I have a pair of dm620's and another pair of dm600's from '92 with the same aluminum dome tweeters as your 602's. I soon will be recapping both pairs. I'm pleased with the sound and appearance of these speakers. Thanks for the nostalgic look back in time.
I had these back in the day. I remember them being decent at low volume, but when pushed louder I wanted more definition in the bass. I traded up from these to B&W CDM1NT which I am still rocking to 20 years later, with a subwoofer to fill the sound out.
Back in the day I had the 602s on Atacama stands. The front end was a Pioneer stable platter CD and two Pioneer A400s (one per channel). The sound was amazing 😊 and I really enjoyed listening to music on that rather inexpensive system.
The speaker components in those bookshelf speakers were really designed and better used as the mid and treble units in the tower versions, which had one, two or three separate woofers for the bass in a three way configuration. PS. It's no wonder there is a spike somewhere in the high mid/ treble frequency (most likely at the Xover point) due to the cheap and inadequate crossover.
Thanks a lot for the review. Interesting stuff 😊 I haven't listened to 602s, but I've owned the later 685s for 15 years or so and still enjoy them to this day.
I have a pair of 601 S3 in oak which I bought used for about £150. And they sound lovely driven by my Rega Brio. Very detailed. But happy with the bass response too.
Had 601s3, its very good speaker for its price and made in England too, only notice flaws when move on to more expensive speakers. Transparency and finesse are main weaknesses, but enjoyable enough, never felt tweeter was overly bright but i like a lively treble.
I have a pair of these that I've had from new and use them as rear surround speakers now as I've upgraded my 2 channel system. I liked them when they were in my main system. What Hi Fi award winners if I remember.
I have the 602 S2, bought new back in '97. Was never really happy with the sound. Ear piercing sibilance fatiguing, ice picks in the ear is how I would describe them. Several years ago I found a revised cross over schematic on diyAudio that address the brightness, this seemed to help a bit. I have since moved on to better speakers. Good riddens!
Nice! I listened to the S2 in Sevenoaks back then; was impressed by the detail but worried about the pairing with my Pioneer A400 so bought KEF Q35 instead - probably a less accomplished speaker but they made an ok pairing. Haven't really heard many B&Ws since and am a bit wary of metal tweeters. Happy listening.
B&W speakers have always been picky about the amplifier they were paired with... I had a set of these with a Rotel amp and they were absolutely fantastic.
@@michaelstanley5215 Mine were played on 6 different Sansui's, a JVC jrs401, and a Marantz 1060. Results were always the same, ice picks in the ears. My thoughts are, these were really for a TV sound system, not 2 channel music.
@@scrappy7571 Perhaps you just decided that you didn't like them and nothing could change your mind? It isn't uncommon for people to search for confirmation of their biases.
@@michaelstanley5215 Could be, but I put up with them for over 15 years. Always blamed it on CD's being overly bright. Tried a lot of things to overcome the brightness. Much happier with them out of the system.
I've had a pair of the smaller 601s since the late 90s and I agree about the tweeter. I've got them on an AV system with a subwoofer and they do an OK job
I recognize the basic look of those yellow-ish kevlar B&W drivers from models they were selling well into the 2010s -- but I didn't remember that there were front-ported speakers in the 1990s. (Maybe because most people kept the grilles on back then?) Thanks for the history lesson! (And I wish I could get stunning lava lamps like yours in the States. Most of mine are ancient and are somewhat cloudy, but I can't find any new ones with totally clear liquid and those little feet on the base...)
I’ve really come round to your way of explaining little aspects, I’ve noticed I now keep swapping between my Kef Q60 which I do like, but when I swapped them for my little JBL tx2’s the Jb’s are some much smoother, was blaming my old ears but no it’s the speakers. I’m learning 😂😂
Fun...always a welcome friend...I have the 706 s2 and (as mentioned on your previous upload) i have just added a sub.Just using a rotel A10 amp (2nd hand)...Found heaven in in my chair and sounds great through out the room any where...Gods problem child ..Willie Nelson
I have pair of B&W DM601S1 with a Pioneer sa7800 rebuild, i think its pretty ok, i heard 8" bw speakers in a custom box goes very very good. I got the stock unit. My DM601S1 boxes are way smaller, but the bass is i would say is okay, its not good, since it doesnt go down but its not bad at al. But i would say the driver built pretty damn good. And i love it so much. Yeah its a very fun speaker, thats why i got b&w one, not an other one.
I can remember when what hifi were going on about these especially the 601s in the 90,s had the 601s but never really like them bright sounding treble.
