B&W LCR 60 vs LCR 600 vs HTM 62 vs HTM 61

Comparing the B&W lcr 60 to lcr 600 & to the HTM6xs

For the purposes of this comparison, we are assessing speakers for their centre channel performance, & not so much as a full range front or centre. The LCR was designed to be used in either config, but I doubt that actually worked for B&W the way they expected...

Findings:

The LCR600 is an amazing speaker, compared to the LCR60.

The smaller LCR60 impressed me in its versatility, but not so much in its overall vocal depth.

The LCR 600 blew me away, & reminded me of the HTM61
The 61 has more presence, but the 600 is what the 60 should have been I think.

The LCR60 & 600 are both very big for what they are.
But the 600 makes it at least worth while.

The LCR 600s vocals are amazing.
It is not as muddy as the other speakers of the older designs.
The only thing it lacks is a bit of low level extension, which the HTM62 in particular excels at.
The 62 though doesn't have the openness that the 61 has.

The 600 thus seems like a lovely compromise between 62 & 61.

If you cant afford the HTM61, get the LCR600 over the HTM62 would be my opinion overall.
(we're referring to S1 which doesn't have any series number written on it, not talking about the not the newer HTM61 S2)

But if size matters & hifi audio is the only thing you do, the HTM62 gets the slight upper hand.
But for movies, the LCR definitely clearer for dialogue.

Price wise, LCR600 wins again as it will be cheaper.
If you have been considering a LCR60 & have the option of paying just a bit extra/got a bit of room for a LCR600, I cant recommend that enough.

After listening to the 600, Id go so far as to say that you scratch the 60 out of the equation completely & focus on HTM62 vs LCR600 as your final contenders, or go straight to a HTM61.
On a very tight budget & if looking for a dedicated centre, a B&W CC6 would be my preference cost wise & size wise.

I have high hopes from the HTM61 S2 vs CMC2 - I think thatll be a great battle. I'll audition that someday & report on it :)
Until then, happy listening folks.

B&W 686 vs Wharfedale 121 vs Wharfedale Diamond 10

Comparing the B&W 686 vs Wharfedale 121 vs Wharfedale Diamond 10 speakers

Summary:

The 686 wins clearly & for good reasons.
The diamond 10 have had rave reviews claiming they are great for the price.
If you are on a budget, buy a used 686, it costs the same as a new diamond 10.

If buying new, don't even consider the 121s because they cost the same as the old 686 (now called Series 1 since the S2 have been released)
If you want lots of mid bass & don't want to put a sub, then you could argue the 121 is better for you, but if you want something that sounds like that go buy a cheaper set & save your money.

I would not recommend the 686 S2 unless you really want to have a bigger speaker, in which case buy a 685, or a 685 S2.
I discuss this in my previous post comparing the 686 to the 600 series etc
Speaker are passive electric components, they don't die for years. If youre really out of luck something may go wrong, but otherwise, don't settle for new junk over second hand goodies.

Testing:

Rotel 5.1 receiver with USB input.
I use usb flash drives & CDs quite extensively. I am not an analogue audio purist.
I use my ears, rather than argue over stuff I cant tell apart, or ever afford.
I like the way CDs & MP3s extracted nicely sound, & I see no need to only use vinyl or a $4000 preamp before any speaker testing can be done.

Details:

The dealer told me the 121s have the most bass & are the newest & have had rave reviews.
He's right about everything else, except, they don't sound the best at all.
Typical wharfedale making it cheap & grabbing the spot light didn't help this time because the 121 is not cheap! Priced the same as a 686 (not the 686 S2) this speaker is easy to look past.

Bloated bass. No point having more if it sounds so muddy. The bass overpowers the vocals completely.
Speaker has practically no sound stage!
The diamond 10 bookshelf had better top end than it, but then the diamond is treble bright as hell & has no low end vocals, its a tatty flat speaker.

The 121 was warmer than the Diamond 10.1 I admit, but no where near the clarity of the B&Ws.

There was some kind of disconnection between the bass & the treble in the 121. Think of a system where a sub was crossed over poorly & felt like a separate component going off rather than a nicely rolling bass line. That's exactly what the 121 sounded like.

There is good bottom end base, I can feel it, but because the mid bass is also oddly high, this bottom end becomes muddy rather than clean & defined.
Fix this wharfedale folks in maybe a 122 & you might actually have a decent speaker.

