New B&W 6th Generation 600 Series Announced!

[TechHDS]

Not much information in that video, except the claim there new weave cone makes a better bend driver than the Kevlar ones.

The point is that a larger woofer or mid cone no matter what it is made of, will break up. So two options are to cross before break up, and this usually results in a pretty low crossover well in the speech discrimination band. The other option is to manufactures a cone with precise and controlled break up with no or very well controlled break up modes. This results in a much wider band driver. The crossover can then be above the speech discrimination band. These types of drivers are very hard to engineer. The JW aluminum tactrix cone was one such driver that I was involved with, I think it was the best full range driver made. No unpleasant peaks out to 20 KHz.

With rigid metal cones you can push the break up mode pretty high. But when it does break you get a horrendous break up mode. For my Excel drivers it is 4 KHz, so you can cross at 2.5 KHz which towards the top end of the speech discrimination band. So it all comes down to how you want your poison.

The real point is that good wide band drivers are not plentiful. I think continuously improving wide band bend drivers is the best avenue to pursue, as difficult and bumpy as that road may be.

Thx TLS, for better info. They didn’t gave much info other than its metal, aluminum? I’m getting ready to upgrade my speakers I have been reading a lot of reviews on many towers around the 1500 to 2000 range. Lots of reviews are coming in with “brite topend or fatiguing at higher volumes. Wish I could spend 3 to 4 K on a pair of mains so 1500 to 2K is where I’m at. I found two Brands that fit the build I’m wanting, RBH R55E’s and Martin Logan 40s. since the 40’s are two lower end drivers even though they are “oversized” as opposed to RBH with 3 lower end drivers “aluminum” the RBH R55E’s won out.

Mike

 

[speakerman39]

Yep, will be paying off some loans myself in October. How you liking your new place?

Mike

Mike, I like my new place and all. But, lawd the layout is so messed up. Guess, I should have thought about that when I was apartment shopping.


Cheers,

Phil

 

[EBN]

Slight off-topic, but might apply to new 600-serie aswell as 700 serie was introduced not so long ago. If talked elsewhere then forget..

Why is that we always see some odd things happening when B&W speakers are being measured? Such an old legendary brand, one could assume they would have superb tech guys designing speakers there.

"Bowers & Wilkins loudspeakers tend to have somewhat idiosyncratic measured behavior, and the 702 S2 is no exception."

Measurements and comments;
https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-702-s2-loudspeaker-measurements

 

[speakerman39]

Slight off-topic, but might apply to new 600-serie aswell. If talked elsewhere then forget..

Why is that we always see some odd things happening when B&W speakers are being measured? Such an old legendary brand, one could assume they would have superb tech guys designing speakers there.

"Bowers & Wilkins loudspeakers tend to have somewhat idiosyncratic measured behavior, and the 702 S2 is no exception."

Measurements and comments;
https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-702-s2-loudspeaker-measurements

I am not a tower guy, but have read about B&W stand-mounts not measuring too flat. However, every B&W speaker that I have ever heard sounded very good to my ears. I owned the CM1 S1's, but never measured them. One of these days I will get around to getting to where I can take some measurements. Especially, since I have a new place now.

Needless to say, the CM1 S1's were superb in my room. The low end was remarkable to say the least. The mids were warm and lushy whereas the top end was extended and smooth. Personally, I love the B&W sound. Hence, the new 606's are very tempting. Might have to check them out when my funds allow me to do so.


Cheers,

Phil

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Why is that we always see some odd things happening when B&W speakers are being measured?

It seems that people can get cheap speakers to measure very flat on-axis and smooth off-axis.

The only thing I can think of is that B&W doesn't care for a linear/flat on-axis or smooth off-axis or any Speaker-of-the-Year awards.

Maybe B&W think speakers with a flat on-axis and smooth off-axis sound boring.

And as long as they continue to make a ton of money, why would they change that formula?

 

[TLS Guy]

Slight off-topic, but might apply to new 600-serie aswell as 700 serie was introduced not so long ago. If talked elsewhere then forget..

