wonderfulelectric:

Trust me... You wouldn't want that. I am totally regretting my choice of getting monitor grade speakers from ATC over the Beolab 9s. They sound great only with the right material. 

OK - at what point does a hifi speaker manufacturers "signature sound" become a poor sprectral response?

Is the difference in the fact that the nonlinearity is meant to be there rather than there by accident?

We are now talking about what sounds suit your ear rather than what is accurate - as nice as that may be, at what point does it stop being hifi? It's the start of a road that can ultimately end up with Bose! 

The only way Bose suits my ear is when it's off...

Alex:

The only way Bose suits my ear is when it's off...

And even then they still hurt the eyes 

Puncher:

wonderfulelectric:

Trust me... You wouldn't want that. I am totally regretting my choice of getting monitor grade speakers from ATC over the Beolab 9s. They sound great only with the right material. 

OK - at what point does a hifi speaker manufacturers "signature sound" become a poor sprectral response?

Is the difference in the fact that the nonlinearity is meant to be there rather than there by accident?

We are now talking about what sounds suit your ear rather than what is accurate - as nice as that may be, at what point does it stop being hifi? It's the start of a road that can ultimately end up with Bose! 

Easy. Real high end hifi has little distortion and low coloration whereas cheap hifi has an abundance of the two. Take for example electrostatics, they don't have an even frequency response but they excel in the time domain and low distortion. Neutrality is overrated. I think what matters most is low distortion and coloration. 

I mean Bose has bad everything. It has bad frequency response, impulse, coloration and distortion.  

wonderfulelectric:

Puncher:

wonderfulelectric:

Trust me... You wouldn't want that. I am totally regretting my choice of getting monitor grade speakers from ATC over the Beolab 9s. They sound great only with the right material. 

OK - at what point does a hifi speaker manufacturers "signature sound" become a poor sprectral response?

Is the difference in the fact that the nonlinearity is meant to be there rather than there by accident?

We are now talking about what sounds suit your ear rather than what is accurate - as nice as that may be, at what point does it stop being hifi? It's the start of a road that can ultimately end up with Bose! 

Easy. Real high end hifi has little distortion and low coloration whereas cheap hifi has an abundance of the two. Take for example electrostatics, they don't have an even frequency response but they excel in the time domain and low distortion. Neutrality is overrated. I think what matters most is low distortion and coloration. 

I mean Bose has bad everything. It has bad frequency response, impulse, coloration and distortion.  

You've confused me now - what is "Neutrality" (albeit overrated)  - if it is not low distortion and low coloration??

I fear I share your confusion, Puncher, when it comes to Wonderfulelectric's prose on loudspeakers. And stating that "neutrality is overrated" is ridiculous, and as you state: "little distortion and low coloration" is neutral.

Here's the point, as Puncher also made it above: a neutral speaker/system, will let you hear the best possible approximation of what was recorded; a system that colours the signal, emphasising/suppressing regions of the frequency range, will introduce this colouration across-the-board, and that's definitely not desirable.

A neutral high-end system is never boring. If you're bored by the music, then it's the music that is boring.

However, if you listen to a particular kind of music, to the exclusion of most others, then you could fine-tune your system for the frequencies present in this type of music. Though, again, if your system is neutral, you shouldn't need to.

Neutrality just points to the flatness of the frequency response of a loudspeaker. Whereas low distortion normally points to the superb engineering of the drivers where they will just be cruising at loud levels showing little stress, coloration usually points to resonances in the loudspeaker enclosure causing the time smearing effect. Why I say neutrality is overrated is because a speaker can be not neutral yet enjoyable say a an electrostatic.

In-room response of loudspeakers are rarely flat/neutral BTW.  

Anyways guess you guys don't like the elevated treble in B&O loudspeakers or the flashed out midrange in B&W loudspeakers then? 

As it happens I'm not a huge fan of the excessively lumpy midrange response of B&W's 800 range in particular (as fantastic as they are otherwise). Why on earth they're so popular as monitor speakers in studios - goodness knows. BeoLab 5s are far more neutral. B&W's other speakers don't seem to suffer from this as much however. Even my little DM303s (which were the entry level speakers at the time) exhibit a more natural midrange response than some of the 800 series speakers (not that they're comparable in terms of overall performance).

Alex:

As it happens I'm not a huge fan of the excessively lumpy midrange response of B&W's 800 range in particular (as fantastic as they are otherwise). Why on earth they're so popular as monitor speakers in studios - goodness knows. BeoLab 5s are far more neutral. B&W's other speakers don't seem to suffer from this as much however. Even my little DM303s (which were the entry level speakers at the time) exhibit a more natural midrange response than some of the 800 series speakers (not that they're comparable in terms of overall performance).

In case you didn't already know. The midrange of the B&Ws is more of a marketing strategy to call attention to that big yellow cone. The size of the midrange driver is far from ideal, it starts breaking up below its crossover point to the tweeter. You are right to say that the elevated response of the treble in B&O loudspeakers are a lot less intrusive thus more natural. 

That seems like a reasonable explanation to me, never thought of it that way before!

I'd always preferred the 801 to the 800, mainly due to the midrange, but the 801 also seems to exhibit much smoother bass.

On a similar vein to the thread title, the B&W series actually suffer hugely from break in time, particularly those with surroundless kevlar midrange drivers, as the cone must be very flexible before it will behave as it's meant to (which isn't how it comes out of the factory!).

Apologies for showing a photo from this session again, but it's pertinent.

Loudspeaker designs are different, and loudspeakers sound different. You have to pick the ones that please you, playing the music you like. And you'll find that different people will go for different sound signatures, often in ways that will really surprise you. (And no, I don't think that the amp makes that much of a difference, really, in good solid state designs - it's the loudspeakers and how they interact with the room that account for the differences we hear, IMO).

I had the opportunity to compare some of my candidates for the speakers I wanted. (Tried the Bolzano Villetri and MBL Radialstrahlers, as well) - and in the end let my ears and personal preference make the final decision. And if I had preferred another design to that of the BL5s, that would be the speakers I would be listening to now.

I am, however, impervious to a majority of audiophile myths (fortunately), probably the result of having been able to do a lot of comparisons, without having the need to discover differences where there aren't any. There are very few differences among acceptably designed audio components, while the range of variation among listeners equals the number of listeners. In discussions about components we tend to argue as if there is one golden standard we should adhere to - but we, the listeners, are wildly variable. Not just in our preferences, but also in our listening acuity - and it's dawned on me that it really is a waste of time to try to find one absolute truth as far as what creates the best possible sound. You have to go for what you prefer, if you want to have a good listening experience. And that explains why some may find a design not to their taste, while others will swear by it. And I use the word design to encompass the technology and function, and not just the looks.

Here's my personal preference: I have come to be convinced that room reflections contribute significantly to the truth of the listening experience, and am therefore not much interested in conventional loudspeaker designs, with their sound cones aimed at my head. And that explains why I was listening to the Bolzanos, Radialstrahlers and BL5s. Others will beg to differ from this preference. I am surprised by those who find the BL5 listening experience too harsh, and headache inducing - I find I can listen to them for hours on end, while the ones next to them in the photo have never managed to make me feel what I feel when I listen to BL5s. (And trust me, I did give the B&Ws more than a sporting chance, spending many hours, over several days, in a specially designed listening room at a dealer, in addition to listening to the studio setup shown in the photo.)

Which means that in threads such as this one, we could end up discussing personal preferences until we're blue in the face, without really answering the question posed by the thread. According to SEAS, which produces some really good drivers, treble drivers need about half a second of runtime to be broken in - but then, what do SEAS know, compared to the audiophile myths out there? 

If they sounded too harsh in the store, Maniax, then this could be because I have yet to find a store with a pair that's been properly set up - and that includes several BeoLiving rooms with the hardwood back wall. In my listening room, they are bliss in the treble.

Greetings and a warm hello to all from a 'lurker' that finally decided to make a first post... a great thread and one I find very interesting.

I hope this doesn't sound like an opening from an AA meeting, but:  "Hi, my name is John, and I'm a recovering Audioholic"...

Putting jokes aside, and as a little personal history and introduction, I first got interested in 'HiFi' nearly four decades ago as an extension of my musical studies and interests, so as to have high quality music reproduction in the home.  Over the years, quite a bit of kit came and went, albeit I am not an inveterate 'upgrader' preferring to take my time, and buy once, and buy right, and to then sit back and enjoy the results.  

