Comparison on Paper: B&W versus Tidal

[FrantzM]

Hi

At the bottom of all of these is the following how will the average audiophile react to this difference in price?

Would he/she assume more expensive is better as exemplified by the "Price Class" concept?
Would he/she just listen and make an honest determination?

I am tempted to think that the more expensive product will tend to be favored by most audiophile.

Now concerning the manufacturer cost. What would one care about what it cost the manufacturer to bring a product to life. If the product is of superior performance, then the price can be justified. if the products performs marginally better than another then in a fair market the manufacturer would pay the price literally ...

I will forever be amused how, earlier, I did find ways to excuse the gouging that goes in High End Audio but if the market doesn't feel victimized ( In fact judging by the response from this board and others, the market goes to the extent of rationalizing/excusing the practice) , I don't see why the practice should stop ...
By the way the Tidal could be that great but ... for 60K?

 

[Robh3606]

Yes, exactly. This tolerance issue is the basis for the problem that Dunlavy DIYers have when trying to "improve" their speakers by modding the crossovers or changing the drivers with better-regarded quality components.

Hello Smokester

That sounds more like they didn't understand the ramifications of the changes they were making in the first place. You don't start modding anything unless you have a good understanding of what the changes you are making are going to do. I the very least you make sure you can get back to where you started before you start making changes. You certainly can't start swapping drivers. As soon as you do that all bets are off and you have to redesign using the new drivers. Just for fun I set up a simple 2 pole 1K Crossover and changed both poles +/- 10% so we have a 20% variation. You get about a 1.5db change in level at the nominal 1K crossover point. Using 5% parts you should be OK.

Even with the crossover schematic, you can't just buy the components and assemble your own loudspeaker.

Hello Gary

Why not?? Depends on the design and how much information you have. You can certainly purchase the crossover parts to a tight enough tolerance or match them yourself if you are so inclinded. As long as you have the nominal DCR on the original inductors you should be OK. You can always wind down to the value you need if it's a non standard value. As far as ESR is that an issue with Polpropylene caps?? Electrolytics I can see. The drivers I can see a potential issue with but there are ways around that if you can get a good set of measurements on them. You can always mail order a couple of pairs measure for a matched pair and return the rest. I live over on Lansing Heritage and we have guys clone the older large format monitors all the time. They do the cabinets, crossovers, grills you name it. Even the Foil Labels!

Rob

 

[The Smokester]

Hello Smokester

That sounds more like they didn't understand the ramifications of the changes they were making in the first place. You don't start modding anything unless you have a good understanding of what the changes you are making are going to do. I the very least you make sure you can get back to where you started before you start making changes. You certainly can't start swapping drivers. As soon as you do that all bets are off and you have to redesign using the new drivers. Just for fun I set up a simple 2 pole 1K Crossover and changed both poles +/- 10% so we have a 20% variation. You get about a 1.5db change in level at the nominal 1K crossover point. Using 5% parts you should be OK....

All you say is surely correct. But, are we talking past each other? It takes more than a crossover to make a speaker. In the final product, Dunlavy tuned each speaker because of the afore-mentioned tolerances.

 

[Orb]

No problem Keith. I'm not made up of pride and will readily be corrected without any need for further qualification. It is the accusation that bothered me, in hindsight I can't really blame you since I was not very clear.

Now granted the Nautilus series is now made in the UK (formerly Denmark), the China angle still figures into the equation. Manufacturing costs are spread out over the entire "basket of goods". B&W is now chinese owned and the bulk of their "basket" is comprised of speakers whose cabinets are INDEED made in their China factory. My proof is printed right on my daughter's B&W boxes. The average cost across all lines thus gives them a price advantage over the smaller concerns like Tidal. Companies like B&W thus have the advantage of maintaining halo lines which I presume have lower returns money wise but make up for these by casting that same halo over products that (after looking it up) are not made in the new UK facility , the loudspeakers that by sheer volume make the dough.

I'd like to make it clear however that to me quality is quality and I don't have any prejudices about where the products are made for as long as they are up to snuff.

This article is very interesting to me because it's apples and apples regarding specs but apples and oranges regarding parts and materials. In the end however it still boils down to which one pushes the individuals buttons. When we're talking 5 or 6 figure speakers, bragging rights at least in my experience has been grossly overstated by those that do not belong to that market segment at that. In my experience folks that can blow that kind of money without blinking go for quality and not flash. If one wanted to spend money to impress, dollars spent on a better wardrobe and a better car goes a lot farther than a pair of speakers.

