Oops! Not fatigued by B&W speakers

[Chr1]

Yes, and studios will use EQ to do this.

There's no need for the speaker to be perfectly flat.

This reminds me of the obsession with inaudible SINAD differences in DACs and amps tbh. To me, nowadays, power handling/distortion, as one example are of more importance surely. YMMV.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Putting the midrange in one ball and the tweeter in a different ball will always make integration between the drivers tricky at crossover frequencies. Such a design will struggle with difficult-to-fix off-axis response near crossover frequencies. This will make the speaker very sensitive to the room.

 

[RandomEar]

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.

I think the main points have been covered well enough by fellow members:

• Amir can only measure what is send to him by either forum members or manufacturers. If forum members can't or won't buy rather expensive speakers like B&W and B&W themselves don't send some, there will be no measurements of those speakers on ASR. That's the story.
• Members on ASR tend to belong to the objective crowd: They favor precise reproduction of music and science- or at least measurement-based approaches towards that goal. B&W does not advertise precise reproduction and does not use much science or objective data in their product marketing. ASR members are for the most part simply not their target demographic and - vice versa - most members are not overly interested in B&W speakers.

I think arguing about whether a flat or an increasing treble repsonse are desirable in a speaker is mostly an off-shoot topic, which has come up because you were looking for other potential reasons why B&W may be relatively unpopular amongst ASR members. I think this is diving too much into the details of the performance to be actually relevant to the overall sentiment of users towards B&W around here.

 

[Redacted]

B&W (like Polk) is part of Samsung, so no doubt things will get just better and better !

 

[Sigberg Audio]

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.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Many studio monitors aren't flat, and most studios aren't perfectly treated, so the in-room response in most studios actually aren't flat. There will be deviations in the frequency response, and the tonality will also vary from studio to studio. The mastering engineers employ a combination of experience and listening to different systems to ensure the mix translates reasonably well across a number of different systems. Ideally it should sound decent on anything from the speaker on your iphone to a high end speaker system.

Tools also exist now where you can see what the typical spectral energy is for a given music genre compared to the energy of the track you are producing, meaning you could theoretically dial in the tonality of the track independently of the tonality of your monitors.

 

[Talisman]

It's a bit more complicated than that. Many studio monitors aren't flat, and most studios aren't perfectly treated, so the in-room response in most studios actually aren't flat. There will be deviations in the frequency response, and the tonality will also vary from studio to studio. The mastering engineers employ a combination of experience and listening to different systems to ensure the mix translates reasonably well across a number of different systems. Ideally it should sound decent on anything from the speaker on your iphone to a high end speaker system.

Tools also exist now where you can see what the typical spectral energy is for a given music genre compared to the energy of the track you are producing, meaning you could theoretically dial in the tonality of the track independently of the tonality of your monitors.

But forgive me, if we don't aim for excellence, then anything goes. What's the point of a flat frequency response on the axis if it has no correlation to the way the masters are made?
How can we talk about high fidelity if we don't have a reference point? Fidelity to what? To a response that varies from studio to studio, from room to room?
If that were the case, those who simply want what sounds best to them would be right. If we don't have a certain reference point for fidelity, we might as well just use what we like.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

But forgive me, if we don't aim for excellence, then anything goes. What's the point of a flat frequency response on the axis if it has no correlation to the way the masters are made?
How can we talk about high fidelity if we don't have a reference point? Fidelity to what? To a response that varies from studio to studio, from room to room?
If that were the case, those who simply want what sounds best to them would be right. If we don't have a certain reference point for fidelity, we might as well just use what we like.

That is the reality we find ourselves in I am afraid. It's often referred to as the "circle of confusion", referenced many times on this forum. I am not saying this is a reason to aim for something other than linear response, just explaining that it doesn't automatically mean you are listening to what the artist or the producer or the mixing engineer or the mastering engineer was listening to. Often this will not be the case.

Audio's Circle of Confusion

Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and r...

seanolive.blogspot.com

EDIT:
"If that were the case, those who simply want what sounds best to them would be right." <- who is to say that they are wrong? The point of most music listening is enjoyment. Why wouldn't every individual seek what sounds best to them?

 

[RexrothPigeon]

listening to what the artist or the producer or the mixing engineer or the mastering engineer was listening to. Often this will not be the case.

And we will never know.

Which is why the more reasonable goal is to listen to the recorded media reproduced as accurately as possible. And that’s something we can know and measure and verify.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

And will never know.

