B&W CM9's "crappy" - Replacements?

[GranteedEV]

Yikes. I just discovered i'm the one who called them crappy! Time for the wrath of audioholics everywhere!

I can understand their apparent off axis issue but Grant did say they were still voiced to sound accurate

Voiced to sound, like what the person voicing it perceives as accurate(or pleasant), on that person's choice of recordings, in the specific room in which it's being voiced:

Not my cup of tea.

But I'll retract my statement that they're crappy. I didn't mean to cause OP to return his speakers. They're just mediocre, not crappy, like every other speaker that abuses the de facto +/- 3db standard with. I formally apologize to the thread starter. There's true crappy speakers out there.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Wow, he listened, he liked, someone told him over the phone that they were "crappy" so he returned them.

Interesting indeed!!!

I hope he does his research this time & gets something he likes but he needs to have more confidence in this next buy. Otherwise he'll go through speakers like socks because there is is always SOMEONE who will call any given speaker "crappy". Maybe just stay off the phone & dont talk to strangers haha...

He said the B&W he bought were fatiguing after some time.

He wrote:

" I just returned a pair of B&W CM9's because I found them to be fatiguing with the highs and was adjusting the treble and turning down the volume often."

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/loudspeakers/77956-floorstanding-speakers-$3-500-4-500-advice-please.html

 

[GranteedEV]

He said the B&W he bought were fatiguing after some time.

He wrote:

" I just returned a pair of B&W CM9's because I found them to be fatiguing with the highs and was adjusting the treble and turning down the volume often."

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/loudspeakers/77956-floorstanding-speakers-$3-500-4-500-advice-please.html

I think this is because the midrange plays right through the damped kevlar cone breakup near 4khz (crossover point is at 4khz so the breakup is only 3 to 6db down). Not visible in the above 1/3 octave smoothed graph but probably apparant on a 1/12th octave smooth graph.

*runs away agai*

 

[Nuance AH]

I think this is because the midrange plays right through the damped kevlar cone breakup near 4khz (crossover point is at 4khz so the breakup is only 3 to 6db down). Not visible in the above 1/3 octave smoothed graph but probably apparant on a 1/12th octave smooth graph.

*runs away agai*

Don't worry, Grant - I've got your back. I've heard those speakers, but today is the first time I've seen the measurements. I'll say this: seeing those measurements confirms what I heard. I wouldn't use the word crappy, but sub-par for the money is certainly not off base, at least to my ears. I don't like those speakers at all, and now I see on paper why.

 

[adwilk]

*runs away agai*

"agai" pronounced "a gay"

That seems a little unnecessary.

NTTAWWT

 

[83benz240]

Come on now. I didn't return them because one person said they were "crappy". I was surprised when I saw that but that's not the reason. It did make more critical of the sound though.

I returned them because even at 0 on the AVR the woofers were maxed out and starting to rattle and the highs were bothersome. At the store for a song or 2 they sounded great compared to what else they had but that isn't saying much looking back on it.

I figured if these speakers were already sounding like this on just the AVR then I would assume that they would have a really hard time keeping up with the 2 x SB-13's and a large amp driving them.

If I was already having these doubts then I wanted to fix it before the time available for me to return them was up.

 

[GranteedEV]

Note to self: Never post pic of self on AH. Adwilk will photoshop it with you prancing away a gay.

 

[Nuance AH]

Come on now. I didn't return them because one person said they were "crappy". I was surprised when I saw that but that's not the reason. It did make more critical of the sound though.

I returned them because even at 0 on the AVR the woofers were maxed out and starting to rattle and the highs were bothersome. At the store for a song or 2 they sounded great compared to what else they had but that isn't saying much looking back on it.

I figured if these speakers were already sounding like this on just the AVR then I would assume that they would have a really hard time keeping up with the 2 x SB-13's and a large amp driving them.

If I was already having these doubts then I wanted to fix it before the time available for me to return them was up.

0? As in reference levels? You listen loud.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

0? As in reference levels? You listen loud.

Maybe he used automated room correction and had the AVR channel levels set @ -10dB or something.

 

[timoteo]

Well i must have missed the post where he said they were fatiguing.

Those speakers actually need more power than what a typical AVR puts out in order to sound their best. They actually would have improved if you gave them a large amp because their impedence dip is a bit low. The nominal 8ohm rating is just plain wrong. A speaker will suffer from being underpowered not overpowered (paired with large amp, not actually fed more power then they can handle obviously) With the proper crossover setting they would have had no problem keeping up with dual SB-13Ps.

What is your room like? Carpet, hardwood floors, large plush furniture, bare walls? Im curious because placement & room conditions can really effect your sound either negatively or positively. I wonder ifyour room was smearing the sound or not.

