ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
jans:Guys I am looking for upgrading my BL8k. I heard the B&W CM10 the other day and they sounded amazing. Has anyone already compared against Beolab 9's? Jan
I am looking for upgrading my BL8k. I heard the B&W CM10 the other day and they sounded amazing.
Has anyone already compared against Beolab 9's?
Jan
Hi Jan
I'm not familiar with the new B&W CM10, but have heard the CM9 extensively, and also the 804D, 803D extensively, and now briefly, the 802D.
I wrote about my thoughts of comparitive speakers in the lead up to purchasing some Beolab 9's just on a year ago now, here:
http://archivedforum2.beoworld.org/forums/p/3915/36348.aspx#36348
In my subjective opinion, the CM series whilst very nice indeed, doesn't really compete overall on performance grounds with a Lab 9; you really need to be looking at a minimum of an B&W 803D in my humble opinion - based I might say upon extensive personal audition, but also after having done a lot of online research on the product.
As far as any bias on my part, the Lab 9 is the first B&O speaker that I've ever owned, whereas I've had B&W in the past and like them a great deal; for many years the 801D (now discontinued and 'replaced' by the 800D) was my all time favourite 'dream' speaker, - that was until I had a very comprehensive audition of the Lab 5.
I've had the Lab 9's almost a year now, and find them utterly superb. Were I doing it again (Lab 9 v's an B&W 803D) I'd make the same choice to go for the Lab 9 - they really are a hugely underrated (non audiophile marketed) speaker that provides sublime musical enjoyment, with minimal audiophile neurosis. Very much worth the price of admission IMHO & E.
HTH
Kind regards
John...
PS: Happy to provide further comment as objectively as I can make it, should it be of assistance.
I will get back to the BL9/CM10 in a moment, but I think it goes both ways with the 800 Series. There was a thread on another major audio forum (can't remember which one, maybe Audiogon or something) about a gentleman deciding between BeoLab 5s and a pair of 800Ds, that must have lasted many weeks if not months while he made his decision. I mean this guy did NOT take this choice lightly. In the end, his conclusion was that the BL5 was a magnificent technical and engineering attempt by B&O, that could probably stand to be refined and perfected over time. He went with the 800Ds.
I also had a pair of BL5s which I've now sold and auditioned the 802Ds (the 800s are absolutely massive and far too large for me) at a speaker shop here where I live. I was blown away by the "crispiness" of the midrange and the precision of the highs in the Bowers and Wilkins speaker. And, after all, the 800 Series B&Ws are used in more high end recording studios than any speaker I know of, so it stands to reason they've been perfected over the decades they've been around. The BL5 had a much more laid back presentation and while the ALT is a nice piece of technology, I did not find that the music was reproduced as faithfully as it was in the 800s. In the Pink Floyd song "Money" for example, the sound of the change coming out of the cash register in the beginning of the song almost "sparkles" and sounds as if it's really there in front of you like a real old cash register in the 800s. I also found that for a speaker which touts itself as being able to acclimate itself to any listening room, even in a nearly square environment the bass of the BL5s was not always perfect, and just a bit boomy to my taste on occasion. I've heard people here mention that their BL5s *LACKED* bass after calibration and that was certainly never my complaint about them.
Keep in mind however that there is one VERY important difference. The BL5s are a completely self contained Hi-Fi system in two speakers and nothing more is required. Even if we compare the BL5s to a "new" pair of 800Ds, you would be looking at a similar cost for the speakers alone, and then you would need to add all of the amplification and a pre-amp at a cost of thousands of dollars more. Considering that you can get a pair of used BL5 now for just over 10 grand here in the states, it's still much more bang for the buck than a full on 800 or even 802 system. Bringing all of this around to your initial question about the BL9, essentially the 800 Series B&W is a closer match for the BL5 in my opinion.
I have auditioned the CM9 as well and found them to be spectacular for their cost of 1500.00 each, so I would imagine the CM10 to be even better. I *would* in fact say that you can compare the CM10 to the BL9 and in this case, you may have enough left over in price difference to purchase the quality separates that you would need to power them. The CM10 at Best Buy here in the US is listed at 500.00 more per speaker than the already good CM9, however the CM10 moves the Nautilus tube loaded tweeter outside the enclosure and adds an additional bass unit. Considering that the CM9/10 are more of a true 3-way design and the BL9 can be considered as a 2 way "plus sub" (according to Beocentral), I'd say you are ok comparing these two speakers. Ultimately, audio is a very subjective science, and only YOU can decide which sounds better to your ears.
