Oops! Not fatigued by B&W speakers

[Redacted]

I think working in a way where consistency is preserved is also a good thing, irrespective of monitors.

 

[DavidM1]

Oops! Another person who doesn't understand the science is here to tell us a personal anecdote that I guess is supposed to suddenly bring the ASR forum to its senses and reject the science for mysticism and ignorance, I guess? I don't really know what the point of this is supposed to be.

No. Your speculation as to why I posted is nonsense and rude.

It was a genuine post. I was trying to find out more about a couple of B&W models and realised that very few were tested by Erin or on this site. I had in the back of my mind that B&W were in use in some well regarded studios but ASR seemed to be peppered with dismissive comments about the brand. I was a little surprised because in ancient memories I had them in a similar category to KEF.

So, I put my question because B&W appeared to have acceptance in some studios but attracted blanket criticism here… even though hardly any speakers had test results.

The thread has been informative but what has surprised me is the arrogant and dismissive tone of some responses. The prevalence of other responses that were very well informed and engaged with the question hasn’t surprised me at all.

 

[Roland68]

It can depend when and where you visited these studios , as well as what music they produced there.

There are big differences in equipment choices between Europe and the US for example.

And B&W haven't been getting their speakers into studios for decades now (other than at Abbey Road where there is a definite deal happening), so was it 20+ years ago you visited these studios?

I don't think anyone claims that B&W are used in studios today - "studios" plural and varied - and it is specifically only Abbey Road that B&W promote that I am aware of.

So ... no need for conspiracy theory any greater than they supply Abbey Road for marketing purposes.

And I doubt they have special versions used .... I was at Abbey Road a few years ago (working on a private event - you can hire studios 1&2 for birthdays if you're rich enough ! Haha ) and on the derig as we were clearing out, engineers were rolling 801Ds in on trolleys for foldback in Studio 1. I had to point out, as they hadn't noticed, how the diamond tweter was smashed to bits. I don't think they treat them very well or have much reverence for them. Just free speakers.

This has absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theories; rather, it falls under the category of marketing—specifically, marketing agreements. It is a completely standard practice in the audio sector, diving, tools, and indeed in a great many hobby and sports fields—photography, and so on. The same applies to all the awards for products handed out by magazines, associations, and the like; manufacturers pay for those as well, in one form or another—for instance, through advertisements, premium memberships, etc. I have witnessed this firsthand on many occasions, and such arrangements have even been proposed to me and my team.
Do you really believe that these studios pay anything remotely resembling a normal price—or pay anything at all—for these loudspeakers?

I have been involved with recording studios for over 40 years—covering everything from roughly the mid-to-late 80s right up to the present day, across all of Europe.

 

[Mart68]

I was a little surprised because in ancient memories I had them in a similar category to KEF.

They very much were until around the turn of the century or maybe a little after that.

 

[WillBrink]

No. Your speculation as to why I posted is nonsense and rude.

It was a genuine post. I was trying to find out more about a couple of B&W models and realised that very few were tested by Erin or on this site. I had in the back of my mind that B&W were in use in some well regarded studios but ASR seemed to be peppered with dismissive comments about the brand. I was a little surprised because in ancient memories I had them in a similar category to KEF.

So, I put my question because B&W appeared to have acceptance in some studios but attracted blanket criticism here… even though hardly any had test results.

The thread has been informative but what has surprised me is the arrogant and dismissive tone of some responses. Other responses that were very well informed and engaged with the question didn’t surprise me at all. The latter is the norm for ASR in my experience.

If you were a new member, the comment would make some sense. You have been here too long to not expect the response. Look at the ATC thread that is over 300 pages long! ATC has far more use in studios than B&W by a very wide margin, and ASR as a whole does not care nor see it as a confirmation of objectively good performance. Many (most?) older brands have a "house sound" they developed and are known for. They appear to have no reason or interest in changing it. You either like it or you don't. I prefer the ATC sound over B&W for sure. Some brands like KEF seem to be interested in following the science as to what objectively measures well, and newer brands often stake their focus on being objectively accurate for a fair $, which, (drum roll) tend to appeal to ASR members for obvious reasons. If you spend 10 minutes on ASR, you will see that gear that is both $ and does not objectively perform well will get a hard rejection on ASR. That often does come accross as "...arrogant and dismissive" but that's ASR.

 

[NTK]

I was a little surprised because in ancient memories I had them in a similar category to KEF.

Quoting Dr Toole from this post.

