Advice needed: B&W 704 vs. Sonus Faber Concerto

[yoellax]

My wife and I listen exclusively to classical music. We are looking to purchase a new system, and we've been listening to a lot of different speakers. We're looking to spend around US$2000 for two speakers.

After listening to many different speakers, we have narrowed it down to two possibilities: We like the B&W 704 and the Sonus Faber Concerto. Of course the former is a floor-standing speaker, while the latter is a bookshelf speaker.

We've tested both speakers with a variety of different recordings (piano, voice, orchestral) and actually liked the Sonus Faber better because of the warmth of the sound. Our concern is that the bookshelf speaker may not fill our living room, which measures 30' by 15', with ceilings going up to 14'. The B&W has more to offer in the bass range and may be a better option.

I would appreciate any comments on either of these two speakers which may help us solve the conundrum.

BTW, our third-best was the JM Lab 714S, which comes in around $1500 for the pair, but it was dominated by the B&W 704 more or less clearly along every dimension.

[RGA]

Well I happen not to like the new B&W 700 series speakers much but my taste varies -- i like the genres you list but I also like dance pop and rock etc and this is a bug area of weakness for the entire 700 series to my ear. I actually found all of them to lack bass and and dynamics scale and impact. They're cool looking though but sonically not my cup of tea. It's a shame because I used to own B&W and some of their stuff I like quite a lot. Sonus is a bit darker to me but it's been a long time since I've heard them -- Chances are I would like them more than the 700 series -- but then i like most speakers against the 700 series including the less expensive 600 series. Granted the 700 series does some things better but rock isn't one of them. If you can set the 604S3 up someplace
"well" you might be surprised -- but for classical the 600 series tweeter may falter against the 700 series tweeter.

It is very hard to get bass from a standmount -- my own speakers would serve you here even in that size of a room but it costs a lot more cash. It's a falacy to assume a standmount won't work in a bigger room -- floorstanders won't necesaarily fill the space any better. The 704 isn't a very big speaker and is more like a standmount with a bigger box included.

I would also ask your question on http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/bbs.html
as there are many more people who may have a wide array of suggestions for you. If it really is ultimately between these two speakers I would simply get the dealer to let you take them both home to try over the weekend - throw every recording you have at them. Peoples tastes vary. I find the B&W 700 series to be one of the worst values in the audio industry -- the Sonus Fabers sound a little dark and mellow -- but I 'd take that over the fatiguing qualities of what I hear from B&W. Listen for LONG periods at a good loud volume level. I can listen to my speakers for 8 consecutive hours at levels where you have to shout to hear another person talking to you (and with very open extended treble). On some speakers by track four you'd have a headache.

Also when auditioning try this method out -- it is writen by an audio maker but does not have to apply to their products but any product you audition. The best thing is that it requires no magazine review or self-appointed "golden-ear" to trust -- it doesn;t even require you to bring your own music with you -- it only requires TIME. It works surprisingly well to boot. http://www.audionote.co.uk/anp1.htm

[drseid]

Well I also would pick the SF for classical... I do see your concerns about the room though.

Have you considered looking on Audiogon.com for a pair of used Sonus Faber Grand Piano Homes? They should go for about 2K, and should meet your requirements nicely.

---Dave

[Florian]

My wife and I listen exclusively to classical music. We are looking to purchase a new system, and we've been listening to a lot of different speakers. We're looking to spend around US$2000 for two speakers.

After listening to many different speakers, we have narrowed it down to two possibilities: We like the B&W 704 and the Sonus Faber Concerto. Of course the former is a floor-standing speaker, while the latter is a bookshelf speaker.

We've tested both speakers with a variety of different recordings (piano, voice, orchestral) and actually liked the Sonus Faber better because of the warmth of the sound. Our concern is that the bookshelf speaker may not fill our living room, which measures 30' by 15', with ceilings going up to 14'. The B&W has more to offer in the bass range and may be a better option.

I would appreciate any comments on either of these two speakers which may help us solve the conundrum.

BTW, our third-best was the JM Lab 714S, which comes in around $1500 for the pair, but it was dominated by the B&W 704 more or less clearly along every dimension.
Also add the Magnepan MG 1.6 used to the list. Or a used Apogee Caliper or Duetta. If you like reviews than you will have to look very very hard to find one that is negative in anyway.

-Flo

[theaudiohobby]

My wife and I listen exclusively to classical music. We are looking to purchase a new system, and we've been listening to a lot of different speakers. We're looking to spend around US$2000 for two speakers.

After listening to many different speakers, we have narrowed it down to two possibilities: We like the B&W 704 and the Sonus Faber Concerto. Of course the former is a floor-standing speaker, while the latter is a bookshelf speaker.