With all that said, there is one MAJOR dealbreaker on the CM series Bowers and Wilkins to me however, and it has nothing to do with sound, but rather that they are made in China. And as many here know, that does not fly with me. Of course, this is the reason the CM series provides so much bang for the buck, so if you do not care where they are made, then it's worth a serious audition of both speakers.
ho there,
As a previous owner of the Beolab 5( I had 4 of them) I would say it is a good speaker if you want to listen music at high volume and want a good visual speaker.
Ho wever, I replaced them with a B&W 800D. problem is that the speakers gives his best at high volume due to the size of the drivers. You need a powerful amplifier to drive them. I also sold them as I found the sound too clinical for mebut they outperformed BL5 in every way!!!!
Now I have a pair of Sonus Faber Stradivari which is a serious speaker.....and very musical.
I can't comment on performance but what I can say is that any reservation I had about the looks of the BL18 pales into insignificance compared to the CM9 & CM10!!
I would have to live alone to have any chance of getting those through the front door, nevermind into the living room. She doesn't actually mind the look of the Lab9's!!
Ban boring signatures!
This confuse me a bit. did you feed the BL5 with a digital signal? Which SW did your 5 have when you listened to them? I assume that you did not follow B&O and placed them where they looked good?
In my humble opinion when installed right, the 5s sound fantastic. But in almost all setups I have seen them they aren´t configured as they suppose to.
jans:Thanks all for your inputs! However, I am not looking for BL5's since my living room is not large enough to do them justice. Therefore, I am particularly interested in comparisons between BL9's and B&W CM9 or 10. Any experiences from the Forum members?
However, I am not looking for BL5's since my living room is not large enough to do them justice.
Therefore, I am particularly interested in comparisons between BL9's and B&W CM9 or 10.
Any experiences from the Forum members?
Hi.
If you read all the post you will see at the end I commented on the BL9 vs CM9/10. In my opinion, you need to hear both of them YOURSELF. But with that said, the CM10 will probably sound better with the right amplification because it's truly a 3 way design. CM10 = 4000.00 US, BL9 = 11000.00 US. So you have plenty of cash left over to build a really nice pre amp and amplifier setup to drive the CM10s. This is the opposite of the BL5 vs 800D situation where the 800Ds cost as much as the BL5s and still need thousands in amplification to sound their best. BL9 vs CM10 is basically flipped the other way around.
But CM10 is made in china, so not for me.
Are you implying that the Lab 9 is not a three way design? let's seem woofer, mid, tweeter, looks like a 3 way.
For me, the fact you don't need all the ancillary electronics, amp, big speaker wires, etc. is one of the advantages of the Beolabs, regardless of what you use to drive them.
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
Jeff: Are you implying that the Lab 9 is not a three way design? let's seem woofer, mid, tweeter, looks like a 3 way. For me, the fact you don't need all the ancillary electronics, amp, big speaker wires, etc. is one of the advantages of the Beolabs, regardless of what you use to drive them.
Not to mention that you can manage all 3 individual drivers in a more accurate manner, at signal level rather than at power level.
Hi there
I have both the CM9 and beolab 9's.
i bought the cm9 to replace the lab 12's that I had but they did not cut it for loudness as the speakers were bought for my music / dancing room where friends come over and we have the music up very loud.
I have some lab 9's but when we had them in the music room they always used to go into protect mode as music is quite full of base and you have to have them up loud to fill a room as they tend to project music at sofa height.
So for my music room I bought some cm9's which I have the opposite problem. They are damn loud but no protection so I have blown two woofers so far and at £90 each it's not great.
The lab 9's have more bass but sound is physically quite low so for video this is excellent. When I first bought mine I could not get used to the sound from the ALT it actually gave me a headache.
The cm9 is excellent for loud music but you run the risk of not having any protection, my cm9's were by far better for volume for the purpose I bought them for.
now there is looks the lab 9's is amazing to look at and I am thinking of selling up B&o as it's stuck in the past but I cannot get my head around loosing my Beautiful speakers (lab9). If I had to put cm9 in my lounge it would be horrid they are to big.
I think I would love the 10's if I could afford it and at this rate I will spend the same amount replacing woofers.
i hope I helped a little and gave you some things to think about.
