DYNAUDIO C4 VS B&W 800 D3

[Pogre]

I recently had the pleasure of listening to the 802 D3's and it was pretty amazing. They were set up in a listening room with treatments and thought to placement. Sounds corny, but "magical" isn't far from how it felt to listen to them. They dig deep too. I wasn't missing a subwoofer at all.

Yeah... it left a mark.

 

[Irvrobinson]

That's very similar to the systems in the dealership that I've heard B&W 800D/802Ds; B&W and McIntosh. Is that a Listen-Up location? McIntosh amps sound fine, but just knowing there are Autoformers in them drives me nuts.

 

[Pogre]

That's very similar to the systems in the dealership that I've heard B&W 800D/802Ds; B&W and McIntosh. Is that a Listen-Up location? McIntosh amps sound fine, but just knowing there are Autoformers in them drives me nuts.

That was at Bjorn's in San Antonio, TX. My wife and I were visiting family and we took a little road trip when I heard about the place.

 

[Art Vandelay]

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!

The Floyd approach sounds all well and good but don't forget that the objective is to market and sell Harmon products. Training people to be good listeners is also training them to provide a predictable result and that's a bias that wouldn't exist if the test used a random selection of individuals.

I think it's also a potential red flag if a brand of speaker doesn't do well in the tests. The speaker is either poorly designed or the methodology of the blind testing is biased against it. Of course the result would have some validity if the result was generally reproducible across a larger number of BT's and a broader spectrum of methodology.

For the consumer who's going to be spending the $$, the more data and information the better of course, and conflict-of-interest aside, Harmon's testing and verification methods to support their design imperatives is still valuable for the consumer, but in the end it's still up to the end consumer to decide how he or she will be spending their money, and that decision is usually based more on a live listening experience than it is on data from measurements and other objective testing.

 

[Art Vandelay]

but just knowing there are Autoformers in them drives me nuts.

Doesn't seem to hurt the distortion figures though, even if it is nothing more than an expensive marketing ploy.

 

[TheWarrior]

The Floyd approach sounds all well and good but don't forget that the objective is to market and sell Harmon products. Training people to be good listeners is also training them to provide a predictable result and that's a bias that wouldn't exist if the test used a random selection of individuals.

I think it's also a potential red flag if a brand of speaker doesn't do well in the tests. The speaker is either poorly designed or the methodology of the blind testing is biased against it. Of course the result would have some validity if the result was generally reproducible across a larger number of BT's and a broader spectrum of methodology.

For the consumer who's going to be spending the $$, the more data and information the better of course, and conflict-of-interest aside, Harmon's testing and verification methods to support their design imperatives is still valuable for the consumer, but in the end it's still up to the end consumer to decide how he or she will be spending their money, and that decision is usually based more on a live listening experience than it is on data from measurements and other objective testing.

Training people to be good listener's, is just that. The program is to be used on your computer with your speakers, training you to hear a progressively narrowing band of EQ with each new level. The trouble with random listener's is that not everyone has normal hearing. Harman could require everyone to go get an audiogram, or they can have you run a test on your own time to see what level you can achieve - I don't think they take anyone below Level 8.

It is a big red flag if a speaker does not score well in the shuffler. It's a hydraulic system that allows the listener to cycle between 1 of 4 monophonic, level-matched speakers, within seconds. Ratings of 1.0- 10 are given while hearing 30 sec loops of music on any of the 4 speakers the listener chooses. The test then starts over with each speaker being randomized and new music played. I think the test repeats 3 times before concluding.

It should also be mentioned that Harman's research led them to create CTA 2034, the measurement standard that allows you to put on paper the exact performance of a loudspeaker and not even need to hear a note of music played.

CTA 2034 was used to correlate it's objective anechoic measurements to the subjective preferences of the speaker shuffler with a near guarantee, and it's been done thousands of times.

Suffice to say, as this data gets around more, I think we will see a steady decline in the number of speaker brands available. Marketing won't save them all!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Suffice to say, as this data gets around more, I think we will see a steady decline in the number of speaker brands available. Marketing won't save them all!

I doubt it. Won't stop people from buying Bose or stop Bose from being the official speaker of the NFL.

