B & W vs Polk

[Home Theatre]

How does B & W compare to polk? They seem a little more expensive.

[organ]

Do a search on this forum. There was a lot of discussion about Beemers not too long ago. Great info. A few members here own B&W.

[simphiwes]

i'll add my 2cents worth of comment here, i personally own B&W's (DM602 S3 & LCR600) i personally think in general though that B&W's need some serious equipment to sound as good as they should. If you are planning to drive them with cheap department store receivers then think again. With the 600 series IMO you get a taste of what the more expensive speakers in their range can do. Imaging on them is excelent for what you pay for them. You can generally get away with driving them with anything but as i said before you need serious equipment to really experience their full potential, as far as their DM 603 S3 that is, if you decide to get the DM604 S3 you will most definatelly need some insane power to drive them properlly. Except for their power hungry character they are excelent, bright as hell but not futiguing, warm and laid back, extra-ordinary for steroe, good for surround. Tip: Value for money are the LCR600, they doudle up as fronts, same power handling as the DM603 S3 but sligtly small casing. Generally B&W's are expensive but in the long they are worth the $$, they age well, they older they are the better they sound.

Polks in my opinion are easy to drive, louder, excelent for movies, good for music, imaging is decent(Based on Rti8 and M40 experience). Sound is clear, midrange is good high frequencies can be too bright at times but not a disadvatage. They definatelly would please anyone and as an advantage over the B&W's (IMO) they are not as expensive.

My opinion is based on the speakers I own I cannot say anything for the stuff I dont, the more expensive ranges i can only go as far as dreaming about them i cant afford them.

Hope i gave you some kind of light, if all else fails go and audition them, your ears never lie.

[honestaquarian]

I agree with simphiwes.Bowers and Wilkins ludspeakers MUST have really good electronics to make them sound their best.ESPECIALLY the higher end stuff.I have ALWAYS liked Bowers and Wilkins(B&W)speakers,but could never afford them.The ONLY thing that i didn't like was the forward midrange which has since been taken care of.Polks have always given me a good portion of what the B&W's give me for a price i could afford.You would be hard pressed to get a speaker that could give you more detail than the 801 Nautilus.The catch is that you MUST have components that cost as much as the speakers do.EACH component that is.In order to REALLY get them to sing.Krell and McIntosh are synergistic matches.

Once about fifteen years ago i had one of the two most realistic sound reproduction experiences that i have ever had with some Krell and B&W 801 matrix series three's.It was a Krell KSA-250 amp.Being driven by a Krell preamp and cd player with Audioquest and Krell Cogelco cabling.It was a telarc cd.I could hear the chorus up on risers above and behind the orchestra.Then i heard the bass drum on the floor in front of the chorus,but BEHIND the orchestra!I had NEVER heard that much detail before or since then.

[miner]

I first owned Polk RT-20p for 8 yrs using a Denon AVR881. When I began having reoccuring problems with my Pols I looked elsewhere - enter B&W N804. Of course, I needed to upgrade the electronics too. First came a Rotel RC-1070 pre and RB-1070 amp. next I added a B&W ASW800 sub. I then upgraded my amp to the RB-1092 (500w/ch) and my pre to the RC-1090. I still have my other pre and amp. Next on my list will be a turntable. Anyways, the B&W sounded good with the RB-1070 (130w/ch) but really opened up with the RB-1092 (psuedo-digital). Going from the pols to B&W is a big step up in price and audio nirvana. I have handed my RT-20p down to my son along with my Denon AVR.

[mantis]

polk is not in the same class.B&W speakers are more refined. Polk is good at what they do at there respected price points.

The Lsi series I feel are alittle better then there given price point. All other polks are good at there price point. Lsi can compete with B&W on certian levels but get left behind the higher you go.

Pretty much get what you pay for here. Both companies are well respected.

Dan

[beardog03]

good answer Dan...!

post again bro...yer in the 6 thing !

[F1nut]

bright as hell but not futiguing, warm and laid back

That's a first as those charactistics do not go hand in hand, eh!?!




Maybe it's just me, but I've yet to hear a B&W speaker that sounded good no matter what was driving them.

[shack]

Maybe it's just me, but I've yet to hear a B&W speaker that sounded good no matter what was driving them.
I'm not a B&W fan either....and I've listened to a lot of them...on really good gear. I've tried to like them...I really have. But I've yet to find a pair I'd buy.

