or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › NEWB&W 600 series
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NEWB&W 600 series - Page 8

post #211 of 242
Quote:
Any hopes of these becoming a "poor-man's CM1" are dashed immediately upon first listen. However, the 685 is a "fun", dynamic bookshelf in its own right. The enclosure really (other than the minimalism applied to the CM's xovers) is the deciding factor here IMO.

THE 68 SERIES USES A VERY MINIMALIST CROSSOVER AS WELL AND HAS DONE MUCH TO BRACE AND ADD THICKNESS TO THE CABINET, SO I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. THE OTHER THING TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE 68 SERIES USES PHASE PLUGS WITH VERY TIGHT TOLERANCES, THAT IS DIFFERANT THAN THE DUST CAP ON THE CM'S.
post #212 of 242
Respectfully disagreeing doesn't involve "shouting" at someone.
post #213 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by schticker View Post

The enclosure really (other than the minimalism applied to the CM's xovers) is the deciding factor here IMO.

The CM1 is a vastly more solid (sounding), defined, and accurate bookshelf.

...To each their own... I thought otherwise.... With the ability to buy either, or more expensive pairs... I'm sure you'll find many that will agree with me... and you... part of the fun of all this
post #214 of 242
Quote:


Respectfully disagreeing doesn't involve "shouting" at someone.

Sorry about the "all caps", I didn't realize....I'm on pain meds now due to surgery ...must concentrate a bit more.
post #215 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Sm View Post

THE 68 SERIES USES A VERY MINIMALIST CROSSOVER AS WELL AND HAS DONE MUCH TO BRACE AND ADD THICKNESS TO THE CABINET, SO I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. THE OTHER THING TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE 68 SERIES USES PHASE PLUGS WITH VERY TIGHT TOLERANCES, THAT IS DIFFERANT THAN THE DUST CAP ON THE CM'S.

CAPS LOCK WORKS

Wonderful work on the dissertation and summary of the spec sheet. I'm discussing what is actually heard. I don't think I dissed the 68s, but to compare them to the CMs is not only unrealistic, but outside of the scope of the design.

For an entry-level product, the 68s might very well be considered best-of-class right now. There, make you happy?
post #216 of 242
Quote:


CAPS LOCK WORKS

Sorry, wasn't intentional

Quote:


Wonderful work on the dissertation and summary of the spec sheet. I'm discussing what is actually heard.

Me too, just responding to the similarities.
Quote:


I don't think I dissed the 68s,

No, I didn't think you did.
Quote:


but to compare them to the CMs is not only unrealistic, but outside of the scope of the design.

While I prefer the CM1's to the 686's by fair enough margin, I would say the 685's , while a differant speaker to be sure, might just be a differant speaker and a matter of taste and application deciding which might be preferable.
Quote:


For an entry-level product, the 68s might very well be considered best-of-class right now. There, make you happy?

As are the CM1's, and I wasn't unhappy before, just careless with caps lock and medicated.
post #217 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by schticker View Post

CAPS LOCK WORKS

Wonderful work on the dissertation and summary of the spec sheet. I'm discussing what is actually heard. I don't think I dissed the 68s, but to compare them to the CMs is not only unrealistic, but outside of the scope of the design.

For an entry-level product, the 68s might very well be considered best-of-class right now. There, make you happy?

I would disagree. After listening to 600 series, CM series, 700 series, and 800 series I would not only compare the 600s to the CMs, but give them my vote as the better sounding speaker. This is most evident in comparing 683 vs. CM7. But I'm curious, what makes comparison "not only unrealistic, but outside of the scope of the design"?
post #218 of 242
I was able to compare the CM7's to the 683's useing a A/B switch on the exact same equipment set exactly the same way. i found the CM7's to be better for music and have a very slightly better sound with music. when i say slightly i mean very slightly (and i can't stress the word slightly enough). when i compared useing movies i got the same feeling. the cm's pulled out some effects just slightly better then the 683's (again it was a very small difference). then when you compare the price it's easy to see the new 600 line is a better value. as with anything to do with electronics once you get to a certain quality the price goes way up for a small percentage of better quality.

i feel that paying $1K more for going from the 600's to the cm's is not worth the extra cash, but that is just my opinion.

