Hello Dave

I am glad that you decided to join this thread. I have a few questions for you. Will the Beolab 5s receive any upgrades soon, especially in the digital processing area because it has been 5 yrs since its launch and digital processing has really marched forward. I am thinking of getting them for my new apartment so..... Also why does the Lab5 use such heavy transformers for the digital amplification sections? Was it because switching power supplies haven't been made at the time of introduction or it's something else?  

Thanks

Alexander  

soundproof:

The skirt is a thick, fibre-resin plastic that is shaped to avoid standing waves, and which absorbs resonances very well. The design is solid - you can trundle BL5s along in the same way you would a beer keg, rolling them by the larger disk. The disks are also solid - the visual impression is of a drum-kit high-hat, until you touch them. Weighing in at 65kg/each they are built to stand firm and to defeat any unwanted resonances.

It's difficult to compare the use of the drivers to that in other makes, as each driver is monitored and calibrated on the fly by individual processors, that analyze the incoming music, the driver's performance (including temperature and workload) and compensate accordingly to ensure equal output without temperature and load invariance. That's very different from the requirements in a passive speaker design without this kind of instant feedback monitoring.

When I did the parallel test, I was amazed that the BL5s played up to the B&Ws as well as they did, given the difference in price between the two systems. To my ears, the B&Ws sounded more brittle than the BL5s, but the system (with the Classé amp's) was nicely matched, and I didn't think they were disadvantaged in any way.
At the time (2006), I was discovering why I prefer speakers that make use of room reflections, and for this reason I moved on to testing the MBLs and the Bolzano Villetris, before coming back to BL5.

As things stand, the BL5 speakers are the last thing I would want to replace in any of my sound systems.

Thank you for your comments soundproof... wow!... so it is plastic after all.  Mind you, there is plastic and plastic...thick fibre resin sounds a lot more heavyweight engineering than a simple polycarbonate cone.  I guess it is mainly that the word 'plastic' conjures up images of cheap and cheerful, rather than serious engineering, but I'm also fairly confident that B&O with their R&D facilities would've chosen it for some fairly sensible reasons - certainly the cone shape would be ideal as regards internal standing waves as you say, and an alloy casting could ring, or have prohibitive cost attached to manufacture perhaps.

Yes, an excellent point about the advantages of having drivers calibrated and monitored on the fly by the electronics, to say nothing about the advantages of active drive and removal of the deleterious effects of a passive crossover, no matter how high a quality.  The B&W's might (?) have a slight advantage in quality of individual drivers, and perhaps driver isolation from the cabinets, and hence lowering of mechanical intermodulation distortion; but compared to what one wins back with the BL5 re active drive, no passive Xover, and as you say driver monitoring and calibration on the fly... hmmm... I think it is either a draw, or advantage BL5 if I had to call it re on paper specs as regards these fine points of design.  But then we still have the acoustic lenses of the BL5,  + the advantages of in room calibration for the bass response... Hmmmm....the BL5's are starting to look even more convincing without even doing the A/B....

Re your parallel test, it looks like a pair of 802's in the pic with the Classe amps - were they the Nautilus model, or the latest update with the first order crossovers and diamond tweeter?  Certainly as regards a match, I do not know of a better one than B&W 800 series with Classe amps.  Krell, Levinson, McIntosh would all be in likely similar league, but merely different in subtle ways.  

I very much take the point of cost and value with the BL5's.  Doing some sums, they are A$29,990.00 here, and 801D's are A$30,000.00. The cheapest amps that I know of to drive 801d's to clean and hard levels would be the likes of the Class D B&O ICE power Rotel 1092's at 500RMS a side - circa A$3,500.00 which is a great price and value for what they offer.  Or to jump to traditional analogue Classe we're talking A$18,000.00 EACH for a set of CAM400 monoblocks.  So in that scenario the B&W 801d' with classe amps is going to be around A$66,000.00 v's A$29k for the BL5's. Grief, I never thought I'd find myself saying B&O is good value, but in this instance the figures speak for themselves in terms of what you are paying, for what you are getting.

I'd be very interested in hearing about your thoughts re your personal discovery of speakers that make use of room reflections - I've not had any experience of them as a design/philosophy, having had prior exposure mainly to conventional 'box' speakers, electrostatics, horns and only one semi-omnidirectional (a friends set of DCM time windows). 

May I also ask if you are running other B&O front end equipment with your BL5's, or do you run them in combination with kit from other manufacturers?

Many thanks again for such helpful information and comments all. 

Best Regards

John...    

Thank you so much for joining in Dave, and for the links... I have downloaded all and will be doing much reading... wonderful stuff...

 All the best

 John... 

Beoboiinoz:

soundproof:

The skirt is a thick, fibre-resin plastic that is shaped to avoid standing waves, and which absorbs resonances very well. The design is solid - you can trundle BL5s along in the same way you would a beer keg, rolling them by the larger disk. The disks are also solid - the visual impression is of a drum-kit high-hat, until you touch them. Weighing in at 65kg/each they are built to stand firm and to defeat any unwanted resonances.

It's difficult to compare the use of the drivers to that in other makes, as each driver is monitored and calibrated on the fly by individual processors, that analyze the incoming music, the driver's performance (including temperature and workload) and compensate accordingly to ensure equal output without temperature and load invariance. That's very different from the requirements in a passive speaker design without this kind of instant feedback monitoring.

When I did the parallel test, I was amazed that the BL5s played up to the B&Ws as well as they did, given the difference in price between the two systems. To my ears, the B&Ws sounded more brittle than the BL5s, but the system (with the Classé amp's) was nicely matched, and I didn't think they were disadvantaged in any way.
At the time (2006), I was discovering why I prefer speakers that make use of room reflections, and for this reason I moved on to testing the MBLs and the Bolzano Villetris, before coming back to BL5.

As things stand, the BL5 speakers are the last thing I would want to replace in any of my sound systems.

Thank you for your comments soundproof... wow!... so it is plastic after all.  Mind you, there is plastic and plastic...thick fibre resin sounds a lot more heavyweight engineering than a simple polycarbonate cone.  I guess it is mainly that the word 'plastic' conjures up images of cheap and cheerful, rather than serious engineering, but I'm also fairly confident that B&O with their R&D facilities would've chosen it for some fairly sensible reasons - certainly the cone shape would be ideal as regards internal standing waves as you say, and an alloy casting could ring, or have prohibitive cost attached to manufacture perhaps.

Yes, an excellent point about the advantages of having drivers calibrated and monitored on the fly by the electronics, to say nothing about the advantages of active drive and removal of the deleterious effects of a passive crossover, no matter how high a quality.  The B&W's might (?) have a slight advantage in quality of individual drivers, and perhaps driver isolation from the cabinets, and hence lowering of mechanical intermodulation distortion; but compared to what one wins back with the BL5 re active drive, no passive Xover, and as you say driver monitoring and calibration on the fly... hmmm... I think it is either a draw, or advantage BL5 if I had to call it re on paper specs as regards these fine points of design.  But then we still have the acoustic lenses of the BL5,  + the advantages of in room calibration for the bass response... Hmmmm....the BL5's are starting to look even more convincing without even doing the A/B....

Re your parallel test, it looks like a pair of 802's in the pic with the Classe amps - were they the Nautilus model, or the latest update with the first order crossovers and diamond tweeter?  Certainly as regards a match, I do not know of a better one than B&W 800 series with Classe amps.  Krell, Levinson, McIntosh would all be in likely similar league, but merely different in subtle ways.  

I very much take the point of cost and value with the BL5's.  Doing some sums, they are A$29,990.00 here, and 801D's are A$30,000.00. The cheapest amps that I know of to drive 801d's to clean and hard levels would be the likes of the Class D B&O ICE power Rotel 1092's at 500RMS a side - circa A$3,500.00 which is a great price and value for what they offer.  Or to jump to traditional analogue Classe we're talking A$18,000.00 EACH for a set of CAM400 monoblocks.  So in that scenario the B&W 801d' with classe amps is going to be around A$66,000.00 v's A$29k for the BL5's. Grief, I never thought I'd find myself saying B&O is good value, but in this instance the figures speak for themselves in terms of what you are paying, for what you are getting.

I'd be very interested in hearing about your thoughts re your personal discovery of speakers that make use of room reflections - I've not had any experience of them as a design/philosophy, having had prior exposure mainly to conventional 'box' speakers, electrostatics, horns and only one semi-omnidirectional (a friends set of DCM time windows). 

May I also ask if you are running other B&O front end equipment with your BL5's, or do you run them in combination with kit from other manufacturers?

Many thanks again for such helpful information and comments all. 

Best Regards

John...    

Hey John.

Why only consider the B&Ws at this price point? The Nautilus 800 series has some serious flaws, chiefly the midrange driver and driver integration problems. Maybe you should consider speakers from Magico and Wilson Benesch or the new and controversial Polymer Audio instead, they are sonsidered more high end in sound than that of the B&Ws and better respected in the audiophile committee too. The only real high end speakers in the B&W speaker lineup is the Nautilus Prestige. 

Cheers

Alexander 

The B&Ws are the diamond-tweeter version, connected to the CAM400 monobloques.

As to room reflections - to me it just makes sense. A sound consists of direct and reflected waves, and most concert arenas will have gone to great effort to control the reflections, and make them part of the listening experience.
So - doesn't the recording take care of the sum of the waves, direct and reflected?

How come we can "always" tell when something is live, and when it is done in a studio? And it's not just the perceived perfection of the music and singing, but actually a coldness to the sound, to my ears, that account for the difference. And though sound engineers try to record reflections (when the venue is suitable) or engineer them, it comes out not sounding right, compared to the live performance. (I guess it never will sound right, but we can get closer and closer.)

And to me and my ears, that's what adding the room reflections does. Rather than subtract them, through damping of the first reflection area, etc., they can be used to add dimension to the sound. Just as a note from the concert stage travels straight to you, it also travels in just about every other direction and is then reflected to you (and in a concert hall, it's the side wall and rear reflections you get the most of), and I find that I really like that happening in my listening room, with the BL5s and BL3s. Particularly the 5s. And when I, for fun, do damp the first reflections, the music sounds poorer to me. Less real, more clinical. 

With conventional speakers, you have two sound cones aimed at you, and the energy drop-off outside the cones is such that the reflections serve to create distortion, not adding sense to the signal, so to speak. And that's why you damp the first order reflection area with such speakers.
But with the acoustic lenses, the sound energy is much more evenly dispersed from the speakers, and then heads directly towards you, while also being reflected from the side walls and to you -- the result is significantly different from listening to conventional speakers. And this is why I claim that most B&O dealerships have them set up wrong - they're not using the reflections right. In Moulton's post above he states that the sound energy reaching you from the reflections can be up to 4 times that of the directly aimed sound ...

One can freely differ with this, but I believe it is what sets the acoustic lenses apart. And given ICEpower, it's suddenly become possible to have enough energy on tap to actually diffuse the sound emanating from the speakers, while retaining control of the dispersion. I think Acoustic Lenses are a revolution in sound reproduction, and that B&O failed to capitalise on them maybe due to a fear of cannibalising their sales of the column speakers.
Now we're seeing various designs exploring the same path, but B&O could have been way ahead of the pack.

I'm using a digital path from my NAS/Mac mini to the BL5s for my music listening. Toslink S/PDIF to Coax S/PDIF.

Yeah... I was taking about the diamond tweeter version. Three different drivers made with very different materials and with very different sound characteristics, you wouldn't be able to blend them well even if you tried. So in a sense all you hear is good treble, distinct midrange oh and good bass, which really wouldn't be the case if you are listening to live music. The fact that the speaker is passive doesn't help either as each driver will cast it's own resonance beyond its operating range. 

Enough with praising the Lab 5s already.... haha... We are trying to compare other speakers around the same price that might perform equally or surpass the Lab 5s performance.

 BTW Soundproof why are you using a Mac mini? You should at least get a decent music server like the Olives/ Transporter or a quality transport at least. If I am not wrong, the time when Beolab5s were introduced, the idea of linking directly to a noisy digital output signal such as that of a computer's isn't factored. So you are not really squeezing good performance out of the Labs 5s and besides audio via digital output from a computer is much worse than USB connection. 

wonderfulelectric:

 BTW Soundproof why are you using a Mac mini? You should at least get a decent music server like the Olives/ Transporter or a quality transport at least. If I am not wrong, the time when Beolab5s were introduced, the idea of linking directly to a noisy digital output signal such as that of a computer's isn't factored. So you are not really squeezing good performance out of the Labs 5s and besides audio via digital output from a computer is much worse than USB connection. 

Oh, as you will have discovered, I like to compare -- and I'm also pretty agnostic when it comes to discernible differences between properly handled digital audio signals, because of these comparisons. I've had units costing in the umpteens above what a Mac mini would cost.

First of all, I'm not using the sound card in the Mac mini; I'm using its optical out. I have tried external soundcards, both USB and FireWire -- but the solution I'm using now is quite good. The toslink optical S/PDIF goes to a Cambridge Azur 840C, which then converts to coax S/PDIF, and sends this as a pass-through signal to the speakers. I tried sound cards that would send a direct coax S/PDIF to the speakers, but the buffer and top spec'd processor in the Cambridge does the job perfectly. (I happen to know that the same circuitry is in a CD-player costing ten times as much ...)

Again, I'm totally agnostic when it comes to audiophile myths re differences between unpolluted digital signals, and the Mac mini is fully capable of delivering what I require. (And we have connected quite a lot of different kit when comparing ...)

What a great thread!
I often find that when posts get quite long, I tend to skip through them, picking out points of interest only.
But I have read every word of this one and am spellbound. Just wish I was more knowledgeable so I could join in.
Welcome to Beoworld from me too, John in Melbourne
Dave, I didn't seem to receive an invite to the 'Mix Summit', must have gotten lost in the post eh?

Andy T.

Beoboiinoz:

Thank you for your comments soundproof... wow!... so it is plastic after all.  Mind you, there is plastic and plastic...thick fibre resin sounds a lot more heavyweight engineering than a simple polycarbonate cone.  I guess it is mainly that the word 'plastic' conjures up images of cheap and cheerful, rather than serious engineering, but I'm also fairly confident that B&O with their R&D facilities would've chosen it for some fairly sensible reasons - certainly the cone shape would be ideal as regards internal standing waves as you say, and an alloy casting could ring, or have prohibitive cost attached to manufacture perhaps.

B&O has been using some kind of resin plastic in speaker body construction for more than 30 years now, so I'm sure they pretty much master its pros and cons. It is acoustically quite dead and I suppose it has very little manufacturing constraints regarding the shape. I believe most "better" materials would make a very marginal difference, while costing a lot more to build.

And yes, this thread has been both highly educating and highly interesting!

Alexander said:

Why only consider the B&Ws at this price point? The Nautilus 800 series has some serious flaws, chiefly the midrange driver and driver integration problems. Maybe you should consider speakers from Magico and Wilson Benesch or the new and controversial Polymer Audio instead, they are sonsidered more high end in sound than that of the B&Ws and better respected in the audiophile committee too. The only real high end speakers in the B&W speaker lineup is the Nautilus Prestige.........Yeah... I was taking about the diamond tweeter version. Three different drivers made with very different materials and with very different sound characteristics, you wouldn't be able to blend them well even if you tried. So in a sense all you hear is good treble, distinct midrange oh and good bass, which really wouldn't be the case if you are listening to live music. The fact that the speaker is passive doesn't help either as each driver will cast it's own resonance beyond its operating range.

Well, I guess I have something of a taste for B&W speakers, having owned a pair for many years in the past and been highly satisfied with them. I've also been a fan of the 801's since they came out, and for many years they have been my 'dream' speakers.  However, I appreciate your comments and in part would certainly agree - B&W 800 series are not without flaw.  A few years back I heard the then Nautilus 802, and thought it very much as you described, in that the sound did not 'gel' together that well as regards coherence and driver integration and with it timing, giving rise to the treble, midrange and bass sensation as you aptly put it.  Also ported reflex when really well executed as the 800's are, is no mean thing, but for some reason I still prefer either acoustic suspension or even transmission line bass; there is something that just seems more 'right' about it.  As far as the latest models with the diamond tweeter and revised first order crossovers, so far I've only heard 'up the line' as far as the 803D.  IMO it is a far better speaker than the Nautilus 802, with the drivers now sounding all of a piece and singing from the same choir-sheet, and timing, dynamics and driver integration/coherence  were much improved to the point that it no longer seemed an issue.

The other point is one of value and range; with their large scale manufacturing, B&Ws are perhaps the most reasonably priced of any UK sourced kit here, given the shipping costs, exchange rates, duties and importers markups etc which all tend to mitigate against UK sourced kit.  And as I also want a multi-channel setup, I can choose from either other models in the 800, or other series within the B&W catalogue, and get excellent tonal/timbre matching. 

 Many thanks for the thoughtful comments

 All the Best

 John.. 

soundproof:

The B&Ws are the diamond-tweeter version, connected to the CAM400 monobloques.