We've tested both speakers with a variety of different recordings (piano, voice, orchestral) and actually liked the Sonus Faber better because of the warmth of the sound. Our concern is that the bookshelf speaker may not fill our living room, which measures 30' by 15', with ceilings going up to 14'. The B&W has more to offer in the bass range and may be a better option.

I would appreciate any comments on either of these two speakers which may help us solve the conundrum.

BTW, our third-best was the JM Lab 714S, which comes in around $1500 for the pair, but it was dominated by the B&W 704 more or less clearly along every dimension.

I used to own the Sonus Faber Concerto Home and liked them for a while but its specific colorations finally got to me and I sold it without any regrets, Ironically my sister likes their sound ;) I happen to think that the 704 may turn out to be the superior speaker in the long run because of its ability to follow a beat, I say that because the Cremona Auditor (next up SF seris) is leaner speaker and in that respect closer in warmth signature to the 704, and as consequence does fall into the trap that the Concerto fall into. The Concerto sounds great with acoustic string instruments and voices because of the extra body that warmth provides, but these very colorations are its undoing when it replays full bodied instruments back or attempts to track complex climaxes, much to my frustration it loses the rhythm a little bit and one morning it lost the beat again or should I say I sense some unease in its midrange and off it went to the chopping block.

Apart from the extra bass, that extra woofer on the 704 will come in handy on climaxes as it will allow for greater dynamic freedom, it will go louder more freely a feature that you will appreciate when listen to the likes of Brahms, Richard Strauss or Mahler, other speakers that have impressed of late are the Genelec 8000 series, For the cash, they are marvellous, the dynamic freedom is so good on the 8050 and 8040, a speaker that may also interest you, but I do not know their cost are the new ELAC 602 X-JET, it's a 3-way stand-mount that goes down to about 32Hz, is equipped with a rather neat coaxial midrange driver, the original ribbon tweeter did acoustics instruments very well and a dedicated woofer below 410Hz means that these babies will not sound dynamically restrained when the going gets tough. I will forget the JMLab Cobalts as they are really not in the same league as the 700 series, If you like the JM Lab sound then you need to be thinking about the Electra Series, which in some respects might be even better than the 700 series, but and a big but, there is narrow region of brightness in there and it costs a lot more.

I will not visit the AA with this kind of question, all you will get is load of opinionated rubbish with most folks simply trying to champion the speaker brand they own.

[Pat D]

My wife and I listen exclusively to classical music. We are looking to purchase a new system, and we've been listening to a lot of different speakers. We're looking to spend around US$2000 for two speakers.

After listening to many different speakers, we have narrowed it down to two possibilities: We like the B&W 704 and the Sonus Faber Concerto. Of course the former is a floor-standing speaker, while the latter is a bookshelf speaker.

We've tested both speakers with a variety of different recordings (piano, voice, orchestral) and actually liked the Sonus Faber better because of the warmth of the sound. Our concern is that the bookshelf speaker may not fill our living room, which measures 30' by 15', with ceilings going up to 14'. The B&W has more to offer in the bass range and may be a better option.

I would appreciate any comments on either of these two speakers which may help us solve the conundrum.

BTW, our third-best was the JM Lab 714S, which comes in around $1500 for the pair, but it was dominated by the B&W 704 more or less clearly along every dimension. I haven't heard either speaker you mention, though I have heard the B & W 705 and the Sonus Faber Concerto Grand Piano and I liked both quite a lot. I am a little confused as to the Sonus Faber speaker you mean because the SF Concerto Domus is a floorstander listing at $1995 US in the S & V Buyer's Guide 2005 whereas the Concertino Domus is a standmount listing at $1195. Both the Concerto Domus and the B & W 704 are spec'd at 40 Hz for low frequency extension so they should be comparable in this respect. If it is the Concertino Domus you like, you could always spend the difference on a good subwoofer from someone like Hsu, SVS, Paradigm, etc. and get excellent bass extension.

My advice is to go with the speaker you prefer, with particular emphasis on natural, uncoloured sound and ease of listening. Deep bass extension is not nearly as important as the midrange and highs. You can always get a subwoofer later if needed, which in a big room like yours might be advisable anyway.

Be sure to try your choice out at home.

[nightflier]

I have not heard the B&W, but I did have the opportunity to compare the SF with a Dynaudio Audience 52 for some time, which I believe is still w/in your price range. My opinion was that the Dynes did a better job with classical. We used music by Hovhaness, Beethoven's Egmont, Bach's Cello Concertos, as well as a few jazz titles (Krall, Miles, Schuur, Brubeck). Although I would also agree that the the SF's are warmer, this seemed to my ears to be excessive and I prefered the seperation and dynamism of the Dynes. In part II, Zwischenakt of Egmont, I could pick out the singer's breath and even noises from within the studio (or concert hall?) that they were recording in. The SF's also had these but they were further back and a bit more muffled. On Hov's Symphony No. 50 the brass appeared closer than on the SF's, more "there," so to speak. On the jazz selections, though, I wasn't able to pick out the same differences (maybe it was the recordings). The Dynes did appear to be more forward, but I could not pick out little sound differences like I could with the classical music.