Hi Kelvin. I owned a pair of 602 S2s in the mid 90s. I bought them for a second system (home cinema) untested. My goodness they were awful. I honestly thought it was because of the av amp they were connected to. I moved them to the Hifi rig and they were just as bad. I thought they were harsh and tonally thin. They went and I’ve never bought and B&W speaker again. Only my opinion.
I'm glad you enjoy them, I've found out over many trial and errors --- many, many errors that I prefer the sound of silk or other soft dome tweeters. The metal tweeters are just too hot for my taste. If you get the chance try the Yamaha nx-e100 bookshelf speakers. They really surprised me. The space, depth and layering of the voices blew me away. And despite being fairly compact they have articulate bass.
Love your videos - love when you look at more modern speakers as well as vintage - esp as 70s, 80s classics are starting to go for silly money so potentially better bargains elsewhere. I understand your preference for vintage (70s, 80s) sound quality but would love to get your thoughts on whether speakers are specifically built in response to the popular music of their time - are 70s/80s speakers generally better for the popular music of that era and 90s/00s speakers for the popular music of that era? Or is this not a distinction that should be made? Trying to understand if I should look at buying more modern speakers vs 70s, 80s because the music I listen to most is trip hop for instance
It would be interesting to hear them in a high density cabinet. They made a 1600 back in the late 80's , might have been part of their Matrix range. They had a good solid cabinet and sounded fantastic. Monitor Audio Bronze are made from Weetabix but if you move up to the Silver they're built predominantly with medium/high density board.
I owned a pair of 602 S2's for some time before i changed them for B&W CDM1NT (with Linn LP12, Arcam Alpha 7 CD and NAD 3130/3240PE) , which sound very much more focussed, dynamic and less "woolly" than the 602's, careful system matching needed but a big step forward. The 602's can be bought very cheaply and are a good entry level speaker, they work with almost any amp , good soundstage but a little confusing on many recordings. piano music sounded artificial.
There's a real obvious thing to do with bright edgy bookshelf spkrs. like B&W... Run 2 pairs stacked. Your added warmth and deepness of bass will take off the edge, and the added warmth will also seemingly soften the highs. An effect that always occurs. Had success doing that with many smaller speakers including the B&W Prism 302. Which had one of most unusual back of the speaker cabinets ever.
Hi Kelvin, firstly Happy New year🎉 hope you bopped till you droped or drooped depending on your alcohol content..Any how B W 601 series 3 similar looking to those you have there and what you have commented I totally agree, I did the cross over mod to these and improved the midrange but to be honest as you commented the don't deliver the realism clarity I prefer , in fact I find them rather bland at the volume levels I listen too, which is quite low To be honest I use them for there treble only as there bi wireable and I have three amps running other speaker systems . nice review though Always fun .take care.pal.
I had a pair of these. They were decent but not outstanding, probably slightly above average for what was available for the price at that time. Treble was a bit bright but was tamed a bit with the right cables. Treble seemed detached from the rest of the spectrum. Bass was a bit tubby and could be better defined. They were voiced to sell in the show room. I agree that mids are not totally accurate. Overall, I would give then a "3" on a scale of 1 to 5. Still, they were good for $500 back in 1996. In retrospect, I wish I had bought the NHT 1.5, which was a more accurate loudspeaker.
@@stereoreviewx That's a great description of their sound: exciting. Got them hooked up to a Yamaha CR2020. 5 mins off J29, M1 if you're ever passing and fancy an ear-full 🚬
I had the DM 603 S2 floor standers purchased new in 1998. I never liked them as I found them bland/dull. But what you say about the tweeter crossover on the S2 may explain it. However, I only had them hooked up to a (good) Denon AV amp also purchased in 1998. They put me off hifi upgrades for several years as they just weren’t worth the £650 I paid for them.
I have not heard the 602s,, but I have a pair of 685 S2s and really don't care for them. When I first set them up I was amazed that I heard things I had never had before in some music...but that's not necessarily a good thing. The high end is almost unlistenable on some songs, like MJ's "Billie Jean." My ears literally hurt from the (gated?) cymbals by the end of the song. I've relegated them to surround sound duty where they are OK.
I got rid of mine in favor of KEF xQ5 towers , they were way too treble rich for my ear and that system is for the highs (I use two systems one which drives lower frequencies and one for hgih) . Obviously not in the same realm, but I'm really enjoying the accurate sound of the uni-Q design.
