Oops! Not fatigued by B&W speakers

[Jim Taylor]

In which case you are mistaken. Perhaps you have to go through the process to understand the level of time and commitment that goes into becoming an elite classical musician. We are talking hours a day in the pre-tertiary and tertiary training years, including soaking up relevant live performances and masterclasses at every opportunity. My undergraduate music school also included the city’s main concert hall and there was a blanket policy of allowing performance students free access to all concerts where seats were available. Many players continue to have easy access to concerts when they aren’t on stage themselves. Many professional musicians also teach in university music schools and serve on juries for competitions and exams, and then there is the most obvious point - classical musicians are music lovers. They are not dilettantes and they have highly developed critical listening skills. It is bizarre to think of classical musicians as inexperienced audience members. It is quite the opposite.

If that's the case (and I must assume that it is) then I must apologize. My experience ... which was obviously not on the same level as yours ... has misled me. Mea culpa.

 

[DavidM1]

If that's the case (and I must assume that it is) then I must apologize. My experience ... which was obviously not on the same level as yours ... has misled me. Mea culpa.

My apologies if I over reacted!

 

[Jim Taylor]

My apologies if I over reacted!

I don't believe that you over-reacted. Even though my opinion was based on experience, that experience involved minor orchestras and was scant compared to the level of information you have provided, and the stratum of professionalism in which you reside.
To be perfectly blunt, it makes me feel better. I'm glad that the dedication and all-round experience to which you testify still exists, and to that degree.

Vivaldi would smile upon thee!

 

[DavidM1]

You might be interested in this discussion at Gearspace, in a thread initiated by our member @sigbergaudio. Lots of information in here, much of it by inference attributable to reproduction as well as production.

https://gearspace.com/board/studio-building-acoustics/1409030-room-response-flat-sloped.html

Thanks for the link. It took a while for me to get there but this was very interesting.

 

[jayapple]

I don't think it's a matter of fatigue. This forum rarely talks about this brand because the score is very low and the price is very high.

I have many B&W agents here. I've gone to listen to them many times. I can only say that the clarity is much worse and there is a lot of coloration. Maybe it's not about pursuing the so-called smooth curve.
The design of the speakers may take up a certain cost, as well as marketing costs. The bass is very good, but overall, the price is too high.

 

[Sokel]

I made no claims about the cause. My point was only that—contrary to the OP's suggestion—I don't seem to perceive a treble lift as "more realistic" with the majority of classical recordings I've heard.


And how did you determine the correct (neutral) spectral shape for each recording? It surely varies a lot for different works and even different venues.
Do note that I'm not claiming that my perception of slightly elevated high treble is objectively correct in any real sense; it's only my subjective impression of the average recording versus what I've heard live. All the caveats of such a wildly uncontrolled subjective impression obviously apply (bias, limitations of auditory memory, etc., etc.).

I'm talking about the general trend, if you analyze enough and for a long time you get used to the visuals so to know.
Of course I'm not talking about 2-3dB differences, that would be impossible.

But in general, it's easy to see the trend of nice recorded music or genre.
You can't mistake a '60's nice classical recording from a '70's David Bowie effect box who looks like white noise at some parts for example.

Another reason for the similar trend must also be the similar recording rigs as they are fixed at the famous stages (I have posted an AES video a while back) .

Now, there are issues sometimes, but that's not from the studio engineering side but rather from the egos of the primadonas who want to be at the front (so, the respective spectrum can be higher), but that's not confined to the genre (remember the epic battles with Rainbow band, egos caused mayhem at the studio! )

 

[Roland68]

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?

I have visited over 100 recording studios in my lifetime—including some very famous ones—and not a single one of them featured B&W speakers.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that these B&W speakers are installed in only a handful of very prominent studios, yet otherwise play no role among the thousands of recording studios worldwide?
And that this very handful of studios is then used specifically to market B&W speakers?
Money well spent on marketing, wouldn't you agree?
I am also certain that, in cases like this, B&W would have customized their speakers exactly to the client's specifications—non-disclosure agreements included.
You see what I'm getting at, don't you?
Such practices are far more common than many people imagine—and not just within the Hi-Fi and music industries.

My own personal experience with numerous B&W speakers—including some of their expensive Matrix models—has not been positive enough to make me ever want to own a pair (even though some of them are quite handsome).
I have been attending concerts and various live performances my entire life. I want instruments and vocals to be reproduced exactly as I know them—without having to resort to heavy-handed adjustments via a DSP.
That is precisely what I have never experienced with B&W speakers.

 

[LuckyNat]

I have visited over 100 recording studios in my lifetime—including some very famous ones—and not a single one of them featured B&W speakers.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that these B&W speakers are installed in only a handful of very prominent studios, yet otherwise play no role among the thousands of recording studios worldwide?
And that this very handful of studios is then used specifically to market B&W speakers?
Money well spent on marketing, wouldn't you agree?
I am also certain that, in cases like this, B&W would have customized their speakers exactly to the client's specifications—non-disclosure agreements included.
You see what I'm getting at, don't you?
Such practices are far more common than many people imagine—and not just within the Hi-Fi and music industries.

