![]() ![]() There is little interest in exploring other possibilities, perhaps that the cheapest model may have different design goals, or that the flagship 800-series actually do sound pretty good, or that due to the circle of confusion theory, B&W response curves may actually be preferable on some recordings after all. How can you possibly generalize the "sound" of B&W speakers based on measurements of the cheapest loudspeaker that B&W makes currently? Well let's call it what it is - there are folks here who simply want that "affirmation" that their perceptions of B&W speakers are overpriced/too-bright/etc. ![]() The 700-series is a noticeable step up, and the 800-series is what B&W is known for (these are the models frequently used as monitors in classical music recording studios, including Abbey Road). While I agree that the response does not predict a neutral/preferred sound signature, I am bewildered by the volume of replies that seem to focus on how Amir's measurements prove/confirm that B&W speakers, in general, sound horrible/piercing/too bright/etc.Īs a couple of people have pointed out, the 600-series is not B&W's flagship line - in fact, it is the lowest/cheapest series of loudspeakers they currently manufacture. ![]() The term "schadenfreude" was even thrown around. There have been a lot of replies here that seem to be celebrating the non-conforming frequency response measurements from the B&W 607S2. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |