]

Hope this helped.

 

[Chrispy]

I remember visiting a recording studio in London in the late 70s, sitting in the control booth with Mr Johns on a Rod Stewart session with Sir G. Martin directing....and they were using JBL monitors. Didn't know much about studio use of speakers then particularly, but left an impression on me. But was already a JBL fan....B&W the few models I've listened to haven't been impressed by (but haven't heard their top line stuff, more mid range stuff)

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Abbey Road

Abbey Road's B&Ws are part of a deal with B&W, so there's money involved. But more importantly, they are heavily customized and almost certainly in order to have a flatter, more neutral FR.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Respectfully, I know a lot of classical musicians, and nearly all of them have terrible sound systems.

This makes sense since classical musicians almost invariably suffer from hearing damage

 

[Dialectic]

Respectfully, those folks are not relevant. I am referring to well equipped recording studios for classical music.

ASR is a fabulous place and it is easy to see what would constitute a high fidelity system for most components. However, the B&W sound might not measure as acceptably here as other speakers but has a good level of professional regard. Curious.

Your statement that you are a classical musician and hear a lot of music performed live is an appeal to yourself as some kind of authority.

This makes sense since classical musicians almost invariably suffer from hearing damage

They also tend to lack any background in fields requiring sophisticated reasoning or independent thinking.

 

[DavidM1]

This makes sense since classical musicians almost invariably suffer from hearing damage

An interesting article and more balanced than you suggest:

“Some studies show that the impairment of hearing in musicians is not significantly worse compared to the general population [16]. As shown by a study by Kahari et al. [17], no hearing damage possibly due to occupational exposure was observed among musicians. The results were categorized by instrument groups, age brackets, and gender. Hearing within the high-frequency range was found to be preserved better in women as compared to men. Slight differences were also observed between the levels of hearing in musicians from different instrument groups. The greatest damage was noticed in percussion, brass, and woodwind players, with cello and double bass players being among those at the lowest risk. The difference, however, was not considered to be significant. Importantly, there were no significant differences in the high-frequency hearing thresholds (as per ISO 7029) between the study group of musicians and the general population.”

Regardless of any damage, some classical musicians enjoy good hifi but all are familiar with instrument sounds in different environments.

 

[DavidM1]

Your statement that you are a classical musician and hear a lot of music performed live is an appeal to yourself as some kind of authority.


They also tend to lack any background in fields requiring sophisticated reasoning or independent thinking.

So much generalising! So little sophisticated reasoning!

I mentioned that I had owned other speakers and that I regularly hear music performed to show my points of reference. My post is clearly anecdotal - no more, no less.

 

[kemmler3D]

I have some B&Ws and I find them pretty fun / pleasant to listen to. But they are noticeably less flat than my other speakers.

I would say there's nothing wrong with liking the speakers you like, regardless of how flat they do or don't measure.

But by the same token, I don't think there's anything awry if reviewers who philosophically favor the flattest response possible don't review them very often.

B&W has openly disregarded the idea of a flat response for decades now, it seems very likely they do it on purpose. They have a good business and many fans, but it doesn't prove anything if someone happens not to be one.

"Realism" is a subjective experience of something that feels convincing to you. What ASR is interested in is accuracy that can be quantified objectively. The hope is that by accurately reproducing a recording with realistic sound, a realistic experience will also result. In practice, these subjective experiences depend on so much (including the room, of course) that you can't really say one speaker is inherently more "realistic" than another. This is part of the 'circle of confusion'. And Amir in particular is committed to battling the circle of confusion. So I suspect that from his point of view, B&W does not deserve more attention than any other brand.

 

[Dialectic]

So much generalising! So little sophisticated reasoning!

I mentioned that I had owned other speakers and that I regularly hear music performed to show my points of reference. My post is clearly anecdotal - no more, no less.

I explained why B&W speakers don't enjoy much respect among people who have studied what tends to make speakers better or worse. They have significant problems with FR and directivity. Even if one tries to EQ away the bad FR, the results are likely to be highly room dependent.

Not a good choice for home or studio.

But you like them and are a classical musician.

Congratulations. I wish you well.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Regardless of any damage, some classical musicians enjoy good hifi but all are familiar with instrument sounds in different environments.

Musicians are familiar with instrument sounds up close, both the immediate sound of their instrument and the sound of the instruments adjacent to them.
But what about the sound at 10th row center ... or the sound at a table in a nightclub? Is a musician familiar with the sound that their instrument makes to those audiences?

So if a recording engineer wants to record a musician, which perspective does he choose - the perspective of the performer or the perspective of the audience? Isn't the perspective of the audience the standard?

If that is so, then what use is the experience of a musician in evaluating a recording which is made from the perspective of the audience?

As far as B&W speakers are concerned, if you like them, you like them. There is no gainsaying preference. But as I noted in my previous post, their use in studios may not be what it seems.

 

[bmc0]

This makes sense since classical musicians almost invariably suffer from hearing damage

I'd suggest reading that article more carefully. The studies cited generally found either no significant difference in thresholds between the musicians and the general population, or only slightly worse NIHL in the musicians. Also, mild NIHL in no way explains having/preferring "terrible sound systems".

Is a little more treble than a downward tilting line provides so wrong or is it actually more realistic?

A fixed deviation from neutral being "more realistic" on average would require that most recordings are colored in a specific way. Based on my subjective experience (so take with as much salt as you wish), I've found a tendency toward slightly exaggerated upper treble in classical recordings compared to what I hear live.

 

[Dialectic]

Based on my subjective experience (so take with as much salt as you wish), I've found a tendency toward slightly exaggerated upper treble in classical recordings compared to what I hear live.

This phenomenon is caused primarily by microphone placement, especially with respect to string instruments.