John Atkinson Perplexed By B&W 804D

[bhobba]

When you listened to the 804D's Bill what did you think of them?

 

I posted that before .  Grungy midrange, bright and over etched.

 

Added later:

Apologies.  I think I didn't mention it on this forum but elsewhere so its quite likely it wasn't noticed.

 

I heard it when I was Canberra way a while ago now.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited August 21, 2013 by bhobba

[bhobba]

This scenario is possible but not probable. John Atkinson have written an earlier editorial in which he declared his reviewers would always ensure their comments are consistent with the measurements. 

 

Read the review and judge for yourself.  IMHO it didn't.

 

Thanks

Bill 

[bhobba]

Deleted - clarified in previous post

Edited August 21, 2013 by bhobba

[Art Vandelay]

art,

im abit confused, are you talking about power response? less power to excite the dome the higher the freq goes?

most tweeter measures pretty flat, especially soft domes. lower cost alum dome do have tendency ringing on 20khz and up, but most modern tweeter now have reasonably flat response.

 

Henry, 

 

Sorry if I confused you. I was indeed referring to on-axis response. Power response for any tweeter should be flat but of course there's no such thing as a zero mass radiator, so beyond a certain frequency the power response begins to fall and this also happens to offset the rising response on-axis to some extent. As you correctly point out, metal dome resonance is typically somewhere between 20 - 30kHz. The B&W Diamond tweeter is very low mass and very rigid and hence the natural resonance is pushed out to 70kHz. 

 

Do most modern tweeters have a reasonably flat on-axis response? 

With soft domes the radiating area tends to slightly self limit but mostly it's the higher mass that creates an earlier power response droop which counters the rising on-axis response. 

 

 

 

   

 

 

  

[bhobba]

Bill is having a crack, based on something he read, not something he experienced. The clincher is, Bill is having a crack at somebody who is doing what Bill has been suggesting we all should be doing eg 'listening' & 'trust your ears'.

 

Well since we have people claiming to be inside my mind and conjecturing all sorts of things it might be wise for me to be as plain as I can be.

 

If a speaker strays this far from accuracy it should be easily heard - any experienced reviewer should and would be able to hear it.  The Hi Fi World review was plain - it was bright - I find it hard to believe the Sterophile reviewer didn't hear it but for some reason didn't tell it like it is.

 

Thanks

Bill 

[Nada]

Rememebr the room is the dominate system "component". 

 

After that the ear canals. 

 

No speaker has a sound independent of the context.

[Briz Vegas]

Measured response of 804s for comparison with Stereophile measurements, for those that have the Stereophile article. This was done by an magazine called Secrets of Home Theatre back in 2005.

[bhobba]

Measured response of 804s for comparison with Stereophile measurements, for those that have the Stereophile article. This was done by an magazine called Secrets of Home Theatre back in 2005.

 

That's the 804S - the measurements and review was of the D.  The measurements were pretty much the same as Hi Fi world except for a slightly more pronounced bass hump that John Atkinson thought was an artifact of the measurement itself:

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/loudspeakers/65-reviews/501-baw-804d-.html?start=3

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited August 21, 2013 by bhobba

[LHC]

Ok, I have located that John Atkinson editorial I referred to earlier: http://www.stereophile.com/content/if-it-sounds-good

 

Here is a relevant quote: 'To return to the head of this little diatribe, therefore, when you read that a component "sounds good but measures bad," you must examine what basis the writer has for determining the meaning of the word "good." To sound good, a product must at least offer competent engineering, I feel, and it may turn out that "sounding good" does not necessarily mean the same to some listeners as "neutral" or "accurate." My role as editor of this magazine is to ensure that, for Stereophile writers at least, it always does.—John Atkinson'

[Briz Vegas]

Yes, correct bhobba. The point was to compare the previous version of the speaker that was less well received than the current version, which I think was more neutral than the current one. Comparing the two reviews measurements ( a bit dodgy I suspect) the D has much more treble bump in the graph. It's hard to compare impedance with that 804D graph.