As to room reflections - to me it just makes sense. A sound consists of direct and reflected waves, and most concert arenas will have gone to great effort to control the reflections, and make them part of the listening experience.
So - doesn't the recording take care of the sum of the waves, direct and reflected?

How come we can "always" tell when something is live, and when it is done in a studio? And it's not just the perceived perfection of the music and singing, but actually a coldness to the sound, to my ears, that account for the difference. And though sound engineers try to record reflections (when the venue is suitable) or engineer them, it comes out not sounding right, compared to the live performance. (I guess it never will sound right, but we can get closer and closer.)

And to me and my ears, that's what adding the room reflections does. Rather than subtract them, through damping of the first reflection area, etc., they can be used to add dimension to the sound. Just as a note from the concert stage travels straight to you, it also travels in just about every other direction and is then reflected to you (and in a concert hall, it's the side wall and rear reflections you get the most of), and I find that I really like that happening in my listening room, with the BL5s and BL3s. Particularly the 5s. And when I, for fun, do damp the first reflections, the music sounds poorer to me. Less real, more clinical. 

With conventional speakers, you have two sound cones aimed at you, and the energy drop-off outside the cones is such that the reflections serve to create distortion, not adding sense to the signal, so to speak. And that's why you damp the first order reflection area with such speakers.
But with the acoustic lenses, the sound energy is much more evenly dispersed from the speakers, and then heads directly towards you, while also being reflected from the side walls and to you -- the result is significantly different from listening to conventional speakers. And this is why I claim that most B&O dealerships have them set up wrong - they're not using the reflections right. In Moulton's post above he states that the sound energy reaching you from the reflections can be up to 4 times that of the directly aimed sound ...

One can freely differ with this, but I believe it is what sets the acoustic lenses apart. And given ICEpower, it's suddenly become possible to have enough energy on tap to actually diffuse the sound emanating from the speakers, while retaining control of the dispersion. I think Acoustic Lenses are a revolution in sound reproduction, and that B&O failed to capitalise on them maybe due to a fear of cannibalising their sales of the column speakers.
Now we're seeing various designs exploring the same path, but B&O could have been way ahead of the pack.

I'm using a digital path from my NAS/Mac mini to the BL5s for my music listening. Toslink S/PDIF to Coax S/PDIF.

 

Once again soundproof, thank you so much for a comprehensive, very interesting and helpful reply.  I readily understand your comments and have like thoughts, as it is the speaker and the interface it makes with the room that is where the real advances are to be gained in system performance IME, not playing around forever changing brands of amp or source, or endlessly tweaking with cables and stands etc in true audiophile fashion. It is very interesting to hear that you are using a server as your source and connecting through the highly regarded audiophile 'giant killing' Cambridge.  As I am running multi-channel SACD as my main music source, I am going to have to look at my options as regards connectivity to BL5's should I decide to go with a set; probably doing something similar as yourself via running signal through my existing ES kit en-route to the BL5's.  It is a pity that kit such as Blu-ray and SACD etc is not available in B&O's range; however who knows what the future may bring now that there appears to be a new CEO etc on board.  

Thanks again so much to all for the kind and very helpful comments - yes it is an interesting thread, and augurs well for my intended stay re my new membership; it is rare to find informed and educated opinion freely given on internet Hifi forums without bias and ego grandstanding and an 'I am right, and you are wrong' attitude.  As such there is a great deal to be learned and appreciated on these forums I feel, and it is you, the members here who have created that.  Congratulations all and Thank You.

All the Best

John..  

Hello John.

Didn't know you will be using the Lab 5s for high resolution formats. If so, I suggest you wait for the Lab 5s to receive an upgrade cos I don't think they will be best suited for the application in its current form. Icepower amps have a limited high frequency bandwidth and tends to sound urgent at the top and plus all that D/A, A/D, D/A the signal has to go through isn't too ideal plus i don't think it readily accepts 24bit/96khz signals too. If you really like the idea of Active drive on a budget, go for the ATC SCM 100/150 or the anniversary versions if you find the normal ones too aesthetically challenged, and use a processor with a high quality digital equalizer so that you get the same sound smoothing benefits as the automated bass equalization technique employed in the Lab5s.ATCs are very dynamic being that they can go from quiet to very loud within a split second without any sign of stress which is very suited for HD sound applications. In fact, Sony used ATC speakers to showcase their SACD format when it was launched.  

Okay these are just my very impartial comments here. So Lab5 fans please don't throw rocks at me!

