B&W CM1...all I can say is WOW! - Page 3

The problem is: you have taken the studies and tried to use them as proof that this particular speaker is not accurate, you cannot conclude that using those studies. You can't use the study to say "oh, this speaker isn't high fidelity, just look at the curves". You can say that under blind listening conditions, some experienced listeners may prefer some other speaker that has a flatter FR response, but that doesn't mean the CM1 is junk or would fail completely under a blind test, and is automatically not "high fidelity". The study makes some general design principles that correlate sound qualty and objective measurements in an anechoic evironment. It's like saying "if you orient your kitchen this way, we found that cooks were more effective in the kitchen on average", but that doesn't mean there are no exceptions to the rule. You can have a speaker with some notable FR anomalies, and it could still sound fantastic because there are other technical aspects that it does very right. Just as John Tchilinguirian said, there is increased understanding of correlation between measurements and sound quality, but there is still more ways to go.

What is a high fidelity speaker anyway? Is a speaker that has a very flat FR curves but worse phase linearity better than a speaker that has great phase linearity and poor FR response. How do you determine which speaker is "high fidelity"? I know Thiel would also tell you that is a very important perforamnce characteristic and they design their speakers to have good phase linearity. What about cabinet resonance? Maybe instead of outputting a true 50-70Hz signal, some of the flatness in a FR plot is due to cabinet resonance putting it's own sound in the output? How does that fit into what is considered an otherwise good FR plot? What if a speaker that has good FR response have a slightly poorer shape in the impulse or step response? Is that still a high fidelity speaker? High fidelity is just a term that equates how real a speaker sounds, but realness is not something you can determine by noting that a speaker has a 3dB more dip at a certain frequency that another speaker. It's by listening, and running the speaker in a real world environment with real material. Because most music is EQ'ed, processed anyway, on studio monitors that have their own FR anomalies, and your own room has FR anamolies that easily swamp the minor deviation of FR shapes, you cannot predict whether a speaker is more real there another in the final reproduction of music by looking at a two dimensional measurement. If you think you are going to plop your speaker with better FR into your own room and it will automatically sound better than my CM1, I've got some cheap property to sell you

I can tell you that the CM can sound fantastic, and that's even put against the sound of real live instruments (within the limits of a very small speaker). To me, it passes some of the personal stringent tests that I use to determine sound quality. For sure there are some things it doesn't get right, but like many things, it's a tradeoff. To me, it gets some things right, especially in the timbre of the treble and lower midrange that some other speakers don't get quite right. There are other people that might disagree, like cschang or jonomega, who have heard the speaker, and who seemed to have listened to many speakers, but I can respect that opinion, as an informed opinion backed up with experience.

There's always people that come into this forum, and spew out a bunch of charts to prove their points, but it's understanding how these studies relate and correlate to the final sound is what's important. I've read most of the Harman white papers, and I've even visited the NRC facility before, so I'm not stranger to the science. Science is a tool, and I use it to help me save time and rule out things that it would be hard to determine manualy, but ultimately, the sound quality has to fool my brain into thinking that the singer is right in front of me.

The FR chart proves the speaker is not accurate. It's a roller coaster. It's ok that you like it, though. I doubt you'd prefer it to more accurate speakers if you took part in a properly administered blind test.

I'm not sure I would, but I also doubt YOU would always pick the more "accurate" spaeker either.

edit:
The chart proves nothing in absolute terms. Your definition of accuracy is one dimensional and limited.

It proves that B&W is ok with releasing mediocre speakers and charging people $1k for them. The energy c3's would be a much better way for the OP to spend his money (if he's into fidelity).

And the NRC science tells us that the B&W CM1 will do that poorly. Big time saver.

No, the big time saver would be to ignore everything you write from now on until you actually have something useful to say besides statements that can't be backed by studies you don't seem to really understand how to apply.

I actually own some Energy C-3's. Would like you like to come over and do a blind test"? I have and I know the result.

You're clearly not reading the studies you've been bashing. They're double-blind level-matched, positionally matched tests in groups of four speakers done in mono in a super-quiet environment, not just fakey, at-home "blindfold" tests that you do in your living room. That's hilarious. I suppose you've built a pneumatic speaker shuffler in your house, though, right?

Totally wrong. The studies are done in an anechoic environment, but they are aimed at predicting real-world performance. Allan Devantier went out and did the field research. That is mentioned repeatedly in the white papers.

You were lucky to find a speaker that you could be passionate about and that can be rare. I've never heard the CM1, but I've seen comparisons between them and the 805S's where the CM1 was said to far more similar than different. I own 805S's and I love them.

