LOUDSPEAKERS B&W Bowers&Wilkins 686 WOJCIECH PACUŁA Translation: Krzysztof Kalinkowski

The new budget line from Bowers, the 68x intrigued me from the very first moment I saw it, from the show HIGH End in Munich (report HERE). I was attracted by the uncommon design, but most importantly by the fact, that the solutions developed for the top lines, and thus incredibly expensive, found their way to the budget line, including the aluminum tweeter with dampening on its back, mounting and diaphragm, and similar. Placed on an asymmetrically mounted metal plate that is decoupled on the front it has tube on the back, known from the Nautilus project. As the test of the larger model of the stand mounts, the 685 showed (test HERE) everything has been put together quite nicely. And although the manufacturer sees those speakers as surrounds, to be placed behind the listener, I disagreed and used them as full fledged stereo speakers. Nice! Dynamics, vitality and bass (within boundaries of course) – everything we are used to expect from monitors was there, within our reach. Because I still have some of my old speakers (my brother is using them now), a very successful model from Castle (unfortunately the company was sold to the Chinese and production terminated – only the brand name will be used), the stand mount Clifton, in its first version, with the better tweeter. These were (and are) very nice speakers. If those that claim, that nothing has changed in the loudspeaker industry, then they should not sound worse than the Bowers, should they? In the end they did cost about the same as the Bowers now (if we take into account the power of the złoty then and now). And… The Clifton are very nice speakers, if available second hand one can take them without hesitation (but not the mk.II version with the worse tweeter). Still the 685 roll over them even is a short listening session. No doubt about it. In terms of resolution, much better in the new speakers, but also in the frequency response extension in both ends of the spectrum.

The larger stand mounts turned out to be really well done. But I could not resist checking how the smallest model 686 will do. In the end it is the same tweeter, the same construction of the mid-woofer – massive cast spider, diaphragm from woven Kevlar and a phase corrector – this allows us to assume, that for less money we get something not much worse, and better fitting in small rooms, where there is really no place for anything else. Despite the same design idea, the same tweeter, the 686 are equipped with a smaller mid-woofer and the bass-reflex is moved from the front to the rear. The efficiency is drastically lower, but the minimum impedance is much higher – at an easy to drive level of 5.1. Those are really big changes and they suggest different sound.

SOUND

This is the second cheapest bookshelf speaker from the British B&W Bowers&Wilkins (in the September issue of the HFOL – No 41 – we tested the model 685), we present in our magazine. Even more – although I liked the larger brother of this tiny speaker, I think, that the 686 is even more attractive – maybe not in absolute categories, but presenting an even better price/performance ratio. Such things bring out, as they should, questions why in “HIGH Fidelity OnLine” only good reviews can be read. I mean – good, because I hope them to be “good” , but I mean “prizing” reviews. The case is simple, and I keep repeating it from time to time – so there is no problem in describing my journalist “credo”. There are a few “masters” of journalism, that shaped my view on this job. Most related to our occupation, and thus easiest to describe, are four of them: three journalists of the Radio Three – Piotr Kaczkowski, Marek Niedźwiecki (not there anymore, unfortunately), and also the deceased, frantic but also incredibly competent and reliable Tomasz Beksiński, and from our garden, the man writing in “Hi-Fi News” and “Hi-FiCritic”, the latter he is also editing, Martin Colloms. All those people deal (or dealt) with a hobby that can become a patent for living – the radio men with music and Colloms with the equipment to play music with. They all make (made) journalism that can be named “affirmative”. It can be best heard with Niedźwiecki – he plays music and invites artists to the studio that he likes, respects and believes in. Even if the last disc is not the world championship, he does not abandon them, but keeps supporting, as in most cases this is a level others can only dream about.

