Speaker head to head

[snorbans]

I have recruited a modern speaker to the fold, b w 685's, which I'm keen to compare on the end of my Yamaha receiver and computer based files. These to go up against a ditton 44 and BW DM2. I'm not sold on vintage i just prefer to avoid sales talk. I won't have time to listen to them for a few days so wondered if anyone would like to predict the outcome? Alternatively other head to heads could be reported on, I love to read these

[struth]

A good set of DM2's are pretty good, so they will have to go some to beat them. If your dm's are good un's I'll go for them.

[snorbans]

I believe my DM2 to be good un's. Ugly weigh a tonne, unbelievably cheap, lacking the absolute bass the ditton can provide. Can a small speaker like the 685 provide that, but the quality of the DM2 are in the mid range, well see

[michaelgb]

I believe my DM2 to be good un's. Ugly weigh a tonne, unbelievably cheap, lacking the absolute bass the ditton can provide. Can a small speaker like the 685 provide that, but the quality of the DM2 are in the mid range, well see

Hows the listening going ?

[PhilofCas]

not very well by the look of it :)

[snorbans]

sorry if you having been eagerly waiting for the answer. I wanted to compare modern vs vintage speakers as I'm pretty new to hi fi, or at least finally I have the space and money to indulge, and how can I know that what i read is accurate. I read how wonderful vintage gear can sound and the downside of modern - i went for vintage. I'm going to come to this with lots of prejudices aren't I, plus the amp is vintage, really a modern amp would be a further test and there are many tempting modern amps to go for, with their remotes and connectivity.

The answer though, in this imperfect test, is that I'm really impressed with the B W 685 and what the small box achieves. The weakness is mainly the mid range which is what I would expect from my reading. Alongside B W DM2 (addressed to Mr DM2) they image better, for the DM2's a weakness, 685 better/ more bass if not completely 'real', DM2 wins by a mile on treble and those frequencies that release the mid range from the box.

Then alongside DM5, which is maybe the most comparative model separated by 40 years, same but DM5 are fantastic at imaging, though less bass. The 685's midrange, say quite high pitched female vocals, Joni Mitchell, just sound synthetic and closed in. I would say both speakers have +'s and -'s's and I could live with either. With modern music, say Rudimental, its not so noticeable as there is a thick and busy midrange. Crumble by Dinosaur jr sounded a mess on the 685's as the wall of sound had far too much mortar to resolve anything.

The real star of the collection though is my newly recapped blackie Ditton 44's. Bottom top and good mids, not quite B W mid/ high, but the overall package will keep me very happy:)

So while my loft sound room is not touched by female thinking I can accommodate the big box of the Ditton, though I'm sorely tempted to get some Tannoy DC's now vintage has shown to be a winner

If I was needing to mesh with the decor, well I might have to settle for the 685's, in white and a chintzy doily. I was impressed enough to suppose there are good modern speakers every bit as musical as the Ditton's out there, but I suspect I would have to go to higher price points than the 685's, Harbeths for example, and vintage is has more fun to it than plain ole capital outlay

[snorbans]

Far too kind to the BW 685. Any more head to heads to report? Anyone able to expand on NS1000 vs ditton 44's or 66's?

[snorbans]

Next up Ar3a vs celestion ditton coupled with a recapped yamaha cr800 or a Marantz 1060 that is all original

[walpurgis]

Far too kind to the BW 685. Any more head to heads to report? Anyone able to expand on NS1000 vs ditton 44's or 66's?

The 44s don't compete in that company. The 66s are lovely, but are not as analytical as the NS1000. Both great speakers though.

[Michael loves music]

Very interesting Reading but I'm very happy with my 40 year old Mordaunt short pageant 2 speakers ! How would they stand up in this company Geoff ? Bowers and Wilkins speakers going for crazy money is a lot of it the name ???

[walpurgis]

Very interesting Reading but I'm very happy with my 40 year old Mordaunt short pageant 2 speakers ! How would they stand up in this company Geoff ? Bowers and Wilkins speakers going for crazy money is a lot of it the name ???

Hi Michael. It's hard to say why, but I'd sooner use the Pageant 2 speakers than a pair of 44s. I've had both on the end of my system and to me the Mordaunt Shorts are more musical! The 44s are, if you've not heard anything better, quite impressive, but I find them a bit leaden and the mid is not the best around. I can't think of a B&W speaker I'd want to own. I guess it is the name that sells them. Dunno why. But there again, people buy Bose thinking they've bought into the ultimate. :rolleyes:

[snorbans]

I'm not sure B W speakers are going for crazy money. DM2's £50 - 100, DM5 £100, DM4's £150 all e bay for good condition speakers. How isn't any of those a bargain? The ditton 44's, also a bargain can't be a mile from the 66's (or the DM2 from the BC1) the 66's look anything but a bargain but its all about those small improvements isn't it.

