My opinion on B&W805 vs Totem Model 1
o...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 26 Jul 1996 16:02:35 GMT, zar...@qbert.3do.com (roger hofer) wrote:
>
> "WANG,HANG MIN,MR" <B2L...@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> writes:
>
>> As for the B&W 805 matrix, I am totally dissapointed! It just can't od
>>do what the totem have done for me. More bass maybe! I will be back to l
>>them again. So, any opinion out there!
>>
>>
>>James
>
>I've listened to the B&W P5 and the B&W 804 compared to the Totem 1.
>The Totem 1 just seemed to diappear better than any of them. I am
>totally impressed by this little speaker. I came into the store
>wanting a B&W P5 and left with a Totem 1. They don't look like much,
>but I believe they are in a class all of their own.
>
>
Were the B&Ws equipped with a bass alignment filter. This improves the
performance significantly althogh it admittedly raise the price of a
ticket.
roger hofer
"WANG,HANG MIN,MR" <B2L...@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> writes:
> As for the B&W 805 matrix, I am totally dissapointed! It just can't od
>do what the totem have done for me. More bass maybe! I will be back to l
>them again. So, any opinion out there!
>
>
>James
I've listened to the B&W P5 and the B&W 804 compared to the Totem 1.
The Totem 1 just seemed to diappear better than any of them. I am
totally impressed by this little speaker. I came into the store
wanting a B&W P5 and left with a Totem 1. They don't look like much,
but I believe they are in a class all of their own.
Roger Hofer
Armand
>Were the B&Ws equipped with a bass alignment filter. This improves the
>performance significantly althogh it admittedly raise the price of a
>ticket.
Yeah, that's it, add more to "the chain". That's the ticket. Your're on the
right track. Eliminate and/or affect as much you as can. Can you say,
"electronic sounding"? -Mr. Rogers
L. Tittaferrante
Armand wrote:
>
> >On 26 Jul 1996 16:02:35 GMT, zar...@qbert.3do.com (roger hofer) wrote:
> >> "WANG,HANG MIN,MR" <B2L...@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> writes:
> >>
> >>> As for the B&W 805 matrix, I am totally dissapointed! It just can't od
> >>>do what the totem have done for me. More bass maybe! I will be back to l
> >>>them again. So, any opinion out there!
they come alive and are flat to 50Hz in most rooms on 24" stands.
> >>I've listened to the B&W P5 and the B&W 804 compared to the Totem 1.
> >>The Totem 1 just seemed to diappear better than any of them. I am
> >>totally impressed by this little speaker. I came into the store
> >>wanting a B&W P5 and left with a Totem 1. They don't look like much,
> >>but I believe they are in a class all of their own.
> >Were the B&Ws equipped with a bass alignment filter. This improves the
> >performance significantly althogh it admittedly raise the price of a
> >ticket.
Jason Quigley
(sorry about quoting back so much... but I really didn't feel like sorting
through all that!)
If I advocate this speaker much more I'm going to sound like a loon, but
here goes. If you're comparing the Totem Model 1's to another speaker for
the purpose of looking for something to buy than have a look at Totem's
Mites as well. They aren't as bass-ey as the Model 1's, but they're as
capable of the "disappearing act" as all the other Totem speakers (except
the Rokk <shiver>) and they cost about 1/3 as much.
Although I don't personally agree with this opinion a lot of people around
here (audiophiles and dealers alike) actually prefer Mites to Model 1's for
tightness and detail. Just something to consider... and certainly worth a
listen.
«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»
* *
* Jason G. Quigley *
* http://ldn2.execulink.com/~quigs *
* qu...@ldn2.execulink.com *
* *
* Blindly devout Amiga, 3DO, Twin *
* Peaks, Star Wars, Star Control, *
* and Toronto Maple Leafs fan. *
* *
«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»
o...@washingtonian.infi.net
On Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:54:02 LOCAL, mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) wrote:
>>On 26 Jul 1996 16:02:35 GMT, zar...@qbert.3do.com (roger hofer) wrote:
>>> "WANG,HANG MIN,MR" <B2L...@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> writes:
>>>
>>>> As for the B&W 805 matrix, I am totally dissapointed! It just can't od
>>>>do what the totem have done for me. More bass maybe! I will be back to l
>>>>them again. So, any opinion out there!
>>>>James
>>>The Totem 1 just seemed to diappear better than any of them. I am
>>>totally impressed by this little speaker. I came into the store
>>>wanting a B&W P5 and left with a Totem 1. They don't look like much,
>>>but I believe they are in a class all of their own.
