I am sure they will sound different, I never said all speakers sound the same, I don't even say that measurements are the end-all be-all.
But the thing is there has to be some way to narrow down choices before you audition, no one has the time/money to audition every speaker they want and even if you could, auditory memory is a joke unless you can compare side by side which is again impossible.
Say I want to buy a car - I can look at my budget, desires (speed/luxury/size etc), look at objective data for each of these and then make a list of cars to test drive, then choose what I liked best.
With speakers, besides price, these is ZERO guidance. Wildly different designs/sizes/prices all claim the 'best sound' with zero reasoning given except 'you must hear it'. That is why there has to be some way for a consumer to make a choice - and that something is measurements and data.
This is how pro-audio works, the buyers and sellers both buy based on the performance they need. Audio is made out to be some mystical voodoo where you can only appreciate music in your own home with specific equipment and a glass of wine
But it really isn't - its well known science that's been understood for decades. There's no mystery being unlocked by some special speaker/amp design that no one else understands.
I don’t think our understanding of human hearing or speaker design/construction falls into the same category as something like class A/B amplification.
Keep in mind that you are speaking to a person that is using a 36 year old fully restored class A/B amplifier. I believe in science and measurements and the fact that class A/B amplification has not advanced as much as we are led to believe. Measuring devices help me confirm that my amp can run an almost perfect square wave up to and beyond 40kHz. What you feed it is what you get. A fast amp with a high bandwidth. My ears are what confirm that the amplifier sounds exceptional. Goosebumps- exceptional. I am definitely not one who drinks the
Kool Aid and believes that newer is always better or that more expensive equates to better. Especially when it comes to class A/B amplification.
But with speakers IMO it’s a very different story. There are very few speakers from 1980 that can go toe to toe with a modern speaker. Especially in the stand-mount/bookshelf category. I’m not going to brag by mentioning what models have been through my house because that’s not going to sway anybody. I currently only have 5 sets of speakers here but I’ve had up to 8 or 9 at the same time. So what?
Speaker technology is an area where real advances are being made. With speakers it gets very tricky. As for measurements, we have seen that measurement methods and accuracy of measurements can vary greatly. It's not as simple as plugging an amp into a machine and seeing what the signal is doing. There are many, many more variables at play - air, room, space, mics, speaker placement, etc., etc., etc.
Speaker design is a mixture of Art & Science. A speaker designer can strive for a flat response and come very close to achieving it by relying solely on measuring devices but what about something like imaging or spatial cues? How does he measure for that to determine that those are being conveyed properly?
Anyone who can't hear differences in things like imaging, focus, transparency, naturalness, smearing, sound-stage , decay, driver compression, congestion, veiling, resonances, spatial cues, speed, etc. between two different speakers that both supposedly measure reasonably flat is not listening closely enough or just doesn’t care.
Pick any two relatively “flat” measuring speakers of your choosing and odds are that while the
tonality may be very similar, the aspects I mentioned above (and others) will vary immensely. Anyone who tells you differently is misleading you.
Maybe the disconnect here is that I’m strictly a two channel guy that listens to music in the sweet spot. I rely on just two speakers to paint the whole picture. If one is primarily listening to a multi-channel set-up it’s possible that some of the things I critically listen for that are very important and pleasurable to me would not be as important to that individual. So far, the 800 Series checks all the right boxes for me.
I hate “audiophile” terms as much as the next guy but sometimes you have to use words to express what you hear. Here are some of the ones I listed for reference, not all “flat” speakers are equal in these areas.
Imaging - The sense that a voice or instrument is in a particular place in the room.
Focus - A strong, precise sense of image projection.
Transparent - Easy to hear into the music, detailed, clear, not muddy. Wide flat frequency response, sharp time response, very low distortion and noise. A hear through quality that is akin to clarity and reveals all aspects of detail.
Naturalness - Realism.
Smeared - Lacking detail. Poor transient response, too much leakage between microphones. Poorly focused images.
Soundstage - The area between two speakers that appears to the listener to be occupied by sonic images. Like a real stage, a soundstage should have width, depth, and height.
Decay - The fadeout of a note, it follows the attack.
Congested- Smeared, confused, muddy, and flat; lacking transparency.
Speed - A fast system with good pace gives the impression of being right on the money in its timing.
Veiled - Like a silk veil is over the speakers. Slight noise or distortion or slightly weak high frequencies. Loss of detail due to limited transparency.
These are some of the things I listen for that to
ME make the Bowers & Wilkins 805D2’s an exceptional speaker. I have auditioned the 805D3’s a few times at the retailer and to my ears, they outdid everything else in his room.
Keep up the great work Bowers & Wilkins!
