View Full Version : cold, sterile highend sound!!!
bkgengwe
06-08-2012, 07:15
I had the opportunity to listen to B&W 802D's fed by Classe monoblocks, for the second time. anybody that knows, knows that I lust after those 802's like an addict lusts after the next fix. but for the second time, I was left disapponted by classe mono blocks coonected to 802's!!!! yes the sound stage is excellent, the space between the instruments is excellent, the voice is centered and i could hear subtle cues and more detail and the amp were not struggling and more more...but I kept wondering, but where's the music? i have heard the 802 on a parasound amp, boy oh boy, that is better than the best orgasm you have had! I'm not taking a dig at highend and excuse me if I come across as doing so, but is highend all about cold mathematical analysis than good all musical magic?!! I want to hear music and want to tap my foot more than I'm concerned about the placing of the cymbal!!
realysm42
06-08-2012, 07:22
Synergy!
Martin's right - it's down to synergy, or lack of it. I've heard many a high end system (especially the products distributed by Absolute Sounds) where various super-high-end amps and speakers are assembled and create the most clinical and musically dead systems imaginable.
Audioman
06-08-2012, 08:11
It's ironic that B&W distribute (own?) Classe. I can only imagine this produces the studio monitor sound they are aiming for and suits their particular market. I would have thought something with valve warmth and power would more suit the B&W Diamond series. Unfortunately never heard such a combination but I am sure there is a great speaker there waiting to be unleashed.
jandl100
06-08-2012, 08:16
.... i have heard the 802 on a parasound amp, boy oh boy, that is better than the best orgasm you have had! ....
Ah well - there's a clue. Parasound amp! :thumbsup: :D
i have heard the 802 on a parasound amp, boy oh boy, that is better than the best orgasm you have had!!
So that's your music sorted out. You now need a different forum to sort out your sex life. :eek:
jandl100
06-08-2012, 08:41
:lol:
The same happens in reverse, too. Every time I have heard Chord Electronics demonstrate their amps with Wilson Benesch speakers, I cringe. Talk about lack of synergy, I hardly recognise my amp from listening to their demo setups :eek:
In my system, the Chord is detailed, flowing, dynamic and not at all harsh. Can't wait to compare it with the Parasound, though.
hifi_dave
06-08-2012, 09:20
As above - synergy is the key.
I'm not a lover of many modern speakers as they are becoming brighter, harder, uninvolving and sterile. Maybe it's to make them stand out in a demo but couple those to a bright amp, throw in some Nordost cables and you're into uncomfortable territory. Listen to the information but forget the music..:rolleyes:
Audioman
06-08-2012, 09:24
The same happens in reverse, too. Every time I have heard Chord Electronics demonstrate their amps with Wilson Benesch speakers, I cringe. Talk about lack of synergy, I hardly recognise my amp from listening to their demo setups :eek:
In my system, the Chord is detailed, flowing, dynamic and not at all harsh. Can't wait to compare it with the Parasound, though.
That explains why I have been unimpressed by Chord at show dems. Frankly could not see why such high cost for the sound except the fancy casework. The only decent thing Wilson Benesch did was their long discontinued 'proper' turntable.
The same happens in reverse, too. Every time I have heard Chord Electronics demonstrate their amps with Wilson Benesch speakers, I cringe.
Totally agree. I HATED Chord amps until I heard yours, used in a proper system! Your SPM-1200E is now one of the best SS power amps I've heard. Looking forward to the forthcoming power amp comparison, with Jerry :)
I bet that WB speakers are designed on computer, using measurements as the pretty much the sole arbiter for sound quality - it would certainly explain their musical blandness and sterility ;)
Marco.
jandl100
06-08-2012, 13:03
Totally agree. I HATED Chord amps until I heard yours, used in a proper system! Your SPM-1200E is now one of the best SS power amps I've heard. Looking forward to the forthcoming power amp comparison, with Jerry :)
Yep, despite all the forum hype about Chord amps having sterile bright sound, I kept an open mind and when a Chord 2600 integrated came along at a decent price I went for it. Darn glad I did, too - very musical and not a sign of forwardness or sterility - in fact, I reckon it was just a tad laid back! :thumbsup:
twelvebears
06-08-2012, 16:22
The only decent thing Wilson Benesch did was their long discontinued 'proper' turntable.
Really? Having used my ACT speakers with several different amps, I can't agree. They do sound very different with different amps though.
