AVS Forum banner

Bowers and Wilkins 683 - an honest review.

135K views 304 replies 60 participants last post by  boneycat 
#1 ·
Hi all!


Long time lurker, first time poster. I figured I should give something back since I have gleaned so much great info from this board in the past. Below is a review (which I have also posted to best buy's website) of the Bowers and Wilkins 683, which I have owned for a few weeks now. Your mileage may vary. Enjoy!




Having worked with and owned some very revealing studio monitors from the likes of Adam, KRK, JBL and Yamaha in the past, I was in the mood for a more hi-fi, less fatiguing speaker for a 2.1 music and movie setup.


My wife and I went to a Best Buy Magnolia showroom and proceeded to audition every high end speaker present. Her and I agreed that the 683 was the most awe inspiring, lifelike, deepest sounstage speaker in the room, and by a huge margin at that! The fact that it costs a fraction of what some of the other speakers did (like those gimmicky electrostats) was just a bonus. So, we purchased them (had to drive to another Best Buy which had them in stock), along with a Pioneer Elite SC-65 reciever like the one used in the demo. When we arrived to the second location, there were also a pair of B&W CM9's set up which the Concord store did not have. Just to see what the $3000 per pair B&W speakers could do, we A/B'd them against the $1500 per pair 683. Do the CM9's sound better?...yes...much better?...yes, especially down low where they are more controlled...TWICE as better, as the price would suggest?...nope, not by a long shot, the 683 is the smart money as it is 85% of the CM9.


After living with these monsters for a few weeks, there are joys and gripes.


The Good: The midrange driver. I would pay much more than the 683 for a speaker which reproduces vocals this clearly and smoothly. It really is astounding and you won't want to stop listening! The artist is in your room, right behind the speaker.


The Good: A VERY revealing tweeter which also, somehow, isn't fatiguing to listen to over long stretches. Details in Movies come to life. Raindrops, door locks, burning fuses...Nice. A word of caution though, these tweeters WILL reveal bad mixes, autotune artifacts, and nasty clippy square waves.


The Bad: Be porepared to spend some coin to drive these monsters. The Pioneer SC-65 is no lightweight, with ~150 watts per channel at the ~6 ohms these speakers are typically operating at (NOMINAL is 8 ohms, but the manual clearly states that they can dip to 3 ohms based on content#. Im left, after a couple weeks, longing for a 200+ watt per channel amp which is also 4 ohm stable = $$$$ Dont get me wrong, the speakers sound great, but I know from experience that a stronger amp would tighten up the imaging.


The Bad: The low end on these things is tricky to say the least. Do you need a sub?...I dont know, what kind of amp are you running? Thankfully, B&W in their tea and crumpet filled wisdom has included a set of foam bungs to help control the boominess of the bottom end #my only REAL gripe of the speaker#. They work best in my room with the bungs half in the port. I need more power.


The Bad: Make sure you have the space to let these babies breathe. My bass issue is likely at least partially related to these speakers being massive already, and then with the supplied #and required, if the manual is to be believed) plinth assembly, you need a lot of room, which I lack, for correct placement. If the bookshelf version of these speakers had that SWEET midrange driver, I would have bought them instead.


Conclusion: I would buy these speakers again tomorrow if they were stolen from me today. You need some time, and likely some money to set them up optimally, but I would put the 683 head to head with anything in their price range and expect for it to come out on top. Good show, B&W.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
I was at Best Buy yesterday and heard the identical setup, SC65 and the 683s. They had an immersive soundstage and decent off axis response. The highs had nice detail and was not fatiquing, decent midrange. I think the price they were going for is a great deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneeyeblind
#4 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie01  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23025384


Thanks for the review! Sounds like these should be rated at 4 ohm... What other speakers did you like when you auditioned these? What is your mix of music to HT? Do you run these with a sub?

All the speakers in the room which I liked were other iterations of the Bowers, like the bookshelves. I didn't much care for the Martin Logan electrostats, and found the non electrostat Martin Logan's to be dreadful, although I didn't think those were auditioned very properly. The other brands we listened to weren't even noteworthy enough to me to even remember what they were a few weeks hence.