Just like even if everyone read about dozens of DBTs on amps with the same conclusion that a $300 amp sound as good as a $30K amp, many people will still believe that all amps sound significantly different.

Nothing beats marketing and hearsay when it comes to the common population.

 

[TheWarrior]

I doubt it. Won't stop people from buying Bose or stop Bose from being the official speaker of the NFL.

Just like even if everyone read about dozens of DBTs on amps with the same conclusion that a $300 amp sound as good as a $30K amp, many people will still believe that all amps sound significantly different.

Nothing beats marketing and hearsay when it comes to the common population.

How many consumers has this site helped to educate? How many on this forum would continue to buy Bose?

Keep spreading verifiable data rather than doubt, and you might surprise yourself!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The trouble with random listener's is that not everyone has normal hearing.

You mean some people have hearing impairment or cannot hear frequencies above 12 kHz?

I say just give everyone a hearing test to rule out the hearing impaired.

But don't bias people with what they should prefer.

Don't tell people "this is what good and accurate speakers should sound like".

That's creating bias IMO.

As long as people have good hearing and can hear 20Hz-20kHz, they should not be told what is supposed to sound good or accurate.

The only question should be, "Which speaker do you prefer?"

People should buy speakers that sound good to them, not speakers that sound good to anyone else.

Don't you think?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

How many consumers has this site helped to educate? How many on this forum would continue to buy Bose?

Keep spreading verifiable data rather than doubt, and you might surprise yourself!

Good point. But my point is we can only help people who are willing. How many of us vs marketing?

I tell everyone who asks me about Bose that Bose sucks. But not everyone listens.

I tell people the $30K B&W 800D3 has worse on-axis and off-axis FR than some $100 speaker. Nobody cares.

People will buy what sounds good to them. Or they just believe the marketing.

 

[shadyJ]

It should also be mentioned that Harman's research led them to create CTA 2034, the measurement standard that allows you to put on paper the exact performance of a loudspeaker and not even need to hear a note of music played.

CTA 2034 was used to correlate it's objective anechoic measurements to the subjective preferences of the speaker shuffler with a near guarantee, and it's been done thousands of times.

Suffice to say, as this data gets around more, I think we will see a steady decline in the number of speaker brands available. Marketing won't save them all!

The consumer electronics association developed CTA-2034, with a lot of help from Harman's people. Not to dismiss the importance of CTA-2034, but there are other metrics that are also important to a loudspeaker than what is displayed by CTA-2034 graphs. CTA-2034 does not tell the full story.

Furthermore, not many enthusiasts really understand the curves in CTA-2034, let alone the general public. I agree it should be more widespread and better understood, however at the moment it is only of interest to manufacturers and hardcore speaker nerds. Manufacturers whose products do not fare well in CTA-2034 measurements aren't really in danger were their products exposed in that measurement set.

 

[TLS Guy]

Good point. But my point is we can only help people who are willing. How many of us vs marketing?

I tell everyone who asks me about Bose that Bose sucks. But not everyone listens.

I tell people the $30K B&W 800D3 has worse on-axis and off-axis FR than some $100 speaker. Nobody cares.

People will buy what sounds good to them. Or they just believe the marketing.

Have you actually measured the 800 D3s? I have and the on and off axis response is actually very good. It could be better at 90 degrees off axis, but overall the speakers measure well and sound very good indeed. There are no $100 speakers that get within striking distance.

That is a very good result, especially the waterfall plot.

The HF drop above 15KHz is due to the mic.

 

[killdozzer]

I believe that as long as you sport this notion of liking and buying the speaker you like, you're confusing the box for the art. I believe speakers should finally be relocated to the technology department and stopped being treated as art or expression of an artist. They have a job to do, not much different from a bike.

I could agree we're not there yet, but I would add that I think the journey is worth taking. I could agree measurements are not as accurate as one might hope (do not tell the whole story), but I wouldn't give up on this idea just because we need more accurate measurements. Also, I could agree that all this business of, let's call it a proposal of a unified speaker, is to a certain extent imposing itself on the market and colonizing it, but I think that the goal is a good one and one to be desired => producers mix and master sound with a known variable (certain type of a speaker), they get to know what type of reproducing equipment they're doing their job for and they can start producing material that will have a much higher possibility of sounding good.

