[smithy666]

Finally have had time to undertake some serious listening sessions. My first impression on vocals was "wow", very nice with great soundstage and depth to the voice. Cymbals were very sharp - I think even better than my Dynaudios. I found the bass to be initially lean, most likely due to the size of the room and positioning of the speakers (can't do much about that). I shortened the port and found it to my liking at 4" (started at just under 5"). It just added that extra element which made them feel complete (to me). Bass is now surprisingly good for the size of the W18 - I never expected them to have the same impact as the 12" Dynaudio, but they do well when the port length is correctly matched for your room. Definitely recommend turning up the volume to get the best out of them. I'm running a couple of 100W Stochino amps and I think the 1801s could handle whatever the amps threw at them with finesse.

The only negative I found is they punish poor recordings, highlighting all the deficiencies. Why can't every artist record to a minimum high standard? I've never understood this.

I think the ultimate speaker test is to play a few of your favourite tracks and if you get goosebumps listening, then they are a success. This was the case for me with the 1801s, and I'm sure after more hours of running them, the goosebumps will only get bigger!

So well done to Dave Ellis & Dennis Murphy. I'm looking forward to listening more over the coming months....

[David Ellis]

Thanks for taking the time to post.

I find it strange the 1801 bass was in the same league as the larger Dynaudio Woofer.  Those woofers had a very good motor assembly with shorting rings in the right places.  Perhaps the detriment could be the soft poly cone.  Certainly there will be some flex - even at lower frequencies.

The only negative I found is they punish poor recordings, highlighting all the deficiencies. Why can't every artist record to a minimum high standard? I've never understood this.

I feel your pain too.  This is indeed frustrating.  Eventually my collection of daily use CDs encompasses the 1% of decent recordings available.  The other 99% of recordings find very sparse use in my system.  I would really like to have a good recording of The Emotions "Best of My Love".  It's a fabulous piece of music  , but the recording quality is very average .  Hm, I wonder if the LP would sound any better.

I believe it's a safe assumption that a minimum quality standard doesn't exist because...

1.  Most consumers don't really care, and can't discern the difference between a good recording and a bad recording. 

I recall reading an article about the Yamaha NS100 being commonly used in recording studio's because they are considered a "benchmark" for what folks have in their homes - not because the NS100 is a good sounding speaker.  Genalec monitors are also quiet expensive/esteemed, and... have been displaced by products from myself & Jim Salk.

2.  Good recordings are expensive.  Good microphones, dead-quiet studio's, and good "source gear" add to the cost.

3.  Obtaining a consensus regarding recording quality would be even more difficult than getting component manufacturers to convey consistent truth about their response curves and/distortion measurements.  And... even IF the standards were more rigorous, would they truly meet the scrutiny of the human ear?

A couple days ago I was pondering the concept that the human ear is truly able to discern a very large quantity of information - often more than measurement gear.  While there are some incredible advances in measurement electronics, a well trained human ear is surprisingly keen.  The audible character of coupling capacitors is probably the arena where the human ear remains dominant.  The human ear knows that 2 capacitors having the same Dielectric Absorption and Electrical Series Resistance don't always sound the same .

Dave

[David Ellis]

And,

Thanks for this feedback too . 

This is probably 80% of the reason I continue to be involved in this hobby.

When you are able, please post your comments at www.audioreview.com.  www.audioreview.com is a large part of my credibility.

Dave

[smithy666]

It's not just recordings that are bad - I've been to a few concerts where the sound quality/mixing have been terrible. I just couldn't believe the mixing guy could be sitting there thinking it was ok!!

I probably didn't word my comparison with the Dynaudio 12" correctly - the W18 doesn't compete on the bass (comparing apples with oranges). But it did go much lower than I expected when setup correctly for the room. The bass on the 12" Dynaudio is fantastic & I haven't listened to anything yet which I think sounds as good. But from 50Hz up I think the W18 does a fine job and the smoothness of the crossover between the W18 and the OW1 is very good. If you want a pair of speakers which shake the house, the 1801s aren't the right ones, but if you want to hear all the nuances and, in particular, silky smooth vocals, they would be hard to beat. Just my 20 cents worth....

[Daygloworange]

There are a myriad of reasons why recordings differ in quality. Not all of it has to do with equipment. There are many factors outside of the electronics. There are agendas and politics in play as well. You have to remember that the number  one reason that recorded music exists is because people will pay for it.

Record companies are in the business of selling what people are most willing to buy, and focus on what people will buy the most of. This has little to do with the audiophile quality of the recordings, or the actual musical content.

The majority of people would buy the same records regardless of the quality of sonics. It's not the decision maker or breaker. MP 3's prove that just by their existence alone. So does radio.

It's the Bell Curve of audio.

Cheers