I,m about 75/25 music to movies, and listen to quite a variety. I've found that these speakers excel with singer/songwriter, jazz and most pop genres, as well as being very decent for classical. Where I really don't like them though is with very dense, low energy driven rock music. So many rock records are so inappropriately over compressed nowadays anyway, and add into that about 20 layers of instrumentation and you're left with a hot mess for any speaker to try to deal with. The 683's one glaring fault in my opinion is that the low range drivers are slow, and the cabinet boomy in the 100hz neighborhood. The foam bungs actually do a good job of taming this, but at the expense of castrating some low end dynamics. I'm still playing around with different setups, but today I'm running them bungless, crossed over at 50hz with a sub handling everything from about 70hz down. Still don't like rock through them...I need more power.
 
#5 ·
Nice review. I used to own the 683 along with the 684 and 685. It's true, the midrange in the 683 is noticeably superior to the other 600 series speakers. Since I owned them all in my own home it was easy to A/B them without the distractions of salesmen, time constraints, and other customers not to mention having my entire movie and music collection on hand with 100% freedom to move the speakers around how I saw fit. There was a point where I was just going to drop down to the bookshelf (685) for all channels because with a sub, they're that good. Even without a sub the little 685 sure does sound much bigger than it looks with great clarity. But when A/B'ing them with the 683 in two channel, that midrange in the 683 is just noticeably more open and detailed I couldn't force myself to drop down. If I had never had the 683 in my home, I would of been perfectly content with the 685 for all channels with a sub.


The 683 is also noticeably more efficient - I had to turn my sub down around 3 to 4db in the level settings of my AVR with the 685 to get the same match to the speaker as with the 683 (and of course it took more volume control to get the same loudness). Speakers where powered with a Emotiva XPA-5 and even the little 685 didn't flinch or break a sweat with all that power. I truly believe that B&W underrates their specs (or is VERY conservative with them) because I've bottomed out cheaper 15" woofers with the same power ratings with a similar power amp. I hear you about loosing dynamics with the port plugs in. For my final setup with the 683 I wound up using the half plugs (removing the center of the plug/bung) which took the edge off the boominess but also didn't totally kill the dynamic punchiness of the speaker like when using the full port plug/bung. It's true about the ohm drops - At first I was just using a Yamaha 663 but at high volumes with bass heavy content (not using a sub with 2channel/music) I kept driving it into protection mode. The Emotiva XPA-5 was a very affordable beast of an amp that fixed this. In the end I loved the 683 so much that I wound up getting their higher end brother, the 804S.
 
#6 ·
It just so happens that there is an Emotiva XPA-3 being shipped to me as we speak, so I'm glad to hear that you had good experience with a similar 200wpc Emotiva amp. My receiver is a pretty decent Pioneer Elite SC-65 with their class D3 amps on board, but these 683s just feel like they need more power than the 130wpc at 8 ohms to really make them punch. Add to that that Pioneer states the 4 ohm rating at 210 watts at 1% distortion (ouch). The XPA-3 is 300wpc at 4 ohms with less distortion and what seems to be a much heftier transformer. If numbers are to be believed I think I'll be able to hear the difference. I like the pioneer amps...a lot actually, I just wish they were stronger. I don't want to fry a tweeter while showing them off after all.
 
#7 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrummingdude  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23040798


It just so happens that there is an Emotiva XPA-3 being shipped to me as we speak, so I'm glad to hear that you had good experience with a similar 200wpc Emotiva amp. My receiver is a pretty decent Pioneer Elite SC-65 with their class D3 amps on board, but these 683s just feel like they need more power than the 130wpc at 8 ohms to really make them punch. Add to that that Pioneer states the 4 ohm rating at 210 watts at 1% distortion (ouch). The XPA-3 is 300wpc at 4 ohms with less distortion and what seems to be a much heftier transformer. If numbers are to be believed I think I'll be able to hear the difference. I like the pioneer amps...a lot actually, I just wish they were stronger. I don't want to fry a tweeter while showing them off after all.

I'm running a similar setup, B&W 684's with a Pioneer SC 1222. While I think it sounded awesome as is, when I added the XPA 3 to power the fronts it gave the system a little added ommph with music which I like to listen to pretty loud at times. I like being able to crank it up and not worry about clipping, these speakers love the power.
 
#8 ·
While I do own BW speakers, and agree with most you said. I almost stopped reading when you said "gimmicky electrostats". The ML speakers are some of the most beautiful I have ever heard, admitting that I have tried to avoid speakers over $10k so I won't be tempted.


The BW do seem that they would benefit from more power, I'm looking to get a 3 channel for mine as well.
 
#9 ·
Well, to each their own. I wasnt impressed with the ML's. I feel like you're paying more for the technology than you are the sound quality. At $750 apiece, the 683 to me seems like a bargain and Im completely satisfied with my purchase. Plus, now there's room in my budget for things like said Emotiva amp.
 
#10 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by alaponsa  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23042677


I'm running a similar setup, B&W 684's with a Pioneer SC 1222. While I think it sounded awesome as is, when I added the XPA 3 to power the fronts it gave the system a little added ommph with music which I like to listen to pretty loud at times. I like being able to crank it up and not worry about clipping, these speakers love the power.

I'm with ya, as I too like to listen pretty loud at times. The Emotiva for me will be as much of a tweeter saving safety net as it will be a tool to improve (hopefully) low volume imaging/dynamics, ect.
 
#11 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by skidawgz  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23042704


While I do own BW speakers, and agree with most you said. I almost stopped reading when you said "gimmicky electrostats". The ML speakers are some of the most beautiful I have ever heard, admitting that I have tried to avoid speakers over $10k so I won't be tempted.


The BW do seem that they would benefit from more power, I'm looking to get a 3 channel for mine as well.

I love Bowers & Wilkins too, with a slight preference for PSB, but Martin Logan's are really nice. The detail you get from electrostatics is in a league of its own. Definitely not a gimmick, it's a mature technology that's been around for decades.
 
#12 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by skidawgz  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23042704


While I do own BW speakers, and agree with most you said. I almost stopped reading when you said "gimmicky electrostats". The ML speakers are some of the most beautiful I have ever heard, admitting that I have tried to avoid speakers over $10k so I won't be tempted.


The BW do seem that they would benefit from more power, I'm looking to get a 3 channel for mine as well.

Agreed! ML speakers are some of the best I have listened to, especially when it comes to music. BTW, the ML speakers the OP most likely listened to at Best Buy were the Electromotion which are a combination of Electrostatic and FluidMotin XT tweeter. Even so I am always somewhat cautious as to how speakers are properly hooked up, especially in very open audition spaces like Best Buy Magnolia.


I aslo agree on the statement about B&W speakers needed more power to sound right. IME B&W power specs on their website are woefully conservative.
 
#13 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23044409


Agreed! ML speakers are some of the best I have listened to, especially when it comes to music. BTW, the ML speakers the OP most likely listened to at Best Buy were the Electromotion which are a combination of Electrostatic and FluidMotin XT tweeter. Even so I am always somewhat cautious as to how speakers are properly hooked up, especially in very open audition spaces like Best Buy Magnolia.

The Electromotion ESLs do not use the "FludiMotion xt" (I think you meant "FoldedMotion XT" ) tweeter, they are a hybrid electrostat with a passive woofer and a xstat curvilinear panel for mid/high. You're thinking about Motion series towers, which use a traditional woofer-folded motion tweeter config. The center/rears martinlogan makes to accompany the electromotion ESLs also use that tweeter. In any case, they are far from gimmicky. Definitely not everyone's cup of tea, but if they're set up properly and you're sitting in the sweet spot, there is little else like it. Perhpaps the OP wasn't given a proper demo, since placement is key with these...the larger models (Montis, Summit X) sound better off axis.


In any case, the 683s are great speakers, but compared to the other speakers in the 600 series, they seem to need more amplification to sound good. I noticed this when demoing B&Ws back when I decided on a pair of 685. I really enjoyed the 685 but found that they didn't sound great at lower volumes. My plan was eventually to replace them with 683s, and then I compared them to the Monitor RX6, and here I am today
 
#14 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatuglyguy  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23045100


The Electromotion ESLs do not use the "FludiMotion xt" (I think you meant "FoldedMotion XT" ) tweeter, they are a hybrid electrostat with a passive woofer and a xstat curvilinear panel for mid/high. You're thinking about Motion series towers, which use a traditional woofer-folded motion tweeter config. The center/rears martinlogan makes to accompany the electromotion ESLs also use that tweeter. In any case, they are far from gimmicky. Definitely not everyone's cup of tea, but if they're set up properly and you're sitting in the sweet spot, there is little else like it. Perhpaps the OP wasn't given a proper demo, since placement is key with these...the larger models (Montis, Summit X) sound better off axis.


In any case, the 683s are great speakers, but compared to the other speakers in the 600 series, they seem to need more amplification to sound good. I noticed this when demoing B&Ws back when I decided on a pair of 685. I really enjoyed the 685 but found that they didn't sound great at lower volumes. My plan was eventually to replace them with 683s, and then I compared them to the Monitor RX6, and here I am today

You are correct Fatuglyguy. Sorry bout that misinformation. After a while my memory gets cloudy trying to keep up with all the new termonolgy of all these speakers.
 
#15 ·
Speakers are very personal if I were at the $1500/pr point Paradigm Monitor 11 would get the nod and the B&W 600 series would not even be a consideration.

But that is just what I would choose.

When the new amp arrives I hope you think it fixes your low frequency issues.
 
#16 ·
At the price point of $5500 a pair, i have never heard a soundstage that rivals the ML Theos. Talk about a speaker that needs a ton of power behind it though....

The Electromotion ESL are nice speakers but the sweet spot was my problem with them.


Setup in the room at whatever store you visit is a huge part of the experience, too.
 
#18 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatuglyguy  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23045100


The Electromotion ESLs... In any case, they are far from gimmicky. Definitely not everyone's cup of tea, but if they're set up properly and you're sitting in the sweet spot, there is little else like it. Perhpaps the OP wasn't given a proper demo, since placement is key with these...

That is certainly likely. It was my first time hearing a speaker of it's like, and it sounded dull and lifeless. Next time I'm somewhere which sells them, I'll make sure to have a more thorough demonstration. All of you guys seem to like them, so there must be something I'm missing.
 
#19 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrummingdude  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review/0_60#post_23047990


That is certainly likely. It was my first time hearing a speaker of it's like, and it sounded dull and lifeless. Next time I'm somewhere which sells them, I'll make sure to have a more thorough demonstration. All of you guys seem to like them, so there must be something I'm missing.

You certainly should. If I ever wanted to set up a dedicated Stereo listening room, Martin Logan is at the top of my list (for now). I have a very limited experience with high end audio so I would spend a ton of time checking other options out.


The 683s turned my head to Bowers and Wilkins which I had dismissed due to being British speakers. I played a bit of hip-hop on them and was really shocked at how well they sounded.
 
#20 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalugadp  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23046232


I had b&w speakers for 12 years. Recently switched to tekton oriel 10's and love them much more. Easy to drive at 98 db ,my receiver easily plays super loud cleanly . I found the b&w too laid back. Your right they do need lotsof power. Hope the new amp works out.

Are there any official measurements of Tekton speakers to show how accurate or colored they are?


Some people love Zu Audio speakers and they measure terribly @ +/-10dB from 200-10kHz on Stereophile with an inextricable off-axis response.



What if these Tekton speakers also measure +/-10dB and have terrible off-axis response?


We know the overall response of the B&W 683 is within +/- 3.8dB from 41Hz-20kHz on HTM.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/bw-683-surround-speaker-system-measurements
 
#21 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review/0_50#post_23049738


Are there any official measurements of Tekton speakers to show how accurate or colored they are?