Which is why the more reasonable goal is to listen to the recorded media reproduced as accurately as possible. And that’s something we can know and measure and verify.

Since the speaker itself is a pretty complicated system when factoring in dispersion etc, and the speakers (two not one) and room makes up a system, even that is a bit complicated. But in broad strokes we can at least see what is likely to be inaccurate.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Decades of research and refinement has clarified what does not work well in speakers (and rooms). We know that resonances are to be avoided or minimised. We know that cabinet resonances are quieter than driver+box+port resonances. We know that high-Q resonances over only a few Hz, whilst annoying when triggered by content, are less audible than wider bandwidth low-Q resonances. We know that in-room floor, wall and ceiling reflections dominate lower frequencies. We know that smooth off-axis performance sounds better in real rooms than lumpy off-axis behaviour. We know very low frequency behaviour/immersion is tricky in small (i.e. any domestic) room etc.

 

[Jim Taylor]

The photo is from 2024. They are using them to produce the new releases as we speak. In the room behind the glass some of the world's most famous classical musicians are recorded for studio albums every year.

What is interesting to me is that hanging the reputation of B&W monitoring devices on Deutche Grammophon's use of them may be counter-productive. The reputation of Deutche Grammophone recordings is, according to many classical music fans, somewhat spotty. Their piano recordings, in particular, have been criticized. It should be noted that this criticism is NOT aimed at the performances, which are considered exemplary, but at the recording, mixing and mastering processes.

I can't remember where I read all these differing opinions. Not only that, but just the fact that differing opinions exist is not an ironclad proof that DG depended more on the quality of performance than the quality of recording.

Still, I found these two discussions regarding DG classical "sound". If I find more, I will edit this post.

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/deutsche-grammophon-sound-quality.651986/

Audiogon Discussion Forum

We have a pretty big classical CD collection and many are Deutsche Grammophon. Many of these recordings don't sound that great and I have to say that so...

forum.audiogon.com

 

[AaronJ]

I had a pair of B&W CM5 speakers for over a decade. I purchased them from Best Buy after listening to them in their Magnolia show room. They sounded amazing at low listening volumes, which I assume was due to B&W's house sound. My in-room measurements from the listening position very closely matched those from Stereophile. I definitely would have described them as non-fatiguing and "just right" for my use.

Now here comes the but. I could never crank them up. It was not until I had been on ASR for a couple years that I added Dirac Live. It helped, but running a full spectrum correction just felt wrong. So I decided to purchase a neutral speaker - Revel M106. Wow, what a difference. I had my friend over for a listen and he told me, "I always found your old speakers to be bright."

 

[mj30250]

I had a pair of B&W CM5 speakers for over a decade. I purchased them from Best Buy after listening to them in their Magnolia show room. They sounded amazing at low listening volumes, which I assume was due to B&W's house sound. My in-room measurements from the listening position very closely matched those from Stereophile. I definitely would have described them as non-fatiguing and "just right" for my use.

Now here comes the but. I could never crank them up. It was not until I had been on ASR for a couple years that I added Dirac Live. It helped, but running a full spectrum correction just felt wrong. So I decided to purchase a neutral speaker - Revel M106. Wow, what a difference. I had my friend over for a listen and he told me, "I always found your old speakers to be bright."

I had a much more limited but somewhat similar experience a while ago. B&W is the reason I took a deep dive into the hi-fi rabbit hole to begin with. Around 20 years ago I visited a local A/V shop for the purposes of auditioning some HDTVs. While there I wandered into their "high end" audio room. This was a dedicated, acoustically treated space that was furnished like a comfortable living room. The speakers were top-of-the-line B&Ws equipped with diamond tweeters. They were running a live concert on the system at a medium volume, and my goodness...I had never heard such crisp, clear audio out of speakers before. I was transfixed. Then I glanced down at the price tag, and...oof. Dropping a year's salary on a handful of speakers wasn't exactly in the cards. I planned to return soon after to sit down and really listen, just for the experience. When I stopped back in a few days later, the salesman handed me the remote and said "have fun!". So I did. I thoroughly enjoyed the sound but at higher volumes things simply didn't remain comfortable. I just assumed that this was a function of my being too liberal with the volume button, but now I know better.