A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

With all due respect, it does not. I did not mean to doubt that skilled salesman and communicators can sell whatever product would not stand a controlled test. But i was referring to a not so hypothetical scenario in which a loudspeaker model superior from engineering perspective is subjectively...

www.audiosciencereview.com

​

Harman now owns all of B&W, having purchased it as part of a bundle of well known companies at a fire-sale price. The company has been struggling for years and has been available for purchase before, including when I was with the company. We passed. When John Bowers was alive he and I communicated regularly, he sent prototypes to me at the NRCC for measurement and evaluation, he gave me a pair of his original 800 series, hosted me at a Montreaux Jazz festival, and was definitely aligned with the science. Products sounded similar. Then he died, new management took over, and there were changes. No more NRCC contact. B&W did some things well: marketing, servicing their dealers, and pushing their halo products into professional environment. Harman struggled with these things. Having numerous brands to support in both retail and automotive contexts presented challenges. These things cost money.​

In the post-John-Bowers era measurements of their products indicated that there was no universal "sound" - the products were all over the place. The visually striking halo products were acoustically ill conceived - an overly large midrange combined with an unbaffled tweeter results in a large directivity mismatch at crossover, but they were a distinctive identifying feature (always an advantage), beautifully finished, and aggressively marketed, diamond tweeters and all. They weren't "bad" sounding, just not as good as they should have been at the price. A loudspeaker in this series is examined in Section 2.9.1 in the 4th edition with both technical measurements and subjective evaluations.​

​

 

[Chr1]

Seems to me that both ATC and B&W are slightly behind the curve, technology wise.
ie. Voiced speakers in either trad boxes and/or pods
Less attention to phase via waveguides, not point-source etc.
This does not necessarily make them bad speakers. Just a tad old fashioned vs the likes of Genelec, Neumann, Siberg, AsciLab, D&D et al.
Let's face it, we are nerds (and proud), therefore prone to scorn and likely to dismiss anything that isn't SOTA/cutting edge.

This doesn't mean that all B&Ws, ATC, Wilson etc sound bad. Far from it. However, clearly they could sound better.

 

[RoA]

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?

What does it matter what folks here think or how many B&W speakers there have been reviewed by Erin if you like them? Do you need validation of your choices?

I find this forum interesting but pick and choose what I take on board. A lot of it I don't.

 

[Roland68]

No. Your speculation as to why I posted is nonsense and rude.

It was a genuine post. I was trying to find out more about a couple of B&W models and realised that very few were tested by Erin or on this site. I had in the back of my mind that B&W were in use in some well regarded studios but ASR seemed to be peppered with dismissive comments about the brand. I was a little surprised because in ancient memories I had them in a similar category to KEF.

So, I put my question because B&W appeared to have acceptance in some studios but attracted blanket criticism here… even though hardly any speakers had test results.

The thread has been informative but what has surprised me is the arrogant and dismissive tone of some responses. The prevalence of other responses that were very well informed and engaged with the question hasn’t surprised me at all.

They very much were until around the turn of the century or maybe a little after that.

In the past—for as long as I can remember, up until around 2005—B&W was virtually the undisputed king among loudspeaker manufacturers in the consumer audio sector (as opposed to pro audio), alongside brands like Watt Audio and a few others known for their extremely expensive (and cult-status) speakers. Manufacturers like KEF and others were in a far lower league (I am speaking strictly in terms of prestige).
This entire phenomenon was driven not by actual sonic performance, but primarily by the Hi-Fi magazines—which were incredibly powerful at the time—and their often-ridiculous reviews. Today, it is almost impossible to imagine the sheer power and influence these magazines wielded over people's purchasing behavior and their perceptions of value regarding audio equipment.

Throughout the 90s and into the early 2000s, dealers, manufacturers, and magazines frequently hosted events where one could listen to high-end equipment—and, theoretically, compare it. In reality, however, these events bordered on brainwashing, as it was essentially dictated beforehand which equipment sounded "better."
By the late 90s or early 2000s, I had managed to make myself unwelcome at these events; I had too frequently demanded—and encouraged other attendees to demand—that the equipment be demonstrated in a blind test setup, where no one knew which system was playing, thereby allowing the participants to judge for themselves.
Such a request was absolutely not appreciated.

Subsequently—starting around 2005—this entire edifice began to crumble, partly due to the lively exchange of information facilitated by the internet; the magazines, too, became more cautious.

As I mentioned, I have had multiple opportunities to listen to their flagship loudspeakers, but to my ears, the sound simply lacked neutrality—it was not free of coloration.
That doesn't mean you can't listen to music well with these speakers. You simply have to like their particular sound signature.
And that, precisely, is an area where many members of the ASR community seem to lack the necessary tolerance. Some people prefer a certain colored sound or sonic character. If a manufacturer intentionally designs it that way—and the buyers happen to like precisely that—then, as far as I am concerned, that is perfectly fine.
For no one—least of all at ASR—has the right to pass judgment on another person's taste, to pass sentence upon them for it, or, indeed, to make decisions on their behalf.

 

[Mart68]

And that, precisely, is an area where many members of the ASR community seem to lack the necessary tolerance. Some people prefer a certain colored sound or sonic character. If a manufacturer intentionally designs it that way—and the buyers happen to like precisely that—then, as far as I am concerned, that is perfectly fine.

I agree with that - provided the owners of these way out designs are not constantly complaining about 'bad recordings.'

Too many people who will blame anything except the speakers for poor sound.

I think that if you want to enjoy a wide variety of recordings of different eras and genres it helps if the speakers are in the ballpark of accurate although they don't need to be perfect or even close to perfect. Value for money is a different argument.

