DYNAUDIO C4 VS B&W 800 D3

[Beave]

I was going to mention KEF, but I figured someone else will eventually.

However, I am disappointed that for $25K or more, KEF doesn't use Diamond or at least Beryllium drivers.

Even their $200K Muon does have Diamond or Beryllium. What's up with that?

I'm waiting for a speaker with a cabinet made of diamond and beryllium.

 

[shadyJ]

I'm waiting for a speaker with a cabinet made of diamond and beryllium.

Would you settle for gold?

 

[shadyJ]

Floyd Toole himself has commented that JA's cabinet resonance measurements are very misleading and do not reflect the audibility of said cabinet resonances.

John Atkinson himself does not vouch for his cabinet vibration measurements to have some kind of absolute match with audibility. He hedges his language here, saying stuff like 'might cause issues' but doesn't posit those measurements to have some absolute quantity regarding audibility. Personally I think that if it doesn't show up on a high resolution frequency response measurement, than it probably isn't an serious problem.

 

[agarwalro]

Anyone notice all 3 FR graphs look very similar? There is a bump around the 10kHz area. The 802D1 has ~ +4dB bump, while the 800D2 has a ~ +5dB bump, and 802D3 has a ~ +6dB bump.

It seems this treble bump is getting bigger and bigger with each new generation of D tweeter.

I wonder how much of the rising treble is to compensate for the fact that the people who can afford the 800/802 D3 are loosing their hearing in the 15KHz+ range. Yes, that is an ageist joke because I'm jealous .

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I wonder how much of the rising treble is to compensate for the fact that the people who can afford the 800/802 D3 are loosing their hearing in the 15KHz+ range. Yes, that is an ageist joke because I'm jealous .

That is an excellent observation.

 

[Beave]

Stereophile only has the 802D3 for now. But based on previous years, the D1 vs D2 vs D3 measurements look always identical. Even JA made that statement last year when he reviewed the 800D2 on Stereophile.

So based on this and the 802D3 this year, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that the 800D3 will measure significantly different than the 800D2 vs 800D1, except maybe the boost around 9-11kHz is +6dB, instead of +5dB and +4dB.

It seems extremely funny when I see anyone say that the D3, D2, and D1 sound significantly different when every single D1, D2, and D3 have measured almost identical from 200Hz-10kHz on Stereophile.

Like someone already mentioned, if only the comparisons were double-blind to remove bias....

The D3s are a little different in the upper mids/low treble. The large, somewhat high Q peak from the kevlar driver is now shorter and broader in the continuum driver models.

 

[Beave]

Would you settle for gold?

A gold cabinet yet they didn't even use a diamond tweeter? Total cheapskates. Pass.

 

[Beave]

John Atkinson himself does not vouch for his cabinet vibration measurements to have some kind of absolute match with audibility. He hedges his language here, saying stuff like 'might cause issues' but doesn't posit those measurements to have some absolute quantity regarding audibility. Personally I think that if it doesn't show up on a high resolution frequency response measurement, than it probably isn't an serious problem.

Agree. One often has to read his comments - and then sometimes read between the lines - when it comes to his measurements. On the one hand, some measurements are definitely better than none at all. But is it useful to present measurements that might not mean much and could easily be misinterpreted? Some would argue that more data is always better, but sometimes more data just clouds the water.

His measurements of amps & CD players and the like show minor differences all the time - and that gives fuel to those who know just enough about the audibility of measurements to say "see, JA's measurements show differences; therefore the two products must sound different."

 

[shadyJ]

Agree. One often has to read his comments - and then sometimes read between the lines - when it comes to his measurements. On the one hand, some measurements are definitely better than none at all. But is it useful to present measurements that might not mean much and could easily be misinterpreted? Some would argue that more data is always better, but sometimes more data just clouds the water.

His measurements of amps & CD players and the like show minor differences all the time - and that gives fuel to those who know just enough about the audibility of measurements to say "see, JA's measurements show differences; therefore the two products must sound different."

More data is never bad, so long as there is context given for that data. JA does describe his measurement process and his interpretation of the results in a straightforward manner in his measuring loudspeakers series of articles. However, someone who doesn't bother to get context for those measurements and just glances at a graph with a list of assumptions about the meaning of that data will be come away with a poor understanding of the measurements. The reader has to take some responsibility as well.

 

[KenM10759]

Properly set up, away from side walls, a lot of modern speakers can pull off the disappearing act. Even the inexpensive Klipsch RF62-IIs in my HT system do that.

My own KEF R500's do it very well too, if I sit somewhere in the middle. The Blade 2's I heard (and can go hear anytime I want) do it in a way I can't well describe. It's like nothing else I've heard. Ever.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

That is an excellent observation.

Yes indeed!

 

[killdozzer]

(and can go hear anytime I want)

Now you're just showing off!

 

[highfigh]

The cabinet should not color the sound in any way, if neutral and accurate reproduction is the goal.

Just like with the B&W's, at this price point, that speaker should sound as transparent as possible. The review clearly states that the resonances of the cabinet are coloring the sound.

Of these options, I see the Revel as the only respectable performer, based on these measurements.

Nice theory- how many manufacturers are successful at not coloring the sound with their cabinets? Even the tweeter pod changes the dispersion?

FWIW, I heard a pair of B&W Nautilus, but don't remember the model. I thought they were some of the driest sounding speakers ever. They were not the new ones, though- I'll have to see if I can find out.

 

[TheWarrior]

What is the significance of the impedance and phase being "smooth and controlled" vs. "literally off the chart?"

Don't the Revel woofers operate even lower than the B&W woofers?

