Oops! Not fatigued by B&W speakers

[Brennan Huff]

Not so much an authority claim, rather I was pointing out the anomaly of a speaker brand having a better level of acceptance in classical music studios than comments here and on Erin's site would suggest likely. I don't need to appeal to authority to support my view. It is what it is and I really don't mind who else accepts it. However, it is interesting, is it not, that this brand gets so little coverage here and it does suggest that the accepted FR linearity here might not be the whole story.

You still are being vague... what are you trying to get at? What is "the whole story"?

This forum is, by and large, full of people that like speakers that test well. There are other forums that are full of people that like speakers they consider "musical", an example of which is the B&W house sound.

I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Sidenote: I own 804 Diamonds.

 

[thewas]

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.

The sad thing is that now both Harman and B&W belongs to Samsung and in the listening rooms of Marantz and Denon in Japan (who also now belong to the same group) current B&W 801 loudspeakers are used, on the other hand Marantz and Denon have each an own "Sound Masters" who supposedly makes a final check/tuning of the corresponding electronics if they sound according to each brands philosophy.
The stereo market is still ruled by hype and nonsense.

Article about it and source of the photo https://hifi.nl/artikel/36957/Shirakawa-Audio-Works-te-gast-bij-Denon-en-Marantz.html

 

[RexrothPigeon]

That's a picture inside Deutsche Grammophon's studio in Berlin.

It's actually Emil Berliner Studios, which is since 2008 independent but does still make many of Deutsche Grammophon's recordings. Interestingly, the studio lists B&W among its "kind supporters" in social media posts. So yeah, pretty safe to say it's some sort of sponsorship deal. I don't know if the B&W's at Emil Berliner are customized like the ones at Abbey Road are, though.

 

[Ageve]

The photo is from 2024. They are using them to produce the new releases as we speak

The speakers in that picture are from the original 800D series, released 22 years ago.

Edit: Or even older. It looks like the tweeter is recessed, and if so, it’s the 800 Nautilus released in 1998.

(There’s also a pair of older speakers, from the Matrix series).

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Compare those results - on a speaker model that's probably 20 years old - with their newer designs of the same model lineage:

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153

For their newer models, there's no good response angle.

Clearly not ideal, but it looks worse than it is (at least in terms of brightness) due to the reduced midrange and the somewhat unflattering perspective.

If we widen it a bit, and draw a line across, we see that the highs (5khz) are actually only 1-2dB above the 100hz range at 15deg off-axis. What's maybe a little less ideal is that the midrange is like 3dB down. I'm not sure this speaker is likely to be perceived as bright. I wouldn't be surprised if the result is the opposite given the reduction in the 500-2khz area.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Anyways, look at these FR measurement from stereophile, a speaker should be as flat as possible, which these B&W’s are clearly not:

10db difference between 1 and 10 khz?
View attachment 531689

I think this is a misrepresentation of what's happening. Claiming a 10dB difference between 1khz and 10khz by picking out a narrow dip and a narrow peak is not fair. In reality, again assuming slight off-axis listening, the real difference between the ~1khz range and the ~5khz range is 2-3dB. We're at 4khz before we see any meaningful elevation. This again is unlikely to be perceived as a very bright speaker.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I'm suddenly reminded of this fantastic thread about Deutsche Grammophon recording techniques over at GearSpace.

 

[DavidM1]

You still are being vague... what are you trying to get at? What is "the whole story"?

Not true. I was perfectly clear in my original post and further clarified in post #22, for what it is worth.

 

[kyuu]

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.

 

[Puddingbuks]

I think this is a misrepresentation of what's happening.

Point is that many B&W speakers are far form flat.

 

[thewas]

I would enjoy seeing measurements of B&W speakers, if only to see what is going on. I’m not entirely satisfied by the blanket criticism of the brand without measurements.

Their have been tons of B&W measurements in magazines in the last 50 years, even quite some full spinoramas:

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

www.spinorama.org

As I mentioned, I don’t find the treble at all fatiguing. It is natural to my ears. I enjoy the tonality and detail in the sound stage that comes with more perceptible high end.

