B&W CDM's or M&K S150

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by SavoyR, Mar 10, 2002.

  1. SavoyR

    SavoyR Agent

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi right now I'm using M&K S125 5 all around and the MX-125 sub I'm thinking about upgrading my speakers to the B&W CDM9NT,CDM7NT,CDMCNT,CDM1NT,and the ASW2500 sub.or the M&K (5)S-150's,SS-200,and the MX-350 sub.my listening preferences are 60/40 hometheater and music
     
  2. DavidMich

    DavidMich Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2000
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stick with M&K.........![​IMG]
     
  3. rodneyH

    rodneyH Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree....stick with the M&K (for the SUB!!!!) and use the CDMs for the others, seriously they sound totally different, I don't like how the M&K sound, except for thier subs.
     
  4. Jeff Kad

    Jeff Kad Extra

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Heard them all, and bought B&W cdm 9nt. Would have bought any of the cdm line before comparable M&K. M&K was great for HT, but just plain "boring" for music to my taste. As always, listen for yourself, but as for musical cues to my preferences, I tend to like very detailed, tight speakers that have real midrange life (not bloat). B&W's are sometimes accused of being too bright or analytical, yet to my ear they always get me emotionally involved. The M&K's, as their reviews reveal, always sound crystal clear, without sibilance or any coloration, and reviewers rave that, while they first thought they were missing something, they come to realize that the M&K's tend to give you the info straight up. I personally find this boring, and from my recollection of live instruments, there is a depth and fullness that is missing from M&Ks that is clearly there with the B&W's. Just my two cents.

    BTW, I've come to realize that all of us who offer opinions on the "sound" of speakers (especially at review sites like audio review) should QUALIFY OUR OPINIONS by first identifying our sonic preferences (ie' bright and detailed, harmonic and lush, laid back and smooth, etc). This way a commentary could be better evaluated as to its objectivity. Harsh to one may sound great to another.
     
  5. Roger Kint

    Roger Kint Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've listened to both and was not impressed with B&W. I still liked the sound very much, but I guess my expectations were too high since they have such an excellent reputataion. When I listened to M&K I knew right away those were the speakers I wanted. I myself like very detailed and accurate speakers and M&K does the job exceptionally well. I've heard many times from hi-end audio dealers that B&Ws tend to sound warm and full(to me, boring) while M&Ks are crystal clear and accurate, and from auditioning both I tend to agree. I tend to believe speakers should be impartial to the recording and should not colorize nor change the sound in any way. If you want the most accurate speakers, then you won't regret M&Ks. There is a reason why Lucasfilm chose M&Ks for use as multi-media screening and conference room monitors. If you want warmth and fullness colorization, then you pretty much have to listen to all kinds and types of speakers since they will all color the sound in one way or another and then at this point it just becomes very very subjective.

    The bottom line is that you need to do A-B comparisons yourself and find out which sounds better to you. You can't lose with either B&W or M&K, they are both great speakers.

     
  6. rodneyH

    rodneyH Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    0
    roger, I don't know if you know this, George Lucas is switching to B&Ws, just thought I would let you know. As far as "accuracy" 80% of the jazz and classical recording studios use B&W, that is pretty damn good.
     
  7. SavoyR

    SavoyR Agent

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks guys for your reply's. Roger I listen to the CDM7NT and was not impressed then I heard the 9NT and really liked them a lot.I also like my s125's do you think the s150's will sound good on music also? will it big a big upgrade from the s125's? and BTW which M&K'S did you listen too?
     
  8. Roger Kint

    Roger Kint Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    rodneyH: You're right, Skywalker Ranch will be using B&W for a new studio, but not necessarily *switching* to B&W. These are excellent speakers, and if you noticed *why* they picked them it is because of the characteristics which have been always been associated with M&K for years - no colorization or IOWs - accurate. And this statement by B&W also. However notice the price on these babies vs. the price on the M&Ks they use in their other studio(s)! These B&W 802's cost $4,000 a pair! I wish I had that kind of money.
    SavoyR: I've listened to the S-150s and S-125s and the CDM-1NTs. These are all about the same price range and so are valid comparisons. The S-150s sounded a bit more 'bright' - it's great for HT because you can really hear everything thing in detail. I don't know if the S-150's will be that much of an upgrade from the S-125s. The S-150's will definitely sound different so you really have to listen to them with your favorite CD(s) to check 'em out music wise. I've never heard the 9NT series. Don't take anyone's word for it, you gotta go hear 'em all to be sure.
     
  9. rodneyH

    rodneyH Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't believe he didn't go with the 800 signatures, what a cheep a$$-tic

    are M&Ks really more "bright" and forward that B&W, typically B&Ws are considered a more "bright" speaker than most, I listened to M&Ks and didn't get that sense, but I have NO idea what type of equipt they were using, so my opinion is very limited in this area.

    you gave the best advice when you mentioned "go listen for yourself" thats what really matters.

    As far as the 9s sounding so much much better than the 7s, I have a pair of 9s and a pair of 7s in my house right now, I don't agree with your assessment on that issue, but that is why we all like different things.
     
  10. Tom Grooms

    Tom Grooms Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2000
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  11. Jason_Hil

    Jason_Hil Auditioning

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will say that i have not heard the m&k but i do love the b&w cdm9nt. I don't know what you guys are listening to them on,but make sure it is at least something better than any of the denon models, or onkyo, ect. Those do not have enough high current to show the capabilities of the b&w, try them on a B&k reciever, or through some power amplifiers,then you will see what they are all about. Now if you did that, and just didn't like their sound, then that is understandable. We all have different tastes, and preferences with what sounds good to us [​IMG]
     
  12. SavoyR

    SavoyR Agent

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jason I felt that the 7NT'S lack bass and sounded tizzy on the high's the bass issue could probaly be fixed with a sub. the 9nt had a fuller cleaner sound and a bit bright. I haven't heard the 150's but the s-125 sound a bit bright also, but has a very clean and neutral sound when I audtioned the 7nt's it was on NAIM amps.the 9nt's were on Jeff Rowland's. the amps I use are the Aragon 8008bb.st,and x3
     
  13. rodneyH

    rodneyH Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    0
    the 7s only "lack bass" if you are in a fairly large room, in my listening room, the 7s have much much more than i'd think as well, but of course I got an SVS as well, just to hit the lowest notes and more specifically for movies. My dad comes into this room and can't believe the bass output, and noted that it sounds "more full" than his system (9s) but again he is in a very big room, while I am not, so the room acustics obviously have an effect, as far as the highs go, I don't notice a difference, not 1 bit. If yo have a large room and have the extra $600 certainly go with the 9, especially since you sound convinced that they sound better.
     
  14. SavoyR

    SavoyR Agent

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rodney I was 6 feet awy from the 7NT'S and I notice the lack of bass they definetly need a sub
     
  15. rodneyH

    rodneyH Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Savoy, they do need a sub for the real low stuff, but I can tell you that in my small room, if I am listening to music without the sub turned on, it sounds very full, of course this is inflated b/c of the acoustics in the room, but they go deeper than one would think, I even go times which I accidently have turned OFF my SVS, and I didn't realize it for a few songs, perhaps the ones you listened to were set on "small" and were being crossed over at 80-100 Hz. From all the reviews I have read they seemed to be pleased as well. I have run the Avia frequency sweep and it was very load to about 42 Hz (which is very low), and I just set my SVS at about 45 Hz.

    Like I said before, if I were you I would get the 9s, since you are so convinced of its superior frequency range, I just happen to be running both right now and don't see it the same way you do.
     

Share This Page