Some companies will come to an end, but I don't think this will be the end of companies that mystify technology as there will always be people who mystify it.

This is the crack where, I believe, ego steps in; no one can know what someone else hears, whatever the reason for hearing something may be, market steps in and start fondling your ego telling you that what you hear proves you're exceptional in some way and no one can resist this siren's song. So your ego tells you; yes, you're exceptional and THAT'S why you can't be satisfied with mass produced AVR's, you need something a lil' extra. Special speakers for my special little guy!

Also, I don't think that esoteric and exclusive companies would have problems. They might as well stop lying to the people and just do what they do with furniture - if a sofa can cost 8k$ so can pretty designed and shaped speakers (using the word designed here like in fashion; colours, shapes, materials...)

 

[Irvrobinson]

Have you actually measured the 800 D3s? I have and the on and off axis response is actually very good. It could be better at 90 degrees off axis, but overall the speakers measure well and sound very good indeed. There are no $100 speakers that get within striking distance.

That is a very good result, especially the waterfall plot.

The HF drop above 15KHz is due to the mic.

Those are very good measurements, especially considering they're with 1/24th octave smoothing. The three octaves from 500Hz to 4KHz are impressively smooth. I've got to hear them one of these days.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I tell people the $30K B&W 800D3 has worse on-axis and off-axis FR than some $100 speaker. Nobody cares.

People will buy what sounds good to them. Or they just believe the marketing.

My Yamaha active monitors measure dead flat on-axis and are textbook off-axis. They sound very good but not in the same class as B&W 800 series. It just proves what is widely known; Namely that FR is not the be-all and end-all metric for performance. Back in the 70's the engineers at Kef recognised precisely that, and that lead to the development of techniques to measure CSD and other performance parameters.

Training people to be good listener's, is just that. The program is to be used on your computer with your speakers, training you to hear a progressively narrowing band of EQ with each new level. The trouble with random listener's is that not everyone has normal hearing. Harman could require everyone to go get an audiogram, or they can have you run a test on your own time to see what level you can achieve - I don't think they take anyone below Level 8.

All of those problems are fixed if the sample size is large enough, and the listeners can be pseudo-randomly selected from a large group of audiophiles with an age limit filter if necessary.

Any person who is dedicated to high fidelity audio doesn't need to be "trained" IMHO. They've already trained themselves over a lengthy period of time.

Suffice to say, as this data gets around more, I think we will see a steady decline in the number of speaker brands available. Marketing won't save them all!

Over time, the number of brands is actually increasing, not decreasing, and as any one brand gets a jump on another as a result of design or construction it usually doesn't take long before it's imitated. An example of that is the B&W801F, which was constructed with individual enclosures for each drive unit.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I believe that as long as you sport this notion of liking and buying the speaker you like, you're confusing the box for the art. I believe speakers should finally be relocated to the technology department and stopped being treated as art or expression of an artist. They have a job to do, not much different from a bike.

Try using that line of argument in a car forum and see how you go.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Any person who is dedicated to high fidelity audio doesn't need to be "trained" IMHO. They've already trained themselves over a lengthy period of time.

That's not my experience at all. Once I've trained myself to listen for aspects of certain instruments it is almost always the case that when I train others to notice the same characteristics they consider it new knowledge.

What are those Yamaha monitors that supposedly measure so well? I've never seen a Yamaha monitor that measured or sounded very good.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Have you actually measured the 800 D3s?

I don't need to. I have Stereophile to do that for me. They have measured the D1, D2, and D3.

What difference does it make if I have measured the D3 when Stereophile has done that?

Anyone can see these measurements.

Based on these Stereophile measurements, anyone can see that the cheap Infinity P362 have much better on-axis and off-axis FR than any B&W D series.

Are you claiming that your measurement is more accurate than Stereophile ?

Are you saying that the Stereophile FR measurements are inaccurate and we should view your measurement as the correct one?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Okay, gents, we are taking about loudspeakers for personal entertainment, not neurosurgery or rocket science.

People should buy whatever sounds good to them within their budgets.

 

[PENG]

Nothing beats marketing and hearsay when it comes to the common population.

Politicians who understand such principles tend to do well.