Eclipse 65V1-32Beosound M5Essence MK2BLI
Man, I wonder if you should be even using hifi speakers for your dance room! It sounds to me as if you push things enough you need pro type sound reinforcement speakers, JBL, Klpsch, Peavey, etc.
Jeff: Man, I wonder if you should be even using hifi speakers for your dance room! It sounds to me as if you push things enough you need pro type sound reinforcement speakers, JBL, Klpsch, Peavey, etc.
I had this exact same thought.
I'm not *implying* anything. Does no one actually pay attention to the sources I cite? What Beocentral says makes perfect sense...
"The BeoLab 9 uses 3 drive units, described as a 10” woofer, a 5” midrange and a 0.75” dome tweeter. This made for a nominally 3-way loudspeaker, though given the sizes of the drive units and their crossover points the effect was more akin to a small 2-way loudspeaker working in conjunction with a well-matched subwoofer."
Perhaps it's better to say 3-way versus -proper- 3-way. Sure, you could throw 2 tweeters and 2 15 inch subwoofers in a cabinet and call it a "4 way" design, but you'll never be able to cross over such disparate drive units with any success at all. Please do NOT mistake what I am stating, the BL9 does a tremendous job with what it's got. Having heard both, I am only pointing out what my ears have determined to be the differences, and responding to a previous poster's position that the CM9/10 are somehow in a different league than the BL9 and shouldn't be compared. I am not taking aesthetics into account (though I believe the CM10 in piano gloss black sitting atop it's plinth is still a thing of beauty), so the addition of more equipment has not entered into the audible equation I'm speaking to. It is, as with all things B&O, a perfectly valid point.
The drivers on the CM9/10 are more well matched to *each-other*, if not with as much thumping bass at the low end because obviously, the drive units being tasked with low end duties are smaller. The Lab 5 does a better job melding the 4 speaker "stages" even though it too has a massive low end driver, because it's not asking as few drivers to traverse such a massive frequency range, and does so with significantly more power, to boot. It's rather simple.
Bottom line, at nearly 12 grand for the BL9, the CMs are well worth a listen before making a final judgement on heresay alone.
Seanie_230: So for my music room I bought some cm9's which I have the opposite problem. They are damn loud but no protection so I have blown two woofers so far and at £90 each it's not great.
Out of interest, what amplifier are you using to drive the CM9s?
I agree actually I need to sell my CM9's and buy some disco speakers that can be driven hard for parties but they are just so damn ugly.
i need to find the best place to sell them after i replace the woofer for £82 then i can buy some peevy or somethign along those lines. I will also one day sell my Lab9's as I am going to let go of my chesrished BV7 and move to control 4 i think with a new TV.
Anyway, i run my CM9's of a Rotel Amp (made by B&W). It has bang and olufsen amplifier technology inside and runs cold so can sit in a cupboard.
Its triggered from a Beocenter 9300 with the 5V input and switches on and off with the Stero which is nice.
I have BI-Wired them.
Hope this helps
The thing about calling the Lab 9 a "pseudo" three way design is bollocks, and reflects more on semantics than reality. It is a three way speaker, with crossover points chosen to accommodate the drivers and design goals. Calling it a subwoofer and a small speaker is a semantic thing I've seen become prevalent over the past few years that I really get kind of irritated by. Not ragging on you, it's common parlance these days, it's just one of the inconsistencies of language and technical description that kind of annoys me.
I suspect that there is a tradeoff, a large enough woofer to produce adequate bass, run too high in freq will result in dispersion issues when crossed to even a 5 inch midwoofer/midrange. You have a choice of smaller woofers, in order to preserve power response and dispersion in the crossover region, and sacrifice deeper bass, or use a larger driver and run the midwoofer/midrange lower. One of the advantages is you can set the crossover for the woofer to mid lower, and hopefully get it far away from the vocal range, but of course using active xovers it's easier to manage a crossover in that critical band then it is passively.
Different design goals, different voicings, everyone has different sonic tastes. Can't say one is right or wrong, both the B&W and B&O are highly competent designs, but different focuses.
Hey All, I don't really have much to do with B&O any more, and rarely look up this site to see what's going on nowadays, but hey, this talk of 3-way speakers is missing an (IMO) critical point.