In my opinion such kind of journalism has a deep sense. I do not discard investigational journalism, but in case of a hobby this is kind of tricky. Please don’t get mad at me, but I really don’t have the strength to write about equipment not as good as other, or just bad. This is a nightmare, I tried a few times and do not want to repeat again – life is too short to review bad equipment. Saying “bad” I mean equipment that is bad in my opinion, or one that I do not like. But frankly speaking there is much less of bad equipment than earlier – the companies that manufactured it don’t exist anymore, or – less common – found their way of sound. The revolution of home cinema, besides the very quick development of digital circuits – DSPs and DACs, from what we all profit now, killed some manufacturers of stereo – in majority those, that had no passion for what they did, and did it only for the money, or those that had no idea on how to do it. The amount of audiophiles, that were true to two channels, waiting for the multichannel amok and hype pass, also diminished over time, so the competition between the manufacturers became stronger – on the ring remained the clients that are the elite - those that are around for quite some time and have heard many things. And they will not allow rubbing rubbish around their ears. So the companies that remained are in overwhelming majority companies, that know how to do their job, and do it well. One has also to remember, that among the many ways leading to the ideal described as the absolute sound, there are those that are different than the majority, propose a completely different way of sound from the mainstream. Receiving such a device for testing while being accustomed to the mainstream it is easy to bash that appearance, depress it, and still have a feeling of a job well done. An example of such doing are the loudspeakers of the Scottish company LINN. I just finished testing for “Audio” the system Majik in the most beefed-up, active, tri-amped version powering the Ninka speakers. First of all the loudspeakers need to be positioned in all three planes with millimeter accuracy. Any deviation from the ideal positioning results in lack of coherence, inconsistencies in tonal balance and similar. And in addition they will show their full potential only in a LINN system. Sorry – I do not want to stir-up for the distributor, but this is my opinion. But once set-up properly the LINN system sounds just fantastic. I thought that the loudspeakers of that company are a bit colored and little intriguing – my error! The whole sounded with a phenomenally created own world of sound.

And there are more of such products. Sitting down in front of a device, a set of loudspeakers, switching cables, placing supports, etc I always try to imagine the man behind the product. In audio everything has its “father”. Even in large companies like Sony, Denon or Marantz, for every device a certain person is responsible, and the problem is on our side, because we don’t know them, as we did not bother, or we could not reach them. This is even more valid for other companies, because there only a few, a dozen or at maximum a few dozen people are employed. And the owner is the man behind the idea. And every owner has his own way of reaching the target of the ideal sound. So sitting in front of a given device, that I need to review, I ask myself the question: what did that man want to achieve? This question is the more valid, the more the device sounds different from what I got accustomed to. So if it differs from my idea of aesthetics, or I think that the compromises went a bit too far in one area (mostly to achieve something else), I cannot scrap that device immediately. First, I assume that I do not understand what this is all about. And what then? Do I have to write a long test about something I do not know why it sounds like it sounds, and that I did not understand the idea behind it? And there is also the case of compatibility – how easy it is to bash a device only by placing it in a wrong system, using the wrong cables, etc. I do not want to be responsible for that. Maybe this is cowardice, maybe it would be easier to hit the devices with hard words, hoping that at least a part of the verdicts is true, but I won’t do that.

That led me to the decision, taken at a very early stage, that I will test only devices I think are worth of recommendation, those that I like. Choosing them for “Audio” and for “HIGH Fidelity OnLine” they pass a few steps of selection. The first is that somebody should recommend me something, or I should be caught by something during a show or demonstration. This eliminates a whole range of products. The second step is reading – I want to know as much as possible about what, who and why. And only then I call a distributor or a manufacturer. Then there is a further step of selection, this time it is the internal censorship of the distributor/manufacturer. It turned out, that those people tend to send me things they are sure of, that those will not let them down. This does not mean eliminating products differing from the standard – absolutely not! Just look how many singular products, standing out from the crowd by way of work, or origin we test in our magazine. It is just about the confidence, that that what they send for testing, reproduces their way of sounding. They do not want to worry, that their device will fall down just because the reviewer has a bad day or is in the mood of kicking everything he encounters, or has to fulfill the norm of bad reviews (unfortunately the common practice is that a distributor sends two devices for testing – one to be glorified and one to be thrown for the lions – this can even be spanned over a few issues of a magazine – the redaction seems then reliable and everybody is happy). Not many devices pass those three filters. And then aesthetics. I tell you – I send immediately back devices that I don’t like, that I am not sure they are placed in the right electro-mechanical context or those I deem puny.