I've owned 4 different models in the B&W family over the last 16 years. I have tried many times to purchase other brands, but I always seem to end up with B&W's.



Thank goodness you posted on this thread. It's funny how misinformed so many people really are. Flat FR means little as your room will dictate FR more than what the speaker was engineered to (within reason of course).

We have many tools to deal with FR in our rooms, but you can't change the timber, decay, or distortion of speakers. There is certainly a lot more to speakers than FR. I've had speakers in my room measure remarkably the same and sound completely different.

What's hilarious is the fact that you have not backed up any of the criticisms with real listening tests in real rooms. Why do I need studies to predict how speaker A compares to speaker B when I already have the two speakers in my own house (including some of the ones you speak highly of), listening to my own reference tracks, with my own tuned acoustical environment, with years of listening experience?

And as I said, I did the due diligence with my own Energy speakers, and I've even conducted frequency analysis myself. I know and understand what I am hearing. I've heard the sound of my niece's vocals, and I know what she sounds like reproduced through my speakers. and other speakers that passed through my hands some of which should have been theoretically superior. What is a better test than that? What's a better test than listening to a live concert and then hearing the live recording on my own system? No study can predict with 100% accuracy what the real world results are going to be, despite taking into account many variables. There is a scientific correlation which *helps* predict certain aspects of sound quality, and I'm glad it exists, but it's not absolute. You are deluded if you think it is.

I have to disagree with you about flat FR means little and we have many tools to deal with FR,yeah many ways to alter them.There are other factors involved,such as why does a speaker measure flat and why another speaker doesent,like cabinet resonances,poor quality drivers,incorrect baffle steps,incorrect driver allignment,trashy crossovers.So to dismiss FR's is absurd,going with your anology,you could be listening to a lump of crap and you would never know why,i dont know about you but i wanna know what my speaker is doing and i wanna know why,and i hope anyone who is spending thousands of their hard earned dollars would wanna know the same.B&W and many other companies have given people a aquired taste in sound,instead of whats really accurate and people swear by it,go listen to live music and you will see why good measurements are important.I bet half of the people on this forum dont know what a Grand Piano sounds like,or a Alto sax,a speaker with crazy measurements will make a electronic piano sound like a baby grand and a clarinet sound like a violin,uneveness in a FR will cause these type or flawed colorations.Companies like Revel,Infinity,Paradigm,PSB,Energy,Dynaudio,Focus Audio,Kef,NHT,and Swan,just to name a few take measurements very serious,even some small companies like Ascend,Eggleston Works,Aerial Accustics,and Rockport just to name a few again,take measurements very seriously.

If you don't mind, could you kindly explain how a flat anechoic freq response is a measurement of accuracy?

The NRC test is plenty indicative of what the CM1 can do. Who needs to do a listening test with his neice's vocals when there are objective measurements showing how poor it is? Like you said yourself, the science helps you save time, and this speaker is definitely in the "time wasted" category. Your Energy's aren't.

The degree to which the speaker refrains from over over or under emphasizing frequencies is the degree to which the speaker can be considered hi-fi. This is properly done in anechoic chambers so that the output of the speaker can be studied and not contaminated with room reflections. Most people these days make do with pseudo-anechoic measurements, but these are second-rate because the gates are too short to capture certain resonances (also explained in the NRC research).

You're taking my remarks to the maximum; I said within reason. I wouldn't let that measurement of the CM1 stop me *if* I was impressed with their sound at the store. I'd get them home and listen to them.

I don't mean to dismiss a flat FR as I'm doing everything I can in my room to get my speakers to measure flatter. What I did mean is that your individual room destroys a perfectly flat FR speaker, and I've heard speakers that measure nearly identical and sound VERY different. You can't put so much on FR alone.

Say what you will about B&W's. Mine measure flat at 12", my room has it's way their FR from there.

I love my B&W's!

In a word, bias. We all suffer from it. Properly conducted DBT's are the scientific way of dealing with that problem. I think the NRC methodology recognizes this limitation and seeks to remedy it head on with rigorous DBT's. Harman doesn't employ a whole (small) department headed by a PhD (Sean Olive) for no reason. Seriously, you should read about their DBT listening room and testing methodology. The lengths to which they go to expose flaws in their prototypes is absolutely amazing. It's so far beyond what we could pull off in our living rooms that it doesn't even compare. You mentioned you've been to the NRC. Did you think your personal listening setup compared to what you saw there? If so, then the NRC must lag behind Harman's MLL, because the MLL cost multiple millions. All sarcasm aside, I appreciate the fact that you're a careful listener, but I don't put much stock into tests in your listening room. If you have a scheme whereby you're able to level match, positional match, and swap out any one of three or four speakers in a couple of seconds in a DOUBLE blind test, then I'd gladly lose the skepticism. And I'd also beg to come participate in some tests!!!