>
>>performance significantly althogh it admittedly raise the price of a
>>ticket.
>
>right track. Eliminate and/or affect as much you as can. Can you say,
>"electronic sounding"? -Mr. Rogers
Have you actually heard a B&W Matrix system with a good quality bass
alignment filter, or did you just pull this inanity out of your
favorite orifice.
The 800-series was designed to be used with such a device. When B&W
displays and demos these speakers at shows, they use them (and not
their own Walkman-parts version either). I guess B&W got hese
excellent speakers by blind luck since they don't (according to you )
know what they are doing. Your ignorance of this particular line of
speakers is apparent.
By your logic we ought to be oulling the crossover networks out of our
speakers. There are things IN THE CHAIN that actually improve the
performance if properly designed and implemented.
Thank you for your "opinion".
Anand Raman
to the Legacy Studio for that matter. Do it, and be surprised. A
dissappearing act is far more convincing than bass. Trust me. The Totem
is a truly awesome speaker (better than B&W 805 by far). Yah, I've
listened to both of them. But if you want a cut above this, with lightning fast quickness, a luminously beautiful midrange, and ribbon
like highs, with a speaker that dissappears extremely well, and is flat down to 38 Hz. Look no farther. Legacy Studio. And this is only the
beginning for designer/genius Bill Dudleston. All he has done is worked
with mother nature, not gone against her. No fancy shmancy stuff. A
Focal 7.5 inch Kevlar woofer and a titanium dome tweeter in a 4th order
Butterworth ported design. In rosewood and many other finishes. Simply
glorious. My $.02.
-Anand.
o...@washingtonian.infi.net
And I repeat, listen to a B&W Matrix speaker with a good bass
alignment filter. It is NOT simply bass boost by amplified
equalization or a tone control. It changes the nature of the speaker
completely up through the upper midrange. It also extends the bass
about 6dB by changing the nature of the crossover. It does this
without adding ANY boost.
The 805 so equipped is not a cheap speaker, and doesn't sound like
one. I intend to use a pair for the rear speakers in a HT system. I
have 801s with the appropriate BAF (not the same for the 805), and
they DO disappear.
Christopher Bouchard
In message <320fc153...@allnews.infi.net> -
o...@washingtonian.infi.netTue, 06 Aug 1996 03:58:50 GMT writes:
[Much controversy deleted...]
:>And I repeat, listen to a B&W Matrix speaker with a good bass
:>alignment filter. It is NOT simply bass boost by amplified
:>equalization or a tone control. It changes the nature of the speaker
:>completely up through the upper midrange. It also extends the bass
:>about 6dB by changing the nature of the crossover. It does this
:>without adding ANY boost.
I have a pair of B&W805's and am quite pleased with them, but would like to
try them with an appropriate bass alignment filter. Can anyone out there
recommend a good one? And what is one likely to pay for such an animal?
Thanks,
CB
Armand
By the way, have you compared a Totem Model 1 to B&W 805 Matrix? Or
>to the Legacy Studio for that matter. Do it, and be surprised. A
>dissappearing act is far more convincing than bass. Trust me. The Totem
>is a truly awesome speaker (better than B&W 805 by far). Yah, I've
>listened to both of them. But if you want a cut above this, with lightning fast
>quickness, a luminously beautiful midrange, and ribbon
>like highs, with a speaker that dissappears extremely well, and is flat down to
>38 Hz. Look no farther. Legacy Studio. And this is only the
>beginning for designer/genius Bill Dudleston. All he has done is worked
>with mother nature, not gone against her. No fancy shmancy stuff. A
>Focal 7.5 inch Kevlar woofer and a titanium dome tweeter in a 4th order
>Butterworth ported design. In rosewood and many other finishes. Simply
>glorious. My $.02.
>-Anand.
Never been impressed with Kevlar midrange speakers. Always found them to be
inferior dynamically and tonaly to doped paper. Many agree. What's your
opinion?
Armand
o...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 7 Aug 1996 11:09:28 GMT, cbo...@ibm.net (Christopher Bouchard)
wrote:
demos. Mine is on 801s, but I've heard it on most other models too.
There are other vendors making them, but the Anodyne is all discrete
and can be adjusted (via jumpers) specific to each 80x model. Anodyne
is at 910-884-7394, and NO I don't work for them, or have any other
interest .
Kent Sander
Have you actually heard a B&W Matrix system with a good quality bass
alignment filter, or did you just pull this inanity out of your
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have heard that a company selling the Golden Flute filters made
specifically for a certain speaker sounds better than the B&W ones.
I am trying to find out how to contact them. Anyone have any idea?
thanks, -kent
Anthony Genovese
JOEJPSLABS
CB,
The Golden Flutes are $389 per pair, do wonders for the 805's, and I have
some demo pairs available. Please call me at 716-685-5227, or visit
http://iypn.com/jpslabs. Thanks... JOE - JPS Labs
jpslabs
o...@washingtonian.infi.net
On Fri, 16 Aug 1996 10:34:24 -0700, Chris DiBona
<chr...@loc201.tandem.com> wrote:
>I hate to open up this line of debate, why would you want to mess
>with the 805's , they're terrific! I havd a pair for a bout a year,
>I thought that for their size they were astounding.
>
>Re: BAF's I've heard (through a friends) that the BAF's out there,
>while perhaps doing something for the bass, end up making the highs
>and mids too grainy....
>
>
>
>
The 805s and other B&W Matrix speakers were designed to be used with a
BAF. If you DO NOT use one of these, you are "messing" with them. The
original B&W supplied BAF was atrocious, but the quality aftermarket
ones from Anodyne, JPS Labs, Krell, and Listen Up all are decent. The
BAFs do not just effect the bass but the whole spectrum as it turns
the speaker into a 6th order design as it was intended to be.
Chris DiBona
I hate to open up this line of debate, why would you want to mess
with the 805's , they're terrific! I havd a pair for a bout a year,
I thought that for their size they were astounding.
Re: BAF's I've heard (through a friends) that the BAF's out there,
while perhaps doing something for the bass, end up making the highs
and mids too grainy....
Chris DiBona
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chr...@loc201.tandem.com http://www.site.gmu.edu/~cdibona
I speak for myself, not for Tandem, unless I'm speaking for Tandem,
in which case, I speak for Tandem, but I don't speak for Tandem, so
I speak for myself, just little ol' me, and nobody else. Got it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Armand DiEleonora
In article <3214B120...@loc201.tandem.com>, Chris DiBona <chr...@loc201.tandem.com> says:
>
>I hate to open up this line of debate, why would you want to mess
>with the 805's , they're terrific! I havd a pair for a bout a year,
>I thought that for their size they were astounding.
>
>Re: BAF's I've heard (through a friends) that the BAF's out there,
>while perhaps doing something for the bass, end up making the highs
>and mids too grainy....
> Chris DiBona
This is what I was looking for. Now the question is are the bass improvements worth the
the trade off?
Armand
{As usual, best listened to with phase coherent,
minimal phase x-over speakers.}
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc.)
Armand DiEleonora wrote:
>
> In article <3214B120...@loc201.tandem.com>, Chris DiBona <chr...@loc201.tandem.com> says:
> >
> >I hate to open up this line of debate, why would you want to mess
> >with the 805's , they're terrific! I havd a pair for a bout a year,
> >I thought that for their size they were astounding.
> >
> >Re: BAF's I've heard (through a friends) that the BAF's out there,
> >while perhaps doing something for the bass, end up making the highs
> >and mids too grainy....
>
> > Chris DiBona
>
> This is what I was looking for. Now the question is are the bass improvements worth the
> the trade off?
In a word, NO! If you have decent electronics, the Bass Alignment
Filter, The KEF Cube, et al really detract transparency, detail, &
definition.
Zip
Armand DiEleonora
In article <321542...@netrunner.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> says:
>
>Armand DiEleonora wrote:
>> This is what I was looking for. Now the question is are the bass improvements worth the
>> the trade off?
>
>In a word, NO! If you have decent electronics, the Bass Alignment
>Filter, The KEF Cube, et al really detract transparency, detail, &
>definition.
>Zip
It always does. One of the incontravertable truths of audio.
o...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 16 Aug 1996 22:03:35 GMT, mo...@voicenet.com (Armand DiEleonora)
wrote:
>In article <3214B120...@loc201.tandem.com>, Chris DiBona <chr...@loc201.tandem.com> says:
>>
>>I hate to open up this line of debate, why would you want to mess
>>with the 805's , they're terrific! I havd a pair for a bout a year,
>>I thought that for their size they were astounding.
>>
>>Re: BAF's I've heard (through a friends) that the BAF's out there,
>>while perhaps doing something for the bass, end up making the highs
>>and mids too grainy....
>
>> Chris DiBona
>
>the trade off?
