Spendor BC2 / BCII

[Aled Hughes]

I've just got hold of a pair of Spendor BC2 on (hopefully long-ish) loan.
Goodness they sound nice, even with a cheap Sony amp.

I can't find much info about them - it seems the BC1 were much more popular. Is there a reason they're not as popular as other Spendor models? Judging by the 5 minutes I've just spent with them, they're great!

And now I'll also be singing "Hey big Spendor!" every time I walk into the room...

[Aled Hughes]

Further thoughts... bass is a bit flabby/uncontrolled, and my right speaker is rattling/buzzing on some material. Hopefully something loose.

There's something special about the midrange though. Switching back and forth between the Spendors and my little Adam A4V (with sub) is quite a different experience.

[Hugh Robjohns]

As far as I can recall, the BC2 was an 'updated' version of the BC1. The update was essentially just a different, beefier bass driver with a much larger voice coil and higher power handling.

This was, I think, in response to complaints that the BC1 bass driver was easy to blow up with loud rock music.

However, it was a relatively short lived design as Spender subsequently upgraded the BC1/BC2 with the SP1.

I've owned BC1s and found them very sweet indeed, and I had a pair upgraded to SP1s for main monitors in a small TV dubbing theatre.

I've not heard BC2s, although I've read that they can sound slightly 'nasal' in comparison to the BC1s. I assume this is due to a small mismatch through the crossover region between the newer bass driver and tweeter.

Good to know they still sound sweet. Spencer Hughes knew what he was doing! And I'd take a pair any day over any Adams.

A beefy amp might help control the flabby bass, but these really aren't rock'n'roll speakers. Great on classical, choral, piano and spoken voice, though.

Hopefully the rattling is something loose or one of the internal cables resting on the bass driver chassis, but it could also be a damaged supertweeter... which is a common problem.

[Arpangel]

I was given a pair of BC1’s, and they had a buzzing sound in one speaker, I gave them to a friend and he had them re-coned, cost £60 at Wembley Speakers, amazingly cheap. If these BC2’s need that then don’t worry it’s worth getting done. I had a pair of SP1’s at the time, that's why I didn’t keep them.
The SP1’s are a great all-rounder I found Hugh, the bass was sublime on rock etc, as long as you didn't take the piss with volume.
As for comparing these classic hi-fi speakers with current budget/mid range monitors, forget it, I think we may have lost our way a bit, things definitely haven’t improved.

[Drew Stephenson]

[Arpangel]

Basically, it's just a box with a speaker in it stick to a few well proven rules which are obvious not magic, and you’re fine.
Cone materials have changed, and not for the better, a paper cone is still the best, these modern Kevlar cones, you can hear them, because of their rigidity they don’t articulate subtleties so well, they handle more power, at a price.
"Monitors" or hi-fi speakers, no difference.
I'm the only person in my circle of musical friends that actually has a pair of "monitors" simply because they were cheap and had built-in amps.
One friend still uses a big pair of 70’s JBL hi-fi speakers, another uses a pair of Tannoys.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Cone materials have changed, and not for the better, a paper cone is still the best...

For the avoidance of confusion, the BC1 bass driver used a Bextrene cone material — a very popular alternative to doped paper at the time.

[Drew Stephenson]

Basically, it's just a box with a speaker in it stick to a few well proven rules which are obvious not magic, and you’re fine.

Speaker design is a constant balance of inter-related compromises, it's not just a few rules. And that's before you get to designing to a price point or the use of DSP.
Otherwise it would be easy to make a perfect set of speakers and they'd all sound the same.

Cone materials have changed, and not for the better, a paper cone is still the best, these modern Kevlar cones, you can hear them, because of their rigidity they don’t articulate subtleties so well, they handle more power, at a price.

Materials don't have a sound. A speaker might have an overall sound but that's because of how the designer has chosen to balance all those compromises. And it's the rigidity that allows the articulation of the detail. The perfect cone material has infinite stiffness and zero mass, but guess what? Compromises!

"Monitors" or hi-fi speakers, no difference.

Apart from the voicing, the peak power handling, the low frequency management, the initial design objective.
But yes, apart from that, no difference.

I'm the only person in my circle of musical friends that actually has a pair of "monitors" simply because they were cheap and had built-in amps.
One friend still uses a big pair of 70’s JBL hi-fi speakers, another uses a pair of Tannoys.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

[Nazard]

The BCI, BCII and BCII were all in current production at one time and I have the Spendor Technical Manual for all three in front of me.

BCI and BCII: both are 635 x 300 x 300
Weight: BCI – 14.5Kg and BCII – 15.5 Kg
L.F. Unit Spendor 200mm, but BCI has a 26mm voice coil and BCII a 40mm voice coil
Both have Celestion HF 1300 and Coles 4001G
Same crossover points at 45Hz and 14KHz
Same frequency response: 60Hz -14KHz +/- 3dB
Power rating: BC1 55W and BCII 50W
Sensitivity: BCI – 74dB, BCII – 77dB (1m at 1V input)
Max sound pressure level: BCI – 101dBA, BCII – 103dBA

I also have the axial response curves for all three and BCI curves for ‘live’ positioning in different places, e.g. corner, etc.. Axially, the BCII has a bit of a bump at 1.5KHz though the BCI is largely flat

I bought my BC1s new, around Jan1980 for £359, but a few years later both LF units were failing, apparently a known fault. But Spendor kindly sent me updated LF units at cost price and I returned the failing ones back to them. And fine ever since, although I am going to refurbish the woodwork as it needs a bit of TLC. Incidentally, the crossovers are very overengineered, massive amounts of copper on the PCBs and all the (very large) box capacitors well withing spec.

Phil Ward told me that the Spendor Classic 2/3 is the nearest equivalent, in his view. They cost about £5745 including dedicated stands, whereas my BC1s, using the Bank of England inflation calculator, would be £1500……..

[Drew Stephenson]

Whereas £1500 would get you a pair of Neumann KH120mkII and measurement mic.
I know which I'd choose for monitoring duties...

[Hugh Robjohns]

Axially, the BCII has a bit of a bump at 1.5KHz though the BCI is largely flat

Ah, interesting. That probably accounts for the 'slightly nasal' sound claims.

Incidentally, the crossovers are very overengineered, massive amounts of copper on the PCBs...

Not over-engineered. Properly-engineered!

[Hugh Robjohns]

Materials don't have a sound....

I know several speaker designers who would strongly disagree with that — and it's one of the reasons Bextrene fell out of favour as a cone material. It's all down to the points you made — they don't have infinite stiffness and zero mass. They bend and flex and resonate in unique ways, which can give them a recognisable sound character.

Alan Shaw of Harbeth loudspeakers did a lot of research on this with a University, which lead to his development of a proprietary cone material. He's written about it extensively on his company website in the past.

[Drew Stephenson]

Materials don't have a sound....

I know several speaker designers who would strongly disagree with that — and it's one of the reasons Bextrene fell out of favour as a cone material. It's all down to the points you made — they don't have infinite stiffness and zero mass. They bend and flex and resonate in unique ways, which can give them a recognisable sound character.

Alan Shaw of Harbeth loudspeakers did a lot of research on this with a University, which lead to his development of a proprietary cone material. He's written about it extensively on his company website in the past.

Sorry Hugh, over-simplification on my part. My point is that a lot of the sound comes from how you engineer the material to balance the compromises. You can create very different sounding drivers out of the same materials depending on how you design the whole thing.
And then you put it in the box part of the system...
And then you put the box in the room part of the system...

[Arpangel]

Loudspeakers are the most important items in a playback system, and if you want to change your sound drastically buy a new set of speakers, that applies in recording or domestic hi-fi.
There are so many things that can influence a speakers sound, I’m just a fan of the older designs, and I still think that we haven’t really moved on in a lot of ways, that’s why vintage designs are popular now, with a lot of reissues making an appearance.
I listen to modern stuff, it’s “OK” but no magic happens, that grin as soon as you hear it, that I got with my Spendors, KLH Model 5’s, Celestion Dittons, the older Tannoys, just amazing to listen to. A lot of people have never heard a really good system, that’s the trouble, they end up making a lot of expensive mistakes.
As for monitors, I wouldn’t buy most of the budget/mid ones, that’s why I bought the Berry’s, spending more was pointless unless your talking a good few thousand.

[ef37a]

Was it the Spendors that had a really hard to drive impedance and were dubbed
"amp killers"?

Dave.

[Nazard]

I don't recall that and I've never had an issue when used with any of my amplifiers.

I've also just read part of a review by J Gordon Holt from 1978:

"But the BC-1's strongest asset, its musical naturalness, is unfortunately going to be lost on most audiophiles who, unfamiliar with the sounds of live acoustical instruments, are incapable of recognizing it when they hear it. Despite their manifest shortcomings, these speakers can recreate the gestalt of live music like few systems—so well, in fact, that we found ourselves digging out old records we hadn't listened to for years and enjoying them for their content as well as for their naturalness."

[Hugh Robjohns]

Was it the Spendors that had a really hard to drive impedance and were dubbed
"amp killers"?

Not that I'm aware of. The impedance curve stayed above 8 Ohms across most of the bandwidth, only gowing lower at extreme HF (above 13kHz) due to the supertweeter.

(Hi-Fi News &RR review here with impedance plot: http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/vintage_BC1/BC1review.gif )

I'm pretty sure more BC1s were killed by their amps than the other way round.

Most 'amp killers' were speakers that presented very low impedances, especially at LF.

[Arpangel]

A friend has just had his BC1’s re-coned, had a listen to them today in fact! They sound as great as ever, Wembley Speakers did the job.
He’s also made new grills for them, in a fetching AR style oatmeal colour, they look very nice.
He's driving them with a Quad 405-11 with the 44 preamp, fed by a Rotel CD player, and a Thorens TD125 SME/V15.

[James Perrett]

"Monitors" or hi-fi speakers, no difference.

Apart from the voicing, the peak power handling, the low frequency management, the initial design objective.
But yes, apart from that, no difference.

I'd have to agree with Tony here although this makes the assumption that we are talking about properly designed speakers - not the latest audiophile flavour of the month.

