B&W can suck it

joyride · Post by **joyride** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:48 pm

I just have to rant a little. I went and listened to a few 2 channel setups today, and I do not understand why people love B&W? I heard the 800d's today and was initially impressed. They can play classical very well, they were very smooth and realistic. Staging wasnt there, but Im sure they didnt pay attention to that in the terrible room they were set in.

I finally got a chance to put my CD in. I've got everything from norajones/allison krauss to tool on the disc. I decide to go with tool becasue they have been shying away from it.

I could not believe how much the 800d missed. The low end was completely in-comprehensive. I could tell they were trying, but there there was nothing under 80 hz. The only thing I can compare it to was a severe cancellation problem (however it wasnt there on classical music). There was no punch, and I could not 'feel' the music like the Salk HT3's. The sales guy was selling it as though these were pure perfection, but I would never spend $28,000 in them. Plus, they were huge as hell! For that price I would expect an exotic hardwood, but they were just a veneer wrapped shell with some cheap ass domestic layers underneath.

I also demo's the McIntosh xrt1k and they seemed really sharp on te high end. I thought my ear drum was being torn open every time a cymbal hit. Although, Mc's new room calibration unit was pretty impressive. Not worth $4,500 considering it is just a DEQ mated with Alpines Imprint.

Post by **stipud** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:10 am

I have heard B&W setups that sounded phenomenal, but they were always with their top of the end gear. I haven't found their baseline very impressive at all. I had a friend at the local B&W dealer in Calgary who would have given me a sweet deal on some of their mid-line gear, but compared to the much cheaper Paradigm Monitor 9's I ended up with, there was no comparison.

But the 800d is pretty high end level, isn't it? I haven't heard them myself but I am surprised you thought they were so crappy. Tool is also one of my benchmarks for bottom end performance, so that is quite enlightening.

KUB3 · Post by **KUB3** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:00 pm

I also hate B&W. They're all about hype and marketing. Tizzy treble and thin bass sums them up.

Try PMC's larger models (I had IB2), or Dynaudio's for something more home friendly. The Focus range is ideal

Post by **fuzzysnuggleduck** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:53 pm

With twin Rohacell® sandwich cone woofers it can deliver prodigious amounts of bass when called upon to do so, even in large listening rooms. Bass output is reinforced by a down-firing Flowport™ and is configured to have a taut characteristic, enabling the 800D to work optimally in a wide range of ‘real world’ rooms and acoustics.

PRODIGIOUS AMOUNTS OF BASS!!!!!111!!! OMG

KUB3 · Post by **KUB3** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:59 pm

You should read the jiz about their tweeters... "diamond coated plutonium fairy dust domes" or some such nonsense. Or the construction of the cabinets being some sort of "matrix composite lala land" - that's MDF to you and me.

Speakers for bankers

Post by **mhyde71** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:10 am

what is B&W?

bretti_kivi · Post by **bretti_kivi** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:17 am

Bowers and Wilkins, one of the "better" UK brands.

Bret

Post by **Eric D** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:59 am

I think they are great speakers, but all of them I have heard were in extremely expensive rooms, which I think had more to do with it than the speakers themselves.

I can't remember the models numbers, but one set had a 15" woofer and the other set had dual 10" woofers. Both had the huge ball midrange and tweeter sculpted into the top of the ball.

Post by **stipud** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:07 am

Sounds like the 800d's he's talking about Eric...

http://www.grahams.co.uk/images/our_ran ... _image.jpg

joyride · Post by **joyride** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:17 am

Yup, sound like it. I am seriously still baffled by it. Another thing that Im wondering is if the processing might have had anything to do with it. They wre using a Classe surround processor (SSP-800) in a 2 channel room. I wish they would have used a tube preamp up front.

Dont let me give you the wrong impression, they were still an excellent speaker. A violinist came in and played a track she just recorded and it sounded great (very true to life). However, for that money, I would like to know that I can put anything through it and be impressed.

Post by **Eric D** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:24 am

Those seem to be the ones I heard, but their base or foot was nothing like in that photo.

Post by **ttocs** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:48 pm

I have not heard a speaker that was worth $28k yet but I still work too hard for my money.

Post by **ttocs** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:25 am

I figured someone would come on after me and correct me that they had listened to a pair of speakers that was better then any happy-ending-massage they ever had and worth $30k....

Post by **fuzzysnuggleduck** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:49 am

I can't speak for anyone else but with the coin I make $28k for speakers is out of the realm of possibility so that offers no real value for me even if they are great. I suspect several other people are in the same boat here but I absolutely will not discount the possibility that the situation is different for someone else.

Post by **smgreen20** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:34 pm

Keep n mind that these are pure SQ speakers. In pure SQ there isn't a whole lot of bass.

Beyond that, the store we had that used to sell them, as I would listen to them I fell in love. Had plenty of bass for my needs, but as mentioned by Eric, the room here too was set up properly for them.

And for that $30k comment, my cousin has a set of speakers that he paid ~$120k for. It's been so long I can't remember the actual amount, but it was up there and more then I paid for my house.