Well ultimately if you were not 100% satisfied with them then its good you were able to return them before it was too late. I own B&Ws but i personally feel the CM line is overpriced for their performance. They are by no means bad speakers but for that money id be all over some Salk Songtowers or Ascend Sierra towers. At least you were able to demo some other speakers in your room.

Make sure though that your room isnt the culprit otherwise no matter how great a speaker is it may sound horrible. I dont know how knowlegeable you are on all this stuff but make sure to read up on Speaker Placement & Room Acoustics so you get the most out of your next setup!!

If you can swing a speaker with the RAAL Ribbon tweeter (such as with the Salk or Ascend) you wont regret it.

Happy Huntin!!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I just don't understand why B&W would lie about the impedance information. Why would they lie about anything at all?

What would they possibly have to gain by lying to millions of people about the impedance on their speakers?

 

[PENG]

I just don't understand why B&W would lie about the impedance information. Why would they lie about anything at all?

What would they possibly have to gain by lying to millions of people about the impedance on their speakers?

Focal has an explanation on this nominal thing in their technical section. I guess we all heard that, or similar stuff before, but here it is for those interested.

"Hi-fi loudspeaker impedance
Impedance… A mystery for many…
The official norm
The 8 or 4 Ohms commonly indicated in the technical characteristics of the acoustic loudspeakers are based on the N60065 norm, set in the 90s. It only considers the hi-fi loudspeaker impedance at full midrange at a 1000Hz frequency, it will then be said to be 8 Ohms. But contrary to resistance, impedance varies according to frequency.

Impedance variation
If impedance measured at 1000Hz is 8 Ohms, the hi-fi loudspeaker will then be said to be 8 Ohms nominal impedance. A hi-fi loudspeaker bandwidth extends from 20 to 20 000Hz, its average impedance or even minimal seen by the amplifier can be very far from the said 8 Ohms, for example 3 or 4 Ohms. Thus the official 8 Ohms (like the 220V of our power supply that may vary from 218 to 240V) remains an official norm but not very indicative. That’s why Focal is one of the rare driver and loudspeaker manufacturer that clearly gives the minimal impedance for each of its products. For example, 8 Ohms nominal impedance for a 5 Ohms minimum.

What does impedance mean?
Even if it’s always a question of Ohm, impedance mustn’t be mixed up with pure resistance, which value remains fixed. As we said, impedance varies according to frequency, going from 3.5 Ohms to 25 Ohms for the same loudspeaker, even more sometimes depending on the technology (sealed box, bass-reflex, etc.).

Conclusion
We can consider that most of modern hi-fi loudspeakers (Focal included) have an average impedance of 6 Ohms. Most of Home Theatre multichannel amplifiers have RMS power often indicated for a 6 Ohm load.
Indicating the minimal impedance under which never a loudspeaker can go (the lowest point in the impedance curve), Focal enables specialized passionate and professionals to have a realistic idea of the impedance.
The modern transistor amplifiers support loads from 2 Ohms to about 10 Ohms. As a result, whether the impedance is 4/8 or even 16 Ohms and beyond, it will be supported. The only impact can be on the amplifier line out power that will more or less vary according to the real impedance. Power tends to increase for the lowest bass frequencies.
In conclusion, we recommend that you take the RMS power or efficient amplifier power as a reference into 8 Ohms, but not the one indicated into 4 or 6 Ohms. In difficult load conditions or at very high sound level, there’s still a margin in terms of available current."

I did a quick survey of manufacturer websites and found the following examples (just a few examples)

Manufacturers who provide nominal and minimum values:

B&W (including the CM9, that says nominal 8, minimum 3)
Energy
Focal
KEF
PSB
Revel
Salk

Provide nominal, or nominal compatible only;

Axiom (but include graph - a great idea, the better way IMO)
Atlantic Technology
Aperion - 6 ohm
Boston Acoustics
Dynaudio
Deftech
Infinity
Klipsch
Polkaudio

Ascend (surely there are others) provide "average" impedance but do provide "compatible with...." + minimum, for it's tower.

Note/Disclaimer: It is possible that some of the examples above also provide nominal only for some models but nominal+minimum for other (perhaps higher end) models. I did not spend time to check the specs of every model they make.

So I am not sure if it is fair to say B&W lies, if they only follow some established standards from the 90s that others seem to follow as well. At least like Focal, Revel and others, they do provide the minimum. Again, an impedance vs frequency would have been nice but then we would ask for the phase vs frequency as well for sure.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So I am not sure if it is fair to say B&W lies...

I agree. I don't think they lied about the nominal impedance at all.

Nominal clearly does not mean Minimum.

I also think that if a speaker (even the B&W 800D) does not suit a person, it's usually not because the amplifier isn't 500wpc. There are other factors that are more likely.