Just to clarify, I understand the Nautilus was completely made in the UK and was the previous 80x series that had their cabinets made in Denmark.
The current 80x series now has a manufacturing line in England also for cabinets so no longer done in Denmark and shipped to UK.
This required a new manufacturing line-logistics to be setup, from what I remember reading it was over a million pounds taking all costs into consideration.
In the whole scheme of things this may not sound much, but for the smaller market footprint of the 80x speaker compared to their lower series it is a major consideration.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Mike Lavigne]

interesting topic.

i've listened to the Tidal line of speakers at CES last year and RMAF. they remind me somewhat of the Kharma which i owned.

over the years i've listened to many B&W's and they have always been a good bang for the buck speaker line. i've never really warmed up to the B&W Diamond line-up. my all time fav B&W speaker were the Silver Signatures a friend of mine owned. the 'real' Nautilus was pretty good; but not great.

i do not know these 2 particular speakers so unless we compare them directly it's hard to get too far into this.

most of the expensive European speakers have gone from overpriced, to wacko crazy overpriced.

i think the priceing of my Evolution MM3's can be compared somewhat to the B&W's. when the MM3's were introduced at $38k retail there were lots of people who dismissed them because they were not priced high enough. IMHO they compared to $100k+ speakers i was familiar with favorably, but many assumed that since they did not cost that much how could they really be that good. over the last 4 years, as people were exposed to them, some of that perception went away. but even now, priced at $50k, they are sometimes overlooked because they are not percieved as costing enough.

i've not heard any speaker at any price i like better than the Evolutions. i'm not saying everyone would agree with me, or even that i've heard every speaker in as favorable a light as i've heard the MM3's.

but there is no doubt that the MM3's reputation is affected by it's price.

so Jeff's point here certainly resonates with me. would i assume that the Tidal would sound significantly better than the B&W? even though there is that 6:1 ratio of price?

well; based on listening to the two speaker lines my best guess is that i would likely consider the Tidal as waay overpriced; but i could not likely live with the B&W's in my own system. there are other $10k speakers thou that i could and would live with. there are some excellent modestly priced speakers that i like.

i know i could enjoy living with the Tidal's based on my listening to various Tidal speakers. the Tidals use the same accuton mid-range that the Kharma's use, which the Evolutions use. it's a reason i switched from the Von Schweikerts to the Evolutions. i like that mid-range.

this is not to say i would buy the Tidal's.

for me it's not about the price; it's the musical presentation. i'd rather give up scale and bass extension, but have the mids and highs that i can live with.

 

[Robh3606]

In the final product, Dunlavy tuned each speaker because of the afore-mentioned tolerances.

Ok that's the path he chose. For whatever reason that was the best way he could accomplish what he was after. There are plenty of other systems around that don't get that kind of tuning. In most it's simply not required. There are plenty of ways to work around tolerances where you don't need to do that.

But, are we talking past each other? It takes more than a crossover to make a speaker.

I agree but it's not insurmountable by any means all you need is the right information. Some companies practically hand it to you while others won't supply schematics or post measurements.

Rob

 

[microstrip]

my all time fav B&W speaker were the Silver Signatures a friend of mine owned. the 'real' Nautilus was pretty good; but not great.

Interesting remark.
I still keep a pair of the old Silver Signatures SS25 with the slate supports. They have dynamic limitations, but properly matched they have a fantastic pin point imaging and a very natural sound.

But is the 90's I heard the serious Nautilus system with 4 stereo Krell stereo amplifiers and an Krell custom made active crossover. They were placed in a very large room , in an old Hotel in Montreux, Switzerland. The opening of Handel "Music for the Royal Fireworks" (Trevor Pinnok, DG Archiv )sounded like if we were facing the real orchestra. I had some experience of holography in imaging with lasers, but for me hifi holography gained a new meaning that day.

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Ok that's the path he chose. For whatever reason that was the best way he could accomplish what he was after. There are plenty of other systems around that don't get that kind of tuning. In most it's simply not required. There are plenty of ways to work around tolerances where you don't need to do that. Rob

There is no substitution for verifying acoustically the finished product. The good speaker designers will tell you this. It simply must be that way. Should a manufacturer measure subcomponents in an amplifier and then not measure the whole thing when it is assembled? If they don't measure the finished speaker to verify the specs/tolerances, then they are only doing part of the job. No exceptions.

 

[Robh3606]

Hello Jeff

You are taking that statement out of context. No where have I ever advocated not using measurements to prove out a design or be used for QC.

If they don't measure the finished speaker to verify the specs/tolerances, then they are only doing part of the job. No exceptions.