when i demoed the 600's i went into the shop not even considering that line. i only went to the shop after finding out they had the CM7's setup in a very well done demo room. then to my surprise the 600's where sitting right next to the cm's. i listened to some live music and acoustic recordings and came away impressed with both models. i thought the sound was slightly different and toward different types of listeners. i thought the 600's where geared more toward HTTR (as they had much more bass but most would still need a seperate sub) and the CM's where more for music. what also surprised me was the sales guy put on some music and i thought he had the CM's on. after sitting there listening to them for about 15 minutes i was ready to get the wallet out only for him to point out i was listening to the 600 series not the cm's.

in the end i picked up the larger 600 line but i didnt get the sub. what sub do you guys recomend? im not looking to go crazy on the sub because the room is not overly big.
post #219 of 242
Moving from thr 6xx to the CM to the 7xx to the 8xx involves a premium of 50-100% increase in price which is a huge difference And we all know that speakers are very subjective and about the laws of diminishing returns. So there are always people who are going to prefer the cheaper ones just because they offer a better price/performance ratio with their dime. Why spend 50-100% more if the sound of the cheaper one is already very good?

Of course, some people will absolutely prefer the 6xx series over the CM and maybe even the 7xx (given enough people sampling an item, there are always going to be some). That doesn't mean it's necessarily better, it just tastes better to them.

In case of the CM1, it really should be compared to the 686 because they are nearly identical in configuration, same size, driver size, power handling, sensitivity, frequency response, everything. Looking at the specs, you'd think they are the same speaker except weight, the phase plug, and overall build. B&W tried to make the CM1 to be a best small traditional mini-monitor they could make in that model, and the 686 is just an evolution of the very compact bookshelf speaker. And for sure you are paying a bit more because you get a wood finish and pay for UK labor in the price.

I've heard the 686 and I still prefer my CM1 in sound and looks/style. But I agree that the 6xx is a good value and if I were doing it again, it would be a tough choice. When I bought the CM's I wanted the absolute best minimonitor for music (with less emphasis on HT) I could find and afford and for me, the CM1 still holds that title. If wanted something better, I would look outside the B&W line (3A Reference Dulcet for example). I would not consider the 7xx series (I really didn't find them very good), and the 805 series is crowded in a field with lots of amazing bookshelf speakers.

I might consider picking up a set of 686's just as a set of secondary system speakers to replace my older Epos speakers.
post #220 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bboncorr1 View Post

I was able to compare the CM7's to the 683's useing a A/B switch on the exact same equipment set exactly the same way. i found the CM7's to be better for music and have a very slightly better sound with music. when i say slightly i mean very slightly (and i can't stress the word slightly enough)....
i thought the 600's where geared more toward HTTR (as they had much more bass but most would still need a seperate sub) and the CM's where more for music. what also surprised me was the sales guy put on some music and i thought he had the CM's on. after sitting there listening to them for about 15 minutes i was ready to get the wallet out only for him to point out i was listening to the 600 series not the cm's.

While price is a consideration, for me it's still preference regardless of price - both the 600 series and CM series are comfortably within my budget and I just prefer the 600 series (for music as I am buying them for 2 channel only).

I too have done the A/B on not only the exact same equipment, but on the same equipment I own and I prefer the 600 series. I think they are close enough that not only can they be compared, but should be compared. If someone is considering either series I think it would make sense to demo the other. Also, I have to suspect the majority of the price difference lies in wood veneer and British labor...
post #221 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by JN99 View Post

I would disagree. After listening to 600 series, CM series, 700 series, and 800 series I would not only compare the 600s to the CMs, but give them my vote as the better sounding speaker.

I would certainly place the CMs closer to the 700 series bookshelf than you do. Certainly, the 68s have made significant strides this generation, but based on multiple listening sessions I can tell you that something wasn't set correctly for you to make that determination. Unless of course a more boxy sound is your thing.

Quote:


This is most evident in comparing 683 vs. CM7.

No offense, but could this be an issue of "close enough for the money"?

Quote:


But I'm curious, what makes comparison "not only unrealistic, but outside of the scope of the design"?

B&W is not designing the 68s to step on the toes of the CM. If you thought it was that close a comparison, I would seek out another dealer who perhaps actually has the demo room set up correctly.
post #222 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by schticker View Post

I would certainly place the CMs closer to the 700 series bookshelf than you do. Certainly, the 68s have made significant strides this generation, but based on multiple listening sessions I can tell you that something wasn't set correctly for you to make that determination. Unless of course a more boxy sound is your thing.


No offense, but could this be an issue of "close enough for the money"?


B&W is not designing the 68s to step on the toes of the CM. If you thought it was that close a comparison, I would seek out another dealer who perhaps actually has the demo room set up correctly.