This part of my HiFi ownership journey culminated perhaps with an so called 'high-end' experience with the purchase of an all Naim-Audio setup that gave a lot of pleasure for the best part of thirteen years.  However, with the advent of home theatre, and a desire to incorporate that medium into my 2 channel Hifi setup, I embarked upon audtioning a number of options and found the Naim one quite dissatisfying in many performance areas, and IMO very overpriced for the performance on offer compared to so called 'lessor' products, in terms of status and reputation, and of course price.  

After much careful audition and evaluation I eventually settled upon some Sony ES Kit for adding HT capability to my Naim 2 channel system; a brand with which I had no real prior experience; was aware of their next to nothing reputation in so called 'high end' audiophile circles, but was very taken with the perceived quality of build, and the performance on offer which I judged outstanding.

However, I confess that as a music lover and in retrospect, I had allowed a measure of common sense and self belief to be subjugated to the marketing spiel of the so called 'flat earth' marketing mantra and audiophile dogma, such that apart from Home Theatre capabilities, I did not believe a 'common' or 'non-audiophile' brand such as Sony, could seriously compete in critical music listening with my existing Naim kit. For over six months I used my ES Sony kit in 'add on' mode to my Naim gear, but 'foolishly' decided one long weekend to couple up some cheap speaker cable, take the Naim out of circuit and listen to the ES Sony kit by itself for critical 2 channel music listening.  The rest became history, as when judged by musical measure, as in the most realistic, natural, believable and convincing presentation (as against impressive, or exciting which is very much a Naim 'house' sound) the Sony was clearly the better of the two when judged as objectively as possible.

This really brought about some deep questioning and a fundamental change within me as to how I perceive kit re branding, reputation, and audiophile myths, as against musical and objective reality, and after a lot of heart searching (The ES kit was a good third of the Naim price - all bought new) and some exceptionally careful comparing using level matching throughout over a few months, the Naim electronics have all been sold, with the speakers the next to go/be changed.  

From this experience, and level matched, careful (preferably blind) testing out of other kit, I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to CD source, and amplification, that whilst minor differences in sound can exist, to all intents and purposes a competently designed CD player and/or amp will sound more alike than dissimilar to another that is equally well specified and of similar design, when carefully level matched and blind tested to remove expectation bias.  Having once 'believed' in all the audiophoolery with respect to cables, stands, spikes, mains cables/power supplies etc, I have to say the difference these arguably obsessional tweaks make to the sound of the kit are minimal compared to the input one has to make re the expense, and particularly the way they take the focus of listening to and enjoying the music, but instead focussing obsessively on the sound of the kit and the tweaking thereof.

In a nutshell, as regards the audiophile 'high-end' scene, I am as the coloquial saying goes, 'over it'.

Which segues me to Bang and Olufsen and the Beolab Fives.

For a long time, on Hifi audiophile forums, I have read how B&O is 'lifestyle'  kit for the rich and foolish, as it is supposedly all about style and no substance.  However, as I have detailed, my personal Hifi journey has called not only into question, but given me good reason to debunk a lot of those myths, and I find myself looking upon B&O with a very different light to what I may have thought a few years back.

Whilst I am happy with my Sony ES gear, it is a failing of Sony that every now and then they release statement, cost no object products, such as I own, but without a real ongoing consistency of product to bring to market.  I am also looking to purchase new speakers for it, for a combined 2 channel music, High res. multi-channel music (SACD), and Home Theatre role.  This straight away has me looking at some of my favourites - the B&W 800 series, of which the 801D is my choice in that range.  However, that also puts Beolab Fives into contention straight away as well, as whilst they are of similar initial price to the B&W 801d' here in Australia, they are much better value when one factors in the cost of additional amplification required for the 801d' should I wish to drive them to high levels.  In sound quality, the ES Sony (TA-DA9000ES 7 channel 'pure' digital amplifier - effectively a 7 channel TacT Millennium) is superb, but high current delivery into difficult loads would not be a likely forte; hence a speaker like the 801D may well require a change of amps.

So on value grounds the Beolab 5 really appeals.  And lest I sound like a B&O acolyte already, I have always appreciated and desired fine aesthetic design, quality, and technology that works for one, rather than requiring one to work for it, and objects that compliment and blend into a home interior such as to create a mood of harmony and balance.  So I am becomming more and more drawn towards B&O as a total ownership experience for the future.

Having hopefully not bored you all by virtue of introducing myself and my Hifi history in lengthy manner, what prompted me to post was that it is clear that there a number of members here who have had a lot of experience with various brands of high-end Hifi kit, yet have chosen to 'settle' with B&O.  May I ask something of yourselves as to your history with other high quality kit, and what lead you to B&O?

In particular, as I am very interested in the Beolab Fives (I've heard them) and am also a fan of the B&W 802D, 801D, and 800D, and it appears some members have done extensive comparisons between the Beolab Fives and the aforementioned B&W's (something which much as I would love to do is not a facility that is available to me) I would dearly love to hear some in-depth experienced comments re the differences in sound between these speakers that have been observed and noted.

Many thanks for taking the time to read my lengthy pre-amble.... 

All the Best

John... 

Beoboiinoz:

Greetings and a warm hello to all from a 'lurker' that finally decided to make a first post... a great thread and one I find very interesting.

I hope this doesn't sound like an opening from an AA meeting, but:  "Hi, my name is John, and I'm a recovering Audioholic"...

Putting jokes aside, and as a little personal history and introduction, I first got interested in 'HiFi' nearly four decades ago as an extension of my musical studies and interests, so as to have high quality music reproduction in the home.  Over the years, quite a bit of kit came and went, albeit I am not an inveterate 'upgrader' preferring to take my time, and buy once, and buy right, and to then sit back and enjoy the results.  

This part of my HiFi ownership journey culminated perhaps with an so called 'high-end' experience with the purchase of an all Naim-Audio setup that gave a lot of pleasure for the best part of thirteen years.  However, with the advent of home theatre, and a desire to incorporate that medium into my 2 channel Hifi setup, I embarked upon audtioning a number of options and found the Naim one quite dissatisfying in many performance areas, and IMO very overpriced for the performance on offer compared to so called 'lessor' products, in terms of status and reputation, and of course price.  

After much careful audition and evaluation I eventually settled upon some Sony ES Kit for adding HT capability to my Naim 2 channel system; a brand with which I had no real prior experience; was aware of their next to nothing reputation in so called 'high end' audiophile circles, but was very taken with the perceived quality of build, and the performance on offer which I judged outstanding.

However, I confess that as a music lover and in retrospect, I had allowed a measure of common sense and self belief to be subjugated to the marketing spiel of the so called 'flat earth' marketing mantra and audiophile dogma, such that apart from Home Theatre capabilities, I did not believe a 'common' or 'non-audiophile' brand such as Sony, could seriously compete in critical music listening with my existing Naim kit. For over six months I used my ES Sony kit in 'add on' mode to my Naim gear, but 'foolishly' decided one long weekend to couple up some cheap speaker cable, take the Naim out of circuit and listen to the ES Sony kit by itself for critical 2 channel music listening.  The rest became history, as when judged by musical measure, as in the most realistic, natural, believable and convincing presentation (as against impressive, or exciting which is very much a Naim 'house' sound) the Sony was clearly the better of the two when judged as objectively as possible.

This really brought about some deep questioning and a fundamental change within me as to how I perceive kit re branding, reputation, and audiophile myths, as against musical and objective reality, and after a lot of heart searching (The ES kit was a good third of the Naim price - all bought new) and some exceptionally careful comparing using level matching throughout over a few months, the Naim electronics have all been sold, with the speakers the next to go/be changed.  

From this experience, and level matched, careful (preferably blind) testing out of other kit, I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to CD source, and amplification, that whilst minor differences in sound can exist, to all intents and purposes a competently designed CD player and/or amp will sound more alike than dissimilar to another that is equally well specified and of similar design, when carefully level matched and blind tested to remove expectation bias.  Having once 'believed' in all the audiophoolery with respect to cables, stands, spikes, mains cables/power supplies etc, I have to say the difference these arguably obsessional tweaks make to the sound of the kit are minimal compared to the input one has to make re the expense, and particularly the way they take the focus of listening to and enjoying the music, but instead focussing obsessively on the sound of the kit and the tweaking thereof.

In a nutshell, as regards the audiophile 'high-end' scene, I am as the coloquial saying goes, 'over it'.