I have the s3 version in oak , great speakers bassy nice veneer , I think they sound bettet than 606s2 anniversary, but they overpowering for my listening room and wanting upgrade for smaller speakers hence getting 606 , I know put those on my other system , the dm606s3 sound better than elac dbr62 . Regards mark
Kelvin, thanks for another great retro-review. I recently purchased a pair of Linn Tukans from around 1995. I would describe the top end performance of the Tukans to be very similar to your description of the B&W’s top end. Descriptors such as lively with well defined leading edges come to mind. I would be interested in your thoughts on how these speakers compare. Also, I could not find any Linn reviews on your site. Are you not a fan of Linn? This is my first experience with their speakers as they are not widely distributed in the USA.
i had a pair of these, they sounded uninteresting and small... i sold them on ebay ... they did seem accurate, but not exiting enough at the end of the day... went to EPOS
I purchased them without much expectation either way. They are in great shape and were reasonably priced. So, out of curiosity as much as anything, I took the plunge. I did not find a lot of reviews. But, folks seem to either really like or really dislike them - not much in the middle. I’m using them on my desktop with a WiiM amp. In that application, I have found them more engaging than my old speakers.
I had Tukans back in 1994 and remember them being really good and musical speakers. But you need high quality stands for them to sound the best. The ones made for Kan or Majik 109 probably work well. Kelvin has dabbled with Linn on this channel. I recall it was a Majik-1 integrated amplifier that he compared to a few other amps.
audiolab 8000a and 602s2 was one of my compinations,very harsh al tweeter can up with scanspeak ,sound on sound mag has this as monitor the s2 i mean,this was the cheaper series of the cdm series with fabric tweet....same story as rogers metal tweeter ?
A great audiophile songs guys: ‘ Mami Gato’ Medeski- Martin and Woods. ‘Drums solo’ - Gojira. Keep on trippin - Manu Katche. Ernest Ranglin (bass guitar legend) 🔇💥
Always avoided B&W for being bright and fatiguing. Do have a pair of Tannoy sixes from the nineties (637/D70). Those with dual concentric polypropylene drivers. I like them a lot but they do need a sub. They also could have a bit more clarity. Must try to upgrade the crossover some time.
The 601's were decent to be honest. I had the 601's s1 all in a 5.1ch home cinema back in 1998? Later upgraded to the 604's s3 few yrs after that. They were good back in the day.
Hi Kevin thank for your review I have the 603 that is floorstanding the same drivers plus a passive radiator giving a lot of bass even shaking the walls i have with a Sansui AU-719 that you reviewed and nad cd player from 2006. As you described the voice is not natural but is a fun speaker I m listening most blues rock and is good . Which speaker would you recommend with better tonal accuracy for my equipment ?thanks
I listened to these against Sony ss176e in about 1996 and found these sibilant, fatiguing and tonally distorting. I went for the Sonys, regretted a bit the lack of top end but they were both pretty entry level boxes.
I sometimes think slightly larger speakers - stand mounted ones, i.e. - probably need to be slightly louder before they sound their best. Is this true generally, and also for these 602s specifically, would you say?
I have the 601 S2, which I got in around 98/99 time. I've been wanting a new set of speakers for a few years but unsure what to get, and unsure how much to spend to get a noticeable difference. Anyhow I know mine are slightly different (smaller for a start) to the ones you have. Your comments on vocals not sounding right is difficult for me to agree with as I've had these for so long so I have nothing else to compare them to. However you say songs with no voice or lack of human vocals sound great rings true. whether it's daft punk, tychonaut or infected mushrooms they're very dynamic. What you say about the saxophone sounding great I agree I was nodding my head to thinking of supertramp songs. What 3 speakers would you think I should listen to for an upgrade. I have a marantz CD 6005 and a Naim nait 5si?
Strange speakers. I have heard them throw out an incredibly large soundstage and sound shockingly expensive and Ive also heard them sound less impressive. The difference could be down to sitting and space. They sounded best in free space well away from boundaries.
They were the thing amongst my art school buddies. We'd all go round to whoever had splashed their loan on a pair in the early 2000s (would have been the s2's) They often sounded boring and soulless, but every now and then, with the right music, they would be superb. I still wouldn't bother them now though even if I got a pair for very cheap.
These replaced the 610s, whitch had a much smoother treble and tighter bass. The 610s were an audiophile speaker, the 602s were not. Neither was better than the other, but very different presentations.