Enough? I hope, that I made myself clear. If other reviewers take on everything that comes in their hands or what the distributors see appropriate to give them, OK. For me this makes no sense, because life is too short for mediocrity and misunderstandings, and I do not have the strength to write about that. So I will keep on affirmative journalism and rather recommend than dissuade. And this is the key to reading my tests, including this one.

OK., so I wrote my soul out, but its good to talk about one’s preferences, philosophy and opinions, as only then a chance is created to allow for a common ground between US (HFOL) and YOU (the readers). Anyway, this is a good introduction to the test of the smallest classic speakers from Bowers. The higher model received this years EISA award and in the test confirmed the high qualifications of the companies engineers, that changed to 1st order filters in all series of loudspeakers created something unique and did not mess-up (1st order filters are very difficult to apply properly). And still, when I fired-up the small 686 I was stunned. Like I mentioned, I had for comparison the, some time ago, leading speakers (at that time, besides the Coda 7 from KEF and a contemporary Bowers model) Castle Clifton. And in this comparison it can be heard what has changed in this price range. The model 686 sounds with a much more detailed, open sound. The frequency range borders – both the treble and the bass – are much more stretched and clean. It is incredible how clean and precise can those speakers sound with the right electronics. This is the case when it will be much easier to change the accompanying equipment a few times than the speakers themselves. I started the listening sessions with a cheap but very nice amplifier from NAD the C315. This is the newest brainchild from that company, now more Canadian than British (the C315 and the Master series were designed in Canada) and it showed that the 686 are very dynamic speakers. The small mid-woofer has a large stroke, as does the tweeter – it is not common to see the tweeter move in the rhythm of the music.

There is no lower bass – this is obvious, but its higher harmonics are reproduced in such a good way, that there is no impression that there is something missing. This is heard with synthetic music, for example on the disc from Anja Garbarek Briefly Shaking (Virgin/EMI, 8608022, CCD), where the bass in the piece Shock Activities goes very, very deep. The loudspeakers did not shake the room like my Dobermann, or the mentioned LINN system, but clean tone could be heard until the lowest registers. There was no physical feeling of the low bass, there is no chance for this, but it could be heard through the harmonics, overtones. And in general, against dimensions, the speakers prove themselves perfectly with pop and rock. I played Dido from the disc No Angel (Arista/BMG, 80268, CD) and bingo! Nicely led voice, very well paced rhythm and the feeling that the whole band is playing and not separate instruments. All percussive instruments or rhythm related ones were shown very good, without washing out of the attack but also without it being hardened. The same thing happened with The Dark Side Of The Moon Pink Floyd (EMI, 582136, 30th Anniversary Edition, SACD/CD), where a nicely drawn, wide sound stage was added.

One could think that the loudspeakers play only the contours. No way – it is just that this element draws our attention first, especially paired with the small size of the Bowers. As full bred monitors should, the speakers handle vocals perfectly. I mentioned Dido – this is not a perfectly recorded disc, but the voice was shown in a three dimensional, live way. The same case was with the disc Meet Me Around Midnight Ida Sand (ACT 9716-2, CD), where the ease in showing a full, saturated midrange combined with a proper reproduction of rhythm and dynamics of the band accompanying her. And then Barb Jungr from the nicely recorded disc Love Me Tender (LINN Records, AKD 255, SACD/HDCD) – here we had a very deep stage and perfectly placed in the middle, between the speakers, warm, deep timbre of the vocalist.

