DYNAUDIO C4 VS B&W 800 D3

[Beave]

I've participated in many such tests.

Level matched, quick switched, and blinded? Call me skeptical, very, very skeptical.

 

[Art Vandelay]

But you could go through the same exercise with the Revels, and their sound would improve. So I don't see where the original blindfolded comparison would be invalid. Floyd really does know what he's talking about.

My point is / was that I can set up the blind test, deliberately or otherwise, to manipulate an outcome.

This doesn't mean that all blind testing will give invalid results, and nor is it an argument against blind testing, but it is in my view cause to view results in isolation with caution. That is all.

 

[Beave]

My point is / was that I can set up the blind test, deliberately or otherwise, to manipulate an outcome.

Sure we can. But Harman didn't, did they?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

My point is / was that I can set up the blind test, deliberately or otherwise, to manipulate an outcome.

This doesn't mean that all blind testing will give invalid results, and nor is it an argument against blind testing, but it is in my view cause to view results in isolation with caution. That is all.

Fair enough. But I would view purely subjective reviews with a great deal more caution.

 

[Irvrobinson]

If I was to set up a pair of Revel Salon's alongside b&w 802D3's and switch between them to a blindfolded audience I reckon that most would choose the Revels.

I'm not so sure. I've had two 802D2 owners listen to my painstakingly tuned Salon2 system, and both preferred their 802s. Both, in so many words, called the Salon2s "boring", and said if that's what accuracy sounded like they didn't want accuracy. Having auditioned 800s and 802s several times over the past seven years I understand their perspective. I don't agree with it at all, but I understand it.

So I think it's more probable you'd choose the B&Ws.

 

[<eargiant]

Fair enough. But I would view purely subjective reviews with a great deal more caution.

I agree, that's why you have to compare speakers in your own home. There's no better way to know for sure. Anything else is just conjecture.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Fair enough. But I would view purely subjective reviews with a great deal more caution.

A subjective review is simply one's opinion, whereas a blind test seeks to provide an objective result. With a subjective review your degree of caution boils down to the degree of trust or faith you have in the reviewer, whereas the validity of an objective result will be subject to how much you know about the methodology and environment, and other external factors and variables that may potentially contaminate or bias results.

This applies to all objective testing too of course. For example, the same suite of measurements for the same speaker conducted by three different people will rarely look identical. The differences reflect the different environments, methodology, test equipment, and other human and non-human related variables.

 

[Beave]

I agree, that's why you have to compare speakers in your own home. There's no better way to know for sure. Anything else is just conjecture.

True. But when you do so, you also have to acknowledge that factors other than sound quality can and do come into play, whether you consciously recognize them or not.

 

[<eargiant]

True. But when you do so, you also have to acknowledge that factors other than sound quality can and do come into play, whether you consciously recognize them or not.

I hear you, but when you've been at this game for a while and don't have a horse in the race you don't let biases get in the way. I could care less who wins, I just want what I perceive to be the best sound. If you are honest with yourself, you will let your experience guide you and not your wishes or desires.

There have been many, many times where my expectations/predispositions were quashed by what I actually heard, but I can only speak for myself.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I'm not so sure. I've had two 802D2 owners listen to my painstakingly tuned Salon2 system, and both preferred their 802s. Both, in so many words, called the Salon2s "boring", and said if that's what accuracy sounded like they didn't want accuracy. Having auditioned 800s and 802s several times over the past seven years I understand their perspective. I don't agree with it at all, but I understand it.

So I think it's more probable you'd choose the B&Ws.

Such contaminated tests are not too meaningful. If the situation was reversed, so too would be the result.

Even with DBT's the listening panel needs to be selected randomly, or at least pseudo randomly to avoid bias.

 

[Art Vandelay]

True. But when you do so, you also have to acknowledge that factors other than sound quality can and do come into play, whether you consciously recognize them or not.

Even if that's true, it doesn't matter. If my brain is being deceived by my eye I don't care, as long as it's great deception.

After all, there's no such thing as bad sex with a gorgeous woman.

 

[Beave]

I'm not ashamed to admit that looks matter.

(I'm talking about speakers!)

They're not the only factor, but they are a factor. Looks include color, finish, shape, even size. I don't want really large speakers, no matter how good they may sound, in my place (which is kinda small). If I had my brother's house, I'd be much more open to larger towers. As it is, I like small towers or bookshelf/standmount speakers.

 

[Beave]

I hear you, but when you've been at this game for a while and don't have a horse in the race you don't let biases get in the way. I could care less who wins, I just want what I perceive to be the best sound. If you are honest with yourself, you will let your experience guide you and not your wishes or desires.

There have been many, many times where my expectations/predispositions were quashed by what I actually heard, but I can only speak for myself.