Aluminum (and some other metals) is actually better at creating the high frequencies, but like everything in audio, there is always a compromise. Soft domes are easy to implement, even though they have several break up frequencies compared to metal domes. Silk dome tweeters are common because when they break up, it's not so obvious (annoying). Aluminum has a much higher resonance (break up) point, but it's much higher in frequency, thus can be quite harsh if not addressed mechanically. The technology wasn't there in the 80s and 90s, so they shouldn't have been used back then. I prefer modern higher end aluminum drivers (if don't properly) over paper and soft domes, because they are more tonally correct in the vocals and high frequencies. Even aluminum works better for bass drivers (tighter, more articulate bass), because paper cones inherently ring on to long. After listening to aluminum drivers for a few years, when I go back paper and soft dome, the vocals (especially female) are throaty or to deep. Especially, the leading edge. Aluminum's resonance point is much higher than the vocal range and paper has most of the resonance points in the vocal range. Polk Audio used a novel technique back in the early 90's, to make their soft dome tweeter stiffer. They put a very, very tiny thin coating of aluminum, stainless steel and one other rare element (I can't recall) on the soft dome. The speaker is very detailed and airy, yet has the most sweetest smooth highs and never edgy. Unfortunately, the two 8" paper drivers caused the tone to be deeper than reality. I found the metal domes of the 90's to be to sharp and edgy.
If anyone says they don't like this range it's because you paid them with the wrong amp. The amp you need was sonys,{ str va 555es) now tell me I'm liein. ❤
You know, I have never liked Kevlar or carbon fibre drive units. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer Bextrene, polypropylene and paper mid-bass drive units. And not all metal dome tweeters are bad... Epos loudspeakers used to have excellent metal dome tweeters...
The bass driver cannot go anywhere near 3k let alone 4k, and if you measure these speakers there is a massive hole in the response and some obvious phasing issues.
I think you are being far too generous with your review. The drivers have all sort of resonance and breakup issues. The lightweight box rings like a bell and the crossover is a joke. This is definitely a "marmite" speaker. I found them very fatiguing. Someone gave me a pair to upgrade. I ended up making a new MDF cabinet with proper bracing and a properly designed crossover. Only then did they sound like "Hi Fi" speakers.
Classic edgy acidic top end. Still a characteristic of B&W today. Very careful amp pairing required. Not for me. Even the latest S3 are too sharp for me. Takes all sorts!
I had the 601 of these and loved them, Marantz PM44SE amp (crap) Marantz CD63 (over rated). Also had some DM310 and DM301. Then they stopped the 300 series.
LOL… these were good … nothing more !!! Nothing special or extraordinary and were pricier than others that were better !!! The most notable negative: quite bright 🤷🏻
I had a pair of these with an Arcam (A65+, I think) and they were fantastic for hard rock and metal. As for everything else, a touch bright (!)🔆
egree got to tamr with smooth amp
I have a pair of dm620's and another pair of dm600's from '92 with the same aluminum dome tweeters as your 602's. I soon will be recapping both pairs. I'm pleased with the sound and appearance of these speakers. Thanks for the nostalgic look back in time.
happy new year ! i hope to enjoy another year of your videos , i enjoyed your hifi roadtrips too
I had these back in the day. I remember them being decent at low volume, but when pushed louder I wanted more definition in the bass. I traded up from these to B&W CDM1NT which I am still rocking to 20 years later, with a subwoofer to fill the sound out.
Nothing better on a frigid morning than Kelvin, classic speakers and some nice warm lava
ok truth is this channel is just a vehicle for my lava lamp obsession mathimos btw
@@stereoreviewx these are truly one of the greatest products from the golden age of british engineering and industry.
Back in the day I had the 602s on Atacama stands. The front end was a Pioneer stable platter CD and two Pioneer A400s (one per channel). The sound was amazing 😊 and I really enjoyed listening to music on that rather inexpensive system.
I have a pair.. This review is absolutely spot on! (I'd add, very good at lower volumes, lose their shape a little as they get louder)
Thanks for sharing!
Happy New Year Kelvin here’s to more great reviews 😃
The speaker components in those bookshelf speakers were really designed and better used as the mid and treble units in the tower versions, which had one, two or three separate woofers for the bass in a three way configuration. PS. It's no wonder there is a spike somewhere in the high mid/ treble frequency (most likely at the Xover point) due to the cheap and inadequate crossover.
thanks
Thanks a lot for the review. Interesting stuff 😊
I haven't listened to 602s, but I've owned the later 685s for 15 years or so and still enjoy them to this day.
I have a pair of 601 S3 in oak which I bought used for about £150. And they sound lovely driven by my Rega Brio. Very detailed. But happy with the bass response too.
With the NAD C316BEE amplifier, these speakers are a very good combination... for the average lover of good sound...
Sony str va 555es there a match ❤
I listen them with a Yamaha AS-1000. Nice match if you like Rock/Metal guitar.
Uggg I have that amp. Very overrated. But I’m glad you are happy with it.
I tell you what most definitely is overated imo, Cxa81. Eek!@bradleydurbin6784
They were pushing these with Audiolab 8000A back in the day where i come from. Great for beginners. Thanks for the memories Kelvin.
