Gentlemen; an update:
Yesterday I visited a dealer and had a comprehensive listen to the B&W CM9's driven by a Marantz CD player, and Rotel ICE power 15 series pre/power (120 watts per channel) and my own CD's. The speakers were placed about 1 and a bit metres out from the back and side walls, in a room that was quite heavily damped with kit lining the walls, and curtains behind. Discs used included Hyperions Curls - a sampler of classical music from the Hyperion label including organ, choir, boy sopranos; solo piano; piano and male voice; string quartet; full orchestra and solo organ. Also a large Caville Coll organ at St Eustache cathedral, Paris; the concert organ at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam; James Taylors 'October Road' and Fourplay 'Between the sheets' selected tracks.
On all recordings the way in which instrumental and vocal tonal timbre and colour was revealed was well ahead of what I am used to hearing from the SBL's. Additionally spatial perspectives were much closer to real life. For instance, on the Hyperion disc, one of the tracks has organ, choir, and two boy sopranos, recorded in a large church. With the SBL's, the sound is spread accross the wall between the speakers, with good seperation between soloists, choir and organ. However, the choir appears to be in front of and louder than the soloists, and the organ 'somewhere' in the mix. There is a good sense of 'depth' to the mix, but apart from clues of ambiance, there are none as to 'where' the recording took place.
With the B&W's, you could 'see' the choir stalls and 'hear' clearly one boy soprano to the left, and the other to the right, with the choir correctly placed behind, and the organ placement behind that, much as one would expect to hear it in real life. Certainly the sense of ambient clues gave rise to the feeling that one was hearing a real live musical event in a real life church, not some abstract unidentified venue as is conveyed with the SBLs.
This difference in presentation, i.e. tonal timbres and spatial perspectives was a very clear and noticeable advantage on all the material I used for audition.
Given that I have come from a Naim system which majored on drive, grip and 'prat', and now have an amp which is even better in terms of transient response (albeit not forced in any way) I paid close attention to musical dynamics. Without the ability to do an exact A/B back to back, I'd rate my current system of digital Sony/SBL's about the same as the ICE power Rotel/B&W combo, which kind of lays to rest comment I've read on PFM about B&W's being 'slow' and laid back etc.
Additionally, given some observations made elsewhere, I also paid close attention for 'boom and tizz'. On the tizz side of it, there was basically, none. Indeed I thought the tweeter somewhat ahead of the Scanspeak silk dome one used in the SBL for a sense of naturalness - cymbal high-hats and ride came across extremely well on the James Taylor, and Fourplay discs. Unlike many earlier B&W's I've heard, there was no sense of poor integration/timing between the tweeter and midrange - it was virtually aurally seamless to my ears - certainly no worse than my 2 way SBL's in that regard.
As to 'boom' Well I guess it depends upon how you describe boom. The fourplay recording has some extreme bass, as does the Caville Coll organ recording (Dorian, no compression and full level down to 16hz). At no point did the bass 'get out of control' or provide a one note effect. Overall pitch clarity and ability to clearly delineate twixt bass kick drum, and electric bass was seemingly on par with the SBL's; however on some of the organ work at very high volumes, i did detect some slight sense of muddle and lack of clarity in the bass, in that one had to concentrate to pick out the pitch of the bass line, and in that regard I did think the SBL slightly better - but again only a back to back A/B could show clearly by how much - in isolation and not concentrating heavily on the sound, I doubt it would cause problems.
As well, on some of the Fourplay tracks, on some bass notes, I did note a kind of 'thumpy' sound quality, which to my ears sounded as if it was very slight cabinet colouration adding to the sound - but then, electric bass is not acoustic bass, so it is hard to say, but certainly I'd say that overall the SBL's have a slight edge in bass clarity and lack of relative colouration in the bass region generally. Certainly they are 'leaner' and 'dryer' in the bass, and on male vocals, I did notice some slight sense of chestiness also with the B&W's which is absent in the SBL's - perhaps cabinet coloration again?
Demerits? Well the slight sense of Bass colouration on some material as mentioned. The other was a strange one that caused a bit of head scratching. At first, the system seemed rather shut in, not 'open' and lacking dynamics. However, after about 1/2 hour, either the sound improved, or I and the salesmen got used to it, for after that neither of us noticed that effect, and the system had been connected and turned on from dead cold. Usually my own kit takes about 20 mins to 1/2 hour to come on 'song', so I put it down to that reason.
In some ways, I thought the SBL's 'clearer' for lack of a better word than the B&W's. However, measurably, the B&W's are flatter in their frequency response by a considerable margin over the SBL, and the SBL commits the most 'sin' by being very forward in the upper mid range/lower treble, which in part may account for the sense of 'clarity'. Additionally my room is on the under-damped side, and that of the auditioning room was very much over-damped. Either way, I'd have to say for resolution, which is different from clarity, the B&W easily won in the midrange and treble. There was much more musical detail to be heard, mainly as mentioned earlier in the form of instrumental and vocal tonal timbre and colour.
In conclusion then I'd say the CM9's are noticeably ahead of the SBL's in terms of the way timbral detail and tonal colour is revealed - i.e. resolution, most especially in the midrange and treble. Dynamics I'd broadly consider equal. The SBL's are marginally ahead on bass clarity and lower colouration. However, and more subjectively though, I found the CM9 to be a much more broadly capable speaker IMV - it had a sense of refinement, smoothness and tonal richness in the sound that the SBL can't get near, whilst offering broadly equal merit as regards fun and excitement re dynamics, and adding an additional dose of realism via the much better spatial perspectives.
And lastly of course, as at least 50% of my use is for multi-channel purposes, a real and viable way forward of building a matching set of speakers all round at relatively reasonable/affordable cost. They represent an excellent value for money compromise, and in this market very good bang for the buck, whilst fulfilling my aesthetic and multi-channel needs.
As you can tell, whilst they are not perfect, I liked them a lot.
To be sure, a speaker that is a little more open, with less bass colouration would be nice, but that means in the B&W floor-standing range a jump to 804s and a doubling of price. Not worth it to my ears, unless one was going active which an 804s is not. At this point, whilst I'm still mulling it over, and have two other short listed options to investigate, I am fairly sure I will put the SBL's up for sale.
Regards
Jon..
