Monitor Audio BX2

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

jaxwired

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2009
284
6
18,895
Visit site
Gerrardasnails: I doubt you'll be changing your Brystons now though Jax? Have you seen the new Moon DAC, another Canadian on your rack?

Right on. Love the Bryston gear.

I love my Dyns too, but curiousity still gets the best of me. It's fun to try out speakers. I've tried a few pairs just for fun, but sticking with the Dyns. I've had them a year now. Haven't seen the Moon DAC yet, I'll keep my eye out for the reviews... MA should be coming out with a GS line replacement very soon. That should be really interesting...
emotion-2.gif
 

ear

New member
Aug 24, 2008
118
0
0
Visit site
finally heard the bx2 and the bx5.the bx2 sound like the old rs1 but with less life in them.dissapointement.the bx5 were more lively, but also a bit dry sounding to me.me think the older br range had more life to them. just for fun also tried the Tangent evo 8...now these are fun speakers that make music sound great. each day more disapointed with MA.
 

matthewpiano

Well-known member
Got to say ear, I was very impressed with the half an hour I heard of the BX2s the other day and didn't find them at all lifeless on the end of the Marantz 6003s. I will be listening to them again on Tuesday so I'll let you know what I think after a longer listen.
 

ear

New member
Aug 24, 2008
118
0
0
Visit site
not saying they are bad. the stores i go have multiple speakers on diosplay and swicthes to select between speakers amps sources etc.saying that when compared to some other speakers they seem a bit dull...also didnt like the rs1,tehse feel a lot like the rs1 did
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Matt,

I'd be careful about partnering marantz with metal dome tweeters. I home demoed the Marantz PM6002 CD player and amp with my B&W 685's, (the WHF recommended combination at the time!!):

I was reasonably impressed at first, but after a while it became obvious that the treble was harsh, and the bass was slow, making much of my record collection unlistenable. This wasn't, however, apparent on all CDs..... so be careful. Now perhaps the later models are vastly superior, but I would try some other combinations first. You might be better off playing it safe with a Denon/NAD amplifier and perhaps the NAD C545 player or the older Arcam CD73T. A shortfall in bite or dymamics can be improved with appropriate interconnects, cables and power cords.

All the best
 

Tibor

New member
Oct 23, 2007
59
0
0
Visit site
Yes , I think Captains observation is real, M. A. BX 2 with Marantz will be bright, you need to add your Musical Fidelity V Dac for a smoother sound
 
T

the record spot

Guest
In part - I think if you rely on cables, wires and the like to address shortcomings, it's money wasted. The core components should do that, not bits of copper and that's where the focus should go.
 

johnbwfc

Well-known member
Sep 6, 2007
2
0
18,520
Visit site
I had a demo with the Marantz 6002 CD and Amp and the B&W 685, Monitor Audio RX1 and BR2.(before BX2 was released). I previously had the BR2's.

I thought the RX1 was clearer and more suited to me than the other two. To be honest I was a bit disappointed with the 685 given all the reviews and ended up buying the RX1. I must say that I have been impressed with them over the past 3 months. I don't really know how to describe the sound but I like it!
 

matthewpiano

Well-known member
Well, today is the day. I've got a decent selection of CDs ready, chosen more as a cross section of my listening than a cherry-picked selection of demo-standard discs (this was on the excellent advice of Audio T).

Today I've got Superfi first:

Marantz CD6003/PM6003 and B&W 686
Marantz CD6003/PM6003 and KEF iQ10
Marantz CD6003/Rotel RA-04SE and B&W 686

Then, at Audio T:

MArantz CD6003/PM6003 and MA BX2
Marantz CD6003/PM6003 and (hopefully) MA RX1

I'm also hoping to be able to compare these with the Rega Brio 3/RS1 combination and the Arcam Solo Mini.

Will report back in due course.
 

manicm

Well-known member
matthewpiano:Well, today is the day. I've got a decent selection of CDs ready, chosen more as a cross section of my listening than a cherry-picked selection of demo-standard discs (this was on the excellent advice of Audio T). Today I've got Superfi first: Marantz CD6003/PM6003 and B&W 686 Marantz CD6003/PM6003 and KEF iQ10 Marantz CD6003/Rotel RA-04SE and B&W 686 Then, at Audio T: MArantz CD6003/PM6003 and MA BX2 Marantz CD6003/PM6003 and (hopefully) MA RX1 I'm also hoping to be able to compare these with the Rega Brio 3/RS1 combination and the Arcam Solo Mini. Will report back in due course.

Matthew, may I strongly suggest you audition the 685s instead of the 686s? The 685 is actually more sensitive than the 686, and might ironically be a bit more flexible too.

I wanted to get the 686s as well for my Solo Mini, my dealer made a right choice for me by suggesting the 685s. And, admittedly not an ideal situation, they're actually singing about 15cm from my back wall.

Don't bother with the 686s IMO.
 

matthewpiano

Well-known member
Well, well, well...

Not the conclusion I was expecting at all.

My day started with the Marantz CD6003, PM6003 and B&W 686 speakers. This sounded very good. It was full sounding, fluid and with excellent performance at the frequency extremes. The tonal reproduction was very good with a good sense of the sound of the piano in Claudio Arrau's recording of the Grieg Concerto and there was plenty of punch and swagger to 'White Man' by Queen. Occasionally I felt that vocals could sound a little airless, as on Oyster Band's Big Session album, and bigger works needed slightly more definition between orchestral sections. However, the basics were all there and this set-up represented a fine start.

Switching the amp to a Rotel RA-04SE really opened things up. Suddenly the scale of Karajan's orchestra, and the atmosphere of the performance, in a Richard Strauss extract, became much more tangible and real. The Rotel was also more natural in the mid-range than the Marantz, allowing vocals to breath and communicate more effectively. At the bass end there was more punch than with the Marantz and a greater sense of rhythm. Roger Taylor's drum playing in the Queen track came across with a much better sense of the contrasting sounds of different parts of the kit and the sound was tighter and more rhythmic. The only slight criticism of the Rotel was in re-producing the piano. Like a lot of open sounding budget amps it spread the sound out too wide, almost making the piano sound like 2 or 3 different instruments.

Next stop was the Marantz 6003 combo with the Monitor Audio BX2s. I was extremely disappointed with this. The BX2s (which have been run in very thoroughly by the store) sounded shallow, lacking insight into the music and lacking also in bass performance. I don't like too much bass, but I do like to have enough so that it is in proportion with the rest of the sound. Even the fairly thick recording of Neil Young's Harvest album (specifically 'Heart of Gold') failed to exhibit any gravitas. Furthermore the midrange and treble sounded thin and the system just didn't gel together to create a satisfying musical experience.

Going back to the B&W 686s resolved things but by this time the better sound of the Rotel amp had spoilt the Marantz for me. Good though the PM6003 is, the Rotel is substantially better IMO.

So next up was the Rega Brio 3. Having heard this amp with the Apollo CD player and RS1 speakers in the past I left the Marantz CD player and B&W speakers in place to enable me to judge the amp in comparison to the Rotel and Marantz. Initially I was very impressed. 'Brio' is a good word to describe the sound. There was lots of life in the sound and it was exciting to listen to but, as I found when I last heard the all-Rega system, things get less comfortable when the music becomes more complex. The Brio 3 struggled to control the bass of the B&Ws, which was rectified by tuning the ports on the rear of the speakers. Overall there was a lot to be positive about but the 100 mph presentation and the slightly euphonic presentation could become harder to live with long term.

Finally, a bit of a wild card. Step in Arcam with the A18. This beautifully built amp is quite a bit more than the others so it means keeping the Marantz CD63SE a little longer but it really is worth it. The Arcam wipes the floor with the Marantz, Rotel, and Rega. It grips the little 686s brilliantly and really makes the best of them. The detail and stability of soundstaging are in another class and there is a sense of naturalness whilst retaining plenty of punch and dynamism. Even at low volumes it enables the B&Ws to communicate effortlessly and it is continuously evident that you are listening to an altogether higher class of system. Going back to the other amps and the MAs after the Arcam/B&W combination only shows how far I travelled this morning.