I still have a 8000A very nice amp still
Had 601s3, its very good speaker for its price and made in England too, only notice flaws when move on to more expensive speakers. Transparency and finesse are main weaknesses, but enjoyable enough, never felt tweeter was overly bright but i like a lively treble.
I have a pair of these that I've had from new and use them as rear surround speakers now as I've upgraded my 2 channel system. I liked them when they were in my main system. What Hi Fi award winners if I remember.
I have the 602 S2, bought new back in '97. Was never really happy with the sound. Ear piercing sibilance fatiguing, ice picks in the ear is how I would describe them. Several years ago I found a revised cross over schematic on diyAudio that address the brightness, this seemed to help a bit. I have since moved on to better speakers. Good riddens!
Nice! I listened to the S2 in Sevenoaks back then; was impressed by the detail but worried about the pairing with my Pioneer A400 so bought KEF Q35 instead - probably a less accomplished speaker but they made an ok pairing. Haven't really heard many B&Ws since and am a bit wary of metal tweeters. Happy listening.
B&W speakers have always been picky about the amplifier they were paired with... I had a set of these with a Rotel amp and they were absolutely fantastic.
@@michaelstanley5215 Mine were played on 6 different Sansui's, a JVC jrs401, and a Marantz 1060. Results were always the same, ice picks in the ears. My thoughts are, these were really for a TV sound system, not 2 channel music.
@@scrappy7571 Perhaps you just decided that you didn't like them and nothing could change your mind?
It isn't uncommon for people to search for confirmation of their biases.
@@michaelstanley5215 Could be, but I put up with them for over 15 years. Always blamed it on CD's being overly bright. Tried a lot of things to overcome the brightness. Much happier with them out of the system.
I've had a pair of the smaller 601s since the late 90s and I agree about the tweeter. I've got them on an AV system with a subwoofer and they do an OK job
Oh, really interested I'm in this. Loads of older B&W still around here :)
Thanks Kelvin
I recognize the basic look of those yellow-ish kevlar B&W drivers from models they were selling well into the 2010s -- but I didn't remember that there were front-ported speakers in the 1990s. (Maybe because most people kept the grilles on back then?) Thanks for the history lesson! (And I wish I could get stunning lava lamps like yours in the States. Most of mine are ancient and are somewhat cloudy, but I can't find any new ones with totally clear liquid and those little feet on the base...)
I’ve really come round to your way of explaining little aspects, I’ve noticed I now keep swapping between my Kef Q60 which I do like, but when I swapped them for my little JBL tx2’s the Jb’s are some much smoother, was blaming my old ears but no it’s the speakers. I’m learning 😂😂
Happy New Year to you K.
Keep up the detailed reviews...
Thanks... 🇨🇦
Thank you for your positive feedback Mr K.. Great review B and W are a class act
Fun...always a welcome friend...I have the 706 s2 and (as mentioned on your previous upload) i have just added a sub.Just using a rotel A10 amp (2nd hand)...Found heaven in in my chair and sounds great through out the room any where...Gods problem child ..Willie Nelson
I have pair of B&W DM601S1 with a Pioneer sa7800 rebuild, i think its pretty ok, i heard 8" bw speakers in a custom box goes very very good. I got the stock unit.
My DM601S1 boxes are way smaller, but the bass is i would say is okay, its not good, since it doesnt go down but its not bad at al.
But i would say the driver built pretty damn good. And i love it so much.
Yeah its a very fun speaker, thats why i got b&w one, not an other one.
I can remember when what hifi were going on about these especially the 601s in the 90,s had the 601s but never really like them bright sounding treble.
Hi Kelvin.
I owned a pair of 602 S2s in the mid 90s. I bought them for a second system (home cinema) untested. My goodness they were awful. I honestly thought it was because of the av amp they were connected to. I moved them to the Hifi rig and they were just as bad. I thought they were harsh and tonally thin. They went and I’ve never bought and B&W speaker again.
Only my opinion.
I'm glad you enjoy them, I've found out over many trial and errors --- many, many errors that I prefer the sound of silk or other soft dome tweeters. The metal tweeters are just too hot for my taste. If you get the chance try the Yamaha nx-e100 bookshelf speakers. They really surprised me. The space, depth and layering of the voices blew me away. And despite being fairly compact they have articulate bass.
intersting thnks K
Love your videos - love when you look at more modern speakers as well as vintage - esp as 70s, 80s classics are starting to go for silly money so potentially better bargains elsewhere. I understand your preference for vintage (70s, 80s) sound quality but would love to get your thoughts on whether speakers are specifically built in response to the popular music of their time - are 70s/80s speakers generally better for the popular music of that era and 90s/00s speakers for the popular music of that era? Or is this not a distinction that should be made? Trying to understand if I should look at buying more modern speakers vs 70s, 80s because the music I listen to most is trip hop for instance
It would be interesting to hear them in a high density cabinet. They made a 1600 back in the late 80's , might have been part of their Matrix range. They had a good solid cabinet and sounded fantastic. Monitor Audio Bronze are made from Weetabix but if you move up to the Silver they're built predominantly with medium/high density board.