Why is that we always see some odd things happening when B&W speakers are being measured? Such an old legendary brand, one could assume they would have superb tech guys designing speakers there.

"Bowers & Wilkins loudspeakers tend to have somewhat idiosyncratic measured behavior, and the 702 S2 is no exception."

Measurements and comments;
https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-702-s2-loudspeaker-measurements

I think part of the reason is that B & W speakers ten to get full measurements compared to other brands. The fact is that most speakers to my ears sound pretty awful. That is why I build my own.

For instance I would never allow an impedance curve like the one that B & W has. In my view there is no excuse for that at all. Next the crossover from bass drivers to mid is just too low to make a decent passive crossover. I think this at least contributes to the nasty rise at 100 Hz, which would drive me nuts. The reviewer said the piano had appropriate resonance. I would say that reviewer has heard far too many pianos via speakers and not enough real ones.

There seems to be a hand off problem between the mid and tweeter in the crossover region.

Altogether not acceptable and overall with all the current advantages in modelling and testing, not acceptable. I would not release those speakers to market, at that price or even build them for a friend.

My rule is if you want a decent speaker you have only a few good choice other than building it yourself.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I think part of the reason is that B & W speakers ten to get full measurements compared to other brands. The fact is that most speakers to my ears sound pretty awful. That is why I build my own.

For instance I would never allow an impedance curve like the one that B & W has. In my view there is no excuse for that at all. Next the crossover from bass drivers to mid is just too low to make a decent passive crossover. I think this at least contributes to the nasty rise at 100 Hz, which would drive me nuts. The reviewer said the piano had appropriate resonance. I would say that reviewer has heard far too many pianos via speakers and not enough real ones.

There seems to be a hand off problem between the mid and tweeter in the crossover region.

Altogether not acceptable and overall with all the current advantages in modelling and testing, not acceptable. I would not release those speakers to market, at that price or even build them for a friend.

My rule is if you want a decent speaker you have only a few good choice other than building it yourself.

I'm having trouble following some of your comments. Why is 400 Hz a poor choice for a crossover from the woofer to the mid? That's about what I target when the mid can go low enough. I don't see the problem. Also, that "nasty" rise at 100 Hz is mostly an artifact of the near field woofer measurement vs the quasi anechoic above that point. And I don't see how it would be related to the choice of crossover frequency. If it really exists, it would most likely be a cabinet tuning issue. There are lots of fine commercial speakers out there, and lots of poor DIY's. But we can agree that the dip in the response in the lower treble is gonzo. That just has to color the sound.

 

[KEW]

I'm glad they aren't using the Kevlar drivers anymore. I've always found them to sound somewhat colored ...

Are you talking about the dominant yellowish hue to the sound in the mid-range?
(Sorry, sometimes, I just can't stop myself!)

 

[TLS Guy]

I'm having trouble following some of your comments. Why is 400 Hz a poor choice for a crossover from the woofer to the mid? That's about what I target when the mid can go low enough. I don't see the problem. Also, that "nasty" rise at 100 Hz is mostly an artifact of the near field woofer measurement vs the quasi anechoic above that point. And I don't see how it would be related to the choice of crossover frequency. If it really exists, it would most likely be a cabinet tuning issue. There are lots of fine commercial speakers out there, and lots of poor DIY's. But we can agree that the dip in the response in the lower treble is gonzo. That just has to color the sound.

The crossover is actually 350 Hz third order. I have found that the 400 Hz is pushing it for passives. The series inductors just get too massive and create too much series resistance with the woofer, even with very expensive components. I have found that the reproduction is just much tighter if active rather than passive crossover are used for these low crossover point. I think B &W were correct to raise the crossover to 500 Hz on the 800 D3.

I have heard the old 600 series often. My brother has the flagship of the range. The bass is more than warm. It is over the edge. I suspect some is tuning but not all. I have never been keen on that range.