[unc2701]

mantis summed up my feelings, too. Polk will win at all price points, but B&W has products that go well past the LSI level in price. B&W are certainly picky about gear and completely come apart at low levels, in my opinion. ...but who listens at low levels, anyway?

A friend of a friend was showing off his system- B&W 600 series driven by a crappy sony reciever and it actually made me think kindly of Bose for once.

So deffinitely get whatever you're looking at hooked up to the gear you're gonna end up using.

[mantis]

That's a first as those charactistics do not go hand in hand, eh!?!




Maybe it's just me, but I've yet to hear a B&W speaker that sounded good no matter what was driving them.

I'm suprised, B&W sometimes with certain music are the very best sounding speakers in the world. I have listened to the 801's driven by Krell and I just sunk in my seat getting deeper into the performance instead of listening to the speakers. Simply one of the worlds most amazing speakers. On the same note, I have listened to some with certain music and they sounded like ass. Maybe worse.

B&W speakers are very picky. Maybe due to there incredible acuracy.But compared to polk, polk just doesn't have the same caliber of tone. Like I stated, the Lsi can compare to some B&W speakers and without doing a head to head, probably can do better on certain levels in the same price points.But lower end polks get killed by lower end B&W's in my opnion. This became clear to me when I useda LM1 monitor vs a few different Rt series polks. I was alittle shocked in the level of detail the polks missed out on.

Dan

[venomclan]

Polk and B&W cater to different customers with different needs. While Polk was focusing on the growing HT market and putting their line in mass retailers (CC), B&W was pulling out of Tweeter/Sound Advice so to not tarnish their image. B&W, while they do make excellent HT gear, thier focus is 2 channel by far.

Polk seems to have put its resources more in HT. The LSI's are a budget audiophile's dream. Great price/performance ratio. But Polk still has a hard time getting good with the 2 channel enthusiasts. They just hurt themselves greatly in the past with low end stuff. No matter how good Polk comes back with stereo gear, thier perception of "budget" midfi has to be overcome. GM is now having the same problem. I think the Polks advantage is low end. B&W's are really made for classical, jazz, lite rock etc. They do not sound very good with heavy metal, rap, etc.

B&W's also put a lot more work into their cabinets. While I loved my Polk RT16's, the vinyl came off and looked like crap. My wifes grandmother was at our house watching tv recently, she has no interest in stereo gear in the slightest but said that my speakers (B&W) looked like antique furniture. In a way that won any future WAF arguments for me. Money well spent. Aggrevation = 0
Venom

[Zero]

Home Theater,

B&W offers a wider range of products that cater more to critical enthusiasts with deeper budgets with their 800 and Prestige series. B&W is also one of the most successful (in terms of product sold) Hi-Fi speaker manufactorers on the planet.

With that said, I think Dan's first response is spot on. Polk Audio's goal was to put as many solid products into as many peoples homes as possible. Each line does its intended goal well. I also will stretch out to say that its a matter of form and function.

For someone looking for a home theater that sports good resolution, large sound capable of immense volume - the Rti series fits the bill. The B&W equivelent (600 series) is more for someone looking for slightly more esolution along with refined sound that is less about slam and more about tact.

The LSi range is a fantastic range to get anyone hooked into audio. I would say this range goes head on head with the 700 series.

One thing I enjoy about B&W is that, to my knowledge, their 700 series and beyond lack any "made in China" stickers. Most of their components are indeed in-house, with the bonus of wonderful looking cosmetics and a solid build.

I've never been a fan of their performance, especially given what else is out on the market at any given price-point. However, they, like Polk - are a staple in this industry and both represent solid products with a good amount of familiarity.

