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

[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?...777218135&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 --

[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.

[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.