>
>{As usual, best listened to with phase coherent,
>minimal phase x-over speakers.}
Instead of continuing this ad nauseum here, why not just go hear the
difference. Please note that not all the BAFs available will do the
same thing. The B&W one sucks. I don't know where you are, but I
invite you to hear the difference for yourself if you are anywhere
near me.
As I keep trying to tell you, the change is not solely to the bass,
but to the whole system, but I don't know how to convince you other
than to say to hear it for yourself. It is NOT a subtle improvement.
If you can't find a place to hear one, at least take the time to talk
to either B&W for the design philosophy or one of the BAF vendors.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Armand wrote:
>
> In article <321a04ae...@allnews.infi.net>, o...@washingtonian.infi.net says:
> >
> >On 17 Aug 1996 11:56:07 GMT, mo...@voicenet.com (Armand DiEleonora)
> >wrote:
> >>In article <321542...@netrunner.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> says:
> >>>
> >>>Armand DiEleonora wrote:
> >>
> >>>> the trade off?
> >>>
> >>>Filter, The KEF Cube, et al really detract transparency, detail, &
> >>>definition.
> >>>Zip
> >>
> >>It always does. One of the incontravertable truths of audio.
> >
> >"incontrovertible truths (sic)"? Not everything that goes in the chain
> >degrades the overall sound quality. Trade offs yes, incontrovertible
> >truth, I don't think so.
>
> Sorry sir, but I don't "pontificate". Only the Pope and Gene do. But in 25+ years of
> playing with this stuff, I have never heard anything added to "the chain" that resulted in
> a complete positive ,IE- without subtracting from the original signal.
Armand:
There are exceptions......Audio Alchemy's DTIPRO32, for example!
Zip
o...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 17 Aug 1996 11:56:07 GMT, mo...@voicenet.com (Armand DiEleonora)
wrote:
>In article <321542...@netrunner.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> says:
>>
>>Armand DiEleonora wrote:
>
>>> This is what I was looking for. Now the question is are the bass improvements worth the
>>> the trade off?
>>
>>In a word, NO! If you have decent electronics, the Bass Alignment
>>Filter, The KEF Cube, et al really detract transparency, detail, &
>>definition.
>>Zip
>
>It always does. One of the incontravertable truths of audio.
Why don't you just go hear one of these instead of pontificating about
"incontrovertible truths (sic)"? Not everything that goes in the chain
degrades the overall sound quality. Trade offs yes, incontrovertible
truth, I don't think so.
>
>
Armand
>wrote:
>>In article <321542...@netrunner.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> says:
>>>
>>>Armand DiEleonora wrote:
>>
>>>> This is what I was looking for. Now the question is are the bass improvements worth the
>>>> the trade off?
>>>
>>>In a word, NO! If you have decent electronics, the Bass Alignment
>>>Filter, The KEF Cube, et al really detract transparency, detail, &
>>>definition.
>>>Zip
>>
>>It always does. One of the incontravertable truths of audio.
>
>Why don't you just go hear one of these instead of pontificating about
>"incontrovertible truths (sic)"? Not everything that goes in the chain
>degrades the overall sound quality. Trade offs yes, incontrovertible
>truth, I don't think so.
Sorry sir, but I don't "pontificate". Only the Pope and Gene do. But in 25+ years of
playing with this stuff, I have never heard anything added to "the chain" that resulted in
a complete positive ,IE- without subtracting from the original signal. The more you add,
the less you have. EQ's, additional x-overs, ambience processors, more cabling etc.
I asked whether or not the tradeoff- and it IS a tradeoff no matter - was worth it. It may be
to your ears, for all reproduction systems include some amount of this "trade off" in
one degree or another, so you pick your poison.
As an example, I have decided to run my sats full range and except the added IM
distortion, overlap w\ my subs at the x-over, reduced loudness capability-all
for the sake of increased resolution, more accurate soundstage and musicality.
Like I said, you pick your poison.
Armand
In article <4vcv1a$3...@nudnik.cs.ucla.edu>, sim...@nudnik.cs.ucla.edu (Simon Walton) says:
>
>mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) writes:
>
>>Sorry sir, but I don't "pontificate". Only the Pope and Gene do. But in 25+ years of
>>playing with this stuff, I have never heard anything added to "the chain" that resulted in
>>a complete positive ,IE- without subtracting from the original signal. The more you add,
>>the less you have. EQ's, additional x-overs, ambience processors, more cabling etc.
> So by this logic, we should all use integrated
>amps rather than seperate pre-, power amps and avoid the deleterious
>effects of the extra interconnect in `the chain'.
>Simon
No. The seperate power supplies are the advantage of seperates, the x-tra interconnect,
the tradeoff.