Which segues me to Bang and Olufsen and the Beolab Fives.

For a long time, on Hifi audiophile forums, I have read how B&O is 'lifestyle'  kit for the rich and foolish, as it is supposedly all about style and no substance.  However, as I have detailed, my personal Hifi journey has called not only into question, but given me good reason to debunk a lot of those myths, and I find myself looking upon B&O with a very different light to what I may have thought a few years back.

Whilst I am happy with my Sony ES gear, it is a failing of Sony that every now and then they release statement, cost no object products, such as I own, but without a real ongoing consistency of product to bring to market.  I am also looking to purchase new speakers for it, for a combined 2 channel music, High res. multi-channel music (SACD), and Home Theatre role.  This straight away has me looking at some of my favourites - the B&W 800 series, of which the 801D is my choice in that range.  However, that also puts Beolab Fives into contention straight away as well, as whilst they are of similar initial price to the B&W 801d' here in Australia, they are much better value when one factors in the cost of additional amplification required for the 801d' should I wish to drive them to high levels.  In sound quality, the ES Sony (TA-DA9000ES 7 channel 'pure' digital amplifier - effectively a 7 channel TacT Millennium) is superb, but high current delivery into difficult loads would not be a likely forte; hence a speaker like the 801D may well require a change of amps.

So on value grounds the Beolab 5 really appeals.  And lest I sound like a B&O acolyte already, I have always appreciated and desired fine aesthetic design, quality, and technology that works for one, rather than requiring one to work for it, and objects that compliment and blend into a home interior such as to create a mood of harmony and balance.  So I am becomming more and more drawn towards B&O as a total ownership experience for the future.

Having hopefully not bored you all by virtue of introducing myself and my Hifi history in lengthy manner, what prompted me to post was that it is clear that there a number of members here who have had a lot of experience with various brands of high-end Hifi kit, yet have chosen to 'settle' with B&O.  May I ask something of yourselves as to your history with other high quality kit, and what lead you to B&O?

In particular, as I am very interested in the Beolab Fives (I've heard them) and am also a fan of the B&W 802D, 801D, and 800D, and it appears some members have done extensive comparisons between the Beolab Fives and the aforementioned B&W's (something which much as I would love to do is not a facility that is available to me) I would dearly love to hear some in-depth experienced comments re the differences in sound between these speakers that have been observed and noted.

Many thanks for taking the time to read my lengthy pre-amble.... 

All the Best

John... 

  

 

Hi John, welcome to Beoworld

Having read you post you seem an eminently sensible chap, and one of the few who has escaped, single-handedly, from the hifi "matrix" - welcome to Zion

And now to your question, you seem to doubt your own powers - having made the leap all those years ago you already know the answer to your own question. Audition the candidates, preferably side by side, and select the one thats sounds best to you, after all someone elses opinion is only that - their opinion and you've already read enough of those in your early hifi years. In any case the room you listen in is different to that used by everyone else and so it will be your unique experience.

Just my tuppence worth

wonderfulelectric:

Neutrality just points to the flatness of the frequency response of a loudspeaker. Whereas low distortion normally points to the superb engineering of the drivers where they will just be cruising at loud levels showing little stress, coloration usually points to resonances in the loudspeaker enclosure causing the time smearing effect. Why I say neutrality is overrated is because a speaker can be not neutral yet enjoyable say a an electrostatic.

In-room response of loudspeakers are rarely flat/neutral BTW.  

Anyways guess you guys don't like the elevated treble in B&O loudspeakers or the flashed out midrange in B&W loudspeakers then? 

Neutrality and coloration have no real engineering meaning in this sense but are a few of the many words used by the hifi community to mean many different things to different people at different times. I would argue that there is nothing to distinguish a non-neutral or colored response in that both are, in a real sense, inaccuracies in that you get out something other than you put in.

I find your "speaker can be not neutral yet enjoyable" statement bizarre.

I think we all realise the the room size, shape and material content has a very sizable impact on the listening experience - I would argue that, this being the case, the best possibly starting point to cover the majoirty of applications would actually be an neutral speaker response! You can then EQ, to taste, to correct for room/positional effects if necessary - imagine if your room exagerated further the "non-neutrality" of your "enjoyable" speakers.