I am quite familiar with the n804, n804 signature, 804S and 804 diamond model progression. Of course it can be confusing when someone's uses the generic 804s vs the 804S, I write it with a small s sometimes ( in this thread even).

Edited August 21, 2013 by Briz Vegas

[henry218]

and yet hifiworld gave 5 star for it...

Edited August 21, 2013 by henry218

[fetischizm]

dont be silly  can we leave out the word games do you think? you know very well what I mean, they controlled the response and left a peak, thus skewing the resulting response upwards. leaving a rising response in a speaker like this, when you have the ability to correct it (more ability, knowledge and funding than just about anywhere on the planet, given its a custom driver built by them), is a deliberate act, thus is an act to skew the frequency response. I would say measurements at a reasonable short distance like i'm sure John did (mostly removing room effects), backed with subjective report above make a pretty decent case for the effect being there. 

 

clearly i'm talking to a fanboy here, so i'll leave it here.

Edited August 21, 2013 by fetischizm

[tuyen]

Not so fast.    Unless the speaker has uniform directivity, then EQing away such a bump may cause a lot worse problem than it solves.

 

This is how EQ got a bad name.   People misuse it.

 

Are you sure that is the reason why EQ got a bad name?  

 

Why do recording/mastering studios need any EQ functionality in the first place?  Would you say they misuse it as well?  Especially since recording mics are already calibrated?      Why did EQ used to be such a common feature on gear made in the golden age of hifi?

 

Which people misuse it?  Yourself?

[bhobba]

I am quite familiar with the n804, n804 signature, 804S and 804 diamond model progression. Of course it can be confusing when someone's uses the generic 804s vs the 804S, I write it with a small s sometimes ( in this thread even).

 

I am not familiar at all with their progression in any kind of gradual sense.  I am pretty sure I heard it down in Canberra at Miranda Hi Fi.  They were going ga ga over it saying it was the best sound they ever heard.  I simply just didn't get it.  The recent B&W's simply don't do it for me.  Many, many years ago when I was fairly new to Hi Fi I called into Miranda as one of the main stores down there and heard B&W - the thing I remember was the salesman who I knew from another Hi FI Store I got Gale 402's from a few years before (a mighty good speaker in its time) pointed out how they disappeared - and they did - it was the first time I ever heard that.  B&W impressed back then.  But not now.

 

Has this been a gradual thing, did it happen suddenly - or is it just me?

 

Thanks

Bill

[Newman]

please explain how deliberately skewing the on axis response, improves the off axis response enough as to make it an improvement overall? 

 

It's a valid approach, if the maker is clear about what he is doing.

 

One of the Euro brands (pretty sure it's Dali) quite deliberately skews the on-axis response, so they can get the 30 deg response 'right' (at least for some models). They tell you to fire the speaker straight down the room and listen 30 deg off axis. Their thinking is that the sound the speaker sprays off the side wall to the listener (first reflection) is also coming from 30 deg off axis -- and so the listener gets a consistent direct and reflected tonal balance, which is desirable. The (deliberately skewed) on-axis sound shoots to the back of the room and is lost (relatively). If the speaker had been toed in to the listener, the direct sound is at 0 deg and reflected is coming from 60 deg off axis, which is clearly a different sound balance. They think this is better overall. I can see the logic.

 

I have never heard mention of B&W taking such a deliberate approach, though.

[fetischizm]

if deliberately taking the path you mention, you would think it would be part of the literature, or at least they would have made John aware of it for his testing, being probably the highest profile speaker review/test in a publication on the planet, dont you think? do note that I did mention a trade off, but yes this will require instructions to make it pay off.

 

look I actually quite like B&W and tink in general they are one of the better speaker manufacturers around, but I also know that they had made an excellent speaker, which they then had to make a rather expensive and exclusive upgrade path for, to justify it, they need to make it sound different to make the sales. being a diamond driver, in buying it you would be hoping for very detailed treble, so it doesnt surprise me that this could be taken a bit far for some tastes. all completely assumptions on my part of course.

Edited August 21, 2013 by fetischizm

[leewood]

Rememebr the room is the dominate system "component". 

 

After that the ear canals. 

 

No speaker has a sound independent of the context.

I would put the ear first. We must remember our hearing degrades with age and there is nothing we can do about it.

 

Everyone's hearing degrades differently, but I believe the top end goes first, but a lot will depend on how we have treated them over the years.

 

Every set of speakers will sound different to every individual in every different room. IMO the only review worth taking notice of is your own.  

 

What you personally think is the best, regardless of price, will vary greatly between individuals.

 

This debate will continue on forever with no conclusion, and so may the discussion continue  

 

With the invention of electronic amplification and speakers we can now manipulate a "natural" sound to make it sound and feel the way each individual wants to hear it.

[Briz Vegas]

If all speakers sounded the same life would be pretty dull.

I think it's useful to know which models follow the Bose philosophy and therefore provide the audiophile with poor value for money.

Then there is the rest. With each model they struggle with compromises at their given price point. It's useful to know a speakers voicing to help you make a purchasing decision. I don't think brands have to put a frequency response sticker on the speaker.

The best source of information is listening for yourself, which is why we need hifi stores. A poor second is others opinions, but you have to take them with a big pinch of salt. I know at least a dozen obsessive audiophiles with systems over 10k and I have heard those systems. Each of those guys has a slightly different preference when it comes to music and what they feel is ideal ( that can even change depending on mood and program material).

I'm ok with what B&WW W have done, it's just not my preference. My 804S are just fine as rears, although they were not cheap they had their time as my mains so I am ok with that.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Briz Vegas

[davewantsmoore]

Measured response of 804s for comparison

 

The scale on those measurements is very coarse unfortunately.

 

 

 

I note that the spec sheet for the 804D says:      38Hz - 28kHz ±3dB on reference axis

[davewantsmoore]

Are you sure that is the reason why EQ got a bad name?

 

Why do recording/mastering studios need any EQ functionality in the first place?  Would you say they misuse it as well?  Especially since recording mics are already calibrated?      Why did EQ used to be such a common feature on gear made in the golden age of hifi?

 

Which people misuse it?  Yourself?

 

 

Recording engineers are EQing a recording.... not a speaker.... it's a completely different scenario .... c'mon mate I thought you would understand that ?!?!     :nana

 

 .....  For me personally it is difficult to point at an "artist" and say you have "misused" EQ .... we must make the assumption that they know what they're doing.   (Their art is a personal choice ... where as designing a playback system is hardly "art" IMO)

 

 

When a speaker doesn't have the same spectral balance at one angle than another.... then EQing the speaker for one angle, will leave the response at the other angle "wrong".    This is why you just can't (sensibly) look at a hump and say  "I'll remove that with EQ" .... without knowing more about the hump.

 

My point here is that it is possible that flattening the hump on the 804D could very well be a "bad" idea..... unless it was done through physical means  (not through an electrical filter).    ie.  redesign the tweeter.   Move the tweeter, or change the crossover drastically.

 

 

Similarly.... in the modal region of a room... you cannot just apply EQ to a hump, without understanding what is causing the hump..... if the hump is caused by buildup of energy overtime, then taking away the "hump" by altering the initial/direct sound ... will still leave the buildup overtime, which can become stronger compared to the initial sound .... and now you have more "ringing".

 

EQ is not simple.

 

 

I try not to misuse "EQ"  ...   Most of the time I would call it "crossover design" (cos that's where it's being used) ......    but have done so many times, of course.

[ArthurDent]

I posted that before .  Grungy midrange, bright and over etched.

 

Thanks for posting Bill and in keeping with other threads with differing opinions on speakers can we put it down to the ancillary equipment, the room and personal preferences.

[ArthurDent]

I would say measurements at a reasonable short distance like i'm sure John did (mostly removing room effects), backed with subjective report above make a pretty decent case for the effect being there.

 

Personally I think the "reasonable short distance" is part of the problem. On axis tweeter response, in room or otherwise varies wildly with distance and the only in room tweeter response that really matters is what you meaure at a normal seating distance, somewhere around 3 metres. Room effects have minimal effect on top end response other than distance of course which will always attenuate it.

[bhobba]

Thanks for posting Bill and in keeping with other threads with differing opinions on speakers can we put it down to the ancillary equipment, the room and personal preferences.

 

In any single listen at a Hi Fi retailer, especially one that is going ga ga over them, which personally I find a bit off-putting, its quite possible.  Of course personal preferences 100% for sure - but the other stuff is a bit harder to know.  To really get to the bottom of any Hi Fi product you need the input of many audiophiles as to what they think.  What I have noticed with B&W is they polarize - some people passionately love em others - well not.  This is from a large pool of audiophiles so I think we can safely assume those that are not so enamored with them do so for reasons other than system matching - that's on the whole of course - in any individual case its hard to tell unless you are there yourself.  And we can also assume from those that really love em it's a personal preference sort of thing - they have a house sound that in their more recent speakers some seem to love and others don't.

 

We have discussed 802d's before and their treble hump and midrange suck-out - that's old news. The purpose of this post was to discuss Sterophiles interesting take on it.  John Atkinson is bemused why they did this.  He, correctly, thinks B&W are capable of doing any type of frequency response and why they chose this is a mystery.  Yes it is a mystery but I suspect its they are only too well aware of the Hi Fi disease and cater to it.  The 802D's have the opposite problem - boomy bloated bass.  B&W can fix it easily but again I suspect its deliberate to cater to those that like that sort of thing - which many many do - as my neighbors that wind up their under-damped bloated systems attests - the thump thump of their bass is annoying in the extreme and shutting doors etc doesn't seem to do too much either.  But some people just seem to love it.

 

The other thing about the review was the closing statement that you are unlikely to do better.  That's simply an amazing statement in light of the measurements.  Yes many, many speakers have a hot treble and B&W are far from alone in this.  But for an experienced reviewer to not pick up on it is - well I think that is indicative of other underlying issues of a political nature such as not wanting to tick of advertises or jeopardize getting speakers to review so they do a bit of double speak with John Atkinson saying one thing and the reviewer another.  Any semi intelligent person can read between the lines I think, but I would rather not see it in the first place.  The correct conclusion of the review should have been, IMHO, these speakers have an accentuated treble.  Don't be put off by that - many speakers do and many audiophiles love them, but they have strayed from accuracy.  Not they cant be bettered - because measurements clearly show they can in a very key area.  The Hi Fi World review was similar as well I have to add - Noel Keywood also slagged off at them for the treble hump - but the actual review, while being very complementary, did point out the treble emphasis.  Sterophile should have done the same but chose political double speak instead.

 

Thanks

Bill

Edited August 22, 2013 by bhobba

[hochopeper]

I note that the spec sheet for the 804D says:      38Hz - 28kHz ±3dB on reference axis

 

 

Not having actually done the leg work on this one but after lightly skimming this thread ... I have a question. Are the measurements presented in the review at 0deg or at 'reference axis' ? (which may mean a different angle entirely) 

[gainphile]

The other thing about the review was the closing statement that you are unlikely to do better.  That's simply an amazing statement in light of the measurements.  Yes many, many speakers have a hot treble and B&W are far from alone in this.  But for an experienced reviewer to not pick up on it is - well I think that is indicative of other underlying issues of a political nature such as not wanting to tick of advertises or jeopardize getting speakers to review so they do a bit of double speak with John Atkinson saying one thing and the reviewer another.

Thanks

Bill

 

Stereophile is not exactly an independent reviewer in the first place. Their existence relies on advertisers which whom their products are being reviewed. There is a vested interest.

 

They also relies on their readers who might have thought their articles are unbiased to subscribe and buy the magazine.

 

I like visiting Stereophile website and I don't see this as 'evil'. It's just 'business'.