advertisement


B&W speakers. Underrated?

retrospective said:
My experience of B and W is that they're quite accurate and revealing and will highlight flaws downstream thus it's easiest to blame the speakers in budget systems.
Click to expand...

How can they be accurate when they can't even produce a flat frequency response on-axis?
The worst part is that they did at one time. Now they have a "house sound".
And it took them 30 years to finally abandon kevlar...


B&W 801F (1982)
3OH7epE.jpg


bwll801fig06.jpg

801 Matrix Series 2 - lateral response


B&W 800D3 (2016)
YH1YpPf.png


511B800fig5.jpg

800 Diamond - lateral response
 
I haven’t compared the dimensions but that description sounds exactly like the DM14. I did google DM15 a found an old eBay screen shot which although title was DM15 the speaker in the pic was a DM12. Interesting!
 
toprepairman said:
Very little info on them out there on the net.
Did find one picture.
They sit on an integral stand 8.5 ins tall, the enclosure is 10 in wide, 22 in high and 11 in deep.
One soft dome tweeter and two black plastic (bextrene?) 6 in mid bass units.
The upper mid/bass gets mid and bass whilst the lower gets bass only. It is not an ABR.
There is no port and the sound could be described as very polite.
Click to expand...
Polite is often a reference to neutrality. This is why I like them. Same as my Yamaha amp. As I said before I don’t like the sound coloured or exaggerated. I listen a lot to classical and Jazz and the B&Ws I own suit this very well. And the Yamaha and B&W are a good match, so much so that my next purchase will be a Yamaha upgrade as I’m sure the B&Ws have not yet reached their full capability. I like my Spendors but prefer these speakers for their clarity and balance.And the Kevlar mid can be truly stunning, especially with female voices and the cello. Love them.
 
The original 801 and the updated 801F were an interesting products with a very specific purpose. They were built as a loudspeaker to replay the recording back to the musicians in the studio, in fact the original 801 brochure showed a pic of a pair in Abbey Rd (I think) on tall stands in a large area typically used for an orchestra.

The modern 800 and 801 studio pics usually show them in front of the mixing desk so used as a tool for the engineer, artist and producer.
 
dna audio said:
I took my N802 apart to discover that all the connections were just spade connectors
Click to expand...

Yup, and the wires were nothing special either - like the thin gauge stuff used on a modern motorcycle wiring harness.

The N series tweeters were ~£50 and just clipped into place.
 
Whereas if you look at a company like Kudos, they do all the internal wiring with decent quality speaker cable with soldered joints because it does make a difference.
 
Thanks toprepairman, I thought I had finally lost the plot! Interesting point is the DM14, DM1400 and John Bowers active one all used the same cabinet ( and I think) drivers!
 
wow&flutter said:
The original 801 and the updated 801F were an interesting products with a very specific purpose. They were built as a loudspeaker to replay the recording back to the musicians in the studio, in fact the original 801 brochure showed a pic of a pair in Abbey Rd (I think) on tall stands in a large area typically used for an orchestra.

The modern 800 and 801 studio pics usually show them in front of the mixing desk so used as a tool for the engineer, artist and producer.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that the post-Matrix models are used in the control rooms of many orchestras and classical music record labels considering that they're no longer neutral.

It has been mentioned often that the Abbey Road photos are a marketing stunt, they B&W supplies those speakers for free in exchange for the ability to use AR in their publicity material.
A bit like extended loans to reviewers.
Don't know if that is true.

B&W also prohibited the US distributor to allow a certain reviewer to evaluate their products due to a less than flattering review once going to print...

Have you noticed how at least in the US reviewers tend to cater (pun intended) for specific brands?
 
Del monaco said:
Like mid priced Spendors they’re often referred to as polite or civilised. They don’t really mess around with the music and it is delivered in a reasonably neutral, unfettered way.I think that’s where they get the ‘boring’ badge from. I prefer the music as uncoloured as I can.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose we all have our favourites. I have never been tempted by B&W speakers & I doubt they would pass the "wife test" but I have always thought they were well regarded. Same applies to KEF & a few other brands. I have been a Spendor fan for many years but they are now my second choice as ProAc have taken over the top spot. Neverthe less I still have 2 pairs of each.

Having heard speakers sound totally different at the shop & home, & sound different with other amps, my dealer refused to sell to me any kit without a home demo. I do also wonder whether some people actually listen to the music - or just focus on constantly analysing their kit.
Still, I am a grumpy old man so you cannot expect any sense from me!

P.S. I have some B&W P9 headphones & I think the music is great using them.
 
Del monaco said:
Polite is often a reference to neutrality. This is why I like them. Same as my Yamaha amp. As I said before I don’t like the sound coloured or exaggerated.
Click to expand...

Not in this case.
The "tailored response" of the post-Matrix speakers shows a significant relaxation in the presence region, quite obvious in a listening window response plot which averages both on- and off-axis curves, is just as much a colouration as an exaggeration of a particular frequency band.
 
I've not owned any, but I've heard a few pairs both old and new and always been very pleased with the sound I hear. You're always going to get a bit of snobbery, especially from people who believe that any speaker that doesn't have a huge rolloff after the mid and has a vaguely "modern" and flat response is "shouty" or "too bright" or whatever. Monitor Audio seem to suffer with the same preconceptions despite building superb speakers. Each to their own I guess, ultimately.
 
Some always seem to look for what they perceive as flaws even though there is no real evidence and the majority like a product. I may be wrong but many of these comments seem to come from trade who perhaps have a vested interest in particular products.As was stated earlier all brands have missteps and their own particular approach to build and I am sure many of these differences go through thorough testing and listening. Sometimes despite the best of intentions some products just don’t land.
 
Hcanning said:
I've not owned any, but I've heard a few pairs both old and new and always been very pleased with the sound I hear. You're always going to get a bit of snobbery, especially from people who believe that any speaker that doesn't have a huge rolloff after the mid and has a vaguely "modern" and flat response is "shouty" or "too bright" or whatever. Monitor Audio seem to suffer with the same preconceptions despite building superb speakers. Each to their own I guess, ultimately.
Click to expand...

Personal preference is just a matter of taste. We all have our own and it is a fact that some colourations sound nice to a significant number people.

Performance on the other hand can be measured and consists on the equipment's ability to reproduce the signal as accurately as possible, hence the high-fidelity designation.

Hcanning said:
Monitor Audio seem to suffer with the same preconceptions despite building superb speakers. Each to their own I guess, ultimately.
Click to expand...

Measurements consistently show that Monitor Audio has been slowly moving away from their "house sound" to a more "neutral" presentation (their speakers are becoming more accurate and not just tonal-wise).
Unfortunately the same cannot be said about Bowers & Wilkins...
 
B&W underrated ?? I wouldn't have thought so, although they never appealed to me personally I would have thought the 800 series speakers to have been very well reviewed and rated over the past 20 years
 
I always quite liked the larger 800 diamond series (803, 802, 800) but they cost a hell of a lot of money... I auditioned 805s and found them veiled and dynamically compressed in each setup. I thought the 600 series in the early 2000s sounded very good for the money. I’ve only had a short listen to other models but they’ve neither offended nor grabbed me.
 
The bigger 800s will need free space & lots of power, difficult to fit in the average British lounge. I’ve always quite fancied a pair but never had the funds or the room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top