In any case, the Dynaudio Audience 52 bookshelves are a very impressive pair and I would definitely add them to the list. It could be that what I was looking for was more character than quality, but with the classical, I was able to pick out the Dynes consistently over the Sonuses (these were blind tests). Dynaudio speakers are generally described as warm speakers (and I like that), but I didn't mind the extra life that these speakers provided, although I did find the SF's to be a little too lifeless.

IMHO.

[topspeed]

What have you listened to so far? What will you be driving them with? What are the aspects that are most important to you?

[Buzz Roll]

Two speakers which are known to excell with classical music are Ohm Walsh series and Shahinian. I haven't heard Shahinians, but I have Ohms, and they present classical music very very well.

[StanleyMuso]

First off, if RGA really does listen at the volume he says he does for 8 hours straight very often, perhaps he could be developing a hearing impairment, which would make his recommendations a bit suss anyway.

Seriously though, his dislike of B&W is well known, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Each person hears and experiences music differently.

I am also a classical music lover, and when I went hunting for speakers, I specifically looked for those which sound good with classical. Classical music is much more demanding on speakers than rock. When I first became interested in this hobby more years ago than I care to remember, I was told I would have to search for good quality speakers, whilst any old rubbish would do for rock. Rock tends to be loud, with little or no dynamic range. A full orchestra can be almost silent in a quiet passage and suddenly roar up to ceiling rattling levels. A speaker has to handle this dynamic range, as well as all the other subtleties demanded of it by all the different instruments and singers.

I won't bore you by listing all the speakers I listened to over a span of several years (and that included SF) but I finally settled on the B&W 703. The clincher? I could actually hear, very clearly, the words which were being sung in opera and songs. Other speakers, in comparison, sounded, to me at least, as if they were stuffed with cotton wool, and were so muffled I had to strain to hear the words. I bought my set around November 2004 so I have been with them long enough to get a good feel for them, and I am happy with my choice. I know there are better speakes out there, but there is only so much time for looking in this life, and only a certain amount of money. Once you make a choice, don't double guess yourself, and begin enjoying what you have.

Word of warning - if you get the B&Ws, you will also need a good amplifier to get the best out of them. Also, don't even try to listen closely to them for two or three weeks. Mine sounded so hard and harsh at first that I thought I had made a mistake, but after a few weeks of use at varying volumes, they mellowed out. Also, they do not like being too near the back wall (too much bass boom) - give them room to breathe - about 2 feet or so.

[StanleyMuso]

about rubbish speakers and rock was tongue in cheek. Someone actually said this to me in a hi-fi store, but I don't really believe it.

[psonic]

Have you given Dynaudio a listen? Go to the website and check out some models and see if there's a dealer nearby. Many of their models are "best buys" in the price class. The Audience 72 is a floorstander under $2k as is possibly the 82. They should easily fill your room. I feel they can best the B&W, JMO, but I urge you to give them a chance if you can.

http://www.dynaudiousa.com/company/dlr.htm

[RGA]

"Seriously though, his dislike of B&W is well known, and should be taken with a grain of salt."

Why? Why is it that if someone does not like a particular item then his word should be taken with a grain of salt -- but if someone likes it then well it should be taken as gospel.

I probably have way more experience listneing to B&W speakers than most of the people on this board -- I did own a set for several years --- and I have no dislike for B&W -- I dislike Some of their speakers but I like a lot of them -- the 602S2, 603S3, 604S3 (and the S2 versions, the CDM NT line now gone, the DM 302 and and DM 303, The Model Nautilus - hell I even recommend the leisure moniitors. Indeed for most posters who have been here for a while felt i was too far on the B&W bandwagon.

I like and dislike speakers not companies -- Paradigm and B&W are discussed a LOT because they are mainstream companies --- chances are I will talk about Ford and GM more than i will talk about a Ferarri too.

When it comes to speakers it's one apersoanl taste issue and 2 a matter of what people have heard and the access they have. Just because a speaker maker comes out with a new line does not mean it will be better -- I feel B&W has been going int he wrong direction over the years -- it's still for the most part good gear -- Just some lines have dissapointed me -- I've grown accustomed to expecting more from B&W.

[Florian]

Never mind this post

[StanleyMuso]

"Why? Why is it that if someone does not like a particular item then his word should be taken with a grain of salt -- but if someone likes it then well it should be taken as gospel."