The diamond 10.1, well, tatty, bright, gutless, no real bass, I cant see what people rave about with these speakers I tell you.
Maybe you need to really tune your bass & treble settings or your eq. But what the heck, a good speaker shouldn't need you to do all that for its inherent sound to be pleasant.
The diamonds go off & I actually move my ears away & cringe.

I put the treble down & the bass up & yes they sounded slightly better, & the top end of the vocals was not as muddy as the 121 which is a plus.
The 121 has a softer higher end, but that's all plagued by excessive bass that's probably caused people to keep the volume low, & thus the relative volume of other freq must be low such that the treble seems soft. Louder, these speakers have more prominence, but not in the vocals sorry.

The 686 is pleasant, & still grunty bass line contrary to what you might think. I discuss it in my post comparing it to other speakers B&W 6 series speakers here

If you want a small speaker that sounds great as a hifi full range speaker, get the 686, you wont regret it.

B&W 686 vs DM 600 S3 - vs the 601 S3 & the 685

B&W 686 bookshelves vs the older DM 600 S3

If you dont want to read the whole thing, heres the Summary:

The 686 is leaps & bounds better than the dm-600.

Why exactly that is, Im unsure because the only thing we're told has actually changed is the crossover & tweeter placement.
Sure, that's enough to cause change in sound, but I cant see how such a substantial change can happen just by changing that much, because if just making such a little change can make the 686 sound so much better, why on earth even bother releasing such an inferior speaker like the 600 S3..!

Its almost like B&W made the 686 first & then decided to muck it up & sell it as a 600, just so that they can sell the 686 a few years later.

Testing details:

All the testing was done with speakers used in fronts, not as surrounds.
They were placed on a large strong wood cabinet.

The critiques among you will argue that I need to use these on $1000 stands, but sorry guys my style of auditioning is that I compare things in standard operating conditions & highlight their differences.
Things don't have to be taken to Abbey road studios each time for a test.
End of the day a good speaker will sound better than the inferior speaker. As long as the testing conditions such as placement, amp, wires, room dynamics etc stay the same & we don't have any background noise, I feel the test is conducted accurately enough.

They were first tested without a sub with the speaker size in the amp was set to large, so nothing would be cut out or cross over.
And then with a sub (crossed over at 60Hz from the amp) with the size set to large, never small.
The sub was a simple B&W AS-1 which I discuss in this post here (set to music mode).

The amp used was not as good as I would have liked but I must say that the Kenwood KRF rated at 140Wpc had plenty of power to drive these & get those vocals out which my lower powered Technics could not achieve, which we connected at the end just for fun to see how much degradation there would be.

But the good thing is that this less than ideal amp, we still got the clear winner, & goes to show you don't need to have a $2000 amp to do the sound test.

On a side note:
This amp sounded much much better than anything out of Yamaha. I still cant see why Yamaha is such a recommended brand, its a good 'fail safe default' but I have yet to actually like any of their hifi products.
Even onkyo which was once considered second class, makes better sounding stuff these days, for cheaper...

First the DM 600 S3

The Good:

The sound is warm. The detail is there & you can tell the instruments apart, but not as much as the 686.
The sound matches nicely with cheaper speakers, like a cheaper centre, the 686 demands you to do better. Yes you cant quite call it a plus I guess because it means the speaker is like a cheaper crappy one, but sometimes if you have a small budget & want to just get slightly better fronts without breaking the bank or having to upgrade everything, this could cut it.
The speaker is longer than 686 but still quite compact & not as deep, this makes it look nicer when close to a TV or wall mounted.
The grills are the older style, far easier to detach than the new tight thin studs on the 68x series that break too often.

The Bad:

The vocals are poor, rather gutless, no real bassline in them, no depth in the vocals, in line with the 685.
The bass overall is very poor, get a sub. Not just bottom end, but even mid bass suffers.
See my previous post mentioning how I disliked the new 685 to the older 601 in comparing the 685 vs 601 here.
The speakers seem less sensitive, I could not hear echos & transitions in the 600 that I can with the 686.

The mighty 686

The Good:

The sound is beautifully detailed.
The vocal are rich, deep, & clean.
The bass is mind-blowingly good from a speaker this small.
Remember we are not talking about just mid-bass, these babies can actually go low enough to not need a sub, if properly placed!
That's amazing, most people tell you to that you will certainly need an ASW 608 with these, but with 685 you might get away. What non-sense, the 686 is infact better!
If you tell me the 686 needs sub, then the 685 needs it even more.
If you want something small, this is it.
Don't bother with the wharfedale 121 which some people love to recommend just because its slightly newer. Check this post here comparing the B&W 686 to the Wharfedale 121 & the Diamond 10, where I discuss how the wharfedale 121 has the most bass boomy bass, but not half the definition & vocal detail the 686 has.