[Lsi9]

B&W sounds great but I feel its a tad overpriced for the sound. If had the
hi-end equipment to run the beemers proper I wouldn't get the beemers, for the same money you can get better like Dynaudio and Sonus Faber or a pair of Gallo Nucleus. Thats for my ears, my buddy thinks B&W have better sound than anything in its pricepoint. ...Consider one of those before the beemers.
So what you get with Polk is great value

[Lsi9]

If I may divert this thread breifly what would you say about
Gallo Due vs LSi9 (2ch. or HT) each with sub?

acually nevermind the LSi9's would blow em away without effort

[pal51961]

Speaking soley about the lsi series, we should all be clear and realize the 15's truly retail around 1400.00 per pair. At this price they are truly a bargian and untouched by any B&W in that price range. Moving upward, the 25's do not compete admirable with the B&W's in that price range. I have listened extensively to both speaker lines, and have only good things to say abouth the lsi's. I do believe both the lsi's and b&w's require good electronics. They will sing when properly equipped with good cords and quality amps. Good luck in choosing, it's a fun process.....enjoy it.

[crazy]

Polk will win at all price points

Well, a lot of folks have mentioned this fact and I'm not expert to comment. However, during a recent trip to Borders, I was browsing through a well known audiophile magazine which tried to compare stereo systems (speakers + electronics) at $2000 price point. Essentially the author created a bunch of system which cost him $2000 and compared them head-to-head.

Unfortunately the only Polk in the chart (Monitor) rated dead last - which is unfortunate since I own Polk Monitor speakers.

The main comment was that there was virtually no soundstage, with the sound seeming to be limited to within the speakers. The author mentioned that you start getting the true feel of good quality sound starting with the B&W 600 series. Sonus Faber and Vienna Acoustics faired well but were termed as slightly colored compared to B&W which were termed as more neutral. If I can dig up this article online, I'll post it.

Mind you, the comparisions were done with the speaker + electronics = $2000, so the Monitor had slightly better electronics given the fact that the speakers themselves are a little cheaper than some other brands.

B&W are certainly picky about gear and completely come apart at low levels, in my opinion. ...but who listens at low levels, anyway?


I have to respectfully disagree with this fact since my wife & I typically listen to music at a rather low volume. The clarity of the music at extremely low volumes (volume level 4 on the Krell 400Xi) is incredible. Even guests have commented on this while the music has been playing in the background. I've heard comments that "I've never heard background music sound so clear"

Polk and B&W cater to different customers with different needs. While Polk was focusing on the growing HT market and putting their line in mass retailers (CC), B&W was pulling out of Tweeter/Sound Advice so to not tarnish their image. B&W, while they do make excellent HT gear, thier focus is 2 channel by far.

Putting together a B&W HT system will sure cost a lot of $$$$$$, but have you heard the outcome - you for one should agree to that :) The new XT series from them are certainly geared towards HT and sound and look amazing. But yes, once again, they're expensive, so the common person cannot afford them.

B&W's are really made for classical, jazz, lite rock etc. They do not sound very good with heavy metal, rap, etc.

Well, I have to respectfully disagree with this as well. Venoclan, I know that you have an awesome set of B&W speakers and certainly are knowledgable to make this statement. However, I listen mainly to rock, and heavier bands such as Dream Theater. Not comparing directly with Polks, but I'm extremely pleased with the sound including the bass, which I feel is extremely well defined. While the bass on my speakes isn't earth shattering, what I like is the fact is that it reproduces the bass accurately.

I have the bottom line Polk speakers and reasonable good B&W speakers so I'm really the worst person to compare but thought I'd add my 2 cents :cool:

[venomclan]

Well, I have to respectfully disagree with this as well. Venoclan, I know that you have an awesome set of B&W speakers and certainly are knowledgable to make this statement. However, I listen mainly to rock, and heavier bands such as Dream Theater. Not comparing directly with Polks, but I'm extremely pleased with the sound including the bass, which I feel is extremely well defined. While the bass on my speakes isn't earth shattering, what I like is the fact is that it reproduces the bass accurately.

I have the bottom line Polk speakers and reasonable good B&W speakers so I'm really the worst person to compare but thought I'd add my 2 cents :cool:

Hi Crazy,
Let me elaborate a bit on what I had meant. I switched to B&W from Polk because my Polks (RT16's) while very good speaker, had muddy bass. Deep but muddy. No matter what I did to them I could not correct this problem. When I demo'd the B&W's, the bass was much tighter but not as deep. I liked this combo better. The mids were also a lot cleaner. British speakers tend to be on the "polite" side. More suited for classical and jazz as a genre, rather than gangsta rap.