Well, not all biases are conscious. Some are unconscious. So you can't remove them entirely in a sighted, in-home trial.

 

[<eargiant]

I'm not ashamed to admit that looks matter.

(I'm talking about speakers!)

They're not the only factor, but they are a factor. Looks include color, finish, shape, even size. I don't want really large speakers, no matter how good they may sound, in my place (which is kinda small). If I had my brother's house, I'd be much more open to larger towers. As it is, I like small towers or bookshelf/standmount speakers.

I prefer stand-mounts too. I've auditioned, owned and sold a slew of beautifully crafted, well regarded speakers because they just didn't do it for me. No glowing review or perfect measurement graph could convince me otherwise. The 805D2's did.

If you haven't given the 805D's a try, I suggest you do. You might like them.

 

[Beave]

I prefer stand-mounts too. I've auditioned, owned and sold a slew of beautifully crafted, well regarded speakers because they just didn't do it for me. No glowing review or perfect measurement graph could convince me otherwise. The 805D2's did.

If you haven't given the 805D's a try, I suggest you do. You might like them.

Now might be a good time for me to mention that PRICE also matters to me!

I've heard the 805D2's and thought they were very nice. I did notice what seemed to be an exaggerated high treble (but not brightness or edginess, just an accentuation). But I'm a miser by nature, so I would never spend that much on speakers.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Now might be a good time for me to mention that PRICE also matters to me!

I've heard the 805D2's and thought they were very nice. I did notice what seemed to be an exaggerated high treble (but not brightness or edginess, just an accentuation). But I'm a miser by nature, so I would never spend that much on speakers.

You should hear the 705S2. In terms of price it's a poor mans 805, but that's not what you'll see or hear.

To my ears the treble is very slightly bright, but only when listening dead on-axis, which you won't do. The quality though is something else. Even up against Thiel CS3.7's it was a no-contest, and interestingly the Thiel's sounded brighter, less nuanced, dynamically flatter and less coherent. The B&W's also trounced the Thiel's for spacial imaging and depth creation, which really did surprise me.

Also, unlike many stand-mounts they really perform in the bass. There's not only excellent definition and admirable extension but also excellent transient impact. In a DBT there's no way you would think it's a 2-way.

Fwiw, they will be reviewed soon by Soundstage Australia.

http://www.soundstageaustralia.com/

 

[highfigh]

This actually supports why I asked the question I did. You made my point for me. He implied that they know things about sound quality that they can't measure, which is why I asked the question.

I must have missed something- who is 'He'?.

 

[highfigh]

I've mentioned before that I'm a former EE, just not in this thread. I sure hope I don't have to mention it in every thread I post in!

I'd rather not say where I worked. US company that did a/v electronics, consumer and commercial use.

You think that some incidental references to having been an EE means people will remember? Really?

Do you remember that comment I made about the woofers I had? I doubt it.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Even with DBT's the listening panel needs to be selected randomly, or at least pseudo randomly to avoid bias.

Does that mean one can't just decide to participate in a DBT? @Swerd, is that correct?

 

[TheWarrior]

Such contaminated tests are not too meaningful. If the situation was reversed, so too would be the result.

Even with DBT's the listening panel needs to be selected randomly, or at least pseudo randomly to avoid bias.

I think a big point being missed with DBT tests per Harman's method is that all listening is done in Mono.

Stereo listening can mask problems. With the complexity of modern surround sound tracks, much of what we listen to now is monophonic, just spread through many channels simultaneously. Speakers need to be able to stand on their own, period.

To your point Art Vandelay, Harman also has a listening program that they require their listeners to score highly in, 'Harman - How to Listen'. It trains you to be a critical listener and have the ability to separate sounds of different frequency bands and decide if one sounds better than the other.

Floyd's tests have also proven that listener's have the ability to listen 'through rooms'. Above the transition frequency of a given room (200-300hz) a speaker that has been positioned for a specific listener, would be rated similarly in any room. Floyd did this through 5 or more rooms with the same set of speakers.

He also called BS on his own engineers when he first arrived at Harman. "They were all professionals, I was told." So Floyd put them through both blind and sighted tests of the same speakers to prove the influence of bias. This is covered in Floyd's CIRMMT video on youtube.

My point is that Floyd and Harman went to great lengths to design products based on what their listening tests have proven, what people want to hear. B&W products do not perform well in their tests. The time I was in the speaker shuffler, whatever the B&W bookshelf speaker was in the $1500-$2000pr range, I rated it the lowest of the 4 I listened to. In sighted stereo tests, of B&W's larger models, the sweet spot was enjoyable, but the sound changed as soon as I moved my head. To me, that's not acceptable at $30k!