 

[Dialectic]

What is interesting to me is hanging the reputation of B&W monitoring devices on Deutche Grammophon's use of them may be counter-productive. The reputation of Deutche Grammophone recordings is, according to many classical music fans, somewhat spotty. Their piano recordings, in particular, have been criticized. It should be noted that this criticism is NOT aimed at the performances, which are considered exemplary, but at the recording, mixing and mastering processes.

I can't remember where I read all these differing opinions. Not only that, but just the fact that differing opinions exist is not an ironclad proof that DG depended more on the quality of performance than the quality of recording.

Still, I found these two discussions regarding DG classical "sound". If I find more, I will edit this post.

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/deutsche-grammophon-sound-quality.651986/

Audiogon Discussion Forum

We have a pretty big classical CD collection and many are Deutsche Grammophon. Many of these recordings don't sound that great and I have to say that so...

forum.audiogon.com

I love a lot of DG recordings, but, yes, the quality of the engineering is all over the place.

 

[Chr1]

Just Googled the CM5s. They are bookshelf speakers. Very different from what the studios in question use, I would suggest.

Also, at risk of stating the obvious : Very few bookshelf speakers sound good at high volume. Unless of course you were high passing with subs.

 

[kemmler3D]

No, there probably isn’t. I think the thing that I’m attempting to reconcile is the expectation of a downward sloping frequency response. It seems an accepted part of speaker measurements to praise it but without a lot of discussion of the angle. To me, a steeper angle would be disappointing even when the FR is pristinely linear.

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. 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.

For the most part, I think the Harman research favors a true flat on-axis response but a downward slope for power response/ reflections in room. Not everyone agrees with this, you can find constant directivity designs that go brighter off axis that are well liked also.

As for exactly why this is favored, I'm not totally sure but I think since narrowing directivity with higher frequency is an inherent property of direct radiating transducers (and probably all sound producing objects in some sense) it's a phenomenon that isn't subject to the circle of confusion and therefore it sounds natural.

What ASR membership values that B&W tends to lack is a smooth on and off axis response, regardless of downward tilt. AFAIK B&W stuff actually does have a downward tilt off axis like most speakers, it's just not usually a smooth transition, which is the problem from the ASR POV.

For what it's worth, I never found treble-heavy responses noticeably fatiguing either.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

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.

Many of the academic papers will use as participants student volunteers which can place them in the 18-24 age category and include males and females. Looking at an average audiophile show most of the guests are males over 50. People buying expensive speakers will be usually older than the volunteers available for psychology studies on campus. That could be why some manufacturers (B&W, Klipsch) boost the highs in their products that sell to this group. The frequency response of older males changes when compared to the student age population and the male over 50 could be the largest market for spending on higher end speakers.

 

[LuckyNat]

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.

Probably not much any more, but there is a strong legacy of B&W 801s being used by the major classical music labels in all their studios by choice. Abbey Road's relationship with B&W comes from when EMI chose them for the studio complex back in 1979 or so..

Decca, Deutsche Grammophon also had them for all their studios. I remember seeing them at another classical music label's mixing/mastering studios too in London (ironically when I picked up some ATC cabinets .. ).

So, from the original 801s to the Matrix series to the late '90s Nautilus 800 series, they were still used in classical, and film too (like Skywalker Studios, Sony etc)

I've heard mastering engineers from those genres and eras also swear by them too (their personal favourite monitors) ..
... but studio norms moved on, active monitors became the norm and I bet, as you say, Abbey road only stick with B&W / Classé amps because of some deal.

I've a pair of 801 Matrix's that used to be Abbey Road owned, taken home by an engineer when they replaced them with the newer model, used in his career after leaving.

So .. yep it depends what B&Ws one is talking about. Likewise, no-one uses Tannoy monitors any more in studios, despite being ubiquitous at some point in the 70s/80s/90s ..

A picture of Walter Becker's studio circa 1995 (B&W 801 Matrix monitors .. and Meyer HD1s, another 90s classic monitor) .

 

[Redacted]

Wow, I had no idea that hearing deteriorated with age.
Imma get me a transplant.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

Wow, I had no idea that hearing deteriorated with age.
Imma get me a transplant.

It doesn't deteriorate uniformly though but aging seems to change the frequency response of hearing. It could be that we need a different frequency response from our hi-fi system as we age. Perhaps objectivist audiophiles in the future that don't measure our hearing system first might seem like an optician that doesn't test your eyes before ordering a new pair of glasses.