The issue I have with that statement is typically not every speaker gets measured. Production samples get measured. The point about Dunlavy was he fine tuned every speaker in an anechoic chamber by adding capacitors to the networks. Do you know anyone else who does that?? My point was there a ways around having to measure every speaker. All you need to do is measure the drivers and crossovers up front as an example.

Rob

 

[Orb]

Ok I appreciate the following has nothing to do with audio but it shows how manufacturers in technology profit margins and operating margins are affected by economy of scale.
Also as technology companies you would expect processors-chips to become cheaper in a similar way to audio electronics, so it makes some aspects of comparison interesting.

Basically two companies that are vastly different in size, Cisco and Juniper.
Both try to achieve a product profit margin around 60% to 70% for their models, now what is really interesting is how their operating margin is substantially lower.
Cisco's operating margin is 23%, while the much smaller company Juniper is just 3%, both are in the same line of technology and sales sectors and yet Juniper being a much smaller company has net profit margins that are not even near the double figure.

So its interesting to see how costs eat into high product profit margins, and how smaller companies can have substantially less net profit when taking operating margins into consideration, even when product profit margins are comparable and sell into identical sectors with similar competing products.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Hello Jeff

You are taking that statement out of context. No where have I ever advocated not using measurements to prove out a design or be used for QC.



The issue I have with that statement is typically not every speaker gets measured. Production samples get measured. The point about Dunlavy was he fine tuned every speaker in an anechoic chamber by adding capacitors to the networks. Do you know anyone else who does that?? My point was there a ways around having to measure every speaker. All you need to do is measure the drivers and crossovers up front as an example.

Rob

No I got your meaning. And I do mean that if a speaker is executed to the highest standards, and has any claim to being SOTA, every single one is tested acoustically. An example? Rockport. Each and every speaker is tuned/measured by Andy Payor, and when it leaves the factory, is typically within 1dB of being flat.

B&W puts each Diamond in the chamber and it must meet a specified tolerance.

If a company only tests drivers and subassemblies, and not acoustically testing finished speakers, IMO it has no business calling itself a SOTA attempt.

 

[Robh3606]

Hello Jeff

I didn't realize we we discussing SOTA systems. I was thinking speakers in general more along the lines of what your typical person can bring home. I would expect a SOTA speaker to be tested. I wouldn't expect every mass produced model to be.

B&W puts each Diamond in the chamber and it must meet a specified tolerance.

They are large enough where they actually have a chamber at their manufacturing plant. That makes sense but anything built offshore or at lower price points I would be very surprised.

Rob

 

[microstrip]

An example? Rockport. Each and every speaker is tuned/measured by Andy Payor, and when it leaves the factory, is typically within 1dB of being flat.

Another example:

Quad ESL63 . The phase of the speaker was so linear that they matched the pairs at the factory using a nul technique - they feeded the two speakers with a square wave with opposite phases and they checked with a microphone for sound cancelation. The pair matching was better than .5 dB.

 

[Orb]

Jeff,
sorry to go OT but this is relevant to you.
The TWBAS 2009 project made for great reading as it was not only about the speaker and products chosen but also the methodology and the path walked IMO.
Is there a chance you could sometime do another TWBAS project but this time with standmounts combined with the best subwoofers and hardware/software to integrate this with the standmount?
In a way this then focuses again on both the methodology and the path walked with the speakers, along with key additional products.
And would be interesting just how close such an ultra hardware-solution comes to the best full range reference such as that done in previous TWBAS.

I appreciate this is not something done overnight
Thanks
Orb

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Jeff,
sorry to go OT but this is relevant to you.
The TWBAS 2009 project made for great reading as it was not only about the speaker and products chosen but also the methodology and the path walked IMO.
Is there a chance you could sometime do another TWBAS project but this time with standmounts combined with the best subwoofers and hardware/software to integrate this with the standmount?
In a way this then focuses again on both the methodology and the path walked with the speakers, along with key additional products.
And would be interesting just how close such an ultra hardware-solution comes to the best full range reference such as that done in previous TWBAS.

I appreciate this is not something done overnight
Thanks
Orb

I think it's a fine idea. Off the top of my head, the TAD Compact Reference and either the JL Gothams or Paradigm S2s (a pair) would seem to have SOTA potential. Add in the most advanced bass management and room correction and you would have a four-way sysytem of almost unlimited capability.

 

[Orb]

I appreciate it was a lengthy process even in identifying the speakers for TWBAS2009, I guess other possibles would also be the Magico/Focal Diablo standmount,etc.
If you do eventually do this, hopefully others would find it a great TWBAS2011 (if lucky haha).

Thanks
Orb