I am not disputing that. I have heard stuff other people absolutely love, but I was left feeling cold and unimpressed. I am not trying to take your right to disagree with me away. It's just that I noticed that you have been panning the 700 range a number of times recently. Let me assure you, I did not buy it just because it was a new release - I bought it because it satisfied maney of the criteria I was looking for, and did it after evaluating a number of speaker (including the CDM 9NT just before it was discontinued), both above and below its price point. In the end, every person has to do his/her own evaluation. I realise that just because I like them, they may not suit other people's purposes. I also realise that there are probably speakers out there which I probably would have liked more, but did not get the chance to listen to them, or I can't afford them. I was merely trying to balance your opinion with mine. I hope yoellax knows that nothing we say is gospel, but merely our honest opinion based on our experiences. Based on my own experience, I just did not want him to be put off giving a speaker on his short list a fair evaluation. It may or may not suit him in the end, but that's his choice.

[dave123456@mail.com]

about rubbish speakers and rock was tongue in cheek. Someone actually said this to me in a hi-fi store, but I don't really believe it.


I disagree with this statement as well. Metallica was the main reason i got into audio in the first place, and they remain one of my favorites.

It seems to me that hard rock/metal is much harder to get right than pop and other 'softer' music. Hard rock has more to it and is more aggresive, so if a speaker sucks then it will just sound like muddy aggresive noise- which is not enjoyable in the least.

When I first got a pair of decent speakers, everything from Kiss to Irom Maiden to Metallica to ACDC to Black Sabbath etc etc. Became much more listenable.

The people who say rock doesnt need a good system are probaly the same people who dont even listen to rock, or have bad systems and tend to think rock sucks because their speakers are bright and lean.

A lot of people tend to blame rock for its bad recordings, but I think every type of music should sound better with better gear, even the crappy recordings. It doesnt make sence to me that a "good" speaker would make some recordings sound WORSE than on lesser speakers. If this were true then id just give up right now since im not going to change my listening preferences to suit my systems limitations.

[RGA]

"Why? Why is it that if someone does not like a particular item then his word should be taken with a grain of salt -- but if someone likes it then well it should be taken as gospel."

I am not disputing that. I have heard stuff other people absolutely love, but I was left feeling cold and unimpressed. I am not trying to take your right to disagree with me away. It's just that I noticed that you have been panning the 700 range a number of times recently. Let me assure you, I did not buy it just because it was a new release - I bought it because it satisfied maney of the criteria I was looking for, and did it after evaluating a number of speaker (including the CDM 9NT just before it was discontinued), both above and below its price point. In the end, every person has to do his/her own evaluation. I realise that just because I like them, they may not suit other people's purposes. I also realise that there are probably speakers out there which I probably would have liked more, but did not get the chance to listen to them, or I can't afford them. I was merely trying to balance your opinion with mine. I hope yoellax knows that nothing we say is gospel, but merely our honest opinion based on our experiences. Based on my own experience, I just did not want him to be put off giving a speaker on his short list a fair evaluation. It may or may not suit him in the end, but that's his choice.

Well said Stanly -- i think it is amatter of what you hear -- or indeed are even able to audition -- ask me ten years from now and I may find something better - and so might you -- but the bottom line is if you're happy with what you have then does it really matter? I know a Ferrari is better than the honda I had but the Honda was the thing i could afford and I compared it to several cars -- but perhaps the few i didn;t take out I might have liked more - in the end there is only so much time to listen to gear and buy it. I spent FOUR years auditioning gear -- and almost bough the B&W CDM 1SE the 1NT and then the N805 and the De Capo(very very close on this one). At the end of it all it really should be about the music not the gear anyway - so you find the stuff that makes you happy.

[RGA]

I disagree with this statement as well. Metallica was the main reason i got into audio in the first place, and they remain one of my favorites.

It seems to me that hard rock/metal is much harder to get right than pop and other 'softer' music. Hard rock has more to it and is more aggresive, so if a speaker sucks then it will just sound like muddy aggresive noise- which is not enjoyable in the least.

When I first got a pair of decent speakers, everything from Kiss to Irom Maiden to Metallica to ACDC to Black Sabbath etc etc. Became much more listenable.

The people who say rock doesnt need a good system are probaly the same people who dont even listen to rock, or have bad systems and tend to think rock sucks because their speakers are bright and lean.

A lot of people tend to blame rock for its bad recordings, but I think every type of music should sound better with better gear, even the crappy recordings. It doesnt make sence to me that a "good" speaker would make some recordings sound WORSE than on lesser speakers. If this were true then id just give up right now since im not going to change my listening preferences to suit my systems limitations.