B&Ws have changed a lot their tuning after the early 2000s, so which exact models have you enjoyed, in what room acoustics and is your age 67 like stated in your profile?
For many of us here above 40 the treble peak around 10 kHz can give some "shine" without being tiring, tiring treble is usually lower in frequency. I personally find even newer B&W models tuning rather euphonic than tiring (also due to their presence dip and rather V-shaped response), especially in not too high listening volumes where it works a bit like a loudness correction. If someone likes that that is absolutely fine but we must keep in mind that usually there is also some habituation happening and in a quick comparison at a dealer with "audiophile" recordings such tunings can impress more but on the other hand can also lead to long term dissatisfaction and hearing fatigue as also witnessed at some reports here and in other forums.

 

[Puddingbuks]

I think this is a misrepresentation of what's happening. Claiming a 10dB difference between 1khz and 10khz by picking out a narrow dip and a narrow peak is not fair. In reality, again assuming slight off-axis listening, the real difference between the ~1khz range and the ~5khz range is 2-3dB. We're at 4khz before we see any meaningful elevation. This again is unlikely to be perceived as a very bright speaker.

View attachment 531705

I asked AI: Is this a flat frequency response? Is it true that sound at around 10 khz are 10 db louder than those at 1 khz? Will this speaker sound bright? What do you think of this statement: "I think this is a misrepresentation of what's happening. Claiming a 10dB difference between 1khz and 10khz by picking out a narrow dip and a narrow peak is not fair. In reality, again assuming slight off-axis listening, the real difference between the ~1khz range and the ~5khz range is 2-3dB. We're at 4khz before we see any meaningful elevation. This again is unlikely to be perceived as a very bright speaker."


AI:
This graph is a classic "signature" response rather than a strictly flat one. Let’s break down the data and the nuance behind that quote you provided.

Is this a flat frequency response?​

No. In the world of high-fidelity audio, a "flat" response usually stays within a tight window (typically 2dB or 3dB across the audible spectrum).

Looking at this graph:

• The Bass: There is a sharp roll-off below 60Hz.
• The Midrange: It’s relatively steady until about 1kHz, where it hits a noticeable dip.
• The Treble: There is a significant rising trend starting around 4kHz, peaking sharply at 10kHz.

Is there a 10dB difference?​

Technically, yes, if you cherry-pick the lowest and highest points in that range:

• At approximately 1.2 kHz, the response dips to about 3dB.
• At 10kHz, the response peaks at roughly +7dB.
• The mathematical spread between that specific valley and that specific peak is indeed 10dB.

Will this speaker sound bright?​

Almost certainly. While "brightness" is subjective, a +7dB boost in the 10kHz region (the "air" and "sizzle" zone) is very high. Most listeners would describe this as having a lot of "detail," "sparkle," or being "forward." If your room has a lot of hard surfaces (glass, hardwood), this speaker might even sound "fatiguing" or "sharp."

---

Analyzing the Statement​

The statement you shared is a common defense of this specific brand's (Bowers & Wilkins) tuning philosophy. Here’s a breakdown of why they might be right—and where they might be hand-waving:
1. The "Narrow Peak vs. Broad Trend" Argument
The statement argues that picking the 1kHz dip and the 10kHz peak is unfair. This is a fair point scientifically. Our ears tend to perceive tonal balance based on broad averages rather than narrow, jagged spikes. If you look at the "average" level of the midrange (200Hz to 2\kHz), it sits around 0dB. The treble "shelf" from 4kHz to 15kHz averages out to maybe +4dB or +5dB.
2. The Off-Axis Factor
This is the strongest part of the argument. These measurements are usually taken "on-axis" (microphone pointed directly at the tweeter). High frequencies are very directional. If you don't "toe-in" the speakers (meaning you point them straight ahead rather than at your ears), those high-frequency peaks will naturally drop by several decibels by the time they reach you.
3. Is it "Unlikely to be perceived as very bright"?
This is where the statement gets a bit optimistic. Even if you listen off-axis, a +7dB peak is massive. For context, doubling the perceived loudness of a specific frequency requires about a 10dB increase. A 7dB boost is a very audible "coloration."

​

Summary Table​

Feature	Observation	Perceived Effect
1kHz- 2kHz	Notable Dip	Can make vocals feel slightly recessed or "distant."
4kHz - 10kHz	Rising Slope	Adds "snap" to drums and "breath" to vocals.
10kHz-Peak	7dB Spike	High potential for "shimmer" or "brightness."