My own personal experience with numerous B&W speakers—including some of their expensive Matrix models—has not been positive enough to make me ever want to own a pair (even though some of them are quite handsome).
I have been attending concerts and various live performances my entire life. I want instruments and vocals to be reproduced exactly as I know them—without having to resort to heavy-handed adjustments via a DSP.
That is precisely what I have never experienced with B&W speakers.

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.

 

[LuckyNat]

Yes, I remember listening to the Matrix 805s in 1993 or 1994. I thought they were quite good. Of course, that's over 30 years ago. The B&W speakers from that era were engineered to have a flatter response than the more recent ones.

On another note, I wonder how many monitors - B&W or any other brand - are equalized to the satisfaction of the engineer. That little tidbit of information is difficult to find out, but it would be fascinating to know ... at least for me.

A pair of Matrix 805s i bought at around 2004 for £250 were the first speakers that showed me what box colouration was - everything else suddenly sounded honky and boxy whenever I switched back and I'd never noticed before.

It was weird .. so obvious yet not noticed until it was removed.

We have to remember that ASR is reflective of a much much more recent phenomen of online hifi culture, that of strict objectivism. It didn't exist back when B&W were in studios except in isolated groups of enthusiasts who didn't have the internet to connect with each other across continents or even the next town ..

Studio control rooms werent necessarily that good either, even those that cost £millions: LEDE , Non-Environment Rooms etc etc acoustic design concepts are all thought of as outdated these days and find people who worked inanybtop studios around the world and you'll likely hear them talk about big flaws of those rooms they still had to compensate for ... I doubt wayward directivity (as is often cited as the main issue for B&W 801s of all eras and models) was considered much and they'd just try to compensate by placing panels until it sounded "right" to someone in charge..

Just my interpretation of how things have changed , relatively recently in the scheme of things. Even today, offline, where people can be themselves and not be criticised, many mix engineers are very subjective and just get on with their good work with far from perfect monitors and rooms .. but they like the sound. And their output is good despite that.

 

[Digital_Thor]

Regarding the damaged tweeter - It could also be a thing, that when people who use something (no matter the price or type) they become accustomed and "bored" with it, leaving much less care to how it looks and works - they just use it, until it is totally broken and then maybe "wake up" to realize that something is off. Some even play with damaged and distorted sound for years, until someone else might help them realize it.
I've experienced this quite a few times. Even though we have quite a lot of people who respect the gear they use daily.... there are just a few who could'n care less... not because they are not kind... but because they simply don't feel this way. One of my friends is a bit like this... he uses things roughly and hardly notice anything before it is almost completely broken down.
My brother for example, can drive a car with half the brakes, no sprinkler fluid pump, worn down tires and dangerously ticking engine (broken piston/connecting rod bearing.... it goes .... he drives... until it breaks down - then he calls me LOL!

There are 3 types of maintenance - to my knowledge.
1. According to its present state
2. According to a schedule
3. When it crashes/breaks down

I've sensed for years, that B&W use a business plan that revolves around the fact that they make something visually different and nice, but the sound is less important - and when people keep buying it, it really does not matter on bit whether we write something about dispersion, frequency response or the like - because there's a business model which apparently works - for some... so who cares

 

[LTig]

We have to remember that ASR is reflective of a much much more recent phenomen of online hifi culture, that of strict objectivism. It didn't exist back when B&W were in studios except in isolated groups of enthusiasts who didn't have the internet to connect with each other across continents or even the next town ..

That is not true. In the 1970s and 1980s objectivism was the norm. Brand ads cited full specifications and Hifi Mags verified those by measurements. In the 1990s however subjectivism took over and brands stripped their specifications, sometimes to almost none.

 

[sergeauckland]

As a long-time B&W user, and dealer in the 1980s, I think there's a large difference between B&W when it was run as an Engineering Company by John Bowers, and now, when it's a brand in a Multinational's portfolio. Then, B&W together with KEF and to some extent Spendor, maximised sound quality accuracy and low coloration. In the case of B&W and KEF, this was done using the best test equipment available at the time, including anechoic chambers. John Bowers also launched the excellent Active One, as a side-project to B&W. I have no idea what current B&Ws sound like, as I've not heard any, only seen the measurements, which do seem worse than what I remember of old. However, as I said in another thread, the original 801s which I heard in Danish Radio's studios produced the best sound I'd ever heard, and I'm still very happy with my 1980s 801s, albeit now active and equalised flat. I recently bought a pair of 1980s DM110s for my study, as again at the time, to me they were the best sounding 'budget' 'speakers.

B&W now I'm sure know exactly what they're doing, for right or wrong. They have obviously decided that their current sound is what their customers want, and the customer is always right...even when they're wrong.

S.

 

[gasolin75]

Look inside some of the world's top recording studios. That doesn't mean they're good speakers objectively.

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

And why is half of the speaker covered,hidden by a mixer

Look at the speakers Tad and Yamaha

 

[Mort]

And why is half of the speaker covered,hidden by a mixer

Look at the speakers Tad and Yamaha

Please don't introduce evidence in a ridiculous speculative thread. It ruins the vibe.

 

[LTig]

As a long-time B&W user, and dealer in the 1980s, I think there's a large difference between B&W when it was run as an Engineering Company by John Bowers, and now, when it's a brand in a Multinational's portfolio. Then, B&W together with KEF and to some extent Spendor, maximised sound quality accuracy and low coloration. In the case of B&W and KEF, this was done using the best test equipment available at the time, including anechoic chambers. John Bowers also launched the excellent Active One, as a side-project to B&W. I have no idea what current B&Ws sound like, as I've not heard any, only seen the measurements, which do seem worse than what I remember of old.

I listened to the 800 D4 when they came on the market, at a local dealer and presented by the infamous Matthias Böde (snake oil pope) from the German mag Stereo. He played them loud, and the higher piano notes were such ear piercing I nearly had to cover my ears. The guy sitting next to me felt the same. Despite having ear damage I couldn't stand them.

 

[LTig]

And why is half of the speaker covered,hidden by a mixer

Tweeter and mids still reach the listener at his ear height. Covering the woofer has no audible effect. The meter bridge however blocks the sound from reaching the console and hence reduces reflections.

 

[Sokel]

That is not true. In the 1970s and 1980s objectivism was the norm. Brand ads cited full specifications and Hifi Mags verified those by measurements. In the 1990s however subjectivism took over and brands stripped their specifications, sometimes to almost none.

Even earlier than that, have a look at a '50's advertisement for studio monitors (powered and big! )

A nice FR plot at the top!

 

[LuckyNat]

That is not true. In the 1970s and 1980s objectivism was the norm. Brand ads cited full specifications and Hifi Mags verified those by measurements. In the 1990s however subjectivism took over and brands stripped their specifications, sometimes to almost none.

Hmm, it doesn't compare in reach and numbers, nor the strictness due to the more comprehensive measurements more widely shared today.

.. and we'll have to agree to disagree with dates - a classmates father started a hifi business called Subjective Audio in about 1981 because of the audiophile culture in the late 70s. My magazines shift to subjective overviews from around 1980..

The pont really was that B&W 801s used in those studios in 1979, through the 80s and into the 90s .. would have sounded great to the engineers *despite* likely measuring relatively badly on Klippel today and probably TRASHED to high heaven in an ASR review thread.

If you look at reactions to Amir's reviews of ATCs and other studio monitors, they get absolutely TRASHED in the thread as well as the measurements themselves. That is the objectivity I'm talking about .. Yet ATCs no doubt measured worse back then, as would all the Quested's and PMCs that entered the market for studio monitoring whilst all being highly regarded at the time ... and those ATCs are also highly regarded by engineers today too, so ..

Poorly measuring speakers can still be good tools to many experienced and highly professional engineers in a studio environment. Hell, the number of good engineers who swear by objectively terrible headphones is astounding, yet it does not effect their good work . Historically, that was always the case, most of it would fail scrutiny on here ..

 

[Jim Taylor]

Poorly measuring speakers can still be good tools to many experienced and highly professional engineers in a studio environment. Hell, the number of good engineers who swear by objectively terrible headphones is astounding, yet it does not effect their good work . Historically, that was always the case, most of it would fail scrutiny on here ..

What you are describing is the "Circle of Confusion" as described by Floyd Toole. The industry reaction to this viewpoint has been mixed, but generally positive.

https://www.linkwitzlab.com/Toole-Room%20calibration.pdf

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

Confounding the Circle of Confusion | Stereophile.com

In last month's As We See It, I offered some reminiscences of my almost half-century of being involved in audio magazine publishing, as well as some thoughts on the Law of Diminishing Returns as it applied to the prices of hi-fi products. As I was compiling this issue's Records 2 Live 4, it...

www.stereophile.com

SoundStage! Access | SoundStageAccess.com (GoodSound.com) - What Audio Production Has Taught Me About Audio Reproduction

Sound Reproduction: Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms

What are the characteristics that determine the sound quality of an audio system? Dr. Floyd Tool reveals the answers in: Sound Reproduction The Acoustic and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and rooms.

www.audioholics.com

I was lucky to meet the owner of a small, independent studio in the early '80s. The owner was about 70. All his associates were 50 y.o. or more. He (and his associated engineers) were some of the most cantankerous, opinionated individuals that I had ever met. As you note, they had simply adapted to meeting the requirements f the recording profession with the equipment they had.

Yes, they were successful. But I can't help thinking that their job would have been MUCH easier if they had equipment aligned with Dr. Toole's insight. After all .... why labor under a heavy burden if you don't need to?

 

[Waxx]

Sometimes a coloured speaker that you know inside out is the better solution than a full neutral speaker. I did it also, and mix as good on my fullrange mark audio speakers as on Genelec. Genelec (and the likes) is way easier to adapt to than a very coloured speaker like that mark audio, but using a speaker that you know inside out is the best, whatever that speaker is. I don't do much production work anymore, so i don't have real "monitors" anymore. I'm in the planning of making some myself, but i don't really need them, i just do it for the fun and the challenge.

And don't forget, many old music is made with very coloured monitors (as there was no better), but the result is still there. It's just that neutral speakers make it a lot easier to know what you're doing.