Good luck to your system

Alexander 

The BeoLab 5 will accept 96 kHz/24 bit signals. Yes there is a high frequency limit on ICE Power amps, but it's far higher than the human ear can effectively reach (way above 20 kHz). I doubt the amps in ATC's offerings will be able to reach that high.

Yes the ATCs are good, and the SCM7s I had a few years ago were fantastic, but even the SCM150 or SCM40 when used with exceptionally good amplification (MacIntosh) are no match for the BeoLab 5's dynamics.

wonderfulelectric:

You should at least get a decent music server like the Olives/ Transporter or a quality transport at least. If I am not wrong, the time when Beolab5s were introduced, the idea of linking directly to a noisy digital output signal such as that of a computer's isn't factored. So you are not really squeezing good performance out of the Labs 5s and besides audio via digital output from a computer is much worse than USB connection. 

As to the Mac mini - maybe I should answer in a bit more detail.
To begin - if an audiophile brand delivered a component which can do what the Intel Mac mini does, the unit would cost GBP 20.000, at least. But as it's a computer, it flies in a different price category.

Computers and noisy digital outputs are a holdover myth, and you need to factor in that this is a Mac OSX unit - not a Windows "disabled" one with the known challenges as to the audio path. (Which they have tried to resolve in Vista, but then Vista has its own issues.)

Macs are used by film and audio professionals the world over, and their output can easily be of professional grade, when used right. I'll agree, it seems counterintuitive that this little, inexpensive brick should be a satisfying performer, but it is. I'm using it to run output from my server, music and video, as well as to run streams of both types from browsers on the net. (Hulu.com, for instance, or the Dailyshow.com full-program feeds).

Incredulous owners of expensive transports have been in my listening room, listening to the output from their component, and compared it to what results from my signal chain. I take no particular joy in shooting down audiophile myths, though I will confess to having a goal: good audiophile quality sound is attainable to all, and much more easily achieved if you pare away the myths, and spend your money on what actually matters.

I consider selling USD 49.000 speaker cables to be a criminal act - because it creates the impression that you can't get excellent sound in your living room unless you spend a fortune. While you do have to spend some money, and should spend most of it on the speakers and room - you do not have to succumb to the basic dishonesty of high-end audio, as long as you trust your own ears.
And I believe that my little Mac mini will hold its own against any more expensive unit - in a blind test.

As I also believe that active speakers are an elegant solution that allows you to exploit today's technology to the fullest.
Though I do want to stress that it's a question of personal choice - if you're more comfortable with an analog chain from A-Z, and a traditional high-end setup with passive speakers, then that's best for you, as you'll be listening at ease, and that's what's important.

If you feel that digital signals are susceptible to the biases analog signals are victim to, then you probably want to buy components that seek to do something about such bias, in order to feel at ease in your listening experience -- or components that simplify the control and operation of your playback, which can be tricky at times, when you fit units together in the way I have. Which is why units such as BeoSound 5 are interesting, and I'm looking forward to seeing the full spec's!

Alex:

The BeoLab 5 will accept 96 kHz/24 bit signals. Yes there is a high frequency limit on ICE Power amps, but it's far higher than the human ear can effectively reach (way above 20 kHz). I doubt the amps in ATC's offerings will be able to reach that high.

Yes the ATCs are good, and the SCM7s I had a few years ago were fantastic, but even the SCM150 or SCM40 when used with exceptionally good amplification (MacIntosh) are no match for the BeoLab 5's dynamics.

Ermm... I was referring to the Active SCMs not the Passive ones, and atc amplifications go up to 200khz while remaining very flat if I am not wrong. Try listening to them, they have like this magical machine gun bass. But I really don't care for the boxy appearance though, only way if I am going to buy them it's to soffit mount them so I don't have to look at them. Then again one of the handsomest looking speakers I have ever seen is the  ATC EL150 SLP but doubt that mortals can afford them.

soundproof:

wonderfulelectric:

You should at least get a decent music server like the Olives/ Transporter or a quality transport at least. If I am not wrong, the time when Beolab5s were introduced, the idea of linking directly to a noisy digital output signal such as that of a computer's isn't factored. So you are not really squeezing good performance out of the Labs 5s and besides audio via digital output from a computer is much worse than USB connection. 