I have decided to go with the Arcam A18 and B&W 686s. I actually prefer the 686s to the 685s. They are fabulous little speakers and it helps that they won't dominate the room as much as the larger model would. In time I'm going to add an Arcam rDAC to use with my Squeezebox and I'm going to be on the look-out for a good pre-owned Arcam CD player in time too. In a few days I should have the new amp and CD player and I think I'm going to be re-visiting a lot of CDs I haven't heard for ages.
 

lovstromp

New member
Nov 17, 2009
12
0
0
Visit site
Very nice review. Despite the subjective nature of auditioning gear, I think it should be read by first time buyers/posters. The hifi world really is a jungle and you shed some light from a buyers perspective
 

smuggs

New member
Feb 19, 2009
347
0
0
Visit site
good luck i think that the arcam amps are spot on warm and detailed maybe a touch made up if that makes sense. I tried the b&w 686's and found as long as you dont want loud and you rive them room they were good. I found they sound a touch boomy(boxy) if placed near other speakers/wall ect. I also am using the 63se a great player but am running it through a dacmagic very good. The main thing i would say is that i find the arcam backfires if matched with an arcam cd player try a natural type player. I also am finding that with the power and detail of arcam i have overcome the false sound by using a turntable that really has pushed the right buttons. as you gathered its horses for courses so enjoy your new set up and dont lok back just setup and enjoy it for at least 3 months then you can look at things again.
 

chebby

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2008
1,253
26
19,220
Visit site
I could have predicted you would end up with the Arcam A18 when you mentioned it in your shortlist in another thead some days ago.

I'll save you a wasted demo and say now... don't go near the Naim kit
emotion-1.gif


You will hate it for all the same reasons I love it.

Naim is a really great Rhythm & Blues outfit playing live in your local pub or hall.

The Arcam A18/CD17 is 'Sing Something Simple' with the Cliff Adam's singers playing on Grandma's old radiogram, after a big meal on a Sunday afternoon, whilst dozing in the chair in front of a nice fire.
 

chebby

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2008
1,253
26
19,220
Visit site
matthewpiano:Oh Chebby, I'm afraid Arcam amps don't really conform to that stereotype. The A18 is perfectly capable of providing attack, rhythm and punch when its needed.

Actually my description is based on experience of two long demos of the A18/CD17 in March and April 2009 (just prior to hearing and subsequently buying my present Naim kit). I heard them with PMC and Focal and the (then newly launched) Rega RS3 speakers.

I started the demos 'on their side' (being an existing Arcam user wanting to upgrade at the time) and loved their look and build. Nice and neat and precise looking with good build and a suitably 'retro' look.

However the sound was inescapably warm and 'polite' and (frankly) gutless even in comparison to my 25 per channel Solo-Mini.

The A18/CD17 have come in for a lot of flack over the last two years so maybe Arcam took heed and 'pepped' them up in the 18 months since I heard them. But I doubt it.

My friend's old CD73/A65+ sounded far better through my old circa 1996 KEF Q35.2s
 

matthewpiano

Well-known member
Atually Chebby I suspect the issues are with the CD17 rather than the amplifier and that the amp benefits from the livelier approach of a Marantz disc spinner or, indeed, one of the better Arcam spinners like the CD192. It truly wasn't overly polite or gutless playing with a CD6003 and the B&Ws.

By the same token I did find the Rega Brio 3 a bit raucous (excellent though it is) so maybe I do prefer a slightly more composed sound.
 

chebby

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2008
1,253
26
19,220
Visit site
plastic penguin:Both the A18 and CD17 sounded fine with various speakers, including PMC DB1s, which was particularly impressive. I think so many on here are quick to dismiss Arcams...

Took me about two hours (in total). How much longer/how many more demos should I have given them?
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts