And, surprisingly, directivity isn't the worst I've ever seen horizontally. You could in theory EQ out a lot of its issues. Not that you should have to brute force correct a frequency response like that for $10,000 a pair...
From Stereophile:
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Worst measuring loudspeaker?
- Thread starter Purité Audio
- Start date
From Stereophile:
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 9,004
- Likes
- 28,143
True, on the other hand this B&W shows some nicely continuous horizontal directivity so EQ can be quite effective in this case:
Source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-805-d4-signature-loudspeaker-measurements
Nice thankyou , so this particular model can be "saved"
OP
- Thread Starter
- #944
It can but why would you.
Keith
Keith
Yes, there's no question that they know exactly what they're doing. They're not a couple of blokes in a shed like a lot of speaker companies are. They have proper R&D facilities and research done over 50 years.
Go back 25 years and their speakers are ruler flat. These days they're after a different market segment.
A pal of mine has the B&W 683:
www.stereophile.com
I've been able to listen to them at length and. subjectively, they sound fine. Good, even - especially for the money.
Bowers & Wilkins 683 S2 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Bowers & Wilkins 683 S2's frequency response in the farfield; and an Earthworks QTC-40, with its small, ¼"-diameter capsule, for the nearfield responses.
I've been able to listen to them at length and. subjectively, they sound fine. Good, even - especially for the money.
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 11,451
- Likes
- 20,447
When I listen to BW speakers, I get what they are going for, and why it can appeal to some people. I get a kick out of it myself for a while. Ultimately, I wouldn’t want to live with speakers coloured in that particular way. But I can see why people buy them.
It’s interesting that John Atkinson seems to always like BW speakers, and a BW stand mount was his reference for a long time.
Despite the fact that he often puzzles over the measurements.
I infer that this is where JA departs from the ASR mindset: He’s not going to kick the speakers under the bus because in his listening, the colouration doesn’t sound as bad as the measurements suggest, and that a balance has been nicely struck with other virtues in the design, the end result he finds quite compelling.
It’s interesting that John Atkinson seems to always like BW speakers, and a BW stand mount was his reference for a long time.
Despite the fact that he often puzzles over the measurements.
I infer that this is where JA departs from the ASR mindset: He’s not going to kick the speakers under the bus because in his listening, the colouration doesn’t sound as bad as the measurements suggest, and that a balance has been nicely struck with other virtues in the design, the end result he finds quite compelling.
OP
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 11,451
- Likes
- 20,447
JA owned BW speakers as his reference for quite a while. Though the silver signatures he had measured flatter:
B&W John Bowers Silver Signature loudspeaker Measurements part 2
So how do the crossover filters compensate for the basic drive-unit behavior? Their electrical responses, measured at the speaker terminals, can be seen in fig.5. The woofer drive signal gently slopes down above 150Hz to compensate for the driver's rising on-axis response, with the upper...
www.stereophile.com
Nonetheless, I think he maintained a taste for the BW sound even as it has evolved over the years.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #950
I remember helping to carry a pair of loudspeakers down a reviewers stairs he liked those speakers very much but it appeared he also liked the new pair of speakers that I helped carry up the stairs which were from a different distributor.
A dealer friend of mine collected that older pair of speakers sold them and the cash was split equally.
Keith
A dealer friend of mine collected that older pair of speakers sold them and the cash was split equally.
Keith
You don't really think B&W came up with that performance by accident do you?
I'll bet a pound to a penny they did a ton of market research. It's a sound designed to appeal.
Like @MattHooper says, it might wear over a long period, and maybe some programme will show them up, but I'd still take them over a lot, probably all, of the speakers that have been featured on this thread.
Realistic / Radio Shack Minimus-7
They were only $49.95 each in 1978:
That's $240 per speaker today.
I just measured a pair. This speaker model always sounded bad to me, and the price always seemed high, especially compared to other inexpensive and good sounding Radio Shack products.
www.audiosciencereview.com
They were only $49.95 each in 1978:
That's $240 per speaker today.