I owned a pair of 602 S2's for some time before i changed them for B&W CDM1NT (with Linn LP12, Arcam Alpha 7 CD and NAD 3130/3240PE) , which sound very much more focussed, dynamic and less "woolly" than the 602's, careful system matching needed but a big step forward. The 602's can be bought very cheaply and are a good entry level speaker, they work with almost any amp , good soundstage but a little confusing on many recordings. piano music sounded artificial.
They are great speakers. I listen to them year after year. Especially good for Rock guitar.
yes lead guitar for sure
There's a real obvious thing to do with bright edgy bookshelf spkrs. like B&W... Run 2 pairs stacked. Your added warmth and deepness of bass will take off the edge, and the added warmth will also seemingly soften the highs. An effect that always occurs. Had success doing that with many smaller speakers including the B&W Prism 302. Which had one of most unusual back of the speaker cabinets ever.
I have a pair of these (and also other much more expensive o es) and for the going price (200-300€ used) they sound great IMHO.
Hi Kelvin, firstly Happy New year🎉 hope you bopped till you droped or drooped depending on your alcohol content..Any how B W 601 series 3 similar looking to those you have there and what you have commented I totally agree, I did the cross over mod to these and improved the midrange but to be honest as you commented the don't deliver the realism clarity I prefer , in fact I find them rather bland at the volume levels I listen too, which is quite low To be honest I use them for there treble only as there bi wireable and I have three amps running other speaker systems . nice review though
Always fun .take care.pal.
In 1996 i had the 603 😎🎸
And now i have the new 603s3.
8 generation later.😎
I have been using them for 25 years.
90’s, kevlar, aluminium and chipboard don’t float my boat, at least on paper.
i would havesaid that to i did have on with nice smooth amplification and no edgy DAC
I had a pair of these. They were decent but not outstanding, probably slightly above average for what was available for the price at that time. Treble was a bit bright but was tamed a bit with the right cables. Treble seemed detached from the rest of the spectrum. Bass was a bit tubby and could be better defined. They were voiced to sell in the show room. I agree that mids are not totally accurate. Overall, I would give then a "3" on a scale of 1 to 5. Still, they were good for $500 back in 1996. In retrospect, I wish I had bought the NHT 1.5, which was a more accurate loudspeaker.
Wish you could hear my 1972 Bowers & Wilkins DM-70 Continental speakers Kelvin, you'd be in paradise.
just looked at them, exciting
@@stereoreviewx That's a great description of their sound: exciting. Got them hooked up to a Yamaha CR2020. 5 mins off J29, M1 if you're ever passing and fancy an ear-full 🚬
I had the DM 603 S2 floor standers purchased new in 1998. I never liked them as I found them bland/dull. But what you say about the tweeter crossover on the S2 may explain it. However, I only had them hooked up to a (good) Denon AV amp also purchased in 1998. They put me off hifi upgrades for several years as they just weren’t worth the £650 I paid for them.
You needed sonys ( str va 555es )
@@nobaccosI don’t know the Sonys. But, KEF Coda (10 perhaps) were a close contender. I wish I’d gone for them.
Thank you
I have the S3's and they sound superb but as always room placement and/or room filtering is key or they will sound harsh or indeed too boomy.
Showroom speakers. Never known a good pair go for less than £100. Eventually you'll get tired of the tizz.
fair point
i do crossover upgrades for these, which takes out some of that treble edge.
interesting
I have not heard the 602s,, but I have a pair of 685 S2s and really don't care for them. When I first set them up I was amazed that I heard things I had never had before in some music...but that's not necessarily a good thing. The high end is almost unlistenable on some songs, like MJ's "Billie Jean." My ears literally hurt from the (gated?) cymbals by the end of the song. I've relegated them to surround sound duty where they are OK.
I got rid of mine in favor of KEF xQ5 towers , they were way too treble rich for my ear and that system is for the highs (I use two systems one which drives lower frequencies and one for hgih) . Obviously not in the same realm, but I'm really enjoying the accurate sound of the uni-Q design.
