At the airport on the way out to work, I cast my eye on a couple of usual Hi-Fi magazines. Not sure which ones they were but they could well have been +HiFi World (the semi-serious one, not the comic) and I think the other was What HiFi.

 

Both had reviews on the BS5 and both said more or less the same thing (and more or less the same thing that they always write):-

 

·        How do you categorise/compare this product.

·        Good design/expensive and the ubiquitous……

·        …..can put together better sounding equipment for less.

 

The last point got me thinking. First there was the fact that all the reviewers evaluated the BS5 with the BL3 loudspeaker system. Good speakers but not in the same league and the BL9 or BL5 and that the Reviewers were somewhat basing the systems performance on the loudspeakers rather than the capability of the BS5 itself (with say their reference loudspeaker/amp arrangement or the BL9/5’s which will undoubtedly project a fuller more transparent sound).

 

Second, B&O – whether for marketing propaganda or actual fact, have touted that the BS5 is one of their best-ever sounding systems when put in front of their “golden ears” listening panel. I have commented in previous posts that my exposure to the BS5 resulted in a conclusion of a detailed, very smooth (perhaps over-smooth but nice) sound. This would seem to be converse to the expectation of the “expert” rag reviewers.

 

So what is going on here? Are B&O deluding themselves over the Hi-Fi credentials of their top-end equipment (and no….before some of you go on about specs, connects and Apple this is as I see it a “sound tuning” thing) or do the traditional hi-fi industry have it wrong? What is the variance between the sound that was originally recorded and mixed to that sound we get with say top end B&O like the BS5 and the BL5 combination (and with a lossless re-recording of a well recorded/mixed CD)?

 

Discuss.

 

 

 

10%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The BL3s are great speakers, and even B&O's tonmeister prefers them to BL5s for their purity, as long as they are not overloaded ... so I don't think we can blame the speakers.

We don't know anything about the source material, so I can't say whether they had the best possible signal.

Personal theory: It's bias. Audiophiles just can't get themselves to say that B&O is in the superior category, particularly as they are always complaining about the ICE amplifiers (having completely misunderstood what they do.) If it had been a blind-test, you would have gotten a fairer assessment.

 

I'm not sure who the "golden ears" listening panel is, exactly, but my experience in Struer was that the best critical listeners there are in the research section, and were among the most careful and experienced listeners I've ever met. The listening panels used for product evaluation are more neutral listeners, drawn from the general population of B&O employees (members of the research section are not allowed on the panel, for very good reasons). This process leads to some very good science and robust results. Keeping in mind that I am also an audio journalist who has occasionally done product reviews, I've got to tell you that the B&O listening panels' results are probably going to be far more reliable and relevant than the findings reported in any informal magazine review, however well-intentioned. That said, I don't think I've ever heard the opinion that BeoLab 3s are "better" sonically than BeoLab 5s. For a variety of physical reasons, they can't be. As you know, I'm very partial to both speakers and use them professionally on a daily basis. I even prefer working with the BL 3s in many instances. But, BL 5s are a much better speaker. Thanks for listening. Best regards, Dave

Soundproof, Dave, all,

 

I guess what I am driving at is not the review or the BL3’s per se – that I know from a long list of citations that good advertising accounts and voodoo which-craft cable analyses, that the word of the Reviewers should always be taken with a large pinch of salt.

 

Moreover, my point is this; that given my experience of both (separately) a BC2 playing a CD (B&O Active Listening III, track one, “Only a Woman” by Jett Thorp [I think?? and a favourite reference track for me]) and the same track on a WMA lossless in the BS5 in the same room with the same calibration of the BL5’s did sound different. The BS5 seemed considerably smoother, the BC2 rougher with more “noise” hanging in the air if you understand my meaning.  There are also I know going to be issues with recordings and re-recordings etc…

 

So the question is, which is nearer to fidelity? – the sort of system you can put together for a fraction of the price as the rag-pundits would put it, a BC2 or a BS5? They all sound different and different with different loudspeakers but which one is technically the more correct? I think this is also meant to be less specific to the equipment but a general sound one as what offers the more faithful sound. Where would for instance a BS4 and BL3 system compare to this theoretical ideal. Same (and more interestingly to me) for say a BL5 and BS5 set-up?

 

Or is this nothing more than a cable debate whereby ultimately “yer pays yer money, yer take yer choice and the rest of you are just wrong”?

 

10%