My big studio monitors were originally designed as hifi speakers while the only monitors that I own are currently residing in the living room and are widely used by hifi enthusiasts.

OK - so I have other hifi speakers that won't find their way into the studio but, then again, I have other speakers that are popularly seen as studio monitors which also are unlikely to find their way into the studio.

[Arpangel]

"Monitors" or hi-fi speakers, no difference.

Apart from the voicing, the peak power handling, the low frequency management, the initial design objective.
But yes, apart from that, no difference.

I'd have to agree with Tony here although this makes the assumption that we are talking about properly designed speakers - not the latest audiophile flavour of the month.

My big studio monitors were originally designed as hifi speakers while the only monitors that I own are currently residing in the living room and are widely used by hifi enthusiasts.

OK - so I have other hifi speakers that won't find their way into the studio but, then again, I have other speakers that are popularly seen as studio monitors which also are unlikely to find their way into the studio.

I don't think I’ve known anyone, personally, that's bought a modern studio monitor, my friend Mike did, but regretted it, he used Quad ESL63’s for many years and was very happy with them for classical recordings. He changed them and was never happy after that, chopping and changing quite often.
I mustn’t generalise, but a lot of current "monitors" I’ve listened to tend to over-hype everything, and when I listen to classic speakers, like your Tannoys James, just as as an example, things just seem to go back to sounding much more natural.

[Drew Stephenson]

"Monitors" or hi-fi speakers, no difference.

Apart from the voicing, the peak power handling, the low frequency management, the initial design objective.
But yes, apart from that, no difference.

I'd have to agree with Tony here although this makes the assumption that we are talking about properly designed speakers - not the latest audiophile flavour of the month.

Having had a bit of time this arvo to read up on Mr Shaw's work I can confirm I'm wrong about that too... Sorry Tony!

But I still maintain that how the speaker, including the driver, is engineered has more effect than the material used for the cone.

I shall retreat to the corner of shame now.
But I still wouldn't swap my Neumann's for anything else in the same budget from 30-50 years ago.

[James Perrett]

I mustn’t generalise, but a lot of current "monitors" I’ve listened to tend to over-hype everything, and when I listen to classic speakers, like your Tannoys James, just as as an example, things just seem to go back to sounding much more natural.

The only proper modern monitors that I've seriously used are the Neumann KH120s and I'd be happy with a pair of those for myself. They aren't too far away from the sound that I'm used to. I've had a quick demo of most of the Neumann range and they seem to share quite a few similarities so I wouldn't be unhappy using any of them.

I bought my son some Eris 3.5s which are impressive for the price but there's no way that they are anything close to being monitors in the real sense of the word.

[Arpangel]

I mustn’t generalise, but a lot of current "monitors" I’ve listened to tend to over-hype everything, and when I listen to classic speakers, like your Tannoys James, just as as an example, things just seem to go back to sounding much more natural.

The only proper modern monitors that I've seriously used are the Neumann KH120s and I'd be happy with a pair of those for myself. They aren't too far away from the sound that I'm used to. I've had a quick demo of most of the Neumann range and they seem to share quite a few similarities so I wouldn't be unhappy using any of them.

I bought my son some Eris 3.5s which are impressive for the price but there's no way that they are anything close to being monitors in the real sense of the word.

Ha! I just donated a pair of 3.5’s to a forum member, couldn’t get on with them.
When I first heard the K+H KH300 they sounded beyond fabulous, enough to tempt me to buy them, but, they are very room dependant, no use to me.
ATC sound good, and are very tolerant of imperfect rooms, but that's about it for me.
Interesting, I visited a friend in Guildford recently, I popped into Andertons and listened to three current high end and budget monitors, were talking five grand and just under, and around £600/700 none of them made me get my wallet out, very interesting experience indeed, considering I’m still using the Berry 3031's.

[Hugh Robjohns]

...I still maintain that how the speaker, including the driver, is engineered has more effect than the material used for the cone.

As you said, it's all about the numerous compromise decisions.... and a speaker is more than the sum of its parts.

[Hugh Robjohns]

When I first heard the K+H KH300 they sounded beyond fabulous, enough to tempt me to buy them, but, they are very room dependant...

I think you mean the K&H O300.... the predecessor to the Neumann KH310.

I'm intrigued at what you mean by 'room dependent'. All speakers are room dependent, inherently.

Perhaps you mean they sound detailed and revealing in a good acoustic, but confused in a bad one... whereas a poor speaker sounds consistently confused everywhere? That's certainly been my experience over the years.

Going back to the BC1s, they were genuine state-of-the-art monitor quality speakers in their day, and they still sound quite decent today... but a bit delicate by modern standards and with a rounded top end despite the supertweeter.

But the state-of-the-art in speaker design today is leagues ahead of where it was in the 1970s, particularly in terms of all forms of harmonic and anharmonic distortions, as well as dynamic linearity, dispersion, power handling, bandwidth, active crossovers, DSP correction and protection, cabinet construction and materials, and so much more.

...and just because a manufacturer writes 'monitor' on the box, doesn't mean it is....