Some people love Zu Audio speakers and they measure terribly @ +/-10dB from 200-10kHz on Stereophile with an inextricable off-axis response.



What if these Tekton speakers also measure +/-10dB and have terrible off-axis response?


We know the overall response of the B&W 683 is within +/- 3.8dB from 41Hz-20kHz on HTM.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/bw-683-surround-speaker-system-measurements

If you want measurements call tekton from their number on the website and talk to Eric the owner. I am not a measurement guy. I have a dozen songs and 5-6 movies I use as my reference material. I know exactly how I want them to sound. Tekton to me (always subjective) sounds better. I guess the one word I would use is alive.


Here's Andrew Robinson's post today on his forum

Damn these speakers are good! Like WOW! That's all.


(Sorry, re-installed my Pendragons yesterday after spending more than a month listening to other speakers.)


THe other speakers were SVS ultra line and Aperion grand towers.


No one questions B&W in terms of quality. Its a sound that I loved at one point and now I have moved on. In a few years I will probably do the same thing.
 
#22 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaluga  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23050606


If you want measurements call tekton from their number on the website and talk to Eric the owner. I am not a measurement guy. I have a dozen songs and 5-6 movies I use as my reference material. I know exactly how I want them to sound. Tekton to me (always subjective) sounds better. I guess the one word I would use is alive.


Here's Andrew Robinson's post today on his forum

Damn these speakers are good! Like WOW! That's all.


(Sorry, re-installed my Pendragons yesterday after spending more than a month listening to other speakers.)


THe other speakers were SVS ultra line and Aperion grand towers.


No one questions B&W in terms of quality. Its a sound that I loved at one point and now I have moved on. In a few years I will probably do the same thing.

A friend of mine did call and talk to Eric on the Phone and asked for speaker measurements. Eric told him that they did not believe in providing speaker measurements!


Of course, my friend did not buy any Tekton speakers.


Do they have something to hide, I wonder? Do their measurements suck? Does it look like Bose's +/-12dB frequency response? Millions of people love the sound of Bose too.



You would think that they already have measurements of their own speakers. I mean do they measure and test their own speakers or do they just put some parts together, listen, and that's it?



What do they have to hide ? Especially if their measurements look as good as Ascend, Salk, Philharmonic, Revel, KEF, PSB, Paradigm, etc.


Refusing to provide speaker measurements to potential buyers? That just sucks.
 
#23 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23051955


A friend of mine did call and talk to Eric on the Phone and asked for speaker measurements. Eric told him that they did not believe in providing speaker measurements!


Of course, my friend did not buy any Tekton speakers.


Do they have something to hide, I wonder? Do their measurements suck? Does it look like Bose's +/-12dB frequency response?



What do they have to hide ? Refusing to provide speaker measurements to potential buyers?
There are only two reasons for not providing measurements:

1. They don't have any.

2. They don't want you to see them.


Either way, if that's their position when asked you should not reward them with your business, no matter who they are. OTOH, if you don't care that's your business.
 
#24 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23051979


There are only two reasons for not providing measurements:

1. They don't have any.

2. They don't want you to see them.


Either way, if that's their position when asked you should not reward them with your business, no matter who they are. OTOH, if you don't care that's your business.

I think the reason they gave my friend for not providing measurements was because they did not want to give away their trade secrets. They said if competitors saw their measurements, they might try to duplicate their sound signature.
 
#25 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23052008


I think the reason they gave my friend for not providing measurements was because they did not want to give away their trade secrets. They said if competitors saw their measurements, they might try to duplicate their sound signature.

Seems to work out okay for a lot of the big manufacturers, and they certainly have more to lose. Sounds pretty fishy to me.
 
#26 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrummingdude  /t/1460916/bowers-and-wilkins-683-an-honest-review#post_23052394


Seems to work out okay for a lot of the big manufacturers, and they certainly have more to lose. Sounds pretty fishy to me.

Exactly. If people are going to try to duplicate the sound signature of a speaker, it would be something like Revel Salon2, B&W 800D2, KEF Reference 207/2, TAD R1, etc, not Tekton.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top