Great review just like your thoughts on producing more bass in a hifi system especially thoughts on adding a powered subwoofer
well i might be too much of a fuss pot but i never liked subwoofers partly it comes from one box messes with stereo image
I have the s3 version in oak , great speakers bassy nice veneer , I think they sound bettet than 606s2 anniversary, but they overpowering for my listening room and wanting upgrade for smaller speakers hence getting 606 , I know put those on my other system , the dm606s3 sound better than elac dbr62 . Regards mark
Kelvin, thanks for another great retro-review. I recently purchased a pair of Linn Tukans from around 1995. I would describe the top end performance of the Tukans to be very similar to your description of the B&W’s top end. Descriptors such as lively with well defined leading edges come to mind. I would be interested in your thoughts on how these speakers compare. Also, I could not find any Linn reviews on your site. Are you not a fan of Linn? This is my first experience with their speakers as they are not widely distributed in the USA.
i had a pair of these, they sounded uninteresting and small... i sold them on ebay ... they did seem accurate, but not exiting enough at the end of the day... went to EPOS
I purchased them without much expectation either way. They are in great shape and were reasonably priced. So, out of curiosity as much as anything, I took the plunge. I did not find a lot of reviews. But, folks seem to either really like or really dislike them - not much in the middle. I’m using them on my desktop with a WiiM amp. In that application, I have found them more engaging than my old speakers.
I had Tukans back in 1994 and remember them being really good and musical speakers. But you need high quality stands for them to sound the best. The ones made for Kan or Majik 109 probably work well. Kelvin has dabbled with Linn on this channel. I recall it was a Majik-1 integrated amplifier that he compared to a few other amps.
@@geminijinxies7258 mehhh nothing special man / it you want special get the EPOS ES11 or ES14
You should do a thing on lava lamps Kelvin 😊
please don't
audiolab 8000a and 602s2 was one of my compinations,very harsh al tweeter can up with scanspeak ,sound on sound mag has this as monitor the s2 i mean,this was the cheaper series of the cdm series with fabric tweet....same story as rogers metal tweeter ?
A great audiophile songs guys: ‘ Mami Gato’ Medeski- Martin and Woods. ‘Drums solo’ - Gojira.
Keep on trippin - Manu Katche.
Ernest Ranglin (bass guitar legend) 🔇💥
for something interesting, listen to Hadouk Trio - Baldamore
Happy New Year
I still have the 601 connected with a Linn. It’s a good match. The ‘golf ball’ texture disperses sound better. I think B&W started it.
Always avoided B&W for being bright and fatiguing. Do have a pair of Tannoy sixes from the nineties (637/D70). Those with dual concentric polypropylene drivers. I like them a lot but they do need a sub. They also could have a bit more clarity. Must try to upgrade the crossover some time.
The 601's were decent to be honest. I had the 601's s1 all in a 5.1ch home cinema back in 1998? Later upgraded to the 604's s3 few yrs after that. They were good back in the day.
Hi Kevin thank for your review I have the 603 that is floorstanding the same drivers plus a passive radiator giving a lot of bass even shaking the walls
i have with a Sansui AU-719 that you reviewed and nad cd player from 2006.
As you described the voice is not natural but is a fun speaker I m listening most blues rock and is good .
Which speaker would you recommend with better tonal accuracy for my equipment ?thanks
well most others really. 😅
@stereoreviewx brands that you can suggest
Hello, what do you think about the Wharfedale Evo 4.2 speakers? Have you heard them? Greetings from Buenos Aires!!!
I listened to these against Sony ss176e in about 1996 and found these sibilant, fatiguing and tonally distorting. I went for the Sonys, regretted a bit the lack of top end but they were both pretty entry level boxes.
I still have the Sony 176 brooklands edition. Still going strong.
I sometimes think slightly larger speakers - stand mounted ones, i.e. - probably need to be slightly louder before they sound their best. Is this true generally, and also for these 602s specifically, would you say?
pretty much agree
@@stereoreviewx ta for the reply
Hi Kelvin.
If you can get your hands on a pair of DYNAUDIO 2/6 and give them a listen, I'm sure they won't disappoint.☺
thanks
I have the 601 S2, which I got in around 98/99 time.
I've been wanting a new set of speakers for a few years but unsure what to get, and unsure how much to spend to get a noticeable difference.
Anyhow I know mine are slightly different (smaller for a start) to the ones you have.
Your comments on vocals not sounding right is difficult for me to agree with as I've had these for so long so I have nothing else to compare them to. However you say songs with no voice or lack of human vocals sound great rings true. whether it's daft punk, tychonaut or infected mushrooms they're very dynamic.
What you say about the saxophone sounding great I agree I was nodding my head to thinking of supertramp songs.
What 3 speakers would you think I should listen to for an upgrade. I have a marantz CD 6005 and a Naim nait 5si?
I love my DMs but enough speakers Kelvin, get on to turntables!
Strange speakers. I have heard them throw out an incredibly large soundstage and sound shockingly expensive and Ive also heard them sound less impressive.