I find that most B&W's under the 800 range tend to be light on the deep bass. Smaller drivers focusing on the mids with tight but not as deep bass. It dedpends on what a person prefers, thier room dimensions, etc... The 801's are incredible and have thunderous bass. Right now Polk has nothing to compete against the B&W 800 series. Maybe the LSI9/805 comparison, with the B&W's costing 3 times the lsi's. The older RT5000 and SRT systems could compete, but they are not produced today.

Crazy, your 804's will smoke my CDM7NT's. And should at more than twice the price. Your bass is also a lot deeper. I do not have the FST midrange either. I love rock also, TOOL is my favorite band. But I would like to add a subwoofer to my system to really benefit. All in all I love my system. To create an HT/ 2 channel system in the 800 series will cost a fortune. I put my system together by buying used/demo gear, speakers included.
Venom

[Joey_V]

I think that they cater to 2 different enthusiasts when all is said and done. BW is generally a more high-end speaker company, with its 80xD series in full swing... while Polk is more of an everyman's speaker company. Which is better?

To me, BW is definitely better at certain price points. Nothing in the Polk line can compete with the 803D and up.... though those cost an arm and a leg.... and another arm. However, at the LSi pricepoint, it is tough to say whether the 705 bookshelf is better than the LSi9 bookshelf for example.... and I doubt the 703 is significantly better than the LSi15 from what I remember in my numerous auditions.

Lastly, I will say that BW is conservative with the bass... many of their speakers dont have the extension of even the cheaper Polks, this may be a reflection of where their priorities lie, BW probably believes that if you cant do bass right, dont do it at all.

Just my blabbering 2 cents.

[F1nut]

Nothing in the Polk line can compete with the 803D and up....

SDA's allday.

[Holydoc]

SDA's allday.

Why did Polk stop making SDA's if they could compete with the top-of-the-line loudspeakers? I do not understand the logic of discontinuing your best production model. It cannot be the price since B&W speakers can run you way over $10K.

Shed some light on this for me please. Why would Polk stop making their best speaker?

[okiepolkie]

Post #12 summed this question up reasonably well. I can't defend the reason why they did this, but this is how it seems to have played out.

[F1nut]

Marketing choices, plain and simple.

[Holydoc]

Marketing choices, plain and simple.

What kind of marketing decision would lead a company to stop making their top-of-the-line product? I have never heard of any company discontinuing their best product so that they can be perceived as a lesser quality company.

*** Sorry for hijacking this thread, it just boggles my mind that such a comparison as a $10K+ speaker would even be compared to a discontinued product.

[F1nut]

Hey, I didn't make the decision and feel it was a poor one, but nothing I can do about it. Polk decided there was more money in mass market speakers than in high end ones. Since they are the second largest speaker company today, I quess they were right.

I don't know why it boggles your mind, if Polk sold the big SDA's today, they would easily be in the $10K range. In fact, the base SRT speaker was $7K back in the '90's.

[Dennis Gardner]

What kind of marketing decision would lead a company to stop making their top-of-the-line product? I have never heard of any company discontinuing their best product so that they can be perceived as a lesser quality company.

I think that Polk, Klipsch and JBL are in boats on the same lake to some degree.

The exact reason why it is so hard to defend Polk on other forums to hardcore users of practically any other brand. They continue to take it on the chin as far as respect goes, even with the LSi series being as good as they are.

You can't change history.

[Dennis Gardner]

Hey Jesse, I agree on SDA line as a sound/value leader, but how do you feel about the craftmanship that is put into the design of the big B&Ws from someone that really knows about that kind of stuff?

There laminating process is really impressive to a layman like me.

[Holydoc]

Hey, I didn't make the decision and feel it was a poor one, but nothing I can do about it. Polk decided there was more money in mass market speakers than in high end ones. Since they are the second largest speaker company today, I quess they were right.

I don't know why it boggles your mind, if Polk sold the big SDA's today, they would easily be in the $10K range. In fact, the base SRT speaker was $7K back in the '90's.

It is not a matter of whether there is more money in one market as opposed to another. There is no reason why a company cannot compete in both markets and even dominate both. Why not expand your line and dominate all areas if you can? The underlying decision always come down to "if you can".

What boggles my mind is if Polk thought they could compete in the high end market with the SDA, then they would have continued production. Therefore I have to assume that Polk decided that the demand of the SDA could not compete in that market and decided to invest in the midfi range (midfi just refering to cost and not quality).