In the B&W world I compare this speaker to the 601, & not the 685, because I feel the 601 is better than the 685.
I discuss why in my previous post comparing the 685 vs 601 here

So its a little less open than the 601 but Id rather have this in a speaker with its tiny foot print then have the same issues in a bigger 685.
I would say that the vocal depth & slight loss of imaging in larger rooms make the 601 a better speaker for the mid vocal detail, but otherwise these 686s are nice.
Again, let me clarify that everything good about the 686 is impressive simply because of its small size.
If these speakers were large, this would be a very different kind of review.

Quite senstive, you can hear sounds that you cant in any other speaker, dare I say not even in the 601 which I also recommend.

The Bad:

The list of bads may seem long, that's just due to the details, very little wrong with it.

The sound is a little less open, so the mid vocals is good but the higher end slightly less so.
Take my numbers with a grain of salt, but it feels like the response is great up to 2Khz, not so good from 2-4Khz, & then good again. This is what it feels like, & quite likely not the fact, please feel free to measure & let me know how far off I am.

You truly are better off using these in small-medium rooms. In a large room get the 601 at least.

The imaging is definitely inferior in larger rooms, making placement rather critical.

Rotation inward toward the centre does not help very much either.
The sound stage they create is not very spectacular & you need to move them further apart in medium-large room while still being close to them (which is difficult) to get anything out of them.
So to clarify, in a room say 5m x 5m, youd have to place the speakers 4m apart, & be only 3m away from them, weird but it works. If you go back to 4m, the sound changes.

The interesting synergy between the 68x & the 60x series

In this previous post comparing the 601 to the 685, I recommended the 601 over the 685.
The opposite has happened here. How could this be?
I cant help but think there is some kind of product development strategy going on here.
Make the 601, goof up the 600 - tick
Make the 686 goof up the 685 - tick
Make the 685 s2 & goof up the 686 s2 - tick
At this rate, next we'll have:
Make the 686 s3 & goof up the 685 s3.
So you could either buy the 685 S2 or wait for the 686 S3 - OR, save the dosh & buy a 686 (not the S2)

The new 686 S2

I did not audition these properly except for a slight listen, & frankly I didn't want to because I fundamentally cant make sense of why B&W did what they did to a good speaker.
Lets get something straight, the whole point of the 686 was to make the speaker as small as it could be, & yet sound good.
Why make it longer, & so long that its the same size as the 685!

You may argue that its not just smaller but also cheaper, but lets be honest, if you can afford a $900 686 S2 then you can afford a $1100 685.
And if you are crunching on a budget, you wont touch the new ones anyway & buy second hand.

Sure, front porting it opened a whole lot of placement options & would improve bass, but as above, the 686 already delivers enough bass from a compact monitor & if you wanted more bass, you would attach a sub anyway, most of us do.
So the design philosophy doesn't make sense to me, happy to stand corrected though.

Sorry Bowers & Wilkins Im ditching a bit of dirt at you folks in this post compared to my other posts, but as much as I like your products, my reviews are very honest & unbiaised.

Sure the new tweeter is a welcome addition, but that has nothing to do with front porting a speaker & making it 2 inches longer. It kills the whole point of having a discrete little surround monitor.

You are welcome to challenge any of my opinions, Im always happy to stand corrected.

Full Frame FX vs Crop sensor DX - DOF

Full frame vs DX for DOF

A lot of online posts talk about how the key point behind FF is low light ISO performance, followed by Depth of Field, but no one has properly shown it side by side with examples.

It was this talk about subject isolation & DOF that really got me interested in FX in the first place.
So I asked myself the key question:

If I take the same exact photo with the 'equivalent focal length lenses' (eg 50mm on FX & 35mm on DX) , then how much more shallower DOF will I actually be getting with the Full frame camera?

After doing a fair bit of research into considering whether Full Frame was my next big step, I realised that the only way to know the answer would be to buy one & then publish my results side by side.

The article is still in progress with photos etc but Ill publish it as the outcome is quite clear.