No doubt about it but that doesn't mean you want crappy FR to start out with. The NRC research is crystal clear that garbage in means garbage out. They're not talking on-axis FR alone, either. That is truly meaningless. It's the on-axis PLUS off axis (up to 75 degrees) PLUS sound power PLUS directivity index. So, sorry if I gave the impression that I'm talking about rinky-dink on-axis FR alone. But still, all the measurements I'm talking about are frequency related, so that's why I use "FR" as a proxy for the NRC "family" of curves. What they're saying is that if your speaker sprays out wacky FR off-axis, you're going to get a huge earful of that at your listening position, and it's going to suck. They demonstrated over and over that the better the speaker does in the whole series of measurements that I mentioned, the better the speaker does in double-blind tests with real people.



You said earlier that

But yet you say that you've measured your B&W's (with what?), and they measure...flat?

My goodness, how entertaining.
When people come on these forums asking for speaker recommendations, most of you have recommended auditions, not analyses of graphs.

Not to compare apples to oranges or anything, but take the objective measurements of performance vehicles. Comparing the BMW M3 with the Mercedes Benz C63 AMG, one could conclude that the Mercedes Benz is a better car with more horsepower. True, the C63 does have more horsepower, but is it a better car? Not necessarily. Although I understand that FR graphs try to objectively measure the all-around performance of speakers and horseopwer alone cannot do such a thing with cars (stick with me here), there are just too many factors that play into how well a car drives - the consumer's driving style, conditions, gas, driving settings, and so much more - or a speaker sounds. Most importantly though in concluding which is better is the consumer's own personal preference. Is the dual clutch the BMW or Mercedes better? How do you objectively measure that?! You don't. Trying to conclude whether or not something is better off pure objective analysis is simply impossible, but such analysis should by no means be discounted.

Essentially, if the man likes his CM1, let him like a CM1. It is certainly not a bad speaker - unless you can draw the line that cuts off good from bad (well one could use percent deviation from a flat line, but I think that would be too much math). Well, those are my two cents and a forum is supposed to incite discussion...


EDIT:
I am just going to add the links for the two cars here in case someone wanted to do a little comparsion.
BMW M3
Mercedes Benz C63

Just to declare there was no bias in using BMW and Mercedes - I am more of an Audi RS4 man.

Measurements certainly have their place, but they don't tell the whole story.

If a speaker measured a completely flat frequency response, I would put money on it that many people would find its sound too "bright". The same effect can happen when an equalizer with test tones and proper calibrated measuring equipment is used to produce that type of graph. Now, is there anything thing "wrong" with that? No. But it would get some getting used to.

More often than not, the average listener would prefer the sound of a "room curve".

"In the film sound industry an X curve is also known as the wide-range curve and conforms to ISO Bulletin 2969, which specifies for pink noise, at the listening position in a dubbing situation or two-thirds of the way back in a theater, to be flat to 2 kHz, rolling off 3-dB/oct after that. The small-room X curve is designed to be used in rooms with less than 150 cubic meters, or 5,300 cubic feet. This standard specifies flat response to 2 kHz, and then rolling off at a 1.5 dB/oct rate. Some people use a modified small-room curve, starting the roll-off at 4 kHz, with a 3 dB/oct rate. " -RANE Pro Audio Reference".

When searching the forum for posts dealing with people using one of the built in equalization programs of receivers, more than once you will find that owners are wanting to boost the bass and reduce the treble after the measurements are done.

To pick the "right" speaker, a listener has to factor in that it is only one component in a system that includes the basic FR of of speaker itself, any equalization applied to it, the connected equipment, the source material, the effect of the room itself, and finally personal preference.

Absolutely! I hate B&W speakers but that is simply a personal choice. I always post that people can spend their money on anything and if they enjoy them why does anyone else care? The OP never ask Mark to post in his thread telling him the FR isnt good......I think its a total disrepect thing....The OP DID NOT ASK ABOUT FR PLOTS!!!!!

Those who try and post telling someone their speakers are crap need to show me pics of their HT Rooms, their cars, their houses, their jobs, their kids and their wives so I can tell them that they might be crap too


Meaning, if you do not live in a perfect world STFU wrt pissing on someone else's corn flakes (when they didnt care about the science) !!

Terrible analogy--the Cadillac CTS-V trumps them all unless you absolutely have to have that BMW road feel!