This is not meant to be derogatory to SDA's or the Polk company. I own and love my Polks. I also think they are an excellent value for their quality. However we are fooling ourselves to think that companies like B&W that invest quite a bit of research and design in their top-of-the-line speakers are not a step up from Polk's current line.

** again I apologize for hijacking this thread and will not respond off topic here anymore. **

Good luck with your choices.

[F1nut]

Dennis, as far as B&W's cabinets and finishes go, they are top notch. You'll get no agruement from me about that. I just don't like their sound.




There is no reason why a company cannot compete in both markets and even dominate both. Why not expand your line and dominate all areas if you can?

I couldn't agree more and have said that more than once to certain folks at Polk.

[Zero]

Sadly, the days of Polk creating stereo music makin' speakers are a thing of the past - over a decade ago in fact. The forest / tree's were seen for what they are and Polk is where they are now. Go to mention Polk to 'informed' audiophile's and see the reaction you get. That reaction is why Polk cannot succeed well in the more exclusive markets.

Also, Polk is not numero dos in world-wide sales. Ironic to this thread, that title belongs to B&W.

Lastly - to answer your question HolyDoc. The SDA's never sold well. First, many mom and pop shops had great difficulty treating them well to give customers a good audition. Their sheer size and weight were also discouraging - and were too inexpensive for the smug audiophile to take seriously. Lastly, Matt's SDA technology was renoun as gimmicky around the audio circles. The only thing seasoned audiophiles remember about the SDA's were "That guy in a lab coat next to some big speakers". That sadly, is their legacy.

[F1nut]

Not #2? Someone told me that, so my mistake if it's not true.

I disagree that Polk can't change their image. Other companies have done it, so they could too and they certainly have the money to back a high end speaker line.

[Zero]

F1,

It was Paul if I'm not mistaken - in Baltimore. Also if I'm not mistaken, that was more in reference to the United States sales. Still, it is a cautious company that only seems to take protected risks. You can see it in a lot of the peoples eyes - they are thirsting to dip into that market.......but apparently its just not in the cards for now. Here's to hoping I'm completely wrong!

[speakergeek]

RT7 baby!

[Home Theatre]

I was actually suprised how affortable b & W were.

[F1nut]

Thanks Sean, that's who it was. I agree that more than a few there would love to see Polk back in the high end game.

[Holydoc]

I agree that more than a few there would love to see Polk back in the high end game.

Count me as one of them.

[Holydoc]

I was actually suprised how affortable b & W were.

Which B&W speakers are you refering to? For instance the 803D's sell for $8000/pair and the center for about half that. Just wondering where your price range begins. :)

[shack]

Which B&W speakers are you refering to? For instance the 803D's sell for $8000/pair and the center for about half that. Just wondering where your price range begins. :)
The B&W DM303s sell for $300 /pair.

Still, it is a cautious company that only seems to take protected risks.

Since it is a closely held company (private), Matt and his investors have a lot at stake. If you screw up and need more capital, it either comes out of their pockets or they end up diluting thier ownership.

I for one am a big fan of Polk's business model. As far as the "high-end" of the market my question is ...why go there? Just so they can say they are an "audiophile" speaker maker? I would rather be a profitable speaker maker. The LSi series of speakers is very similar to many of the so called high-end speakers on the market today. The difference is that Polk is able to sell them for less because of their size and structure.

Jessie says it is marketing....I believe it is more of an allocation of resources. I believe that for every $ spent, Polk can make more money with less risks in the mass/HT market. Since Polk has a finite amount of capital it makes the most sense to utilize it where they can generate the greatest return. The "audiophile" market is a true niche market...very small, fickle, not trending upward (how many believe the Ipod/MP3 crowd will become "audiophiles"?). It is a very hard market to get into and stay, AND remain profitable. Since the guys at Polk take pride in what they do, I'm sure they would love to say "we build the BEST SPEAKERS"....but that is not who they are (as a company). IMO they can say "we build great, affordable speakers" and they can be proud of them.

[Zero]

Shack,

Good response. I have limited understanding of how the company works, but what I do (essentially the info covered in your post), I can respect. But just because I respect something, doesn't mean I like it. I have my reasons and this is certainly not the place to discuss it. Just the same, it wont change the way things are.

Wait, this thread was about what again? =)