@ Beoboiinoz

Thanks for a wonderful description of your audiophile journey and welcome to BeoWorld.
I can only second Puncher, in that you really need to let your personal preferences dictate your choice. I can think of nothing worse than ending up with a system that Harry Pearson at The Absolute Sound says is great, but which I find I can't stand listening to. It may be great to him, and totally off to me -- and we need to respect this level of individual preference much more. Of course, this totally undercuts the livelihood of audiophile mag's, but that's another issue.

I was associated with B&O for a while as a consultant, and that's how I came across the BL5s. I was highly skeptical and thought they couldn't possibly be as good as "proper" audiophile speakers. Which is why I ran them through the wringer before settling on a pair - to my ears they're brilliant. And given how my stint with B&O turned out, you can rest assured that my critical faculties remained intact! 

If you have a good room, and can have the speakers at least a meter out from walls (due to how the subwoofers disperse air) - then I can't think of a better audiophile solution than the BL5s, and they're a bargain relative to what you get.

But then you can use an EQ to flatten out the frequency response of a loudspeaker no? I mean the Beolab 5s won't be as flat without its built-in EQ. 

Some find B&W speakers very enjoyable because of its non neutral mid-band response - it somehow makes voices stand out more. Or the heightened sense of detail through B&O speakers a delight. Take for example the critically acclaimed Eclipse-td speakers. They have a very uneven frequency response and very non neutral. But they have one of the best impulse and the most ideal dispersion pattern and are considered very transparent and uncolored.

Coloration usually do refer to the delayed release of energy that was accumulated by reproducing the signal prior to the current which causes a smear in the sound. It can usually be caused by the low damping of the driver itself or the resonances in the cabinet.

What's so bizarre about a non neutral speaker frequency response? It is omnipresent in the high end audiophile world. Consider the sound reproduced by Avantgarde horns, very non neutral but greatly dynamic and enjoyable. There is so much more to a sound than just the flatness of the frequency response, that is unless you are a pro where you need to have a standard of reference for your recordings. Our ears are more sensitive to phase, impulse response and distortion levels than anything else.  

A neutral response of a loudspeaker can be easily achieved through the use of EQ but the dispersion pattern and low cabinet resonance are not. 

wonderfulelectric:

But then you can use an EQ to flatten out the frequency response of a loudspeaker no? I mean the Beolab 5s won't be as flat without its built-in EQ. 

Some find B&W speakers very enjoyable because of its non neutral mid-band response - it somehow makes voices stand out more. Or the heightened sense of detail through B&O speakers a delight. Take for example the critically acclaimed Eclipse-td speakers. They have a very uneven frequency response and very non neutral. But they have one of the best impulse and the most ideal dispersion pattern and are considered very transparent and uncolored.

Coloration usually do refer to the delayed release of energy that was accumulated by reproducing the signal prior to the current which causes a smear in the sound. It can usually be caused by the low damping of the driver itself or the resonances in the cabinet.

What's so bizarre about a non neutral speaker frequency response? It is omnipresent in the high end audiophile world. Consider the sound reproduced by Avantgarde horns, very non neutral but greatly dynamic and enjoyable. There is so much more to a sound than just the flatness of the frequency response, that is unless you are a pro where you need to have a standard of reference for your recordings. Our ears are more sensitive to phase, impulse response and distortion levels than anything else.  

A neutral response of a loudspeaker can be easily achieved through the use of EQ but the dispersion pattern and low cabinet resonance are not. 

We could go on, I could argue that neutrality, dispersion and low cabinet resonance are not mutually exclusive - I could disagree with your definition of "coloration" among other things - but I won't. I am happy to agree that we disagree.

Thank you Puncher and Soundproof both, for your welcome and kind comments.

I'd love to be able to A/B the B&W 801d' and the Beolab Fives side by side to determine more accurately not just what I feel to be the better speaker objectively (or as objectively as I can manage from my musical and Hifi background) re comparison to live acoustic music, but of course personal preference as well as regards the sound presentation; but it is near impossible to practically do unfortunately.

There are a number of B&O franchises/dealers, but only two B&W 800 series dealers here in Melbourne, and a side by side shop demo is not possible accordingly.  Also to get both in my home at the same time poses real logistical problems as I live upstairs, with the consequential manhandling to get them in, plus certainly the B&W dealer will understandably want a full deposit for a home demo, and not sure if the B&O dealers do home demos at all - of course I haven't as yet asked a B&O dealer on this one...lol.