Short Answer:

If you don't want to read the whole thing but want my confirmed opinion based on my photos, here is my verdict:

If you are an experienced amateur or semi-pro, FX has a significant advantage for subject isolation & DOF to create a smooth bokeh. We're not talking small difference, we're talking game changer difference. FX wins big. I illustrate the benefits by placing multiple side by side photos in the article below. But if you don't care about the shallow depth of field, then there is not enough benefit in moving to FX.

If you are a new comer to DSLR world I actually recommend DX because of this feature.

 The limited depth of field in FX needs control. If you buy a f1.8 prime lense & just leave the camera sitting on Program mode & are taking family pics, the camera will use f1.8 for every shot to compensate for the low light, so it can cause a lot of your subjects to be out of focus, or one eye in focus & the other blurred etc, even if they are slightly tilted.

If you are new to photography, get a DX camera, there is more than enough subject isolation possible for a beginner even on DX until you improve your aperture selection.

Other Observations:

ISO performance is better in my D600 than any previous camera, but having used a D7000 before, I don't consider ISO performance to be the key point of a Full frame camera. ISO performance & low light benefits in newer DX cameras are very comparable to equivalent class FX cameras & don't justify spending double to move to FX.

If you want super sharp beautiful portraits & exceptional detail in your images at equivalent resolutions to the DX camera, then FX helps. Ie, a 24MP FX will beat a 24MP dx in matters of detail & dof.
If you don't need insane subject isolation & own good lenses on DX, then from the cost stand point there is no other benefit moving to FX. Image Quality on both systems is equal when you compare equally well made bodies with good sensors. IQ doesn't include DOF. IQ refers to mainly things like low light performance & noise. Yes the FX is marginally better, but not significant enough to make a move. If you don't need dof control, don't bother moving to FX.

Objectives of Experiment:

This article focuses on the DOF aspect of the 2 formats, & not necessarily on ever single aspect of the image difference, because there is a significant different between my D300s & D600 in terms of what generation their sensors are etc.

We know for a fact that within reason, not manufacturer has made 2 cameras that are equal with only the limitation of exactly the sensor. Nikon came close to it by making the D7000 & D600 with same senor & AF system, but different number of pixels. Then when they upped the pixels in D7100, they changed the sensor & AF system.

So, lets be very clear about the fact that we will never be able to truly compare apples with apples in regards to image quality, & that no manufacturer will ever make 2 cameras where we can easily prove one format better over the other, because that would hurt their own marketing.

But what we can compare with great ease is the DOF, which is my main area of interest behind putting up this post.

About the Comparison Images

We did the test with primes & zooms.
First with prime lenses set to aperture at 1.8 on FX as the baseline, & then check what the aperture did on FX with the equivalent focal length on DX. Ie, comparing a 50mm on FX to 35mm on DX
And then with zoom lenses set to 2.8 on DX. Comparing a 17-50mm f2.8 to a 28-70mm f2.8.

We start dropping the aperture down on the DX until the DOF looks similar to that set on the FX.

I used the best possible lenses I could afford, but even if they weren't the sharpest, that wouldn't matter so much as all we are focusing on is the DOF differences between the 2 systems.

All images taken at iso 400 aperture priority.
Focal point is always dead centre, which is the black plastic piece in centre of frame.

Prime lenses & large apertures:

I used a Nikon 50mm F1.4D on D600 FX & Nikon 35mm F1.8G on D300s DX.
These are the best lenses Nikon makes for DX & FX respectively.

D600 50mm at f1.8 vs D300s 35mm set to different apertures in every shot

Test 1 50mm f1.8 vs 35mm

The D600 at f1.8 is the clear winner, & you will see this pattern in every single photo. The FX will have a shallower DOF.

 

Test 2 50mm FX at f1.8 vs 35mm DX set to f2.8

 

 

Test 2 50mm FX at f1.8 vs 35mm DX set to f3.2

Common question - Should I buy the best DX or the cheapest FX eg Nikon D7100 vs Nikon D610. Please click on this to read my earlier blog post.

Ramblings & Criticism of some current opinions on the FX vs DX saga

I like to genuinely be neutral & unbiaised when reporting things, I don't have my ego attached to my opinions. And I always change my opinion when a better one is presented.
I also feel that what suits you best is for you as at that point, & could change again.
I was on DX for 10 years before I moved to FX.
I don't care whether something is called DX or FX, what I care about is the findings.

