B&W detail

[prerich]

I'm hearing that the B&W's *68x" series has detail to rival that of electrostats. Owners chime in, other than electrostats and planars there have been few speakers to have that type of detail lately (jm Lab be series comes to mind along with Usher). Is the High frequency response of the B&W's as sweet as electrostats? If my local dealer was open on the weekend - I would go and demo them. Alas - I won't be able until I take a vacation in November.

[Scooby Blu]

I have the 683s as my L/R and the rest of the 600 series for surround. The detail is amazing ! Yes, even rivals the Martin Logan. However, my dealer threw out Martin Logan after they made their big money deal with BEST BUY I am currently using a Rotel AVR. That will change at the end of Oct. when I get the new sperates Rotel has coming out ! Very clean sound. And for the money they rival even more expensive speakers. Here are some words about the speakers.

http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/displa...rid=2286&sc=ht

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Scooby Blu

I have the 683s as my L/R and the rest of the 600 series for surround. The detail is amazing ! Yes, even rivals the Martin Logan. However, my dealer threw out Martin Logan after they made their big money deal with BEST BUY I am currently using a Rotel AVR. That will change at the end of Oct. when I get the new sperates Rotel has coming out ! Very clean sound. And for the money they rival even more expensive speakers. Here are some words about the speakers.

http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/displa...rid=2286&sc=ht

Tks Scooby, I've listen to 802's before and they're great - just out of my league now (unless used and at the right time of year). Got enough speakers to sell to buy some higher end speakers (thats another possible plan if I don't upgrade the Snells to Audio Notes). Looking at posssiblities - I wanted CLS's but lest see what's out there (I will definately listen first - Nothing will happen until after Thanksgiving).

[Beta Man]

I'm using the 686s as rear surrounds.... I'm happy with them, but I'm not asking too much from them (I don't play too much multi-channel music)

I'm using 700 series and DS7s for the rest of the set up, but I briefly had the 686s up front (briefly being a couple of weeks while I waited for the 703s to come in) but I had them matched up to an HTM7, so it wasn't a very ideal setup.....

[btf1980]

I think we need to be careful when we start tossing out generalizations as to how a speaker sounds. You can't say the 600 series rival an entire speaker line, i.e. Martin Logan. Well, what model Martin Logan are we talking about here?

Furthermore, why would you compare traditional box speaker design with electrostatic design speakers. Makes no sense.

The 600 series are great price to performance speakers, but if you like electrostatic sound and design, the 600 series ain't the cup of tea you should be drinking from.

[Scooby Blu]

Originally Posted by btf1980

I think we need to be careful when we start tossing out generalizations as to how a speaker sounds. You can't say the 600 series rival an entire speaker line, i.e. Martin Logan. Well, what model Martin Logan are we talking about here?

Furthermore, why would you compare traditional box speaker design with electrostatic design speakers. Makes no sense.

The 600 series are great price to performance speakers, but if you like electrostatic sound and design, the 600 series ain't the cup of tea you should be drinking from.

Point well taken. I heard the Vista series. And you are correct my generalization was a bit much.

[Scooby Blu]

Originally Posted by prerich

Tks Scooby, I've listen to 802's before and they're great - just out of my league now (unless used and at the right time of year). Got enough speakers to sell to buy some higher end speakers (thats another possible plan if I don't upgrade the Snells to Audio Notes). Looking at posssiblities - I wanted CLS's but lest see what's out there (I will definately listen first - Nothing will happen until after Thanksgiving).

Yes, the 802's are something to behold ! However, since B&W sent their production line to China for the 600 series, they have gone for a different type of sound. A complete about face from the older 600 series models. The focus is more on detail and transparancy. My dealer hooked up the 683's to some Classe gear and was blown away by the quality of sound from the inexpensive 683's. Before the 800D series was hooked up to the Classe gear. Huge price point difference, but , of course !

[RUR]

Originally Posted by prerich

I'm hearing that the B&W's *68x" series has detail to rival that of electrostats.

With respect to the 68x owners out there, this type of claim makes my head hurt. I suppose such a claim may be true of some tweeters, but, without major revision to the laws of inertia, midrange cone drivers simply can't recover fast enough to deliver the kind of fidelity found in ESL and similar panels.

Folks may very well prefer the sound of 68x's, but it won't be because they have equal midrange (at least) detail.

[Intamin]

Originally Posted by Scooby Blu

Yes, the 802's are something to behold ! However, since B&W sent their production line to China for the 600 series, they have gone for a different type of sound. A complete about face from the older 600 series models. The focus is more on detail and transparancy. My dealer hooked up the 683's to some Classe gear and was blown away by the quality of sound from the inexpensive 683's. Before the 800D series was hooked up to the Classe gear. Huge price point difference, but , of course !

I auditioned a pair of 802d's hooked up to McIntosh gear, and to be honest it didn't really do it for me. I guess because it all cost so much that I was expecting to be blown away, or maybe I'm untrained, but I dunno. It didn't sound like I was listening to 14k speakers and at least 10k worth of amps/preamps/player. Don't get me wrong, it sounded good, just not what I was expecting for the money.

[JJ]

I'm going to have to read this thread over many, many times to get the nuances of btf's and RUR's comments.