I just measured a pair. This speaker model always sounded bad to me, and the price always seemed high, especially compared to other inexpensive and good sounding Radio Shack products.
Realistic Minimus-7 Measurements
I have an old pair of Realistic Minimus-7 speakers. They were from the previous owner of our house, installed as outdoor speakers. They spent 30+ years under an awning. I removed them from the outdoor spot a few years ago and put them aside, they were in surprisingly decent shape despite...
www.audiosciencereview.com
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 11,451
- Likes
- 20,447
Realistic / Radio Shack Minimus-7
They were only $49.95 each in 1978:
View attachment 394397
That's $240 per speaker today.
I just measured a pair. This speaker model always sounded bad to me, and the price always seemed high, especially compared to other inexpensive and good sounding Radio Shack products.
View attachment 394408
Realistic Minimus-7 Measurements
I have an old pair of Realistic Minimus-7 speakers. They were from the previous owner of our house, installed as outdoor speakers. They spent 30+ years under an awning. I removed them from the outdoor spot a few years ago and put them aside, they were in surprisingly decent shape despite...
Interesting. I grew up listening to those speakers in my bedroom. I loved them. They seemed to have a rich powerful sound for such a tiny speaker. I have no idea how my particular pair/model would’ve measured. Some of it could’ve had to do with how they were placed in my room.
They absolutely know exactly what they are doing … Modern B&W FR is designed as-is for one reason … sell speakers in show rooms (aka, show room “sparkle”) … I admit his sounds quite attractive initially, but your ears quickly tire of the sparkle and become fatigued
Tom C
Major Contributor
As I said back on page 7 of this thread, the worst sounding speakers I’ve ever owned was a pair of B&W book shelves that, imo, they should never have put their name on. Fit only for a dumpster on fire. And I wouldn’t think for a second that they didn’t know what they were/are doing. I’ve never seen measurements for them.
The worst measuring speakers I’ve ever owned were Tannoy Definition DC10A. And they don’t sound good.
Good measurements mean good sound. Thank goodness. When I picked speakers by reputation, reviews, by price, and by dealer recommendation, I got skunked, repeatedly. When I chose by measurements, and the counsel of rational persons like @amirm , I was rewarded by excellent sound. I’m just sayin’.
The worst measuring speakers I’ve ever owned were Tannoy Definition DC10A. And they don’t sound good.
Good measurements mean good sound. Thank goodness. When I picked speakers by reputation, reviews, by price, and by dealer recommendation, I got skunked, repeatedly. When I chose by measurements, and the counsel of rational persons like @amirm , I was rewarded by excellent sound. I’m just sayin’.
OP
Many years ago chatting with a speaker designer from Linn he told me their testing showed customers had a clear preference for what he called a "smile" frequency response.
My conclusion was that it probably because people listen at home at a much lower level than live music a "loudness curve" shaped response makes the speaker sound more like live music when listening at normal listening levels. Who knows?
Having written that I am not sure many people experience live music much anyway - things like imaging, which has high attraction for domestic audio, isn't really a thing in a concert hall, for example.
DSJR
Master Contributor
Something happened, badly, when they went to the 600 v2 era and onwards. The mild mannered and warm-tone 602 acquired teeth of the filling-removal or paint-stripping variety and it seems they've got worse if anything since then.A pal of mine has the B&W 683:
Bowers & Wilkins 683 S2 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Bowers & Wilkins 683 S2's frequency response in the farfield; and an Earthworks QTC-40, with its small, ¼"-diameter capsule, for the nearfield responses.
I've been able to listen to them at length and. subjectively, they sound fine. Good, even - especially for the money.
Utter nonsense.
Yep, a subtle treble lift of - checks chart - more than 10dB from 1kHz to 10kHz.
Definitely subtle.
Similar threads