Huge impedance swings indicate poorly paired drivers and crossovers.

The measurements show the Revel playing lower while B&W has more amplitude but rolls off sharply below 30 hz, right between those 'off the chart' impedance swings.

Floyd Toole himself has commented that JA's cabinet resonance measurements are very misleading and do not reflect the audibility of said cabinet resonances.

I just take issue with such an expensive speaker having any measurable defects built in, especially for the sake of 'plastic styling panels.'

The D3s are a little different in the upper mids/low treble. The large, somewhat high Q peak from the kevlar driver is now shorter and broader in the continuum driver models.

Can you share those measurements? I can't find any!

Nice theory- how many manufacturers are successful at not coloring the sound with their cabinets? Even the tweeter pod changes the dispersion?

FWIW, I heard a pair of B&W Nautilus, but don't remember the model. I thought they were some of the driest sounding speakers ever. They were not the new ones, though- I'll have to see if I can find out.

Inert cabinet construction is pretty well understood, I can't actually think of any models that do suffer from poor cabinet construction.

Tweeter pod, you mean the B&W baffle-less tweeter? The baffle serves as the launch pad for the sound wave. Without it, the directivity of the high frequencies is even more narrow, making for the timbral shift that occurs when one moves off axis.

I think B&W's sounds great on axis. I just don't think they deserve so much credit when you consider the price, they don't sound the same to every seat. But it seems their function following form design is too attractive for some, to care.

 

[KenM10759]

Now you're just showing off!

No. I might be if they were MY speakers but they're not. And I wouldn't actually go to my dealer just to hear them over and over again. The room they're in is the biggest they have and they rotate which speakers and electronics might be playing. Could be B&W 802D3, KEF Reference 3 or Blade 2, Totem Element Metal, Paradigm Persona 3F to 9F, Bryston Model T Signature, Aerial Acoustics 7T (soon maybe 20T v3), and several others. They also juggle a dozen different amp/pre-amp combos, a few high end turntables and phono amps, etc.

I did "plant an idea" in my wife's head at dinner last night about Blade 2, asking "how would you react to seeing two tall things like this show up over there", showing her a cell phone photo of some black ones. She didn't start beating me about the head with dinnerware, so it's a positive sign!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The D3s are a little different in the upper mids/low treble. The large, somewhat high Q peak from the kevlar driver is now shorter and broader in the continuum driver models.

I think the D1 actually looks the best from 200Hz-20kHz.

The D2 might be the worst. Yet when the D2 came out, every B&W fan said it sounded much better than the D1.

Now all the B&W fans say the D3 sound the best, but based on the graph, I think the D1 might be the smoothest from 200Hz-20kHz. Pretty close, though.

Overall, all three look very similar. So I just doubt any human being could tell a significant day-and-night difference if the comparison were done double-blind. Totally different story when you know which D generation it is and the price tag. The D3 is $7K more expensive than the D1 & D2.

But the old Matrix-2 series are the smoothest from 200Hz-10kHz:

 

[highfigh]

I just take issue with such an expensive speaker having any measurable defects built in, especially for the sake of 'plastic styling panels.'

Inert cabinet construction is pretty well understood, I can't actually think of any models that do suffer from poor cabinet construction.

Tweeter pod, you mean the B&W baffle-less tweeter? The baffle serves as the launch pad for the sound wave. Without it, the directivity of the high frequencies is even more narrow, making for the timbral shift that occurs when one moves off axis.

I think B&W's sounds great on axis. I just don't think they deserve so much credit when you consider the price, they don't sound the same to every seat. But it seems their function following form design is too attractive for some, to care.

Lots of expensive things have cheap plastic panels and I don't like it, but if they really don't affect the performance, and the reviewer said they don't in the case of the Dynaudio C4, it's done when the manufacturer doesn't want to hand-craft something that would cause the price to exceed their target.

One difference between the Dyn's and the B&W- the Dynaudio DO sound good off-axis and that makes them a better choice for a lot of people because they want to allow others to enjoy the sound without having to sit on someone elses' lap.

Looks good, sounds bad in all but the money seat or plastic parts that resonate but don't detract from the sound- we all have to pick our poison. I care far less about the cosmetics than the sound. Lots of speakers are basic black and aren't polished to a high gloss- as long as the sound sticks the landing, people are OK with it.

 

[Beave]

Huge impedance swings indicate poorly paired drivers and crossovers.

Can you elaborate on this? I would think "poorly paired drivers and crossovers" would manifest as poor frequency response, driver directivity mismatch, out-of-band resonances insufficiently filtered, tweeters operating too low and thus limiting power handling, etc.

 

[Beave]

I think B&W's sounds great on axis. I just don't think they deserve so much credit when you consider the price, they don't sound the same to every seat. But it seems their function following form design is too attractive for some, to care.

I'm surprised you like them so much on-axis, given how Toole says that the off-axis sound needs to be consistent with the on-axis sound for good sound overall, even when sitting on-axis.

 

[Beave]

I think the D1 actually looks the best from 200Hz-20kHz.

The D2 might be the worst. Yet when the D2 came out, every B&W fan said it sounded much better than the D1.

Now all the B&W fans say the D3 sound the best, but based on the graph, I think the D1 might be the smoothest from 200Hz-20kHz. Pretty close, though.

Overall, all three look very similar. So I just doubt any human being could tell a significant day-and-night difference if the comparison were done double-blind. Totally different story when you know which D generation it is and the price tag. The D3 is $7K more expensive than the D1 & D2

But the old Matrix-2 series are the smoothest from 200Hz-10kHz:

One clear difference among the three is bass tuning. That could be a big factor in reviews saying they sound different.