No offense taken. Everything was setup correctly and the listening was done over multiple sessions. Money was not a factor in my decision (between the 600 and CM series at any rate) - I simply prefer the sound of the 683 over the CM7 regardless of price. I don't consider the 600 series to sound boxy at all and might suggest you be the one to look closer at setup if that was your experience in listening to them. Further, I think the 700 series is the least appealing sounding of the B&W line, so being "closer to the 700 series bookshelf" is not necessarily a good thing.

It is interesting that you still offer no reason as to why comparison is - and again I quote you "not only unrealistic, but outside of the scope of the design". Please elaborate - that's an interesting statement for which you have offered no support. This isn't a flame, I'd really like to hear why you made that statement. I still believe that British labor and wood veneer make up the majority, if not all, of the price difference.
post #223 of 242
I was at a local dealer today and I made a point to look at, both, the new 600 and CM series models up close. I have to admit the few 600's I saw looked very impressive, especially the 683's. I thought the FST mid-range assembly looked a little cleaner designed than the one on the CM7's for example (more precision fit of phase plug and cone inner-diameter). More importantly, did'nt have time to do listen comparison (they were closing). Although I have listened to a pair of CM7's when they were first released, and I was very impressed.
post #224 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocque View Post

The CAD MSRP for the 683 is rumored to be $850/speaker; this would be less than the current $1000 MSRP for the replaced 604. That's the CAD dollar at work, baby!


makes me want to cry... I payed 1650 for my 604's earlier this year and that was after haggling 350$ off the retail here in vancouver.
post #225 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerveddy View Post

makes me want to cry... I payed 1650 for my 604's earlier this year and that was after haggling 350$ off the retail here in vancouver.

It's $1,000 per speaker. If you got $1,650 for the pair, it was a good deal.
post #226 of 242
Quote:


Moving from thr 6xx to the CM to the 7xx to the 8xx involves a premium of 50-100% increase in price which is a huge difference And we all know that speakers are very subjective and about the laws of diminishing returns. So there are always people who are going to prefer the cheaper ones just because they offer a better price/performance ratio with their dime. Why spend 50-100% more if the sound of the cheaper one is already very good?

Of course, some people will absolutely prefer the 6xx series over the CM and maybe even the 7xx (given enough people sampling an item, there are always going to be some). That doesn't mean it's necessarily better, it just tastes better to them.

In case of the CM1, it really should be compared to the 686 because they are nearly identical in configuration, same size, driver size, power handling, sensitivity, frequency response, everything. Looking at the specs, you'd think they are the same speaker except weight, the phase plug, and overall build. B&W tried to make the CM1 to be a best small traditional mini-monitor they could make in that model, and the 686 is just an evolution of the very compact bookshelf speaker. And for sure you are paying a bit more because you get a wood finish and pay for UK labor in the price.

I've heard the 686 and I still prefer my CM1 in sound and looks/style. But I agree that the 6xx is a good value and if I were doing it again, it would be a tough choice. When I bought the CM's I wanted the absolute best minimonitor for music (with less emphasis on HT) I could find and afford and for me, the CM1 still holds that title.

Well said.

While the CM1 and 686 comparison is a very valid one, I can assure you that it is one that people have come into my store to make on more than a few occaisions hoping to walk out with a bargain, but alas the CM1's outsell the 686s. The 685's on the other hand do get a fair share of the customers too as they play with a bit more impact and we also wind up pointing out the advantages of front porting for some situations. So as they have a differant sound, they may appeal to a differant customer.
Along the same lines, the CM7's seem to be doing slightly better than the 683's at only a cost of $300 more a pair, and while most seem to find them preferable for music, the 683's again seem designed with more punch in mind, and generally seem to appeal to people with more agressive musical tastes (ime).
My experiance has also been that the veneer on the 68 series is good enough that few seem to care to ask about the veneer of either, and with bookshelf speakers they are often not as prominently viewed anyway.
Also, for what it's worth the 703 was the only speaker in the 700 series that ever appealed to me.
post #227 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by JN99 View Post

No offense taken. Everything was setup correctly and the listening was done over multiple sessions. Money was not a factor in my decision (between the 600 and CM series at any rate) - I simply prefer the sound of the 683 over the CM7 regardless of price. I don't consider the 600 series to sound boxy at all and might suggest you be the one to look closer at setup if that was your experience in listening to them. Further, I think the 700 series is the least appealing sounding of the B&W line, so being "closer to the 700 series bookshelf" is not necessarily a good thing.