I agree the speakers and or system doesn;t or should not care what it gets. Synthesizers go beyond the frequency limits or can of classical music save the pedal organ and even here the synthesizer can. A numberof magazines uses Madonna's Ray of Light(her albums have mostly all been excellent) to judge gear. Big dynamics and room shaking bass -- Ditto for some of Sarah Mclachlan. For strings if you like female vocals and a folk kind of sound I suggest Allison Kraus and Union Station (also available on SACD and DVD Audio). This is as good a test for systems as any classical album I own especially if it's about the music and not just about the pyrotechnics. Rock music and probably pop during the early days of cd was not great but then some of the LP's made from digital like some of the CHER LPs are dynamically inept.

But take Aerosmith's Pump CD "Love in an Elevator" This track on CD (recently bought the LP but have not tried it yet) will and should knock you on your ass with treble that seems to go on forever with high impact.

I think what the die hards are saying is that MOST of the rock/pop discs are limited - they are probably correct -- I also feel some of them sort of spend up all their headroom early so there's not that extra when it needs it..This is hard for me to describe it would be easier to show it in action I suppose. I don;t own any Metallica as Aerosmith, AC/DC and Motely Crue are about as hard as I go...I need to be able to hear the annunciation(Sp?) of the lyrics without having to read the liners (AC/DC sometimes doesn't cut it there). Though my one LP dealer must have 5 brand new still sealed Metallica albums -- If i had some cash I'd pop for one just to see if I'd like them.

[dave123456@mail.com]

I agree the speakers and or system doesn;t or should not care what it gets. Synthesizers go beyond the frequency limits or can of classical music save the pedal organ and even here the synthesizer can. A numberof magazines uses Madonna's Ray of Light(her albums have mostly all been excellent) to judge gear. Big dynamics and room shaking bass -- Ditto for some of Sarah Mclachlan. For strings if you like female vocals and a folk kind of sound I suggest Allison Kraus and Union Station (also available on SACD and DVD Audio). This is as good a test for systems as any classical album I own especially if it's about the music and not just about the pyrotechnics. Rock music and probably pop during the early days of cd was not great but then some of the LP's made from digital like some of the CHER LPs are dynamically inept.

But take Aerosmith's Pump CD "Love in an Elevator" This track on CD (recently bought the LP but have not tried it yet) will and should knock you on your ass with treble that seems to go on forever with high impact.

I think what the die hards are saying is that MOST of the rock/pop discs are limited - they are probably correct -- I also feel some of them sort of spend up all their headroom early so there's not that extra when it needs it..This is hard for me to describe it would be easier to show it in action I suppose. I don;t own any Metallica as Aerosmith, AC/DC and Motely Crue are about as hard as I go...I need to be able to hear the annunciation(Sp?) of the lyrics without having to read the liners (AC/DC sometimes doesn't cut it there). Though my one LP dealer must have 5 brand new still sealed Metallica albums -- If i had some cash I'd pop for one just to see if I'd like them.


Yeah, I mean some of the rock/pop recordings can sound a little harsher than other genres, but its not to the point of being unlistenable and still sounds better than a boombox.

Im also a Monte Crue - at least of Shout At The Devil and Too Fast For Love.Female vocals im not too big of a fan, except maybe No Doubt and some of the oldies. No Doubt's ' Im Just A Girl' ( not as lame as it sounds) is an excellent song for testing dynamics as her voice is all over the place and is also a good song.

As far as Metallica, If you dont like clear vocals then stay away from Kill Em All and most of Ride The Lightning. Although, both of these albums have killer geetar work ( Ride The Lightning being my favorite Metallica album- For Whom The Bells Tolls my favorite song by them) Their self titled album and Master Of Puppets would be a much better choice since they are mellower and more coherant. If you can get a decent deal on their albums then id suggest Master Of Puppets- listen to Sanatarium and Orion for mellower tracks.

And when you say "pyrotechnics" do you mean imaging and soundstage? Because it seems good imaging helps me get into the music and makes it more enjoyable. Id be suprised if i found music more enjoyable without it.

[RGA]

Pyrotechnics are all the buzz words -- if i notice it and it gets in the way it's a pyrotechnic to me -- I never listen live and say wow check out the imaging of the band. And it seems that the buzz words change -- soudnstaging used to be that you could tell where the instruments were on the stage and they were separate entities - Imaging has been used to sdescribe this exact thing so who knows - I try to stop worrying about the lingo for the same reason I stopped intently reading the meausrements of and spec sheets by the brands as much as possible -- even then I get pulled into them from time to time on issues like bass and treble -- which is also silly since I've heard lots of speakers that claim 40hz and a great many sound like they have it and others that don't.

Really it all just boils down to listening and if it does the musical genres you love then that;s the one to buy. My Whardefales are not supremely truthful in audiophile accuracy terms but it is killer for music like AC/DC Aerosmith and hard and heavy rock. If this is the music one listens to 90% of the time along with movies then these people would probably get a lot of enjoyment out of them -- I did and still do.