Foe too many B & W models have adverse impedance curves and phase angles. That is not necessary and imposed hardship on amps, especially the more affordable ones. None of my speakers have impedance curves that look anything like that. Raymond Cooke always gave the advice not to have difficult impedance curves. Avoidance of those torture curves were hallmarks of his design.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

The crossover is actually 350 Hz third order. I have found that the 400 Hz is pushing it for passives. The series inductors just get too massive and create too much series resistance with the woofer, even with very expensive components. I have found that the reproduction is just much tighter if active rather than passive crossover are used for these low crossover point. I think B &W were correct to raise the crossover to 500 Hz on the 800 D3.

I have heard the old 600 series often. My brother has the flagship of the range. The bass is more than warm. It is over the edge. I suspect some is tuning but not all. I have never been keen on that range.

Foe too many B & W models have adverse impedance curves and phase angles. That is not necessary and imposed hardship on amps, especially the more affordable ones. None of my speakers have impedance curves that look anything like that. Raymond Cooke always gave the advice not to have difficult impedance curves. Avoidance of those torture curves were hallmarks of his design.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. High quality steel laminate inductors solve thedcr problem for large-value coils, and any decent amp should be able to handle the B&W impedance profile. I've seen a lot worse.

 

[MrBoat]

It seems that people can get cheap speakers to measure very flat on-axis and smooth off-axis.

The only thing I can think of is that B&W doesn't care for a linear/flat on-axis or smooth off-axis or any Speaker-of-the-Year awards.

Maybe B&W think speakers with a flat on-axis and smooth off-axis sound boring.

And as long as they continue to make a ton of money, why would they change that formula?

Many/most of the flat measuring speakers do not do well at all with mainstream recordings, or, what 99.9% of the audience, who are not audiophiles, listen to. Flat measuring speakers get the manufacturers off the hook. Since the speaker measures flat, any issues or dissatisfaction with performance can then be handed back to the end users source, room, or lack of musical taste.

The idea of a speaker designed to prove well to an anechoic standard, seems so conveniently blanketed to me. Easy to generate computer models and software to and design by, perhaps, but I cannot recall a time in my listening lifetime where speakers were so boring overall.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Many/most of the flat measuring speakers do not do well at all with mainstream recordings, or, what 99.9% of the audience, who are not audiophiles, listen to. Flat measuring speakers get the manufacturers off the hook. Since the speaker measures flat, any issues or dissatisfaction with performance can then be handed back to the end users source, room, or lack of musical taste.

The idea of a speaker designed to prove well to an anechoic standard, seems so conveniently blanketed to me. Easy to generate computer models and software to and design by, perhaps, but I cannot recall a time in my listening lifetime where speakers were so boring overall.

Are you saying that speakers that measure well (linear/flat on-axis, smooth off-axis) sound boring to you?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Many/most of the flat measuring speakers do not do well at all with mainstream recordings, or, what 99.9% of the audience, who are not audiophiles, listen to. Flat measuring speakers get the manufacturers off the hook. Since the speaker measures flat, any issues or dissatisfaction with performance can then be handed back to the end users source, room, or lack of musical taste.

The idea of a speaker designed to prove well to an anechoic standard, seems so conveniently blanketed to me. Easy to generate computer models and software to and design by, perhaps, but I cannot recall a time in my listening lifetime where speakers were so boring overall.

So using objective standards to design an accurate speaker is just a marketing, public relations gimmick? Loudspeakers aren't musical instruments. They're machines to get what's on the source material out into the listening room with a minimum of distortion.

 

[MrBoat]

Are you saying that speakers that measure well (linear/flat on-axis, smooth off-axis) sound boring to you?

Not exactly. I think the design goals and applications are overly predictable. One more avenue of enjoyment handed off to computer programmers and fact checkers for not much more than argument/marketing sake.

I am not feeling the 'art' of this craft so much anymore.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Not exactly. I think the design goals and applications are overly predictable. One more avenue of enjoyment handed off to computer programmers and fact checkers for not much more than argument/marketing sake.