Well I have to say it's exciting that a speaker in this range is getting such favorable comparisons.

Quote:


It is interesting that you still offer no reason as to why comparison is - and again I quote you "not only unrealistic, but outside of the scope of the design". Please elaborate - that's an interesting statement for which you have offered no support. This isn't a flame, I'd really like to hear why you made that statement. I still believe that British labor and wood veneer make up the majority, if not all, of the price difference.

Again, if that's what you think, there is clearly an issue with the environment/setup you heard. Can't put it any more plainly. Across the line, the CM series offers a more solid, non-resonant, accurate-yet-warm sound than the 68s. This isn't really a knock on that line (striking bang for the buck to be sure), but the 68s consistently reveal their intended position as a market leader in that category in comparison to their more upscale cousin.
post #228 of 242
I am in agreement with JN99, I was able to listen to the 683 vs CM7, CM7 vs 703 side by side and I liked the 683 the best. For my ears, the 703 was too harsh, I could tell that after time I would get fatigue listening to them, though they did have a increadible sound stage!. To me, the CM7 was more laid back and pleasant, I could listen to them all day. I was even going to buy them before comparing them to the 683. A/B of the 683 and CM7, I felt the 683 was a little more forward and had a better sound stage than the CM7. For me it was a nice ballance between the CM7 sound and the 703 sound, so that is what I bought.
post #229 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by schticker View Post

Well I have to say it's exciting that a speaker in this range is getting such favorable comparisons.

Again, if that's what you think, there is clearly an issue with the environment/setup you heard. Can't put it any more plainly. Across the line, the CM series offers a more solid, non-resonant, accurate-yet-warm sound than the 68s. This isn't really a knock on that line (striking bang for the buck to be sure), but the 68s consistently reveal their intended position as a market leader in that category in comparison to their more upscale cousin.

How else can it be asked that you elaborate on your statement that comparison is - quoted yet again - "not only unrealistic, but outside of the scope of the design"? You continue to offer only your opinion of the sound of the speakers, which does not at all address the "scope of design" - the statement about which I am most curious. I can't put that more plainly...

Ok, so you prefer the sound of the CM series. I prefer the sound of the 600 series and a discussion won't change that. I'm not saying they are superior in any way to the CM just that I prefer them. You on the other hand have made a pretty bold statement with regards to technology (design) and must have some insight that others here do not (and that is not available in B&W's own literature) so perhaps you could shed some light on this for us? Or are you trying really hard to live up to that "Mr. Misunderstood" moniker?
post #230 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by JN99 View Post

How else can it be asked that you elaborate on your statement that comparison is - quoted yet again - "not only unrealistic, but outside of the scope of the design"?

Opinion is that the 68s are shoeboxes in comparison. Not really an opinion; more like a repeated observation be myself and those that know how to listen.
post #231 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by schticker View Post

Opinion is that the 68s are shoeboxes in comparison. Not really an opinion; more like a repeated observation be myself and those that know how to listen.

Ok, this is getting silly and I even like the CMs better than the 68s. How about we just accept that we like what we like and move on?
post #232 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by schticker View Post

Opinion is that the 68s are shoeboxes in comparison. Not really an opinion; more like a repeated observation be myself and those that know how to listen.

Right then, as was obvious all along, you have nothing to substantiate your comments...
post #233 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by JN99 View Post

Right then, as was obvious all along, you have nothing to substantiate your comments...

Look it's obvious you bought the 68s and are pissed that my views don't echo yours. That's fine, but the difference is I have more direct experience with both lines and have no horse in the race. Take it as it is and move on.
post #234 of 242
FWIW, as someone that has even fewer horses in the race, it seems that JN99's stance is more well thought out and personal whereas schticker is trying to make his opinion out to be superior and more universal that JM99s. Amongst a group of colored speakers, who is to say that one colored speaker is universally superior to another?

Besides, it's not unusual for a less expensive, newer speaker to outperform an older, more expensive speaker it some or many ways. Nor is it unusual for a more expensive speaker to maintain its obvious dominance, though, unless it's a lot more expensive, it often doesn't, unless the lesser model is purposely dumbed down.
post #235 of 242
Maybe they'll sound like music...
post #236 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by schticker View Post

Look it's obvious you bought the 68s and are pissed that my views don't echo yours. That's fine, but the difference is I have more direct experience with both lines and have no horse in the race. Take it as it is and move on.