My Wharfedales are three ways and look very much like these but with three drivers http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14993&item=5777218135&rd=1

Mine were the flagship though and came a few years after the E70 -- no law says you can;t have two sets of speakers -- one to take the pounding for rock and then another kind to listen to other genres.

[alexperl]

I agree with RGA, you can test speakers with Jazz or Classics much much better then rock music, rock recordings are very bad and i have a lot of them.
Of corse there is a good recordings too like Dire Straits Brothers In Arms but even this recording not close to Chesky Records.
I like to listen to a well recorded cd, i like to hear a dinamics, kiling mids of a strings, and with most rock music i just do not hear that :( and i like rock music very much...
Maybe in the future the recordings of a rock music will be better, i really hope..
Sorry for my English.

[nightflier]

My typical audition torture tracks also include tracks from Rush (particularly their later more synthesized material), Massive Attack (for the bass), Eric Clapton (maybe 'cause I know the tracks so well), and Blue Oyster Cult (Vengance from F.O.U.O. is a good one). I also have some Metallica albums, but I just don't think they are that dynamic (don't flame me).

But there is something about orchestral music that rock just doesn't have: as many instruments. It's just much more appropriate for auditioning. If I can place the instruments on the stage like hear the ringing of bells, the vibrations of the strings, the soft melody of the clarinet, and the ominous booming of the drum all from different places in front of me, from a piece I know very well, there is just more for me to listen for. Even listening to an opera solo, it is just much more likely that the singer will have a tremendously larger range than your typical pop or rock star. Not always, but most often.

That said...

The question Yeollax asked is which of the two speakers (B&W 704 or Sonus Faber Concerto) would best be able to reproduce the music they listen to, which is mostly classical. It seems to me that most people here give the B&W the nod, or am I gauging this wrong?

[RGA]

I don't believe the nod is being given one way or the other -- if the person feels B&W does better with what he likes to listen to then that;s the only thing in the thread that matters (though I get the sense he prefers Sonus Faber anyway so none of this much matters). I can't speak to most of the rock recordings mentioned so far because I don't listen to it. there are two kinds of dynamics - microdynamics and macrodynamics and the latter is handled reasonable well by most. IMO B&W across the board is weak at the former...it's just an opinion but it widely cosnidered to be a speaker that sounds better when you turn it up louder -- all speakers that fall into this sort of camp are weak in microdynamics because it would not be felt by the listener to alaways turn it up to make things out. This is typically a very strong area for Electrostatic and panel speakers. IMO most people probably never really listen much or notice microdynamics in music because so few do it very well -- ditto for low level resolution. classical music starts at such a low level much of the time and goes way up there. Rock starts in the middle so the range is smaller most of the time. I also find a lot of speakers compress fast on rock and pop and jazz so the album is blamed for lack of headroom -- I have several recordings that did that on my B&W's and many others I've listened to that don't do it anymore. Quite simply it was the speakers not the recordings. Your mileage may vary.

[topspeed]

RGA, how in the world do you get the feeling the OP is leaning towards SF? He has posted a grand total of...ONE TIME! Hell, I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions!

[StanleyMuso]

Topspeedis right - we can't engage in meaningful disussion with the original poster if he's abandoned his own enquiry.

[RGA]

Topspeed

"We've tested both speakers with a variety of different recordings (piano, voice, orchestral) and actually liked the Sonus Faber better because of the warmth of the sound."

Call me crazy many do but it sounded as though they liked this one a wee bit better. Often people know what they want and are looking for confirmation just in case. I say go with what sounds best to you --

[theaudiohobby]

I have several recordings that did that on my B&W's and many others I've listened to that don't do it anymore. Quite simply it was the speakers not the recordings. Your mileage may vary.

Your B&W in this case is DM 302, irrespective of how you feel about it, it is 2 lines down from the 700 series, the 300 and 700 series are totally different animals with practically nothing in common, apart from being produced by the same company. And cannot be used as basis for judging the performance of the 704.

[StanleyMuso]

"Your B&W in this case is DM 302, irrespective of how you feel about it, it is 2 lines down from the 700 series, the 300 and 700 series are totally different animals with practically nothing in common, apart from being produced by the same company. And cannot be used as basis for judging the performance of the 704".

Quite right. I was exposed for several years to my son's 601, which frankly, although great for the music he listens to, sucks with classical. I therefore did not expect to end up with B&W for my own system. Each line has its own characteristics.

[RGA]

yes the 302 is not the N805. I have logged many hours on the N805, M805, N801, N802, N803, CDM 1NT, CDM 7NT, CDM 9NT, CDM 1SE, CDM 2SE, 602S3, 602S2, 603S2, DM 302, DM 303, CM2 - and less time but still at least 2 hours on 603S2, 604S2, 604S3, N804, M801 -- and between 1/2hour to2 hours on 601S2, 601S3, DM 305, LM 1, CM 4, Diamond 802, and I'm forgetting the two and half way 600 series speaker I spent a fair amount of time with at the moment.