The important factor with a 3-way design is not to do with low frequencies. You can design a two-way speaker which will produce plenty of low frequency energy, but the difficulty is then making such a speaker integrate correctly between the driver reproducing upper-midrange frequencies and high-frequencies.
Ie, the integration from the midrange, to the tweeter.
All drivers will have a frequency at which they start to 'beam' their sound forwards in a very focussed 'tight' dispersion into the room. Imagine a bare lightbulb vs a focussed torch.
In a well designed speaker system, all of the frequencies are entering the room in a 'spread out' manner like a lightbulb illuminates a room, This is one of the tasks of the B&O ALT.
However, at the top of the driver's frequency bandwidths, they start to behave like a torch, and the sound becomes very 'narrow'. While you may think this isn't an issue if you're sat 'in the sweetspot' between the speakers, it basically means the sound which is bouncing back from the walls in the room isn't correct or true in relation to the sound coming directly from the speakers (think, most of the walls in the room are 'off-axis', they're off to the sides of the speakers where no sound is going at certain frequencies).
This 'narrowing' frequency range in most two-way designs is around the crossover point, which falls precisely in the middle of the vocal range (1.5 up to maybe 3 kHz in most scenarios). How do you get around this? Well, you can make the tweeter play lower in frequency thereby preventing the midrange/bass driver from having to play up to a frequency where it starts to 'beam', or you can make the midrange driver smaller.
Let's look at a two-way B&W design for an example.
The B&W CM1 has a crossover frequency of 4khz, which means the tweeter covers 20khz down to 4khz. From 4khz down to say, 50 Hz, the midrange/bass driver is producing the sound. In the case of the CM1, this is a 5-inch driver. A 5-inch driver cannot spread sound up evenly up to 4khz. In fact it would start to become directional and 'beam' it's sound forwards at around 2.5 KHz, so asking a (relatively large) driver like the one found in the CM1 to play up to 4khz means you will be missing out on a lot of sound going into the room. This sound can be heard as the 'presence' or 'attack and bite' on vocals, guitars, flutes, snare rattle etc...
So how do we solve this problem with the CM1? Simple, you make the midrange driver smaller, and add in a bass driver to make up for the lost bass from the now very small bass driver. But instead, what do B&W do with their larger loudspeakers? They make the midrange driver larger - the precise opposite of what we need to do in order to sort out the off-axis response.
We'll use the CM10 as an example. It has a 6 inch midrange driver, crossed over (yet again) at 4khz. A 6 inch driver starts to become directional around 2 kHz, so we're now asking a rather large driver to play super-high in frequency. Sensible? I'd say not.
The CM10 can reproduce a lot more bass now than the CM1 or other smaller models now that it has two 6.5 inch drivers, so what's the point in making the midrange driver even larger?
You see this right across the entire B&W range, including their top-of-the-range speakers. I believe it's a deliberate attempt to give the B&Ws an overly 'polite' sound (often referred to as the 'BBC dip' because all the BBC designs for companies like Rogers, Harbeth, Kef, Goodmans from the 1960s and 1970s showed the same issue).
It seems to be as though B&W have missed the point in making a three-way speaker. Sure, you prevent bass frequencies from distorting the midrange frequencies, and that is true in their designs as well as any others, but what's the point in reproducing perfectly clean midrange if most of it doesn't make it's way back to the listener's ears?
The BeoLab 9 is quite different. B&O seem to have understood since the 1970s that this off-axis thing is very important, maybe even earlier. It is often referred to as the 'power response' - i.e., how much sonic power is the speaker putting out OVERALL (not just right in front of the speaker) into the room. This is where the BeoLab 5s in particular are almost unrivalled in the industry - very few speakers have so little variation in sound as you move left/right in front of the speaker.
With a BeoLab 9, you have:
3/4" tweeter : 20khz - 2khz
5" midrange : 2khz - 180hz
10" bass : 180hz - 30 hz
So that 5" midrange driver (which is smaller than the one found in the CM10) is only having to go up to 2khz in frequency response before the tweeter 'takes over'.
Hence I would argue that the BeoLab 9 is true to the concept, and reaps the benefits of a properly-executed 3-way design, while the B&W CM10 (and indeed most of the B&W 3-way speakers) do not.