No that's not it at all - you really are missing the point. I was simply asking why the comparison was beyond the scope of design as you mentioned. I really don't care what anyone thinks of what I purchased be it speakers, other AV equipment, the car I drive, or the clothes I wear. I buy what I buy because I like it. With some of these items, in the AV and automotive industries especially, I like to understand the differences in terms of the technology involved and the differences between products both within and across brands.

I was simply trying to better understand the design differences that make this comparison "out of scope". That seemed a very simple and straightforwad question but one that still has no answer so I will give up asking it as it is abundantly clear you have nothing to substantiate the statement. Each of your posts is of the variety this is, from which we can all draw obvious conclusions.
post #237 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

FWIW, as someone that has even fewer horses in the race, it seems that JN99's stance is more well thought out and personal whereas schticker is trying to make his opinion out to be superior and more universal that JM99s. Amongst a group of colored speakers, who is to say that one colored speaker is universally superior to another?

Besides, it's not unusual for a less expensive, newer speaker to outperform an older, more expensive speaker it some or many ways. Nor is it unusual for a more expensive speaker to maintain its obvious dominance, though, unless it's a lot more expensive, it often doesn't, unless the lesser model is purposely dumbed down.

Thanks (I think) - I do try to think about what I type. It doesn't always work but I do try

I think the coloration issue is an interesting one and I know there are various opinions on this when it comes to B&W speakers. I'm not a sophisticated enough listener to be able to describe it in absolute terms but there is something there in the B&W speakers that definitely does not sound neutral to me.

However, compared to my 2nd choice (Monitor Audio RS6) the 683 simply sounded better to me on some of my lesser recordings (primarily older rock stuff, Stones especially, etc.) and I think this is due in part to their coloration. While perhaps not neutral I just found it to be my preference across the sampling of music I used. Thus I chose the 683 with an eye on upgrading via my dealer's trade up policy to the 800 series if I find am listening enough to warrant it.
post #238 of 242
Has anyone done any A/B testing of the Swan 5.1 BC against the B&W 683? Just curious to similarities/differences.
post #239 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio1 View Post

Has anyone done any A/B testing of the Swan 5.1 BC against the B&W 683? Just curious to similarities/differences.

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on this comparison too.
post #240 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by JN99 View Post

Thanks (I think) - I do try to think about what I type. It doesn't always work but I do try

I really haven't seen you make a point other than challenging mine, so return your hand from its back-patting position. You haven't earned it just yet.

Quote:


I think the coloration issue is an interesting one and I know there are various opinions on this when it comes to B&W speakers. I'm not a sophisticated enough listener to be able to describe it in absolute terms but there is something there in the B&W speakers that definitely does not sound neutral to me.

And (drum roll).... I agree. Any speaker has its own coloration; the question is which ones are least-harmful. Clearly when any company has to maintain a price point while making improvements, the first thing to be sacrificed is cabinet construction. This is proven repeatedly (although obviously not universally) with many brands. Not surprisingly, the 68s being entry-level suffer the worst. Never did I say they sounded BAD, only worse in comparison to the 68.5-er-the CM series. And never forget that many are fooled into thinking that louder = better.

Quote:


However, compared to my 2nd choice (Monitor Audio RS6) the 683 simply sounded better to me on some of my lesser recordings (primarily older rock stuff, Stones especially, etc.) and I think this is due in part to their coloration. While perhaps not neutral I just found it to be my preference across the sampling of music I used. Thus I chose the 683 with an eye on upgrading via my dealer's trade up policy to the 800 series if I find am listening enough to warrant it.

True. I think recordings that don't have excess bass pumped into the mix benefit from greater efficiency and a little fast-and-loose bass response. If that is primarily your listening reference, then you made the right choice. This is how Klipsch enjoyed so much success for years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JN99 View Post

I was simply trying to better understand the design differences that make this comparison "out of scope". That seemed a very simple and straightforward question...

1. The cabinet is far more prominent in tonal coloration on the 68
2. The overall performance in terms of midrange neutrality and bass smoothness is superior as a result.

Nearly everyone that listens to the two comments to this effect without provocation. Clearly, building a better cabinet in one series than the other not only in terms of sonic quality but appearance is no mistake. This has nothing to do with opinion; the problem is that on the internet, everyone's opinion is considered equal no matter the disparity in experience, context, or possession of first hand knowledge from the people that actually build the products.

Enjoy your 68s.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › NEWB&W 600 series