Despite me suggesting that DX is the better option 99% of the time if you don't care about this excessive shallow DOF, I want to address some of the other stuff I have read, which doesn't do justice to either party.

1) The Politically Correct 'Its a choice' Opinion

Many new marketing driven blog posts are now saying its a 'choice'. Ok, you can put it like that, but if its just a 'choice' then there should come a day where FX will cost the same as DX & you'll just 'choose' - but wait, that will never happen, & not because it costs a lot more to make, but because premium cameras will only ever continue to be made in FX to optimise the profits.

If you have all the money in the world & want to buy the best camera AND the best lenses then you have but naturally got the best camera, then you want FX. A big 'AND' above because without the equivalent best FX lenses you are wasting your money, glass before body, always remember that no matter what you buy.

If you cant afford the FX, go for a DX, but don't disillusion yourself into thinking that the DX is somehow 'better' to FX. No its better for you to go with DX as it will save you the dollars as at that point in time, like it did for me, for a whole 10 years I stuck to DX!! But that doesn't mean that FX will not be better.

2 ) DX crop ratio of 1.5x gets me more 'zoom'

Well, to get the said 'zoom', you could take the hires 24MP image you get from your FX camera & crop it as much as you please.
You'll argue that means you're loosing resolution. No, youre loosing 'Megapixels', & you might be thinking that all those extra pixels lost are going to make a worse image, but infact, as we know well, MPs have little to do with IQ. So, the zoom argument in my opinion is moot in todays age of insanely high MPs available in every DX & FX camera out there.

People debate that by putting a 70-200mm F2.8 on DX they are getting the equal of 300mm f2.8
No, they are not. They are getting 300mm at f4.5 because the DOF on DX is less than FX.

By using 70-200mm f2.8 at 200mm f2.8 on a 24MP FX camera, I can then crop it into a 10MP image which will be 300mm f2.8.

Now what would I rather have a 10MP 300mm F2.8 or a 24MP 300mm F4.5??
If you want to follow the megapixel hokum, you're welcome to pick the 300mm f4.5, but any real photographer knows that MP don't mean anything in the real world, where 10MP is more than enough.

3) FX may give me the subject isolation but I loose light so need to push ISO which makes my images noisier.

Best DX camera vs cheapest FX body

Should I buy the best DX or the cheapest FX eg Nikon D7100 vs Nikon D610

Current approx prices in New Zealand for the D7100 is NZ$1500 & D610 is $2500.

Most extremists have their heart set on one or the other.
I'll simplify the decision making for you here in under a minute.

Its a simple answer based on 3 simple questions.

Is the shallower DOF you get on FX so very important to you that you would pay a whole thousand dollars just to have that??

Is the minor improvement in high ISO performance on FX so important to you that you'd pay a whole thousand for it??

Are you ok with the fact that the D7100 has more AF points at 51 scattered all thourhgout the frame whereas the D610 only has 39 packed mostly in the center, & you are still going to have to pay $1000 extra for a D600 to get the shallower DOF & the better ISO performance?

If yes, go for the D600!

If not, go with the D7100.

Both cameras are brilliant.

What if I can get a second hand D600 for close to the price of a new D7100?

Ok, that makes things easier on the wallet, but the questions don't change too much.
Do you care so much about superb shallow dof performance & slightly better ISo performance that you are ok to sacrifise getting more AF points of the D7100 in return for the D600?
If yes, yay for D600, if not yay for D7100

In reality, I wouldn't even buy a D7100, Id still buy a D7000, save the money & use it for better lenses. remember, no substitute for better lenses. Regardless of DX FX DSLR or any other photographic format on earth.

If I have a budget of $2000, should I buy a D600 & attach a 18-55mm VR kit lens, or a D7100 with a bunch of lenses?

Never forget the golden rule, lens before cameras. Optics before electronics.
Cameras are called electronic devices today, but they are not, they are optical devices.
Crappy optics = crappy photos, never forget that fact.
So forget the fancy body, get the fancy lens. You will not regret the decision & your work will outperform whats produced with cheapo lens on the fancy body.

I already have 3 lenses, but my photos are still not so good, what should I upgrade to?

Upgrade to reading more articles to improve your techniques. Then buy more lenses to try different forms of photography that you find intriguing. Then upgrade the lenses you have to the best in their class based on the ones you use the most. Then read more & upgrade your skills again. And then when thats done, upgrade your camera.
And if switching from DX to FX at that point, please dont forget to buy good FX lenses if you dont already have them.