Talking about crossover from the midrange to bass driver, have a look at a speaker like this (ATC SCM150):
That's a 15 inch bass driver (same size as the BeoLab 5's subwoofer cone) and a 3 inch midrange driver playing into each other - no 'mid-bass' driver to go between them - an even bigger difference in size than the BeoLab 9! Yet these are possibly the best speakers I have heard (I own a pair of their smaller speakers which are every bit as amazing).
Making the bass and midrange drivers play into each other (cross-over) is not so difficult, it's the midrange/tweeter transition which is tricky to get right and this is critically dependant on the size of the drive-units.
I hope none of this has been too technical or too rambling/confusing, but I can't understand how a large company like B&W can get something like this so wrong. B&O have got this right pretty much every time from what I can tell.
My flatmate is a film composer and has ATCs, 100s I think.
Killyp:...............I hope none of this has been too technical or too rambling/confusing..........
Splendid post!!
//Bo.A long list...
You must have a rather large flat! I have SCM20s, and use them for professional work too. Quite extra-ordinarily accurate and truthful sounding speakers. Also very (!) loud when you want them to be.
jans:Excellent post! Very insightful! When reading your post, it makes me wonder why you moved away from B&O? Jan
When reading your post, it makes me wonder why you moved away from B&O?
Good question - I haven't really moved 'away' from B&O in the sense that I still have my Beosystem 7000 (and use it every day), but I did used to work for them and hold a lot of enthusiasm for their products, and some of which I still do. I really like what B&O does but personally, I'm not in the position to afford the luxuries which come with the brand.
Before anybody gets on a real high-horse about the performance of their B&O products I'll say this:
B&O make some of the best speakers on the market. The BeoLab 5 is rivalled by very few. They have also made some of the best hifi systems/sources on the market, although I don't know what the current range is like. TVs to be honest, have never been my real passion so I can't comment there.
But I do use my ATCs for professional work - I need the speakers with the lowest distortion, a wide dynamic range (i.e., they need to play bloody loud under some situations and still sound the same as they do at lower volumes, and often for quite some time) and certain attributes about the low frequency performance which help me produce a mix which still sounds good on a wide variety of sound systems.
The B&O speakers are great, and although if out-and-out sonic performance is your ultimate goal, there are other systems out there which will do just as well if not better than the B&O speakers (yes, including BeoLab 5s), they still offer a solution which nobody else does, or at least not with anywhere near as much success (this most certainly includes B&W in my opinion!)
But I've gone down the big-wooden-boxes-are-best approach, and when you hear what it is possible to do with the very best driver technology housed in massive, hugely-over-engineered enclosures with the lowest-distortion class A amplifiers on the market, you'll understand why some people go down that route.
Killyp: I can't understand how a large company like B&W can get something like this so wrong. B&O have got this right pretty much every time from what I can tell.
I can't understand how a large company like B&W can get something like this so wrong. B&O have got this right pretty much every time from what I can tell.
Your attempt to clarify all of this from a technical aspect is excellent, and probably far more intelligent than what I suppose is my rather simplistic view on the driver subject, but breaks down for me in your last sentence. Got it so wrong on whose account? B&W speakers, *and* B&O speakers, much like the Apple versus Android diatribe, have gotten accolades from respectable and less respectable sources over the years, so obviously neither can be making too much of a mistake. I have read publications which many claim are "paid" for their reviews, and I've read small almost unknown reviewers give both brands due recognition when it was merited.
And in BOTH cases there are examples of poor (and sometimes piss poor, the B&W Zeppelin comes to mind, it's like listening to music through a sock) product from both companies that get praised based on the name on the front of the cabinet alone. I have personally heard both speakers (and owned BeoLab 5s) and can attest that the smoothness of the frequency range in the B&W CM series speakers is certainly respectable, and to my ear, more sonically accurate, revealing more of the music that is there than the BL9. My problem with the BL9, and to a much smaller extent the BL5 in particular was that I *could* make out that there were disparate drivers in the speaker. I may not be a technical wizard when it comes to specs, but I have heard everything from line arrays, to electrostatics (which I dislike) and everything in between and I simply feel like more of the music was revealed in the B&W speakers, though obviously the most in the 800 Series. The blend, and therefore the speaker itself simply seemed more transparent to me, as if it were not there. But even if all I'd heard was a GPX boombox, to say that B&W got it "so wrong" (which to me sounds as though the speakers are garbage and unable to reproduce recordings accurately AT ALL) seems a silly statement.