MCATUCCI,

Just wait until you learn about online brands like AV123, Ascend, Salk and so on.....or learn about custom builds from people like Mark Seaton. This hobby will become an addiction for you I would just recommendBACKING AWAY NOW and enjoy your CM1s


btw, Dont let the little pissing match here confuse you. Sadly some people need to act like salesmen in every thread they participate in. Sadly unknown to many that some ARE IN AUDIO SALES and they simply are being self serving That is a general statement, I have no idea if Mark sells this stuff (he acts like he does though).

Well, I would duke it out with you here about which one is better... but I have a feeling that'd be frowned upon. Even though that CTS does look nice, the way GM is going...

Back on topic to him discovering the CM1s and auditioning other speakers. Go ahead and use graphs as a guide to narrow down your search or read reviews to get a handle on what kind of things you should be hearing. Most importantly though is getting a chance to know how various speakers will perform in your home. After several auditions, you'll soon discover how amplification and room treatment can dramatically alter sound causing you to favor one speaker over another - potentially sacrificing the one that might work better in your home. Anyways, get out there and report back.

I own a pair of CM1s. I love them, but I know they're not perfect. That said, I appreciate their sound. The laid back sound that they have isn't fatiguing, and they were far less bright than the Focal 806 that I remember quite distinctly. I don't mind the slight mid bass hump - given that this is a fairly small speaker that can't go too deep, the hump prevents the speaker from sounding too lean without a subwoofer (I live in an apartment).

And I agree that simply looking at graphs doesn't give the whole picture. Different types of music may emphasize different parts of the audio spectrum, and placement, room, and electronics can all color that end result as well. Forgive the car analogy, but whereas an Ariel Atom may accelerate faster, stop faster, and turn better than a AWD Subaru (thus making it a better car), I highly doubt that you'd prefer it if you live somewhere that's freezing and has a tendency to snow 6 months out of the year.

thank you.


Well, I'm done here. When somebody tells me that I can't conduct a proper evaluation of sound quality unless I use a DBT automated speaker switcher and that I can't trust my own ears, there's no sense continuing the conversation.

For MCATUCCI, there are lots of great speakers that would also be good alternatives to the CM1 if you are looking for similar sized mini-monitors. I'll gladly give some recommendations (based on what I heard, not FR graphs). Personally I don't care if there are people that even don't like the CM1 as long as they've actually heard one, But I don't mind helping you in a separate manner if you want a honest opinion (I have no vested interest to sell anything). Feel free to contact me through Private messages

Wow, Penn! That's some pretty stern language. I was merely trying to tell the OP that there are some other, better bets out there than the dodgy CM1's, even by B&W themselves (i.e., the DM303's). $1000 is a significant amount of cash, and the OP could have better performance for under $300 on the used market. Having objective measurements by one of the world's finest labs is a good way for a newbie to find his way in this hobby. Is that so disrepsectful? Had he said something about just having purchased the CM1's and loving them, I would have not said a word. Now, get back to your table saw!!!

I don't 'like' it or 'dislike' it. I never talked about my own personal response to these fine-looking, meagerly-performing speakers. Whether one likes that type of discoloration is one's own business. Looking at the FR plot, one can see that the CM1 overemphasizes bass and scoops out the midrange. Such a high degree of innacuracy simply isn't worth a listen. Now, the DM303 is a lot more promising:



The CM1 again, for reference... ouch!:

MCATUCCI, congratulations on finding a pair of speakers that you really like. You made the right move in listening to other speakers and determining you like the CM1's the best so far. I would second the opinions of those that say listen to even more speakers for comparison to find ones you like the best at a price that you are willing to pay.

However, I would be careful about people that try to dictate to you what you should like or what you should be hearing. As soon as someone tries to change your opinion based on their piece of "evidence", that is a good sign they are trying to sell you something. As you'll learn soon enough, in the hi-fi world, there are a lot of salesmen lurking around. Not that they are necessarily bad, and many are very knowledgeable and helpful, but certainly there are those whose agenda is to promote the brands that they carry. Can't blame them as that is their livelihood, but at the same time, it is your money and it is you that will have to live with the speakers, so your opinion matters most.

The most important thing that I've learned when buying new gear is to "trust your ears". In the end, that is the only thing that matters. Anyone trying to claim that hi-fi is not subjective is, once again, trying to sell you something.

That aside, as it seems you like the B&W sound, I would recommend also giving the 685s a listen. At $650 a pair, they are cheaper than the CM1s and have been compared favorably to them and the even more expensive 805S's (which are $2,800 a pair).

Have fun auditioning and keep us updated on your "quest"!

The 685 is an excellent speaker for less than $1000. I wish Harmon could produce a speaker this good and not waste it's money on labs that produce inferior sound, regardless of their FR.
Harmon would be wise to spend less in the speaker lab and take some of the savings to invest in improving their electronics.