I am not feeling the 'art' of this craft so much anymore.

I agree that I find most passive box towers very boring.

But I don't think it's due to the speaker measurements; I think it's due to the design.

For example, I don't find a broad treble spike in the FR or bad off-axis measurements very exciting.

 

[MrBoat]

So using objective standards to design an accurate speaker is just a marketing, public relations gimmick? Loudspeakers aren't musical instruments. They're machines to get what's on the source material out into the listening room with a minimum of distortion.

Minimum distortion is/should be such a thing of the past by now. I don't worry with finding (audibly) low distortion speakers/drivers these days. Of the 8 pairs of speakers I own, 6 will not audibly distort until well beyond the point of what would amount to rather severe and permanent physical damage to my hearing.

Most of the source material was not made to play through such "machines."

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Not exactly. I think the design goals and applications are overly predictable. One more avenue of enjoyment handed off to computer programmers and fact checkers for not much more than argument/marketing sake.

I am not feeling the 'art' of this craft so much anymore.

I'm just not sure where the "art" enters in, unless it's making the right trade-offs. But even that rests on science.

 

[shadyJ]

Minimum distortion is/should be such a thing of the past by now. I don't worry with finding (audibly) low distortion speakers/drivers these days. Of the 8 pairs of speakers I own, 6 will not audibly distort until well beyond the point of what would amount to rather severe and permanent physical damage to my hearing.

Most of the source material was not made to play through such "machines."

By distortion, I believe what Dennis means is anything that does not correspond to the input signal, so he is referring to linear distortion as well as non-linear distortion. So he means amplitude response errors as well as stuff like harmonic distortion products.

I mostly agree with his thought that speakers should just reproduce the incoming signal, so they should aim for a neutral response, as well as a smooth off-axis response. I'm not saying you have to like that flavor of sound though, but the thing about speakers with those performance characteristics is that they behave very predictably when you EQ them to your own taste. Speakers with rocky responses can be more problematic to equalize, especially if their responses at different angles do not correlate to each other. Personally I like hot bass on occasion, when the recording isn't of a natural event. Electronic music and hot bass are my bread and butter, but I wouldn't want the speaker to have natively hot bass, because it would be much more difficult to EQ to the type of hot bass that I really like.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

By distortion, I believe what Dennis means is anything that does not correspond to the input signal, so he is referring to linear distortion as well as non-linear distortion. So he means amplitude response errors as well as stuff like harmonic distortion products.

I mostly agree with his thought that speakers should just reproduce the incoming signal, so they should aim for a neutral response, as well as a smooth off-axis response. I'm not saying you have to like that flavor of sound though, but the thing about speakers with those performance characteristics is that they are behave very predictably when you EQ them to your own taste. Speakers with rocky responses can be more problematic to equalize, especially if their responses at different angles do not correlate to each other. Personally I like hot bass on occasion, when the recording isn't of a natural event. Electronic music and hot bass are my bread and butter, but I wouldn't want the speaker to have natively hot bass, because it would be much more difficult to EQ to the type of hot bass that I really like.

Right--I was just using "distortion" in its broadest meaning--deviation from accuracy. And I agree that a flat anechoic response might not be best for every room and every person. But it is the best way to start.

 

[TLS Guy]

This all comes down to the classical pop divide.

For one thing the monitors in pop studios are almost universally rock bottom.

To have a deviant speaker makes it part of the performance, which unless it is an instrument speaker it should never be. For reproducing non amplified natural instruments they are disastrous. They change the intonation and sonic signature of instruments.

The B & W speakers under discussion, are "plummy" in the bass and affect realistic reproduction of pianos and the bass strings.

And frequency response is not just the whole story. You can make a speaker with a flat frequency response unlistenable. So timing and therefore phase matters. So a flat on axis response is only a part of the story. Dispersion, transient response and the degree to which bass resonance is killed and controlled also contribute, as well as off axis response. Everything must be in correct balance.

If everything is aligned and the speakers get out of the way, thrilling performance after performance will be delivered.