And all this came together with the disc Pasodoble Lars Danielsson & Leszek Możdżer (ACT 9458-2, CD – if you didn’t buy it yet then please do so quickly, the review will follow shortly, but even now I can say, that besides good music the sound is also 10/10). There is a piano and a contrabass – the piano is dynamic, percussive, with a thoroughly defined midrange and the contrabass has clear edges and nice saturation. The speakers stood next to the mentioned Dobermann and I was switching between them searching for similarities and differences. And I must say, that the idea of the sound is similar. The Bowers are a tad warmer and of course are a bit less resolved, but we have no washing out of the edges, nothing is being withheld or subdued to a process of making the sound nicer. Interestingly, in practice, the efficiency of the speakers is similar, as they sounded at the same volume level (of course in the range tolerated by the British miniatures). This means, that they are not very efficient. But due to the high impedance they are quite an easy load to drive. This has been shown already by the NAD C315. And I would follow this direction. Another system for the start could be the Xindak 06. A next step should be the Cyrusa series 6 and then the Carat 57. Yes, until this price range one should not think about changing the speakers. In many smaller and mid-sized rooms they will sound fantastic, and one will not miss anything.

Of course those are not the ideal speakers. For once they have low efficiency – to have the bass sound like that from such small enclosures it cannot be done differently. Two – on the upper midrange there is some dirt, not a brightening, but some coloration. It is not strong in absolute terms, but in comparison with more expensive speakers it can be heard. I think, that this is the result of the approach to the cross-over. 1st order is nice, but it means, that the speakers need to be cut early, so that there would be no “trash” in the frequency response. Kevlar is known for having some of those in the upper range. If cut with a sharp filter we discard almost 100% of them, but at the same time we dampen the speaker, we diminish the energy of the harmonics. In the Bowers we have Kevlar and 1st order. And the “dirt” there comes from this. It can be heard, as if in the female voice the upper frequencies would be more emphasized – without underlining of the sibilants – lower frequencies play a role here. This is from a purist point of view. On the other hand, these are cheap speakers, and such a character allows for a vivid and dynamic reproduction. And although this is still October, we are finishing to test the devices for this year, until the December issue. And I know, that the 686 are almost a dead cert for the Awards of the Year 2007 (those will be published in December; the Awards of the Year 2006 HERE).

DESCRIPTION

Model 686 of the British company B&W Bowers&Wilkins is a small stand mount two way speaker. On top works the same as in the whole line aluminum Nautilus tweeter, with neodymium magnet and a narrowing tube where the wave coming from the back of the diaphragm is dampened. According to the company materials copper rings were added to the magnet, called Faraday rings, that help to achieve linearity of the speaker at maximum stroke and thus increasing the frequency response. According to the company that this as well as a new material for the suspension allow to reach 50kHz. The voice coil is wound with a square cross-section wire to maximize the usage of the space in the voice coil groove. The speaker is mounted on a metal plate that has a mechanical and decorative function. The plate is uncoupled from the front baffle. The mid-woofer has a diameter of 130mm and a diaphragm made from Kevlar, suspended on FST rubber and a splendid cast spider. In the center of the diaphragm there is a phase corrector, bettering the speaker response in the upper frequencies. This allows for smooth transitions between the speakers, also outside of the listening axis. Also here the Faraday rings were used. The driver was screwed to the front baffle and the spider covered by an elastic ring. Such a solution is used for years by for example LINN, allows to cover the mounting and improves aesthetics, while functioning as a vibration dampener. The cross-over is 1st order, according to the new company philosophy. It is mounted on double wire terminals and is really minimalist – this is only a coil, a resistor and a capacitor. The elements are of superb quality – polypropylene and a thick wire wound air coil, as for a driver twice the size. The inside of the speaker was reinforced by a hardboard ring, although the enclosure is small. In the back we find the mentioned wire terminals (gold plated) and the bass-reflex output named Flowport (it is about the shape of the output) and a wall mounting – phooey! But let us pretend we do not see the latter. The rest is phenomenal finish for little money.

HOME PAGE