The difference could be down to sitting and space. They sounded best in free space well away from boundaries.
They were the thing amongst my art school buddies.
We'd all go round to whoever had splashed their loan on a pair in the early 2000s (would have been the s2's)
They often sounded boring and soulless, but every now and then, with the right music, they would be superb.
I still wouldn't bother them now though even if I got a pair for very cheap.
yeah for sure on stands will diminish that cheapish box
And there was S3 also.
I had once 601 s2 but was mediocre at best. However perhaps it had dried ferrofluid..
I'm using the 602 S2
These replaced the 610s, whitch had a much smoother treble and tighter bass. The 610s were an audiophile speaker, the 602s were not. Neither was better than the other, but very different presentations.
i bought them new in the day. i could never get them to sound good for my ears. way to bright.
Aluminum (and some other metals) is actually better at creating the high frequencies, but like everything in audio, there is always a compromise. Soft domes are easy to implement, even though they have several break up frequencies compared to metal domes. Silk dome tweeters are common because when they break up, it's not so obvious (annoying). Aluminum has a much higher resonance (break up) point, but it's much higher in frequency, thus can be quite harsh if not addressed mechanically. The technology wasn't there in the 80s and 90s, so they shouldn't have been used back then.
I prefer modern higher end aluminum drivers (if don't properly) over paper and soft domes, because they are more tonally correct in the vocals and high frequencies. Even aluminum works better for bass drivers (tighter, more articulate bass), because paper cones inherently ring on to long. After listening to aluminum drivers for a few years, when I go back paper and soft dome, the vocals (especially female) are throaty or to deep. Especially, the leading edge. Aluminum's resonance point is much higher than the vocal range and paper has most of the resonance points in the vocal range.
Polk Audio used a novel technique back in the early 90's, to make their soft dome tweeter stiffer. They put a very, very tiny thin coating of aluminum, stainless steel and one other rare element (I can't recall) on the soft dome. The speaker is very detailed and airy, yet has the most sweetest smooth highs and never edgy. Unfortunately, the two 8" paper drivers caused the tone to be deeper than reality.
I found the metal domes of the 90's to be to sharp and edgy.
yeah try the metlal domes fromm the early eighties rough as .....
thanks for your comments K
Kelvin how would you compare these with the DM4 ?
dm4 s better i prefer
The entire 600 series never was very impressive. Have always wondered what B&W was thinking when they made them.
the more expensive speakers are well recieved i think like thay did work on the crossover to tame things
If anyone says they don't like this range it's because you paid them with the wrong amp. The amp you need was sonys,{ str va 555es) now tell me I'm liein. ❤
yeah amp is crucial to make them work
@stereoreviewx fact for sure. otherwise they will sound dull and lifeless. With the right amp there pure gold ♥️
Try Neumann speakers
i will
You know, I have never liked Kevlar or carbon fibre drive units. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer Bextrene, polypropylene and paper mid-bass drive units. And not all metal dome tweeters are bad... Epos loudspeakers used to have excellent metal dome tweeters...
yes epos are good and i agree bextreen is just great
The bass driver cannot go anywhere near 3k let alone 4k, and if you measure these speakers there is a massive hole in the response and some obvious phasing issues.
I wouldn't call kevlar a light cone.
NO !
9:16. YEAHH. I KNOW FOR SURE THAT SPEAKER IS REALLY BAD. METAL TWEETERS ARE BAD. THAT WOOFER SHOULD GO UP TO 8K. ITS JUST ALL BAD
i used to say that
I think you are being far too generous with your review. The drivers have all sort of resonance and breakup issues. The lightweight box rings like a bell and the crossover is a joke.
This is definitely a "marmite" speaker. I found them very fatiguing.
Someone gave me a pair to upgrade. I ended up making a new MDF cabinet with proper bracing and a properly designed crossover. Only then did they sound like "Hi Fi" speakers.
They’re not bad speakers especially considering they’re from the peak of the black plastic crap era…
Classic edgy acidic top end. Still a characteristic of B&W today. Very careful amp pairing required. Not for me. Even the latest S3 are too sharp for me. Takes all sorts!
They tired you!
not recommended 👎
B & w are crap
All those kevlar cone bass/mid two way speakers are awful.
if i had put onthe wrong amplification would be harsh i instinctivly chose smooth amp naim power with nad pre amp also vintage sansui 771
I had the 601 of these and loved them, Marantz PM44SE amp (crap) Marantz CD63 (over rated). Also had some DM310 and DM301. Then they stopped the 300 series.
LOL… these were good … nothing more !!! Nothing special or extraordinary and were pricier than others that were better !!! The most notable negative: quite bright 🤷🏻