But far be it for be to implore that my not-yet fully-developed ear knows as much as you fine gentlemen. But I will say it is the best speaker I have listened to, alas, I have never heard the electrostatics of Martin Logan, so I cannot comment on comparisons. Where have you heard such comparisons, rich?

[prerich]

Originally Posted by RUR

With respect to the 68x owners out there, this type of claim makes my head hurt. I suppose such a claim may be true of some tweeters, but, without major revision to the laws of inertia, midrange cone drivers simply can't recover fast enough to deliver the kind of fidelity found in ESL and similar panels.

Folks may very well prefer the sound of 68x's, but it won't be because they have equal midrange (at least) detail.

That's basiclly what I'm hearing - in the highs (never mentioned the mids hmmm?). Still looking - because I about ready to make within the next few months (Audio Note, B&W, or ML).

[CasualKiller]

Best way I can put it without being rude is there is a very good reason that Logans cost what they do.

And the closest thing to electrostat performance you're going to get without shelling out the $$$ is also from ML:

http://www.us.martinlogan.com/specs/preface.html

[Woody]

Originally Posted by CasualKiller

Best way I can put it without being rude is there is a very good reason that Logans cost what they do.

And the closest thing to electrostat performance you're going to get without shelling out the $$$ is also from ML:

http://www.us.martinlogan.com/specs/preface.html

Speakers in general don't "cost alot" necessarily because they "sound good".

Or maybe I should say, not all expensive speakers sound good.

And no offense, but

"And the closest thing to electrostat performance you're going to get without shelling out the $$$ is also from ML"

is not accurate.

And to answer Pre, I have heard both and they are very different IMO.

[CasualKiller]

We aren't talking about any random speaker, we are talking Martin Logans. And they are both quite expensive and good.

And to say that I'm not accurate, I've at least heard the Preface, Vistas and Summits, as well as the 683, 684's and have a comparison to base an opinion on.

And based on my opinion the Preface where made to "mimic" electrostat sound, hence the closest match you're going to get.

[RUR]

Originally Posted by prerich

That's basiclly what I'm hearing - in the highs (never mentioned the mids hmmm?). Still looking - because I about ready to make within the next few months (Audio Note, B&W, or ML).

Sorry, I assumed (and we all know what that means ) overall detail, including mids. Yes, it's easier to do for the high end since the mass required is much smaller and becomes comparable to ESL's inherent advantages. A couple of points to remember: ML's "diaphragm" is incredibly light - lighter, in fact, than the air it's moving. Light weight = low inertia = fast response = fidelity to the source waveforms. ML's single "diaphragm" for both mids and highs means no crossover, at all. This avoids phase shift issues at the crossover point found even in the best crossover designs, typically in the upper mid/lower treble.

At the end of the day, "detail" may be overrated. Most of the knocks I've heard re: ML's are that they're too detailed. IIRC and a few years back, an unfavorable review compared their sound to reading large type using a microscope under a 500W light. Everyone's speaker preferences are different. That's just the way it is.

[Woody]

Originally Posted by CasualKiller

We aren't talking about any random speaker, we are talking Martin Logans. And they are both quite expensive and good.

And to say that I'm not accurate, I've at least heard the Preface, Vistas and Summits, as well as the 683, 684's and have a comparison to base an opinion on.

And based on my opinion the Preface where made to "mimic" electrostat sound, hence the closest match you're going to get.

Suffice to say everyone's opinion on what sounds "good" is different.

I didn't remark about your basis for comaprison. I simply disagree that a speaker sounds good (including ML) because it is expensive.

And blanket statements like "And the closest thing to electrostat performance you're going to get without shelling out the $$$ is also from ML" are simply not accurate.

[Woody]

Originally Posted by RUR

Sorry, I assumed (and we all know what that means ) overall detail, including mids. Yes, it's easier to do for the high end since the mass required is much smaller and becomes comparable to ESL's inherent advantages. A couple of points to remember: ML's "diaphragm" is incredibly light - lighter, in fact, than the air it's moving. Light weight = low inertia = fast response = fidelity to the source waveforms. ML's single "diaphragm" for both mids and highs means no crossover, at all. This avoids phase shift issues at the crossover point found even in the best crossover designs, typically in the upper mid/lower treble.

At the end of the day, "detail" may be overrated. Most of the knocks I've heard re: ML's are that they're too detailed. IIRC and a few years back, one reviewer compared their sound to reading large type using a microscope under a 500W light. Everyone's speaker preferences are different. That's just the way it is.

+1

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Woody

+1

10-4 Oh and I considered your brand also - but....I'm not ready for Von's yet. Pocket.....screaming....even..in....used market! But they are drop dead gorgeous!!!!!

[Woody]

Originally Posted by prerich

10-4 Oh and I considered your brand also - but....I'm not ready for Von's yet. Pocket.....screaming....even..in....used market! But they are drop dead gorgeous!!!!!

Yeah they are. Too bad there are so few places to hear them.

[musicman1999]

I have heard the 680 series speakers a fair bit and they are not remotely close to Logans nor the JM Labs be series. I found the 683 to have a shrill over emphasized highs and i think people mistake this for "detail". I really did not like the 6 series at all.

bill