That said, I've not heard any other WBs so can't comment beyond my ACT models.
I bet that WB speakers are designed on computer, using measurements as the pretty much the sole arbiter for sound quality - it would certainly explain their musical blandness and sterility ;)
Marco.
I can assure you they didn't used to be Marco, but on the end of huge Classe mono amps and with a vinyl only source, the older ones were ok. Trouble is, the Act 1's I had (with Taktik drivers) were horrible in the system I then had (ATC SCA2 with matching big cosmetic power amp) and the two didn't work together at all well, although the ATC amp pair had a velvet coated fist into other speakers. Had the room been better, the Harbeth HL5's I had (1991 approx vintage) at the same time, with some damping added inside the box to tame the tonal warmth (done far better these days with the new drivers and bozes), would have eaten them alive despite the old fashioned looks (wider box and foam fronts). I'd lost the audio muse at this time, the living room was awful for acoustics, our son was a baby/toddler and stresses at home and loss of my Dad caused turmoil that continued until our move to laid-back Suffolk :)
Modern Spendors and harbeths are designed PRIMARILY using software to get the basic design right. THEN the listening and fine tuning begins and I think there are now too many very happy Harbeth owners here who love their music to feel the sound in any way sterile and clinical. of course, people who ONLY use out-dated test equipment will deride passively driven speakers in any form and Harbeth in particular - they boom and are harsh apparently :rolleyes:
As for B&W, it seems that increases in tweeter technology have been counterbalanced by cruder crossovers with wider driver overlap. I never liked the bigger N800's whenever I heard them, but the Matrix 801's and most 805 models always appealed, but the 801's NEED a properly matched amp, the HH pro models used in studios with them very harsh toned... Interestingly, the pair of pre-"M" models my friend inherited when B&W upgraded his mastering room sounded excellent on a powerful Denon AV receiver. No boom, no fizz and a delightfully tactile midband worthy of "monitor" status..
Maybe it would be better to look out for older M802 models pre Nautilus for domestic use possibly?
It's more than likely a personal thing but I've never heard a decent sound coming out of 801's whatever system they have been attached to, and I've listened to quit a few. They always sound way too bright to me...
I've found that the 801D's are significantly better than the previous version. Whilst it is tempting to say this is because of the tweeter, I don't think that is the reason at all. The D apparently uses a more compliant midrange suspension and a lower order, less complex (relatively) crossover than before, and I think those are the actual reasons they sound so much better.
Having said that B&W have long been keen on complex, component heavy, crossovers. Despite the undeniable technical sophistication (if you want examples of bang up to date, cutting edge, driver design, you need look no further than B&W), they have always sounded dynamically flat and bland - unless you drive them with some massive amp - which themselves, often sound shit!
I've found that the 801D's are significantly better than the previous version. Whilst it is tempting to say this is because of the tweeter, I don't think that is the reason at all. The D apparently uses a more compliant midrange suspension and a lower order, less complex (relatively) crossover than before, and I think those are the actual reasons they sound so much better.
Having said that B&W have long been keen on complex, component heavy, crossovers. Despite the undeniable technical sophistication (if you want examples of bang up to date, cutting edge, driver design, you need look no further than B&W), they have always sounded dynamically flat and bland - unless you drive them with some massive amp - which themselves, often sound shit!
Which is why I was particularly delighted when I discovered that DM2's come alive when driven by an Amptastic T-Amp, they are a great combination ;)
Are they - I'm not sure I would feel as enthusiastic. However, as I've not heard the combo, I'll take your word for it ;).
Hi Mark,
The vintage DM2s are proper B&Ws, before they started producing all the 'technologically advanced' (but sonically anodyne) pish they make now, which you correctly described in your previous post ;)
Having said that B&W have long been keen on complex, component heavy, crossovers. Despite the undeniable technical sophistication (if you want examples of bang up to date, cutting edge, driver design, you need look no further than B&W), they have always sounded dynamically flat and bland - unless you drive them with some massive amp - which themselves, often sound shit!
Too right!! They are :spew:
However, listen to a pair of DM2s, and compare them with B&W's current equivalents, and you'll hear exactly what I mean, in terms of the respective 'voicing' of both eras of the company's designs.
A classic example of how modern technology has NOT advanced the art of achieving ultimate sound quality (or musicality)!!
Marco.
Somewhat ironically, some of those manufacturers who make such a big deal about the progress of technology, actually don't use components that are 'cutting edge' in any real sense. Yet a manufacturer like B&W, who genuinely is at the forefront of drive unit technology, struggles to realise the sonic benefits of its supposed advances.
jandl100
06-08-2012, 20:13
Really? Having used my ACT speakers with several different amps, I can't agree. They do sound very different with different amps though.
That said, I've not heard any other WBs so can't comment beyond my ACT models.
:lol:
I thought that posting might attract your attention, Steve! :D
daytona600
06-08-2012, 21:17
did not really like 802 myself bit forward for my tastes Ending up buying usher Be10s myself one of the best real world speakers work well with SS ot tubes
Ending up buying usher Be10s myself one of the best real world speakers work well with SS ot tubes
Nice choice, Scott :)
Nice choice, Scott :)
They look great! Love the look (and sound!) of time-aligned speakers.
I have also heard a Classe Delta / B&W 802D system, which had ULTIMATE control at all frequencies, fabulous detail and separation, but no soul, too "studio monitoring" rather than real music. In fact, I'd rather have an old Exposure amp and a pair of Royds or something.
daytona600
06-08-2012, 21:54
Nice choice, Scott :)
Cheers martin Don,t know why more people dont buy ushers
great range top to bottom BE10 & 20s are superb
look great , WAF , great build quality & real world pricing
Do not buy them if you like the studio monitor sound - the are only Great at playing tunes - Mahler to metallica
It's interesting how manufacturers lose their way, I've thought the same of B&W and KEF for some time. In fact, the more they announce some wazzy new technology with a price to match, the more suspicious I get. These products rarely sound good.
Krell, too, lost their way after the fabulous KSA-50 and KSA-100 models. I mean, have you seen an FPB600? They're huge, but the sound is sterile. Old Wilson speakers were pretty poor, too, although the Sophia is wonderful. You have to sift through a lot of high end equipment to find the star performers, but they are definitely there. American Pass Labs and British Chord Electronics are two that I admire. And the Ushers, as Scott says, play very musically.
I'm bemused by some of the comments on B&W. The '683 for example is a superb loudspeaker, although it does need quite a lot of running in. You would struggle to better it at a grand new.
Martin, obviously I've never heard your system, or the Chord amp you have; but I have heard many Chord demonstrations and they do seem to have a strange ability to produce very poor sound at shows. A couple of times the sound has been bearable, but often it has been hard as nails - the very definition of the negative aspects associated with transistor amplification.
sq225917
07-08-2012, 09:02
There's lots of brands that sound awful at shows. Focal, Gamut, hell even Clearaudio manage to sound bad at shows. I've only twice been gobsmacked at a show. The first year Paul Benge did Heathrow with the MSB dac and amps and the Reference 3a Grand Veena speakers and the huge Absolute sounds room with the huge Tannoys.
Martin, obviously I've never heard your system, or the Chord amp you have; but I have heard many Chord demonstrations and they do seem to have a strange ability to produce very poor sound at shows. A couple of times the sound has been bearable, but often it has been hard as nails - the very definition of the negative aspects associated with transistor amplification.
Yep, I can't disagree with you Mark. I've even asked John Franks about it but he just takes it the wrong way rather than accepting it as constructive criticism. If you could hear my system you would understand that the Chord has no inherent harshness at all.
I would concur completely. Having heard Martin's Chord (and his system) many times now, cold, sterile or harsh it most certainly is not.
In fact, the last time we compared our amps, his Chord sounded not too dissimilar to my Copper amp, despite the two amps being the complete antithesis, in terms of design topology and technology - not to mention power output!! :)
Marco.
In fact, the last time we compared our amps, his Chord sounded not too dissimilar to my Copper amp
Eye opening, that was :)
Back in the day when I was first interested in good sound I noticed that the speakers available all had a downtilted frequency response. When I asked specialists they told me that most domestic listeners preferred the rolled off balance and pro monitors were considered harsh by HiFi fans.
Nowadays most modern speakers have flat frequency responses.I wonder if that is why there is a bit of a backlash in favour of older kit in some quarters??
(I am one of those who always favoured the level response so am not bothered by modern high tech kit, personally)
Back in the day, a lot of solid-state amps were harsh - Naim, Exposure, Meridian come to mind. No wonder speakers had a downward tilt and some warmth to compensate.
I'm with you, Frank. I prefer neutrality throughout the chain, balancing everything as best I can by good component choice and fine tweaking with cables etc. Definitely no tone controls here!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.