Unfortunately, I have to stand with Beocentral's analysis of the BL9 driver array as it concurs with what I have heard. And yet, what is still the pervasive point no matter how much technical mumbo jumbo we spew back and forth, is that the ultimate decision lies with the listener. Sometimes things that look like a sure thing on paper, don't always turn out that way, SOMETIMES you get magic that belies what the numbers say. Perhaps this is why the BL9 is such a revered and enjoyed speaker. My personal speakers now are JBL units from 1991 that I've sworn by for many years, and which I found good enough to eliminate my BL5s (which in full disclosure I really bought *for* resale ultimately, but flirted with keeping for a time).
Interesting - ultimately you have to let the listener form their own judgement, so I can't really argue with you!
I haven't heard any driver-integration issues from the BeoLab 5 - the DSPs take care of all that to quite an extraordinary level - time alignment & all pass filters are used to smoothen out the phase response (which is quite amazingly consistent on and off axis).
Not sure about your comment on BeoLab 9s - I don't know them anywhere near as well as BeoLab 5s, but always thought they sounded great. Maybe a little big in the bass but that's probably more because they go very, very deep and don't have any of the adaption capabilities of the BeoLab 5. I can't really say anything much further than that.
RE B&W and smoothness - yes it is true most of their designs are free from high-Q 'resonances' in the audible range. What is Q? Well, low-Q is like a 'broad' or 'soft' resonance or quality acting over a wide frequency band, and high-Q means it's a very 'tight' and 'narrow' resonance or quality, acting over a very narrow frequency band.
Here are some examples, first with an EQ:
This above screenshot shows the sort of digital EQ we often use when mixing/mastering music or other recorded material. In the low frequencies, you see two very high-Q bands, a 'cut' and a 'boost'. In the midband and upper midband you see two very low-Q bands, again a cut and boost. Obviously, it's fairly clear what they should be doing to the sound. The funny thing about EQ and filtering (which is essentially what all drivers in boxes behave as, and crossovers etc... it's all interlinked) is that it 'smears' sound over time - it creates rings and resonances in the signal.
A very high-Q resonance will create a resonance in the sound, which is quite unpleasantly audible as 'roughness' (if it's in the upper-frequencies) or 'boxiness' and 'muddiness' if it's in the lower frequencies. All speaker designs will contain resonance, and it's up to the designer and manufacturer to make sure these resonances are properly 'damped' (which will turn them into very low-Q resonances).
Here are some examples with passive speakers. All speakers have a varying resistance - at some frequencies the speaker will present a completely different resistance to the amplifier than at other frequencies. (I should say I got these images from the Stereophile site, I won't name the speaker models because it's basically irrelevant).
Look at the solid lines. You can see how the first measurement shows some pretty 'spiky' bumps and lumps in the midrange. These will be because of cabinet resonances, driver resonances, or badly-designed crossover circuits.
The second image is only smooth, gentle curves. Yes, there is more variation in resistance overall (higher up in the graph represents more resistance by the way), but it's all gentle flowing curves. This means a speaker design which is free of resonance, ringing, or other high-Q 'distortions' which could cause the speaker to sound rough or muddy (amongst other things).
It is these resonances and 'rings' which B&W have in all fairness, been very good at keeping to a low level in their designs (in general) within the audible range (once you get above 20 KHz, all the B&W metal or diamond tweeters become extremely resonant and ring, sometimes as much as 20-30dB above the level of the rest of the frequency band).
So yes, the B&W's might sound 'smooth' and free of resonances and unpleasant distortions, but overall, the tonality and 'voicing' of the speaker is of one which lacks vocal presence and vividness. String sections too also often feel a little recessed and 'closed in' I find when listening on B&W speakers.
This can actually be a good thing when you're listening at higher levels at parties etc... as it means the speaker is not filling up the room with sound which is inside the vocal band leaving space for conversation without having to shout.
Another ramble, again I could and probably should've explained this better but hopefully it's another insight into speaker design!
I used to think ATC was all that. But there is a new accuracy champ in town. Kef ! I originally bought a pair of X300A USB speakers as a present for my 15yr old sister but her desk couldn't accommodate it so I had to " listen down" so to speak and use them for as temps for my camp site. Low and behold! The sound is capital A amazing and in many ways edging out of the ATC 20s in terms of detail retrieval in the MIDRANGE !