As to the Mac mini - maybe I should answer in a bit more detail.
To begin - if an audiophile brand delivered a component which can do what the Intel Mac mini does, the unit would cost GBP 20.000, at least. But as it's a computer, it flies in a different price category.

Computers and noisy digital outputs are a holdover myth, and you need to factor in that this is a Mac OSX unit - not a Windows "disabled" one with the known challenges as to the audio path. (Which they have tried to resolve in Vista, but then Vista has its own issues.)

Macs are used by film and audio professionals the world over, and their output can easily be of professional grade, when used right. I'll agree, it seems counterintuitive that this little, inexpensive brick should be a satisfying performer, but it is. I'm using it to run output from my server, music and video, as well as to run streams of both types from browsers on the net. (Hulu.com, for instance, or the Dailyshow.com full-program feeds).

Incredulous owners of expensive transports have been in my listening room, listening to the output from their component, and compared it to what results from my signal chain. I take no particular joy in shooting down audiophile myths, though I will confess to having a goal: good audiophile quality sound is attainable to all, and much more easily achieved if you pare away the myths, and spend your money on what actually matters.

I consider selling USD 49.000 speaker cables to be a criminal act - because it creates the impression that you can't get excellent sound in your living room unless you spend a fortune. While you do have to spend some money, and should spend most of it on the speakers and room - you do not have to succumb to the basic dishonesty of high-end audio, as long as you trust your own ears.
And I believe that my little Mac mini will hold its own against any more expensive unit - in a blind test.

As I also believe that active speakers are an elegant solution that allows you to exploit today's technology to the fullest.
Though I do want to stress that it's a question of personal choice - if you're more comfortable with an analog chain from A-Z, and a traditional high-end setup with passive speakers, then that's best for you, as you'll be listening at ease, and that's what's important.

If you feel that digital signals are susceptible to the biases analog signals are victim to, then you probably want to buy components that seek to do something about such bias, in order to feel at ease in your listening experience -- or components that simplify the control and operation of your playback, which can be tricky at times, when you fit units together in the way I have. Which is why units such as BeoSound 5 are interesting, and I'm looking forward to seeing the full spec's!

Hello Soundproof.

I too am using a Mac, in fact I have been using Macs for close to ten yrs. You see I use to believe that with a good D/A processor than an okay digital input should suffice. However, ever since I replaced Logitech's Squeezebox with the Olive, I experienced a tremendous leap in sound quality throughout the frequency range and I am currently using a "state of the art" D/A converter. So it's kinda my mind says that the digital source shouldn't matter that much but my ears say it does. Also, doesn't the mac mini has a teeny hard drive? Have you been using compression for your music files? It's such a no no. 

wonderfulelectric:

Hello John.

Didn't know you will be using the Lab 5s for high resolution formats. If so, I suggest you wait for the Lab 5s to receive an upgrade cos I don't think they will be best suited for the application in its current form. Icepower amps have a limited high frequency bandwidth and tends to sound urgent at the top and plus all that D/A, A/D, D/A the signal has to go through isn't too ideal plus i don't think it readily accepts 24bit/96khz signals too.

 No rocks to be thrown here, Alexander.

The BL5s accept 24bit/96kHz s/pdif without any problems at all. In fact, all incoming signals are upsampled to this resolution, if they're not arriving in same.

The conversions have absolutely no effect on the validity of the signal, and each has a purpose. You may just as well complain about the conversions that an analog signal undergoes during amplification. There are pro's and con's in all systems - and as stated above, it also means you have to go with what you're comfortable with.

A few providers of particularly multi-channel music are selling this in 24bit/192kHz/channel, and the BL5s cannot process that as an incoming signal -- but if you feed the BL5s the analog converted version of the signal, then it will be processed properly, with the added advantages of the driver and performance monitoring of the onboard computers.
Then it's up to you whether you feel that the signal deteriorates when it is sent through the speakers - tests seem to indicate that it does not, whether in this setup or in others.

However, as I have indicated in another thread, this is an area where B&O might want to re-spec the boards they get from suppliers such as Analog Devices, if the very high sample rates become standard.

wonderfulelectric:

Hello Soundproof.

I too am using a Mac, in fact I have been using Macs for close to ten yrs. You see I use to believe that with a good D/A processor than an okay digital input should suffice. However, ever since I replaced Logitech's Squeezebox with the Olive, I experienced a tremendous leap in sound quality throughout the frequency range and I am currently using a "state of the art" D/A converter. So it's kinda my mind says that the digital source shouldn't matter that much but my ears say it does. Also, doesn't the mac mini has a teeny hard drive? Have you been using compression for your music files? It's such a no no. 