The Verdict: The statement is correct that a 10dB claim is "worst-case scenario" math, but calling this speaker "not very bright" is a stretch. It is designed to have a "hi-fi" character—exciting and detailed—rather than being a neutral studio monitor.

 

[Keith_W]

I asked AI

Please don't. The rest of us don't give a cow's behind what AI thinks. We are perfectly capable of evaluating the measurements ourselves.

 

[DavidM1]

Their have been tons of B&W measurements in magazines in the last 50 years, even quite some full spinoramas:

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

www.spinorama.org

B&Ws have changed a lot their tuning after the early 2000s, so which exact models have you enjoyed, in what room acoustics and is your age 67 like stated in your profile?
For many of us here above 40 the treble peak around 10 kHz can give some "shine" without being tiring, tiring treble is usually lower in frequency. I personally find even newer B&W models tuning rather euphonic than tiring (also due to their presence dip and rather V-shaped response), especially in not too high listening volumes where it works a bit like a loudness correction. If someone likes that that is absolutely fine but we must keep in mind that usually there is also some habituation happening and in a quick comparison at a dealer with "audiophile" recordings such tunings can impress more but on the other hand can also lead to long term dissatisfaction and hearing fatigue as also witnessed at some reports here and in other forums.

Thanks for the link. I think, predictably, many responses have latched onto the anecdotal nature of my original post. It wasn't unintentional - it was there to frame the question. The point of interest for me was to see a speaker brand largely disregarded here and over on Erin's site that still has decent acceptance in classical music recording studios. I had come across several opinions on this site that said B&W speakers had a sound that impressed in the showroom but was ultimately fatiguing, which I found curious.

Does my post call into question the value of objective measurements? Of course not. Although I hadn't read it beforehand, my original post is perhaps not far from Amir's thread that asks if there is still room for a speaker designer's input or whether measurements themselves can be sufficient when designing speakers. He posted an Andrew Jones interview where AJ argued that for any price point there will be flaws and it is the designer's choice which to counter and which to live with. It seems a reasonable argument and interesting to resolve.

 

[Frank Dernie]

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?

The listening tests of various speakers over many years lead to a general preference and measurements showed that it was for a flat on axis frequency response and even directivity.
This leads to a downward tilt in the room averaged curves, so it is actually the other way round, the preferred FR gives a downward tilting in room response.

I would always note that this is a preference, weighted by many controlled listening tests.
One is for a raised bass response which I do enjoy on pop music but makes classical music sound odd.

I would also say that for many years B&W speakers had excellent flat FR.

 

[Chr1]

I find it interesting that we seem to get rather hung up on needing a ruler flat frequency response when every studio nowadays will be EQing their monitors anyway. I am not familiar with the whole B&W range but I have no doubt that their better models will sound very good indeed.

To me there's a wee bit of a group think going on, with a lot of sweeping generalisations here re some brands. I think that it is unreasonable to write off the whole B&W range. Perhaps it would be better to talk about specific models.
My feeling is that B&Ws TOTR speakers probably sound very good, and I'd imagine that EQ will always be used to optimise this in studios nowadays.
Ruler flat FR is really not absolutely essential. I'd say a lack of compression, for example is actually probably more important these days.

Very unlikely that the studios mentioned earlier would be using them otherwise.

 

[Mart68]

The B&W speakers in use at Abbey Road studio have custom crossovers so they have a flat response.

As pointed out the speakers pictured in the German studio date from back when B&W were producing accurate speakers.

Can't see that there's any case to answer here?

 

[Sigberg Audio]

I asked AI:

If you can't argue your case without AI I am not interested in debating.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Point is that many B&W speakers are far form flat.

Most speakers are far from flat. Beyond that, I haven't argued that they are flat.

 

[Talisman]

The point isn't how pleasant or unpleasant an equalized frequency response is; the point is that to translate an artistic intention exactly as it was intended by the artist/sound engineer, it's essential that we speak the same language. If a song is mastered with a flat-response monitor and I listen to it with a flat-response monitor, I'll have a good approximation of the creative intent.
If the masterer uses a listening curve and masters to that, unless I happen to have the same curve, I'll have a very difficult time faithfully reproducing that song (that is, faithfully, similar to what the masterer heard).
It doesn't matter if the end user is happy with equalization to make the sound more pleasant to their ears (I do), the point is that flat frequency response is the common language we must start from to ensure we can reproduce high-fidelity audio.