I've owned B&W's in the past (a pair of the original DM2a's which were second from the top of the line at the time, the DM70's which were a hybrid electrostatic mid/treble array/acoustic suspension bass unit) and loved them for over twenty years before the audiophile disease struck me down and audiophile madness followed....lol.  It is thus fair to say I have a predilection for the B&W 'house' sound, whilst recognising it is not perfect either.

However, being an active four way, with inbuilt bass/room equalisation, and the arguably ground breaking technology with the acoustic lenses bringing to bear a hitherto unseen solution re the speaker/room interface, the technical and price/value edge seems to be with the Beolab fives, at least on paper.  Certainly, again on paper, I have only a couple of reservations about the Beolab Fives.  

One is that the main conical cabinet appears to be made of plastic - at least that's what a dealer opinioned and what I have read on a review - but I would have thought in the absence of a conventional wood/MDF cabinet, that aluminium would be a much more solid and likely long lived choice of materials.  

The other issue is of drivers and driver/cabinet isolation.  According to the dealer I spoke to, the drivers are not made by B&O in-house, but bought in - apparently the 15" bass driver is Japanese sourced, and the upper bass is Dynaudio - of the midrange and tweeter he had no idea.  I guess the audiophile anorak within me tends to feel (without any facts mind you) that the in-house designed &  manufactured B&W drivers might likely have an technology edge - especially the FST midrange driver albeit that is supposedly from anecdotal forum comment not without it's problems either - and of course there is the diamond dome tweeter.  As well, B&W use a synthetic gel encased in a rubber compound as an isolation barrier between the marlan midrange head and the main bass cabinet; the midrange head and tweeter housing, and in the mount of the tweeter as well - isopath they call it.  I am familiar with this concept of de-coupling drivers from cabinets and the veracity thereof, due my ownership of Naim SBL's which have separate cabinets for each driver, and mass loading for cabinet walls etc to achieve a similar mechanical de-coupling of driver from cabinet and associated improvements in sound as regards overall clarity and definition of leading edge transients; lower colouration etc.

However, as I say, perhaps this analysis of fine design detail is the Hifi anorak still within me raising it's tormented head, LOL, and it is surely the sum product of all these technologies that should make itself apparent in the final result - the music making and listening - that should be the final arbiter.

If anyone can inform me as to what the actual cabinets of the Beolab Fives are made from, and to makes of drivers used, I would appreciate that.  Also, as whilst both Puncher and Soundproof are perfectly right in that the only way to tell for myself is an side by side comparison, as I am unable to do that, (being able only to listen to each in isolation), I would appreciate any comments you would be able to add as regards the differences in sound presentation between the two, and what persuaded you to eventually go with the Fives over the B&W's, as well as any other comments you might like to add re the technology/design etc.

I would be very grateful also for any other comments anyone would like to add. 

Thanks once again for the welcome and the kind comments.

All the Best

John.. 

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.

I can only say that, regardless of the cabinet material and the driver manufacturers, they do what they do and are all but universally acclaimed by those that have had significant exposure (unfortunately I personally have only heard them in store and its likely to remain that way without a signifcant lottery win) As for the B&W's, I'm sure they too are fine speakers and you needn't worry about how the drivers are isolated from the cabinet (I'm sure those B&W bods have already worried about it on your behalf)

If I was willing to fork out £12K on BL5's I would expect the dealer to be prepared to hump a demo pair upstairs for a home preview. You could also use this as a sound isolation trial, to see if pointing two 15" woofers at anyone living downstairs is likely to cause any neighbourly acrimony

Why compare the Lab5s with the B&W 800s? Shouldn't we go for something more aspirational like an actively powered Goldmund Epilogue or a full flagged B&W Nautilus? 

The last time I read about the Lab5s was that the treble and mid drivers are from Vifa.  

wonderfulelectric:

Why compare the Lab5s with the B&W 800s? Shouldn't we go for something more aspirational like an actively powered Goldmund Epilogue or a full flagged B&W Nautilus? 

The last time I read about the Lab5s was that the treble and mid drivers are from Vifa.  

Comparing a