BG Z-1 Listening Evaluation & Conclusion

The midrange seemed a tad reserved, as if the speakers were hesitant to let go of the music. Instruments and vocals seemed a bit robbed of richness and warmth, compared to the speakers in my reference system . Bass response was quite tight, but not very extended.

Of course, these initial impressions only serve to establish the equivalent of a "hypothesis". Now for the nuts, bolts and actual testing of these.

The first set of tests was done by a direct comparison to one of my reference speakers, the Triangle Titus 202.

'Dusk' (V.M. Bhatt, Simon Shaheen; Saltanah; WaterLilyAcoustics; WLA-ES-51-SACD)
The higher frequencies on the Triangle were a bit harsh and lacking in detail. But this is no surprise, the metal dome tweeter on the Triangle is its weak point and can sound particularly harsh with upstream components that have an extended high-frequency response (such as the Cayin 265Ai integrated used here). In contrast the upper registers on the BG Z-1 are as detailed and smooth as perhaps I have ever heard. The layers of resonances of the strings on V.M. Bhatt"s Mohan Vina were separate and distinctly audible, compared to a harsh morass of sound from the Triangle.

Now the midrange on the Triangle was much richer, detailed and natural. Whereas, the BG sounded like it was holding back on communicating the richness and warmth of the instrument"s midrange. The Triangle is a particular champ at this, and is the sole reason it exists in my reference system inspite of its poor high-frequency performance.

'Bass resonance test' (Chesky Records; Chesky Jazz and Audiophile tests Vol2; Chesky; JD68)
There was a considerable difference between the two speakers on this track. For one, peaks registered about 7 to 8db higher, as measured at my listening position using a RadioShack SPL meter. Subjectively, the Triangle not only sounded deeper but also more detailed and faster on transients. In favor of the BG I would have to say that the bass response was very tight.

These comparisons to the Triangle reveal no surprises. The ribbon tweeter of the BG was much more detailed and not as noisy, than the metal dome unit of the Triangle. On the other hand the ultra-light and crossoverless paper woofer of the Triangle proved to be richer, deeper and faster than the aluminum one of the BG. Now what I really want I for someone to combine the BD tweeter with the Triangle woofer (without crossover), in a time/phase aligned cabinet. Properly executed, that would have the potential to be a giant slayer.

The second set of tests was done in comparison to the venerable Dynaudio 1.3 MKII, which retailed for $2400 and was discontinued about two years ago.

'Rag Gavati' ( V.M. Bhatt; Gathering Rain Clouds; Waterlily Acoustics; WLA-ES-22-CD)
It took considerable effort to discern a difference between the two tweeters, but in the end I can confidently report that the Dynaudio tweeter rendered more detail on the resonances of the sympathetic strings of the Mohan Vina . Imaging and microdynamics were about dead nuts when comparing the two speakers. What is important to take away here, is that the BG was so close in performance to the highly respected and considerably more expensive Dynaudio.

'Cheek to cheek' (Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong; Ella and Louis; Verve; 314 589 598-2)
Moving on to the midrange frequencies, on this track the Dynaudios had more impact and much better transient response on Louis" raspy vocals. This does not speak well for the BG, since the Dynaudio"s themselves are fairly sluggish (especially when compared to the likes of a Triangle Titus). My personal suspicion is that the woofer on the BG maybe overdamped.

'Nearness of you' (Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong; Ella and Louis; Verve; 314 589 598-2)
Again, there was a clear distinction between the two speakers, with the Dynaudio sounding significantly richer and warmer on Ella"s vocals. It made the difference between listening to a reproduction and being emotionally involved with the presentation.

The Dynaudio had an obvious edge over the BG in depth and extension on the double bass, but that could have been predicted simply by reading the specs of the two speakers. Admirably, the BG did not attempt to make up for a lack of extension with sloppiness, underdamped this woofer is not.

Overall, I would have to say that this is a considerable achievement for a $500/pair loudspeaker. Especially the tweeter, with its performance so close to a $2400/pair model. The bass frequencies deliver the extension one would expect from a cabinet and woofer this size, but without a hint of loose or underdamped response (maybe to a fault). As with all products of this genre, use a subwoofer if you need ultimate bass extension. The only weakness of any significance to me lies in the midrange, as detailed in my notes above.

I honestly do not think that you can make a speaker without compromises, at any pricepoint. The lower the price point the greater the compromises. While paying a few hundred dollars for a pair of speakers is not a minor outlay for most people, it is important to realize that this still is a budget product.

The Z-1 has a tremendous tweeter, which could easily be used in a unit at a much higher price point. Treble performance is certainly above-class in terms of low distortion, tonality, dynamics (macro and micro) and imaging.

The mid/bass driver is about what you would expect in this price bracket, with few exceptions such as the tremendous Triangle (which, in turn, has serious compromises in its tweeter). Bass extension is about what one would expect for monitor of this size. Through the bass and midrange distortion seemed fairly low and tonality seemed fair, dynamics (macro and micro) suffered a bit.

Fit and finish are about as good as I have seen. In summation, I would have to say this is definitely an above average product relative to its price point.