2. speakers
  3. 1017107530

Am I the only one who thinks B&W is mid-fi?

I know that title sounds pretencious. By all means, everyones taste is different and I can grasp that. However, I find B&W loudspeakers to sound extremely Mid-fi ish, designed with sort of a boom and sizzle quality making it not much better than retail quality brands. At price point there is always something better than it, something musical, where the goals of preserving the naturalness and tonal balance of sound is understood. I am getting tired of people buying for the name, not the sound. I find it is letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In these times of dying 2 channel, and the ability to buy a complete stereo/home theater at your local blockbuster, all of the brands that should make it don't. Most Hi-fi starts with a retail system and with that type of over-processed, boom and sizzle sound (Boom meaning a spike at 80Hz and sizzle meaning a spike at 10,000Hz). That gives these rising enthuists a false impression of what hi-fi is about. Thus, the people who cater to that falseified sound, those who design audio, forgetting the passion involved with listening, putting aside all love for music just to put a nickle in the pig...Well are doing a good job. Honestly, it is just wrong. Thanks for the read...I feel better. Prehaps I just needed to vent, but I doubt it. Music is a passion of mine, and I don't want to have to battle in 20 yrs to get equipment that sounds like music. Any comments?
mikez
shubertmaniac
348 posts
 
I heard the B&W N series at a NYC dealer while visiting my daughter at grad school. I did not listen to them for more than 5 minutes before I gave up on them. Their bass was boomy, the integration with the midrange was lumpy at best, and the highs were harsh. If you like bass thumping then these are the speakers for you, not refined at all for the price. They were matched mostly with MacIntosh electronics both ss and tube. Do not understand why they are so popular with the Audiogon crowd.
dawgbyte's avatar
dawgbyte
290 posts
 
FWIW, I agree with your assessment of B&W speakers.
musicbuff
46 posts
 
I'm very happy with the sound I get from my Matrix 805's,
mounted on Audio points on Lovan Caliber stands, which are filled with micro bearings. The speakers are bi-wired with
Kimber 4TC/8TC to a NAD 370 integrated amp. Music sources are NAD 540i CD player and Rega P3 TT. IC's are Signal cables. Subwoofer by HSU. I just recently completed this modest set-up based mostly on recommendations from Audiogon members for under $4500 (new and used)so a big THANK YOU
to all of you out there. Compared to other, more expensive systems I've heard, I'd consider mine hi-fi, not mid-fi.
tvad
9,467 posts
 
You are to be commended, Musicbuff, for putting together a system that you find satisfying for $4500. Many here on Audiogon have long passed that dollar landmark and are still looking for the happiness you have found in your system. Congratulations!
kalan
185 posts
 
Joeb, Live music is a great reference, but it pretty much works best if that live music is un-amplified. You've undoubtedly heard the cliché: 'Live, acoustic instruments in a real space,' (paraphrased). There is a reason why live, un-amplified music is so popular for evaluating audio gear--at least in theory: it reduces the variables to a manageable level.

I agree that live, arena rock shows and even live blues at smaller clubs almost always sound worse than studio efforts. But I don't believe that's what most folks are talking about when they compare a given system to live music. Speaking for myself, I mean live acoustic jazz, orchestral, and chamber music.

I think the theory is that rock/pop involves electronic amplification in the studio plus the reinforcement of giant PA systems at a live show as part of the total sound result; therefore, there are too many unknown variables involved. This makes a given audio playback system pretty difficult to compare to anything else as a reference other than different audio gear.

Unknown variables also enter into the equation with acoustic music: hall, mic types and placement techniques, recording methods, mastering, etc., but those all exist in electronic-based music as well PLUS all the vagaries of the intervening electronics. You can usually readily recognize whether system X or Y comes closer compared to live acoustic music or not. This seems to be a bit harder with "originally amplified" music compared to a live show with yet more PA electronics and speakers.

Some people only listen to electronic-based or music. Totally cool. I like rock/blues/pop, too, and I use it to evaluate gear: macro dynamics, pace, bass speed, and 'slam.' But I don't stop there; the heart-of-the-matter evaluation, for me, has to be done with acoustic music compared to live as a base-line.
More to discover