 

[bargainguy]

I remember quite vividly visiting a studio 30 years ago (Smart Studios, in Madison, Wisconsin) where a friend was cutting some tracks.

The studio had three pairs of speakers:

B&W 801 Nautilus
Yamaha NS-1000
Acrosonics, who knows the model

Of course, I had to ask the engineer what was going on with three very different pairs of speakers.

The answer was simple:

"Almost everything sounds good on the Nautilus. Very little I have to do to the signal.

Then I switch to the Yamahas. More work required to get a good sound there.

Then I switch to the Acrosonics. That's the acid test. It's much harder to get a good sound from them. But when I do, I stop."

I never forgot that progression of speakers, and it made me realize just how difficult it is to engineer the sound so it can shine on all platforms.

 

[Sernyl]

So much generalising! So little sophisticated reasoning!

+1
Very poor paper.
This "study" purpose is specific : only classical orchestra musicians.
In regard to other musicians : nothing can be inferred.

 

[LTig]

I remember quite vividly visiting a studio 30 years ago (Smart Studios, in Madison, Wisconsin) where a friend was cutting some tracks.

The studio had three pairs of speakers:

B&W 801 Nautilus
Yamaha NS-1000
Acrosonics, who knows the model

Of course, I had to ask the engineer what was going on with three very different pairs of speakers.

The answer was simple:

"Almost everything sounds good on the Nautilus. Very little I have to do to the signal.

Then I switch to the Yamahas. More work required to get a good sound there.

Then I switch to the Acrosonics. That's the acid test. It's much harder to get a good sound from them. But when I do, I stop."

I never forgot that progression of speakers, and it made me realize just how difficult it is to engineer the sound so it can shine on all platforms.

I'm wondering what he needs the Nautilus for, if he does just a little on the mix, and then maltreats it so it works with the worst speaker. He could just start with the worst speaker and skip the better ones.

 

[Redacted]

I saw one in a sad aquarium in Fuengirola.
Unimpressed.

 

[Jim Taylor]

And that, precisely, is an area where many members of the ASR community seem to lack the necessary tolerance. Some people prefer a certain colored sound or sonic character. If a manufacturer intentionally designs it that way—and the buyers happen to like precisely that—then, as far as I am concerned, that is perfectly fine.
For no one—least of all at ASR—has the right to pass judgment on another person's taste, to pass sentence upon them for it, or, indeed, to make decisions on their behalf.

You are absolutely correct. As @J.J has said, "There is no gainsaying preference."

However, when people post on a public forum, their statements amount to advocacy. Anyone can say anything that they want on a public forum (within limits of safety), and anyone else can disagree with them all they please. There is no sanctity in public discourse.

Religion, sex and politics: no one knows what your preferences are if you keep your mouth shut.

 

[Redacted]

I like to see myth-busting in action and iconoclastic statements we can debate.

Not sure of what is being implied by:
"There is no gainsaying preference."

 

[Sokel]

Why only talk about about the past, "tuning" is an absolute thing of today as well.
And at well regarded, measurement-oriented brands who choose to use subjective tests and tune against the established principles of today.

Buchardt for example, but at least they offer that at an option (Master Tunings or something like that, established after blinds tests, which are "warmer" with their elevated mid-bass, etc )

I quote the owner of the company:

our warm tuning, or the stock for that matter looks pretty similar to each other, and when only looking at measurements, it's looking kind of "off" which I agree with. this is work done by a completely different designer compared to the theoretical tunings. these are done without that much processing, FIIR filter and such. they are designed and tuned more by ear and experience if you will, and listing to them, gives you a different picture. we have close to 1500 users on the a500 speakers, and from those that are reporting back, I would say around 8/10 prefer this. looking at the measurements, it should in theory be the other way around...

I have thought about doing an small experiment with my customers base to dig a bit further into this (for those who wish), as this have been extremely interesting knowledge for us.

FIY the a500s point to where much larger speakers perform better (mainly spl, THD and such) would be "solved" with the release of the a500 signature that would use purifi woofers

 

[Jim Taylor]

I like to see myth-busting in action and iconoclastic statements we can debate.

Not sure of what is being implied by:
"There is no gainsaying preference."

Substitute either the word "denying" or "disputing" for "gainsaying" and I think the statement is clearer. "Gainsaying" is a more or less archaic usage. The basic sense is that no one can control your inmost likes and dislikes, even if they were to try.

 

[Dialectic]

+1
Very poor paper.
This "study" purpose is specific : only classical orchestra musicians.
In regard to other musicians : nothing can be inferred.

It's a bad academic paper.

However, a systematic study of the more accomplished (and therefore busier) classical musicians would no doubt indicate those with a few years of experience or more tend to have severely compromised hearing. A quick chat with musicians from a major orchestra would leave one with no doubt about this. It is such common knowledge among musicians that it is not even worth the effort of doing a study. This epidemic of hearing loss was widely known when I studied to be an orchestral musician 20+ years ago.

 

[Sjkrabbe]

I loooove my B&W 805 matrix speakers - they are at least 30 years old but still sounds just great in my little listening room.