Before most of the newbies on this forum -- indeed, before the current styling of this forum changed, B&W was the front-runner for me in most price classes and I spent probably the most amount of time in the CDM SE and NT speaker lines(which is the same level as the 700 line which replaced them). The reason was that this was the price range I was in that time. I also had the opportunity to get extensive auditions with the M805 because one of the sales-staff was trading his in and had it for sale. I caught the tail end of the SE range when the new NT range came in -- this was also the period I first heard the Totem Model One. I bought my Arcam amplifier from that dealer.

It was a number of posters on AA that i battled with for quite a long time defending B&W against their attacks -- unfortunately I did not listen to the speakers they were touting as alternatives --- when i did finally I had to eat crow. I had been comparing B&W to relatively easy to beat competitors like M&K, Klipsch and a number of Canadian makers that if I mention them will get them in an uproar so best to leave it. The DM 302 incidentally i compared to many a solid product at that time with PSB, Mission and Acoustic Energy with standmounts I also liked. The DM 302 also sounded smoother than the 601 and 602S2 variants -- these had more ultimate bandwidth and slam but that was it. Every person I know who has owned both speakers has preferred the musical reproduction of the 302 to the 602S2 and the current 303. As do I which is why I regret selling the 302 and probably why it was sold within an hour of me trading it in. After hearing a PSB yesterfday for around the same price as the 302 it literally drove me from the room with it's tin can sounding treble -- no doubt a future award winning speaker if it isn't already. The PSB Alpha B was the one I had in the running with my 302 -- the one I heard may be it's "detailed" replacement if by detail we mean "irritating."

None of this matters -- I'm not telling anyone on any forum they have to agree with me -- it's merely the way I hear it...it's obvious other people don't hear it the way I do...I liked B&W -- I have heard better to my ears since then thus I like B&W less. In fact electrostats have the best chance to get me away from Audio Note if I can hear one that will do certin things I've yet to hear from them -- apparently a Quad 57 owner is reminded of the E's on much program material which may mean I would very much like the Quads -- a few others who've owned the Quads went to the AN E --- so it seems to me that those who've heard both may go either way but the resemblence si certainly there -- and someone said the 57 won;t be like the 63 I loathed so i'm excited to hear the 57. I am also excited to hear the Maggie 3.6 and 20.1 when my dealer brings them in.

[StanleyMuso]

RGA, since the OP seems to have disappeared, I'd like to ask a question of my own, if you don't mind. I can see now that you have had quite a considerable exposure to B&W, so I'd appreciate your opinion. I want to expand my system to a full surround, but don't wish to go to the expense of using all 700 series components. Besides, the 700 series centre speaker is too big for my setup. Would the 600 series for the centre and rears match with my 703 for surround sound?

In addition, in your list of gear I notice you have a Marantz 4300 receiver. What is your experience of it, sound wise and reliability wise? I'm also thinking of getting a Marantz reciever. I already have a Marantz DVD player (DV4300).

Thanks

Stanley

[RGA]

Well I bought the Marantz largely because it was cheap - a close-out last model kinda deal so it ran $300.00Cad. I also wanted a receiver that has preouts to add separate power amplifiers as I am not impressed by receivers in this regard. The Marantz was the only one at the time to have that feature for this price -- it also had the best warranty over Yamaha and Denon -- another plus given the build quality of receivers.

I am not impressed by the two channel sound nor by the atrocious functionality of the remote control (basically it does too much most of it tuff doubt anyone will ever use -- I can only imagine the sea of useless functionality of the the flagship model and the engineering degree required to set the thing to 2 channel. :D

For home theater -- I have not heard many of the B&W's perform in. I was reasonably impressed by the B&W 600Series 3 and the CDM NT in home theater applications but they were always matched with their appropriate center channel. I do know that the 303 as a rear channel will work in a 600 series set-up well.

It is important to try and match speakers in a home theater -- that does not always mean you have t match with the same brand but in most cases that is probably the case especially with propriatary drivers like B&W. There is no real quasi-B&W to go to.

On the other hand it depends how into movies you are -- there is no law that says you need to match just because it is recommended or that it is the best...I have tons of movies well over 200 DVDs but strangely enough home theater reproduction I just don't care that much about -- i may eventually but it's lower priority for me. You're probably better off asking the home theater lovers. I had a home theater set-up and I had a Laserdisc player at the age of 22. What I really wanted back then was the widescreen the medium had to offer. I don't really care about picture quality all that much and for me the theater is the best experience to watch a movie...people will argue about that but the bottom line is no screen currently available can match the movie theater picture (size matters) and despite the inconsistencies in sound I like the experience because the CD on a stereop can sound and often does sound better than most rock concerts ever will but we go to the rock concert for the experience of it.

