Clare Newsome:
We've reviewed the 684, 685 and 686 B&Ws -
reviews of all three here
As you'll see, we rate the 684s very highly - it's just that we feel the 685s are a touch more flexible: hence their Award-winning status as superb-value speakers that we believe would suit a wide range of systems.
This is yet another thread that proves the importance of auditioning kit - something we stress in each issue. it's also another thread where a complaint 'magazines never consider the price of stands!' is unfounded in our case.
For starters, we always include recommended stand options in the 'Now add these' section of every group test verdict page (hefty stands are best for the B&Ws, BTW - really tightens up proceedings).
Secondly, when we do a 'mixed' speaker group test - ie one including floorstanders and standmounts - we always take into consideration the cost of stands you'd need to make the standmounts perform at their best: this total cost is then compared with the cost of the floorstanders.
It's one reason why budget floorstanders such as Monitor Audio Bronze BR5s and KEF iQ5SEs have outpointed their standmount rivals in the past, for example.
So you felt that the 685 + stands was better than the 684s due to the 685s having greater flexibility? I withdraw my comment about mags not taking into account the cost of stands (at least in relation to WHF)... Though I respectfully disagree with the opinion that greater flexibility in a pair of monitors + stands is better than having more full range performance from towers...