B&W Nautilus vs Sonus Faber Cremonas

I've read every post in this thread.
Wheres the tylenol!

tonedeaf said:

I've read every post in this thread.
Wheres the tylenol!

Click to expand...

The tylenol that was laced with cyanide, Kinda feel like all those poor folks that had to listen to Ted Striker's story

AJinFLA said:

Just go gently with the EQ and see if a small reduction at 4k works for you. It's possible more is needed elsewhere, but without measurements, you're flying blind, so you will just have to rely on you ears for now. My offer still stands if you are interested. Do you have a pic of the setup? Seems like you have a bit of asymmetry, but otherwise, a quite normally reverberant room.


. Unfortunately, audio is full of this type of feeble minded/used car sales BS. You should ask him to define the exact electrical properties (an amplifier is an electrical device with a transfer function) that define "musical". That would be worth a laugh .
He understands that some (highly susceptible) minds are affected by audio jewelry, so you can't blame him for trying

Then it seems that like me, you're stricken with something called 'common sense', a condition many audiophiles are immune to . This is exactly correct..and unlike "musicality" which exists only in the overactive imagination of the technically illiterate...the speaker/room combo is measurable, real, demonstrable...and correctable. The "demonstrable" part is up to you, mid-April.

cheers,

AJ

Click to expand...

AJ,

I appreciate all your help. I tried with the 4000hz adjustment but it didn't do much good. I have been listening mostly to my Sonus Faber Auditors integrated with my sub. My sub is definitely the weak link now. I ordered a REL B1 off the Gon and it should arriving any day.

I have to say though, I absolutely am in love with the Sonus Faber's. The imaging these speakers put out is amazing. The clarity and detail is superb and I can listen to them for hours.

I am pretty much set on selling my B&W's at this point and once I do, I will be purchasing a new pair of Cremona M's from a Sonus Faber dealer.

I think the Cremona's matched with a REL sub will be a great combo for me and from my experience thus far from the Auditors, I believe I have found my speaker of choice...

I really appreciate your offer to assist me, as well as bandphan and Chris's input. Thanks again for trying to help guys!

Gregg, just go with what you like most. Me personally I wouldn't listen to most of the people on the forums. Audio in general is all opinion. Theres no such things as, "this speaker is better", or "looking at this chart shows your problem". If it sounds good to you and you enjoy yourself just roll with it. I like the b&w's personally, and i've demo'd sonus faber speakers. I will say I prefered the b&w's over the sonas fabers. This doesn't mean I'm gonna bash on sonus faber, it just means I prefer the other. When it comes down to it we all hear differently. Good luck with the sonus faber purchase.

I sure wish I had the problem of trying to decide between Sonus Fabers and B&W's!
I did demo some 804's and Studio 100's didn't care for either.

Wanted to try the 100's at home but local dealer wanted 10% restocking if I brought them back

Leaning towards PSB's,demoing an SVS 7:1 system later on today.

Have fun with your new speakers.

Are you getting them from David? (US1 in Boca).

Likecoiledsteel said:

Are you getting them from David? (US1 in Boca).

Click to expand...

I met David and he's a super nice guy with some great speakers and equipment. I'll likely try and find a pair of pre-owned one's first when I'm ready. Sonus dealers really don't discount and these speakers are over $10,000 new. I believe $12,800 to be exact. That with tax puts me at around $13,500 and I believe that someone is selling a really good conditioned pair online now for around $7,600.

With the economy the way it is, the almost $6,000 in savings is substantial to me right now, so I likely will go the pre-owned route. If I were buying new though, David would be my guy. He's also a Wilson dealer and I heard a pair of Scaena speakers at his showroom. They sounded amazing....

greggp2 said:

I met David and he's a super nice guy with some great speakers and equipment. I'll likely try and find a pair of pre-owned one's first when I'm ready. Sonus dealers really don't discount and these speakers are over $10,000 new. I believe $12,800 to be exact. That with tax puts me at around $13,500 and I believe that someone is selling a really good conditioned pair online now for around $7,600.

With the economy the way it is, the almost $6,000 in savings is substantial to me right now, so I likely will go the pre-owned route. If I were buying new though, David would be my guy. He's also a Wilson dealer and I heard a pair of Scaena speakers at his showroom. They sounded amazing....

Click to expand...

I spoke to David a few times and went to his grand opening. Nice guy he is. They had invited me to meet Dave Wilson on the 5th, but I could not make it. I understand going used, no issues as long as they are clean, SF and B&W have been rasing prices the last few years as the $ tanked. The latest B&W's are pricey. Hopefully they will come down now that the $ has strengthened.