I bought the Marantz with the intention of trying out 6.1 as it has improved since my Pro-Logic days. I will get to the H/T set-up one day -- the sepakers I shall buy will be used and all will be the same speakers at the same height (ie six Audio Note AX Twos(or used CDM 2SE which are the most underrated B&W of the lot IMO) and perhaps one or two Rel Storms). This requires more money than I have and a front projection system.

[RGA]

I didn;t want to insult my Marantz -- for the money I paid it has worked it sounded better than I expected it would sound which is a plus and is clear when watching movies in 2 channel -- so for the money it's quite a nice unit.

[StanleyMuso]

Good stereo sound has always been my primary purpose and will continue to be so, but I do want to be able to enjoy surround sound in my lounge. That said, I don't want to invest too much money on the surround side, so I too was thinking of a basic reciever with pre-outs so I could channel the front sounds through my stereo rig. Whatever reciever I buy will never serve duty for stereo sound - I just want it to decode the surround info from the disks and power the centre and rear speakers. The Musical Fidelity will take care of the fronts.

[theaudiohobby]

Besides, the 700 series centre speaker is too big for my setup. Would the 600 series for the centre and rears match with my 703 for surround sound?


The answer to the question especially vis-a-vis the centre is a big fat No, the woofer, tweeter and even the crossover alignment on both lines are sufficiently different for this to be an excercise in frustration, And with MCH music, the issue is compounded as the more adventurous MCH mixes will expose rears with different tonal signatures.

[StanleyMuso]

I didn't realise it was soo critical. I thought if I kept it to the same manufacturerer, with all cones being kevlar and metal tweeters, the sound, even if not totally identical, would be close enough not to matter for film viewing. I may have to re-think my room layout, and have a close listen before making the final decision. I suppose I could always run a totally sepperate system for the surrounds, composed of all stand mounts, centre and sub. But then again, I don't really want to clutter the room with more gear than necessary, nor to spend money unnecessarily. If my first idea worked, I would just have to add three additional speakers, since I already have a sub.

[RGA]

Well first of all all center channels are compromised and you will not get the same sound anyway. If you want something that matches you have to have the exact same speaker -- the ideal is Six 705s all around...the next best is a center channel with the exact same drivers and very very very similar tonal sound. the next best would be a speaker that follows the company house sound -- the 600 series is still a house sound and you won;t know if it will work for you until you try. With all the delay and switching that garbages up the sound of receivers anyway -- you can probably be able to adjust the 600 series center channel to do a rreasonably effective job at integrating with the 700 series. Indeed, the 600 series may have more impact than the 700 series so while not tonally a match could still be more pleasing to the ear. As it stands now the vast majority of info of dialog comes from the center and only when panning will you notice a bit of a hick-up...will it bother you? Probably would not bother me because I'm not nearly as anal about home theater.

You could also run phantom mode where your amp pretends there is a center image -- some set-ups I have heard and I preferred this.

Now this is just my personal opinion on this and i'm not trying to get into a flame war. I personally prefer 2 channel audio and will put the bulk of the money there. Home theater is a very distant second and I've heard uber 300k Professionally done ML set-ups that were truly very good for home theater -- and at the price should be. Not impressed by much else below that price tag to be blunt because the movie experience involves the screen and i figure go ALL the Way opr don't bother -- or go cheap enough to get the FLAVOUR of the experience. But the 300k system is the ONLY one that would keep me out of the Movie theaters. Look at all the people who spent 10K on home theater and still see Star Wars Episode III 5 times in the theater. So me, I would get something cheaper than the Energy Take 5 -- there was a Mission set up fro $500.00 for all the speakers and the sub -- great it's all matched up no brainwork dirt cheap -- and while it won't be as good as a number of more expensive set-ups it will give you the flavour anyway Mission punches above its weight class to start with so it won't likely be embarrassed even agaisnt competitors at triple the money. Indeed Klipsh reference had a sale here which even I considered -- or possibly 3 pairs of Athena AS B1 at about $250.00 each. My concenr is the mid-upper treble which leans sizzly so I could not relax to them I don;t think for longer listening -- but still for the price and the odd movie would be nice enough.

or Athena's H/T package http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0665000FS10055147&catid=14700&logon=&langid=EN which is $500.00Cad for the whole package. I have not heard it but given that the Athena IMO blows the doors off the more expensive JBL and Polk and sounds as good if not better than the paradigm Monitor line -- then what the hell you never know for pyrotechnics one does not have a frame of reference anyway and for vocals well that is the area of possible weakness -- but you never know till you try.

[hertz]

This Saturday only I had the opportunity to do an A/B comparison of both the Dynaudio audience 52se with the Linn Katan. The Linn won out in every department. The speakers were driven by bryston monoblocks.