Anyway I found the 44's to be a more fun listen than the DM2's stemming from the full sound from the larger woofer, better imaging and the slight colouration (where I realise colouration can be a good thing for the right music). Now the AR3a provides a full sound, fantastic bass, natural sound that compliments the Yamaha. I now love this set up and am in (short lived) audio heaven

[snorbans]

The pagent 2's reviews and pictures don't support that previous view (its more important to have a view than to have the right one). I have a switch to switch between amplifiers and a separate one to switch in speakers. Anyway a (close to bargain and visually perfect for £120) Marantz 1060, gives me pause for thought and reveals the pointlessness of these comparisons, I'm learning. The combination of the 44's and the 1060 is IMO as good a listen (very close sounding) as the Yamaha CR 800/ Ar3a's, they seem a lot less coloured so we can only comment on the matches we have made with the condition of the pieces we have. Of course the power of the Marantz (30w/channel into 8) might not be enough to drive the 4 Ohm Ar3a's. Of course the switches could be degrading the sound and of course I might be deaf. I'll have to decide what to sell or more to the point what next to buy in this audio pass the parcel I'm currently engaged on, filling the hole left by 20 years of not indulging the hobby - the Quad 44/405 is in my sights, solidly back to the UK after an unexpected sojourn to US equipment. Now what speakers would work with those not wishing to go down the electrostatic route

[Reffc]

The pagent 2's reviews and pictures don't support that previous view (its more important to have a view than to have the right one). I have a switch to switch between amplifiers and a separate one to switch in speakers. Anyway a (close to bargain and visually perfect for £120) Marantz 1060, gives me pause for thought and reveals the pointlessness of these comparisons, I'm learning. The combination of the 44's and the 1060 is IMO as good a listen (very close sounding) as the Yamaha CR 800/ Ar3a's, they seem a lot less coloured so we can only comment on the matches we have made with the condition of the pieces we have. Of course the power of the Marantz (30w/channel into 8) might not be enough to drive the 4 Ohm Ar3a's. Of course the switches could be degrading the sound and of course I might be deaf. I'll have to decide what to sell or more to the point what next to buy in this audio pass the parcel I'm currently engaged on, filling the hole left by 20 years of not indulging the hobby - the Quad 44/405 is in my sights, solidly back to the UK after an unexpected sojourn to US equipment. Now what speakers would work with those not wishing to go down the electrostatic route

Nothing too demanding. 6 to 8 ohm nominal load without silly steep phase angles in the LF. Avoid anything power hungry or very reactive and they'll do ok. Nominally 4 Ohm possibly not a great match (many so called 4 Ohm loads can dip to 2 Ohms...plenty of examples. I remember the Darius speakers I had for refurbishment here. They tested at 1.7 Ohms!)

[DSJR]

I'd like to hear some 3A's again, especially the 'Improved' ones that came out right at the end, as they had a more 'modern' and less 'nasal' balance I remember. 2AX's are fun as well (treble turned up and mid backed off a little from distant memory) and of course there's the model that replaced the AR3a - was it the AR12? as well as the more complex and very collectable 10Pi.. All these need main drivers re-foaming now and collectors are shoving used prices through the stratosphere sadly.

If you can still find a pair cheap enough, why not look out for some KEF 104AB's? the bass was always better than DM2's (either model) and significantly better than BC1's on rock music, the mids were fine and the slightly dead perspective and hashy screech of the originals was very much improved by the AB crossovers. Modern sources transform them further I remember, the ABR's not flapping about as they used to with wayward 1970's and 1980's vinyl sources.

There's a lovely pair of IMF TLS50's, as well as some Super Compacts, going here at the moment. Either should see the DM2's off in the bass anyway, if not the treble.

[snorbans]

Actually the Marantz 1060 isn't just supplying enough power to drive the Ar3as, the bass is missing. I must try using the 1060 as a pre for the yamaha and see how that turns out.

The KEF reference series 103 and 104 are easier to drive and would be ideal, mm change the amps or the speakers. I think at this stage the quad 44/405 can provide watts and scope for upgrade

[DSJR]

I remember the KEF R103 as being a bit 'soft' as was the 101 (too much relying on computer design methinks and not quite enough listening). The 104ab had a bit of life to it (the T27 tweeter was always a little bit of a whizzer, but never in an unpleasant manner IMO).

The later Quad 44 did sound better to me, the first ones being a bit 'dead.' I believe it's all in the op amps used and dada have interesting updates available. It's my opinion that the 405 MUST be a mk2, as there are a few issues with the mk1, in my opinion due to layout as well as severe current limiting, which had a negative effect on their own 57 speakers I remember from personal experience. Loads on the internet about doing up early ones..

[Gordon Steadman]

I remember the KEF R103 as being a bit 'soft' as was the 101 (too much relying on computer design methinks and not quite enough listening). The 104ab had a bit of life to it (the T27 tweeter was always a little bit of a whizzer, but never in an unpleasant manner IMO).

The later Quad 44 did sound better to me, the first ones being a bit 'dead.' I believe it's all in the op amps used and dada have interesting updates available. It's my opinion that the 405 MUST be a mk2, as there are a few issues with the mk1, in my opinion due to layout as well as severe current limiting, which had a negative effect on their own 57 speakers I remember from personal experience. Loads on the internet about doing up early ones..

This just shows how we expect different things from hi-fi. To describe the 101s as 'soft' seems bizarre to me. Lively as hell and extremely musical. More so now that treble is tamed a little with the LS35a grilles and felts. I luvem almost as much as the ESLs.

So many systems I hear sound too bright to me and lose the tonality and sonority that I value.

[snorbans]

I read that the Quad 405 don't do well with 'Awkward loads like 4ohms' which wouldn't make it a useful choice still the upgrade potential looks fun and I shouldn't be limited by the Ar3as.

Marantz 1060 pre to cr800 main worked very well revealing the Marantz chocolate bass to the yamaha vanilla. Very nice

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Hi
They never the less, sound great with Gale GS401a , the last time I measured
the gales they were 3.6 ohms. a history of Gale also providing that the 405
and 303 (both amps inviting mono block use ) were good sounding with the 401.
http://0339436.netsolhost.com/WordPress/gs401-speaker/

I enjoy my net audio Mk3 405, its a very nice amp with the 401a, particularly
when connected to you know what preamp, far better than a 44 that should be
in the rubbish bin in comparison.

Cheers / Chris

[spendorman]

This just shows how we expect different things from hi-fi. To describe the 101s as 'soft' seems bizarre to me. Lively as hell and extremely musical. More so now that treble is tamed a little with the LS35a grilles and felts. I luvem almost as much as the ESLs.

So many systems I hear sound too bright to me and lose the tonality and sonority that I value.

Many years ago I sat my 15 Ohm Chartwell LS3/5a's on top of my Quad ESL 63's. Switching between the two was a surprise, very similar balance of sound. One wondered if all that big ELS63 was worthwhile.

[snorbans]

Sorry did I miss something, what is 'you know what pre'? You've sold me on the 405-2 + mod

[snorbans]

Well an old thread but at least I can record my thoughts now having listened a while longer... and added another pair of speakers. Amplification options being 405-2 + 34 and a CR800

Ditton 44, my respect keeps growing, they are a fun listen. I suspect they would suit most amplifiers, they are easy to drive and have a wonderful natural vintage sound, a little coloured and you feel sometimes boxed in but they are not at all disgraced by this company. I'm really happy that I had to implement all the forum recommendations to get them this far, but they have been easily worth the not huge investment.

The Ar3a, big big bass, I find bass down treble up is necessary and it requires quite some volume to get a really satisfying sound, but then I tend to listen to these more than any other at the moment. The treble end is I think 'soft', which can be good but not always, Joni Mitchell's voice can sound a bit lost, particularly at lower volumes. Better from the higher power of the Quad than the Yamaha

Tannoy Devon, had to go dual concentric. I could add a lot to these but in the raw, and not greatest condition (the foam is going), switches maxed, they do everything well and smoothly without buckets of anything. Bass is more controlled than the Ar3a and well the only problem is I'm sitting thinking how much better it could go with some investment on reconing and a crossover build and new cabinet is tempting, that could be both fun and rewarding.

I'll probably sell one of the 3, its a lot of wood, but all 5 vintage speakers I have tried (others being B W DM2a, DM5) have provided hours of good listening. I miss the DM5 a little, I respected their treble. So I'll probably invest a bunch into the tannoy and also explore modern speakers but really go upmarket, ATC or Harbeth, seeking treble and bass to get that DM5 detail with a big bass to underscore it, too much to try to much to learn to be satisfied just yet.

[danilo]

Keep the Tannoys :-) refoam as necessary .. why recone : holes in them? Voice coils burnt?
Do Replace the Caps in the OEM Crossovers
(Not much/nothing else needs replacing, despite claims from those with an Agenda)
Been there..I've foolishly tried 'most all' crossover molestations.
Waste of: time / energy / $$..with the clarity of hindsight
Tannoys are Extremely ! responsive to ancillary gear improvements, wires even.. can be audible (if the upstream gear is good enough)
After 40 years... I've yet.. to hear speakers that have made me want to replace my tannoys.
just My 2 cents.

[struth]

Can be difficult sometimes finding your "right" speakers. I should know, as i went through a few. Being a mid plus a bit person i ended up settling on fullrange ones. I doubt i will go back now.

[walpurgis]

Yes. Keep the Tannoys. Replace foam surrounds rather than replacing cones. Aged, original cones with new surrounds sound better than new cone replacements. All to do with established break up modes in the original paper pulp cone material I reckon. New Tannoy replacement cones take ages to 'break in' properly. They also seem to be made of rather harder material (Chinese?).

If you want to know how to do the surrounds. Ask!