You will really enjoy the Cremonas.
Steel

Likecoiledsteel said:

I spoke to David a few times and went to his grand opening. Nice guy he is. They had invited me to meet Dave Wilson on the 5th, but I could not make it. I understand going used, no issues as long as they are clean, SF and B&W have been rasing prices the last few years as the $ tanked. The latest B&W's are pricey. Hopefully they will come down now that the $ has strengthened.

You will really enjoy the Cremonas.
Steel

Click to expand...

Steel,

Are you very familiar with the Sonus line? I have an opportunity to either get the new Cremona M's or a pair of pre-owned Amatis. The Amatis are about 10 years old. Any opinions as to which is a better overall speaker?

greggp2 said:

AJ,
I appreciate all your help. I tried with the 4000hz adjustment but it didn't do much good.

Click to expand...

As mentioned earlier, the power problem cannot be corrected by EQ. Hey, you tried

greggp2 said:

I have been listening mostly to my Sonus Faber Auditors integrated with my sub. My sub is definitely the weak link now. I ordered a REL B1 off the Gon and it should arriving any day.
I have to say though, I absolutely am in love with the Sonus Faber's. The imaging these speakers put out is amazing. The clarity and detail is superb and I can listen to them for hours.
I am pretty much set on selling my B&W's at this point and once I do, I will be purchasing a new pair of Cremona M's from a Sonus Faber dealer.
I think the Cremona's matched with a REL sub will be a great combo for me and from my experience thus far from the Auditors, I believe I have found my speaker of choice...

Click to expand...

Good for you. If you are happy with the looks/sound of the Sonus, they should be your choice. However, for the type of money you subsequently mentioned, you are in Linkwitzlab Orion territory. Having heard them and many Sonus Fabers, Wilsons, etc., like this gentleman I agree they are a significant step up in SQ (maybe not looks), if that is your priority.
There is a users group where you can request an audition from someone nearby.
Just to see what type of realism loudspeakers are capable of...right before buying the pretty Sonus Fabers .

cheers,

AJ

WmAx said:

Take the Infinity Primus 360/362; it has superb off axis response through most of it's passband and uses excellent drivers that have break up modes far past their passbands and the drivers it uses have very substantial dynamic range capability. It has a good crossover design. But it has a huge bass peak, it has very poor internal acoustic absorption material and it has a very questionable cabinet. With what seems would not be much more of a manufacturing cost, it seems they could have made this into a world - class speaker in the average Joe's cost range. Is that not done because it would screw up some kind of market balance for performance? Afraid it would cut into the 'high end' Harman products offering?

-Chris

Click to expand...

In the case of the Primus 360/362 its cabinet construction was constrained by costs for sure; plus there was subjective evidence from the controlled competitive benchmarking listening tests that further cabinet refinements were not necessary because it already had "best-in-class" performance in its price category, and well beyond.

Since you brought up the Primus 360/362, it is the $500 mystery speaker that I brought up in a previous posting. I show the graphic again below that compares its preference rating and anechoic measurements against 3 competitors (the last one on the right is $4k). The only evidence of cabinet misbehavior is the high-Q resonance at 300 Hz, which is relatively benign perceptually given its high Q and low amplitude.

Compared to its competition, the Primus fares pretty well -- even when you compare the acoustical measurements to those of the $8000 B&W 802n (shown below it), which has a bigger resonance at 300 Hz, and a large hole in its sound power.

In the end, what matters is how good the loudspeaker sounds, and that was what ultimately guided the design decisions behind the Primus 360/362 - including the acoustics of its cabinet.


Cheers
Sean
Audio Musings


$

tonmeister said:

Since you brought up the Primus 360/362, it is the $500 mystery speaker that I brought up in a previous posting.

Click to expand...

Uhmmm ... we covered that in this thread.

Alex2507 said:

Uhmmm ... we covered that in this thread.

Click to expand...

Thanks, and sorry I missed that thread. You guessed correctly.

tonmeister said:

Thanks, and sorry I missed that thread. You guessed correctly.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the mystery speakers are in my living room. The quest was over before it began.

tonmeister said:

Since you brought up the Primus 360/362, it is the $500 mystery speaker that I brought up in a previous posting. I show the graphic again below that compares its preference rating and anechoic measurements against 3 competitors (the last one on the right is $4k). The only evidence of cabinet misbehavior is the high-Q resonance at 300 Hz, which is relatively benign perceptually given its high Q and low amplitude.

Compared to its competition, the Primus fares pretty well -- even when you compare the acoustical measurements to those of the $8000 B&W 802n (shown below it), which has a bigger resonance at 300 Hz, and a large hole in its sound power.

Click to expand...

The 362/360 has many problems, and the power response issue of the 802 simply is not the only issue - and it's being exaggerated as I see it in light of all the other issues. It is does not begin until you leave a 60 degree (+/- 30) window. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, yes, the power response issue would create a lower SQ; but all things are far from being equal comparing a 362 to 802N.

I highly doubt the cabinet is sufficient on the 360 to prevent audible degradation. And there is no question that it has no damping of any effect in the main cabinet volume. The damping that is present is not applicable to the bandwidth the mid-bass drivers operate within. Not even going into other issues, it has a huge empty resonating chamber handi-capping it out of the gate. Sure, this is a non issue in class, as most speakers seem to use ineffectual acoustical damping materials to some degree, especially budget range ones. It's a non issue to talk about the $4k speaker in the above tests - this was not a BW 802, and I don't even know how one can get response that terrible and even consider a speaker for anything more than a low budget PA monitor. Eek.

The 802 is a far better built/engineered mechanical system as compared to 362, and with very minor corrections, it is a very high performance monopolar, and the limited measurements provided above are not telling the whole story. The two shelviing filters I listed earlier on would make the biggest difference(BSC and treble balance ratio). With the anechoic respnose chart(not seen until now, since before teh charts provided were for 802D, not N), a couple of extra parameteric filters can be used to even correct the consistent response irregularities caused by intentional response deviations by the manufacturer. The 360 as you stated, is compromised(and substantially). I submit the 362 requires substantial physical/mechanical modifications to become a match. One can't correct the cabinet resonance issues with an EQ filter. If one wants to get into the mods; I could simply make no mods physically to 802; bypass passive crossover and use a DSP active unit to integrate the mid/tweeter around 2.5khz with sufficiently steep/agressive filters to make the off axis narrow problem a non-problem, as opposed to the current 3.5kHz crossover point(which I have no idea why it was chosen) and you have the superb mechanical system/cabinet already at your feet.

I have taken a 362 and turned it into a world-class monopolar at one time. I am extensively familar with every aspect of this speaker and the measure characteristics of every part separately, to boot. The ultra-modified unit is superior to an 802n/802D, or even a modified 802N. More capable LF drivers(I added a JL w7 to each cabinet, crossing to mdibasses at 100Hz), superior treble response characteristics(exchanged tweeter for one with far better dispersion), of course perfect power response characteristics, and no potential sources of resonance from any source was left to chance. It was also brought to be a fully active 4 way system instead of a passive xover based system. Though, one could argue my ultra-modify project was not even a 362 afterwards, I suppose. Just an entirely new design using most of the 362 drivers and using the original cabinet as a building base to start with.

-Chris

WmAx said:

The 802 is a far better built/engineered mechanical system as compared to 362, and with very minor corrections, it is a very high performance monopolar

Click to expand...

Because Chris keeps repeating this ad nauseum? With zero supporting data?

WmAx said:

and the limited measurements provided above are not telling the whole story.

Click to expand...

Wrong. They do tell the whole story, you are simply in denial or do not comprehend them. Crossing a 1" tweeter above a 6" midrange at 4k is poor engineering. Clearly shown above. Clearly audible in the composite power shown by Sean. Clearly audible to any trained listener.
The 802D is the embodiment of mediocrity that audiophiles accept due to looks, reputation and clueless "reviewers". No amount of spin and denial, to hide zero supporting data, changes that.

AJinFLA said:

Wrong. They do tell the whole story, you are simply in denial or do not comprehend them. Crossing a 1" tweeter above a 6" midrange at 4k is poor engineering. Clearly shown above. Clearly audible in the composite power shown by Sean. Clearly audible to any trained listener.
The 802D is the embodiment of mediocrity that audiophiles accept due to looks, reputation and clueless "reviewers". No amount of spin and denial, to hide zero supporting data, changes that.

Click to expand...

One factor is not the whole story. You have a meticulously engineered system with extreme low resonance borne from it's structures, high grade drivers, a reasonably linear response, as far as commercial stuff goes. The lone dip past the 30 degree angle window is not in itself enough to warrant your claims of it being a mediocre speaker in comparison to what it out there.

So, let's say, I shift xover to 2.5kHz with a sufficient filter, and end the power response issue. Then what is the quibble?

That seems to be the only thing focused on here.

The BSC and overall treble ratio, controlled with gradual shelving filters, would make a much bigger difference to SQ. If you completely removed the power response issue, the treble ratio and BSC will still make the speaker sound un-natural with most recordings. A slight treble power reduction overall is needed to sound most natural, and BSC needs specific adjustment for each different environment/position/room.