And recently referred back to months old Stereophile issue for a review and measurement of the Kef LS50: it is considered right up there with reference mini monitors in the obscene price range and it's technical performance is beyond reproach! As in ruler flat and super clean impulse throughout it's limited frequency range. Kef has so blew my mind that I am thinking for the first time in history that I might buy passive speakers. What I eventually might end up doing is buying several pairs of them and have some technician DIY them into the world's best active mini-monitors.
To add insult to injury Kef and B&O used to have worked on psycho-acoustics.
Abandon the ALT lenses already! Go for point source! The whole industry is now totally geared towards that now. We have coaxial speakers, fullrange drivers and not to mention BMR drivers popping up everywhere now. Are you sure it is still wise to stick to those lenses? Modern listeners are so used to high quality head/earphone sound so shouldn't mainstream loudspeakers be heading for the similar sound signature? Just imagine a B&O version of Kef's blade that is DSP activated. That will be out of control!
Do B&O want to continue play turtle chase or actually for once in a very long time be ahead of the pack?
BTW I have been watching the audio industry lately and I think something really creepy and exciting is happening to it.
Someone's found another bright, shiny object apparently.
Jeff: Someone's found another bright, shiny object apparently.
Well, I read the review of the LS50 in Stereophile and it did get a great review. The part I liked best was that, at $1149 (a benefit of Chinese mfg), "I would go so far as to say that the LS50 is one of the finest speakers at reproducing female voices that I have heard—for less than what you can pay for a set of high-end interconnects!"
So Jeff, buy those and you can use the money you save for a really good mains cable or some low distortion audiophile CD cases.
symmes:Someone's found another bright, shiny object apparently.
DON'T touch it, it's my precious !
4 beolab 5, beolab 9, beolab 10, beolab 5000, beolab 8000 mk2, beolab 6002, beolab 3500, beovision 7 55 mk2, 2 beovision 11 46 mk4, beotime, beosound ouverture, beosound essence, beoplay A8, beomaster 900 RG de luxe and the collection continues...
symmes: Jeff: Someone's found another bright, shiny object apparently. Well, I read the review of the LS50 in Stereophile and it did get a great review. The part I liked best was that, at $1149 (a benefit of Chinese mfg), "I would go so far as to say that the LS50 is one of the finest speakers at reproducing female voices that I have heard—for less than what you can pay for a set of high-end interconnects!" So Jeff, buy those and you can use the money you save for a really good mains cable or some low distortion audiophile CD cases.
Mpingo discs and a Tice clock!
Jeff: symmes: Jeff: Someone's found another bright, shiny object apparently. Well, I read the review of the LS50 in Stereophile and it did get a great review. The part I liked best was that, at $1149 (a benefit of Chinese mfg), "I would go so far as to say that the LS50 is one of the finest speakers at reproducing female voices that I have heard—for less than what you can pay for a set of high-end interconnects!" So Jeff, buy those and you can use the money you save for a really good mains cable or some low distortion audiophile CD cases. Mpingo discs and a Tice clock!
@ jEFF What planet you from, man?
http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm
http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/listening_85/
I've seen all the aplomb Kef has in the LS50, and have heard them on a few occasions and wasn't keen at all to be honest! I also thought the measurements backed up my experience (despite numerous reviewers stating them to be 'excellent', all the information I have read seems to point to the opposite), the power response is pretty out-of-whack (although in-keeping with the on-axis frequency response in all fairness, they are consistent), but also I felt there was quite a considerable amount of 'kludge' in the midrange - that sort of mess which sounds like it could be coming from harmonic distortion.
That means to say, you play a 500 Hz tone and you also hear 1000 Hz, 1500 Hz etc...
The problem with coaxial designs is you simply cannot 'shoehorn' a well-enough engineered tweeter into the centre of mid bass driver. Just have a look at the magnets you see on the back of most tweeters - they're still pretty large. It isn't possible to get this into the middle of a midrange or bass cone without making serious compromises.
It's true a coaxial design will have superior vertical consistency, but you have to make compromises in the driver engineering and this is what I felt with the LS50. This is particularly obvious when you start to turn the volume up - the drivers cannot dissipate heat correctly and things start to wander pretty horribly around the crossover point (which in a passive speaker will change considerably a the drivers warm up and their characteristics both acoustically and electrically change - pretty messy)!
I wouldn't, and don't think I could use them for professional work, although ultimately if your ears agree with them then that's all that matters!