Alexander, you can spare us the smart comments, makes you come off less than constructive.

And as you will notice in the thread, I have made reference to my NAS server ... reading comprehension is a skill. The Olive boosts the output signal, by 6dB, and tricks you into thinking you have achieved increased performance. Just turn up the volume on the unit you were comparing with.

The hard drive on my Mac mini only contains various test signals, as well as a number of applications used in sound processing. All content is sent to it from the 3TB server. (Which holds lossless, uncompressed or high-resolution files.)

"State of the art" D/A converters are a dime a dozen, these days. Just ask the OEM manufacturers who provide them - and I say that as one who has four branded units in the house, at very respectable prices, not counting the ones in my BL5s.

Enjoy your listening, spare us the smart aleck commentary.

(Mac owner since 1986. Have six operating computers in the apartment alone, including iMacs, Mac pro's, Mac mini -- and with a smattering of Time Machines, Airport Express units, Base stations, etc. on top of that.)

soundproof:

wonderfulelectric:

Hello Soundproof.

I too am using a Mac, in fact I have been using Macs for close to ten yrs. You see I use to believe that with a good D/A processor than an okay digital input should suffice. However, ever since I replaced Logitech's Squeezebox with the Olive, I experienced a tremendous leap in sound quality throughout the frequency range and I am currently using a "state of the art" D/A converter. So it's kinda my mind says that the digital source shouldn't matter that much but my ears say it does. Also, doesn't the mac mini has a teeny hard drive? Have you been using compression for your music files? It's such a no no. 

Alexander, you can spare us the smart comments, makes you come off as a putz.

And as you will notice in the thread, I have made reference to my NAS server ... reading comprehension is a skill. The Olive boosts the output signal, by 6dB, and tricks you into thinking you have achieved increased performance. Just turn up the volume on the unit you were comparing with.

The hard drive on my Mac mini only contains various test signals, as well as a number of applications used in sound processing. All content is sent to it from the 3TB server. (Which holds lossless, uncompressed or high-resolution files.)

"State of the art" D/A converters are a dime a dozen, these days. Just ask the OEM manufacturers who provide them - and I say that as one who has four branded units in the house, at very respectable prices, not counting the ones in my BL5s.

Enjoy your listening, spare us the smart aleck commentary.

(Mac owner since 1986. Have six operating computers in the apartmentalone, including iMacs, Mac pro's, Mac mini -- and with a smattering ofTime Machines, Airport Express units, Base stations, etc. on top ofthat.)

Jeez.. Didn't know a discussion of D/A converters can be so emotional for you.. Sorry.. Guess i joined the battle of the "unclassy"... Guess somebody has that I got the best system and don't you even dare suggest something might be wrong with it syndrome.... Audiophiles can be quite nasty sometimes.

wonderfulelectric:

Hello Soundproof.

I too am using a Mac, in fact I have been using Macs for close to ten yrs. You see I use to believe that with a good D/A processor than an okay digital input should suffice. However, ever since I replaced Logitech's Squeezebox with the Olive, I experienced a tremendous leap in sound quality throughout the frequency range and I am currently using a "state of the art" D/A converter. So it's kinda my mind says that the digital source shouldn't matter that much but my ears say it does. Also, doesn't the mac mini has a teeny hard drive? Have you been using compression for your music files? It's such a no no. 

My comment was related to the highlighted sentences ... seemed unwarranted, and silly.
I am under no delusion that I have "the best system" nor do I feel I suffer from any syndrome.

It's been a very constructive thread, where you have also shared valuable insights, let's keep it that way.

I'm nonetheless interested in your response to my contention that the Olive boosts the output level, and that this is responsible for the reported improvement "across the frequency range."

As a reality check, this thread started out discussing whether or not Lab 5 drivers needed breaking in.

I dropped out of the current discussion some time ago as it seemed, to me, to have deteriorated into a stream of quotes from hifi publications along with long lists of expensive components. Nevertheless it has been an interesting thread to date with some good stuff in there in places however, in my experience, these threads never reach resolution and can become acrimonious.

The time comes when you need to agree to disagree  - if you're happy with your own setup then that's all that really counts, other peoples opinions are interesting but they are just opinions and shouldn't generally be confused with fact.