On the other hand, the Primus with it's textbook perfect mid-range to lower treble power response, has many other issues that certainly keep it from being a very high quality speaker.

The 802N/D is a superbly built/high quality mechanical device with an odd single factor(done for I have no idea why) limiting it from near ideal device stature.

-Chris

WmAx said:

One factor is not the whole story.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. The power response/horrible polars is the story.
It negatively affects the sound and is uncorrectable. Your repeated denials are irrelevant. The facts remain.

WmAx said:

You have a meticulously engineered system

Click to expand...

Again, based on what? What data? You continue to frantically wave your hands...and show no data. The only thing "meticulous" is the job their marketing department has done on you.

WmAx said:

with extreme low resonance borne from it's structures

Click to expand...

Supporting data to shown relevance to audibility. Chris? Data?

WmAx said:

high grade drivers

Click to expand...

More Chris anecdote...or data? Chris? Data to support your anecdotes?

WmAx said:

a reasonably linear response.....as far as commercial stuff goes.

Click to expand...

"Reasonably" linear?
The caveats aren't helping your anecdotes.

WmAx said:

The lone dip past the 30 degree angle window is not in itself enough to warrant your claims of it being a mediocre speaker......in comparison to what it out there.

Click to expand...

. So it isn't mediocre.....because mediocrity is rampant. Nice

WmAx said:

So, let's say, I shift xover to 2.5kHz with a sufficient filter, and end the power response issue. Then what is the quibble?

Click to expand...

Let's say??? Umm, then you don't have a B&W 802D, you have a Chris modified loudspeaker, just like you said here

Though, one could argue my ultra-modify project was not even a 362 afterwards

Click to expand...

If ifs. You have distortion data for the 802 tweeter crossed at 2.5K? Show it.

WmAx said:

The 802N/D is a superbly built/high quality mechanical device with an odd single factor(done for I have no idea why) limiting it from near ideal device stature.

Click to expand...

The only thing odd is your hoodwinking by B&W marketers and your living in denial despite the shown data. Or lack thereof.

cheers,

AJ

greggp2 said:

Steel,

Are you very familiar with the Sonus line? I have an opportunity to either get the new Cremona M's or a pair of pre-owned Amatis. The Amatis are about 10 years old. Any opinions as to which is a better overall speaker?

Click to expand...

Hi Greg,
I am not that familiar with the whole Sonus line, but I do know that they have made improvements in their drivers over the last few years. I would look for a nice set of used Cremona M's. 10 year old Amati's probably sound great, but I think you will prefer newer drivers, and not have to worry about 10 year old speaker warranty issues. My 2 cents.
Steel

WmAx said:

The 362/360 has many problems, and the power response issue of the 802 simply is not the only issue - and it's being exaggerated as I see it in light of all the other issues. It is does not begin until you leave a 60 degree (+/- 30) window. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, yes, the power response issue would create a lower SQ; but all things are far from being equal comparing a 362 to 802N.

<<The 802 is a far better built/engineered mechanical system as compared to 362, and with very minor corrections, it is a very high performance monopolar, and the limited measurements provided above are not telling the whole story. The two shelviing filters I listed earlier on would make the biggest difference(BSC and treble balance ratio).>>

Click to expand...

But the 362 costs $500 versus $8000, measures better out of the box (without modifications) and in all probability would beat the $8000 loudspeaker in a carefully controlled double-blind listening test. If engineers can produce a loudspeaker with better sound and measurements for 1/16 the price, then I would argue they are more talented engineers than the ones who spent 16x more money on things that don't matter to most listeners. In the end, it's how the product sounds that matters

<<< With the anechoic respnose chart(not seen until now, since before teh charts provided were for 802D, not N), a couple of extra parameteric filters can be used to even correct the consistent response irregularities caused by intentional response deviations by the manufacturer. The 360 as you stated, is compromised(and substantially). I submit the 362 requires substantial physical/mechanical modifications to become a match. One can't correct the cabinet resonance issues with an EQ filter. If one wants to get into the mods; >>

Click to expand...

Let's be fair, and talk about the performance of the two loudspeakers as they perform out of the box without modifications since this is how 99% of the consumers will use them. I would hope that a $8000 loudspeaker should not require any modifications, yet you keep arguing that it does.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion about these two loudspeakers and their relative sound quality, but until you show me some compelling quantitative scientific evidence based on carefully controlled listening tests, it is simply an opinion (not a fact), one which I believe is not particularly well grounded given the evidence I've shown so far.