JOEJPSLABS
The tradeoffs are minimized with a well designed aftermarket filter. The
filter will bring the bass response within a few db of 40 hz, and add
depth to the soundstage because of this. These filters were designed by
people who use and know the B&W's sound and how it SHOULD sound.
Unfortunately, B&W did not put as much work into the filter as they do
loudspeakers... JOE - JPS Labs
jpslabs
Anastasios Kotsikonas
This discussion has strayed off... I am afraid I did not get a reply on
the technical issue, and if one was posted, please accept my apologies, I
never saw it.
Some kind soul replied to this thread saying that the BAF goes between
the amp and preamp. My question is: doesn't this imply it is merely a
tone control? Someone had posted a few weeks earlier that these BAF alter
the crossover. How can this be done if the crossover is not connected
to the BAF?
thanks
tasos
o...@washingtonian.infi.net
Well, the Matrix Series 2 speakers could have had some more work in
them too. Bad protection circuit design, bad crossover layout, crummy
binding posts, etc. It took the tweeks and geeks to show them how to
improve it and that's what B&W did for "their" upgrade to Series 3. I
don't think of B&W so much as a high end audiophile company as much as
one that knows how to design basically good speaker systems. Some of
the things audiophiles think are "important" are overlooked.
I don't know why they seem to have abandoned the BAF concept for the
most part. Perhaps because they want to keep they price down. They did
lower the price when they made it optional, and they wanted far too
much for that piece of junk when they made it an option. My 801s came
with their BAF and I told them to keep it. I still maintain that if
you haven't heard these 800 Matrix Series speakers with a good BAF,
then you haven't REALLY heard them at all.
o...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 21 Aug 1996 14:58:17 GMT, ta...@csa.bu.edu (Anastasios Kotsikonas)
wrote:
I tried but apparently not to your satisfaction. I ac only refer you
to joejp...@aol.com or rsn...@nr.infi.net (JPS Labs and Anodyne
respectively) I don't have a contact address for Listen Up. Ask the
manufacturers. You might even try B&W at 800-370-3740.
From the B&W manual for the 803/4/5 (summarized): "The LF respose of
the 800 series resembles that of the 4th order Bessel alignment, which
has the property of being critically damped. The BAF coverts the
system to 6th order Butterworth maximally flat alignment, and enables
the CORRECT (my emphasis) balance to be maintained. The filter may be
connected either betwee pre and power amps or in a tape loop."
B&W supplied their own (horrible, Walkman-parts, nasty-sounding)
version of this filter with the original issue of the 801/2 IIs. Then
they made it optional. The reviews of the 801 II which were so glowing
were done with a BAF in the system. The Stereophile review by Lew
Lipnick used the Anodyne. Later he moved to 800s with a special Krell
BAF. I have heard that Krell made B&W BAFs because that's what they
used as a reference at that time. Don't know if it's true (or
relevant).
Bottom line for me is that the 800 series was designed with the use of
a BAF in mind and you don't get their max frequency response without
it. From my experience (and Stereophile's and B&Ws with the Anodyne
BAF) that there is no significant degradation of sound with the use of
a good BAF, and a significant improvement in bass range and in
midrange performance.
I invite anyone who cares to come to DC to hear what it does for
themselves.
JOEJPSLABS
I agree. The BAF can definitely improve on an already good sounding
loudspeaker.
A few factors came into play when B&W of America stopped including B&W's
filter in the US. One was the dealers dissatisfaction in the performance
of that filter, over the years, As one dealer put it, "we use these for
packing material". England was not interested in improving on the existing
filter design, and the US was stuck with having to sell it only, by
contract (they could not distribute another manufacturers filter). B&W of
America was trying to convince someone like Krell to make it for them, and
Krell finally did put out their own descrete version so that B&W of
America had something to "recommend", along with the likes of Maughan,
Anodyne, and JPS.
A price drop did occur at the same time they stopped including the filter,
and also at the same time the country was in a recession, where sales were
sluggish. It was more less a reflex action in my eyes.
Maughan has not manufactured filters for years now, which left JPS Labs,
Anodyne, and Krell in charge of this very small market niche. All are good
at building a better mouse trap, of course in their own way, and all do a
good job of being as neutral as a filter can be in a system, with minor
sound differences.
If a filter is to be chosen for use with the B&W's, it should be decided
upon just like any other component in the system, in terms of price,
performance, and of course the ability to try before you are commited to
make sure it does at least as much as the manufacturer claims it will in
your stystem... JOE - JPS Labs
jpslabs