or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › B&W Owner's Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

B&W Owner's Thread - Page 541

post #16201 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

Yes. They sound identical in the midrange and treble. The only difference is that the bigger 804D has more bass.

I have both, and the mid-range to bass response differs between the two models. Cheers.

You will be able to tell which speaker is playing.

IMHO, if you have a small to mid sized room, if HT is the main use, the 805 plus a brace of solid subs can be a decent choice. A larger speaker will also mean more room interactions, that can be harder to deal with.
post #16202 of 17959
The 804 and 805 do not sound the same, even beyond the bass response. The FST and larger cabinet are probably a couple of reasons. If you listen to a fair amount of music,you would appreciate the FST even more.

Some here seem to be on a bipolar

biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifeek.gifrolleyes.gifwink.gif

campaign of subterfuge when there is positive talk of higher end B&W.

To each his own how they whittle away their time...


Regarding fit in your space, I would suspect 805's on stands would be a very similar footprint to the 804's standing on the floor, though they will look more imposing given their monolithic structure. This is much more about budget.

Most importantly, if you can listen, do so and ignore all of us.
Edited by thrang - 2/2/14 at 8:41am
post #16203 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

The 804 and 805 do not sound the same, beyond the bass response. The FST and larger cabinet are probably a couple of reasons. If you listen to a fair amount of music,you would appreciate the FST even more.

Some here seem to be on a bipolar

biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifeek.gifrolleyes.gifwink.gif

campaign of subterfuge when there is positive talk of higher end B&W.

To each his own how they whittle away their time...


Regarding fit in your space, I would suspect 805's on stands would be a very similar footprint to the 804's standing on the floor, though they will look more imposing given their monolithic structure. This is much more about budget.

Most importantly, if you can listen, do so and ignore all of us.

I always felt the 804 was the weakest performer of the 800 series. Could be the cabinet is to small for the FST. The bass is really thin too.
post #16204 of 17959
I will try to get out to demo the 804d and 805d before the Super Bowl.

It is fascinating that I could get such divergent opinions about how 804d and 805d compare with one another.

Stay tuned and thanks for the feedback.
post #16205 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeda View Post

I will try to get out to demo the 804d and 805d before the Super Bowl.

It is fascinating that I could get such divergent opinions about how 804d and 805d compare with one another.

Stay tuned and thanks for the feedback.

You have 7 hours!
post #16206 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShockFett View Post

I always felt the 804 was the weakest performer of the 800 series. Could be the cabinet is to small for the FST. The bass is really thin too.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-amp-wilkins-804-diamond-loudspeaker

"Finally, although the 804 Diamond is not endowed with B&W's iconic Marlan head, as in the 800 Diamond, the 804's midrange driver is still enclosed in an internally tapered enclosure, and scores over the larger but similarly configured 803 Diamond in having a narrower cabinet, which, potentially, would not have as great an impact on midrange dispersion. It might also be effective in minimizing the kink in the horizontal off-axis radiation pattern that John Atkinson has discovered in the transition from the woofers to the midrange drivers of the Marlan-topped 802 and 800 Diamonds."

"The traces in fig.1 are free from the small discontinuities that would suggest the presence of resonances in the speaker cabinet's walls. Nevertheless, investigating the enclosure's behavior with a simple plastic-tape accelerometer, I found a strong resonance at 309Hz on the side walls level with the upper woofer (fig.2), with a lower-level mode at a slightly lower frequency. However, as Kal Rubinson didn't comment on any congestion in the midrange that might be laid at the feet of this resonance, it's likely that the affected area, hence the audibility, is relatively small. The sidewall in the vicinity of the midrange unit was dead as a doornail."
post #16207 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap1 View Post

Get one of Emotive power amps. You need at least 250W per channel with 683s.

This is something I hear a great deal: how power hungry the 683s can be. Yet, upon further research, the B&W site notes a power range of 25-200 wpc, with 200 being the upper limit.

I am NOT looking for more volume, but want a fuller and more even experience at a volume where I am truly listening and able to hear the music, but not to the point that everyone else in the house begins to complain! So, when I put Art Pepper's "Patricia on the Rega, I am looking for a presence and level of detail that I am not hearing now.

So, the Emotiva seems to make sense. I also have discovered that I can pick up two Outlaw 2200 power blocks (200 wpc per) for $639 and get up to "rated" power that way.

I agree with the post that the Rotel at 120 wpc makes little sense given what I currently have.

So, maybe a dumb question, but will more power deliver the kind of sonic experience I know is possible with the 683s, noting that louder is not the goal?
post #16208 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by bao01 View Post

http://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-amp-wilkins-804-diamond-loudspeaker

"Finally, although the 804 Diamond is not endowed with B&W's iconic Marlan head, as in the 800 Diamond, the 804's midrange driver is still enclosed in an internally tapered enclosure, and scores over the larger but similarly configured 803 Diamond in having a narrower cabinet, which, potentially, would not have as great an impact on midrange dispersion. It might also be effective in minimizing the kink in the horizontal off-axis radiation pattern that John Atkinson has discovered in the transition from the woofers to the midrange drivers of the Marlan-topped 802 and 800 Diamonds."

"The traces in fig.1 are free from the small discontinuities that would suggest the presence of resonances in the speaker cabinet's walls. Nevertheless, investigating the enclosure's behavior with a simple plastic-tape accelerometer, I found a strong resonance at 309Hz on the side walls level with the upper woofer (fig.2), with a lower-level mode at a slightly lower frequency. However, as Kal Rubinson didn't comment on any congestion in the midrange that might be laid at the feet of this resonance, it's likely that the affected area, hence the audibility, is relatively small. The sidewall in the vicinity of the midrange unit was dead as a doornail."
Best tool in the world is your own ears. smile.gif. I hope you find what you like the most!
post #16209 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod#S View Post

For movies, tv, gaming (i.e. PS3 and Xbox 360) and for most CD listening I run crossed over at 40Hz (both my 802's and 800's) and EQ engaged. For SACD, DVD-Audio and Blu-ray Audio I tend to run in analog bypass, so no EQ and all speakers running full range.

I wanted to post a correction. I was writing from memory but as it turns out I was wrong. The ole noggin isn't as sharp as it once was. The crossover for my 802's is 50Hz. The 800's are indeed 40Hz though.
post #16210 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

The 804 and 805 do not sound the same, even beyond the bass response. The FST and larger cabinet are probably a couple of reasons. If you listen to a fair amount of music,you would appreciate the FST even more.

Some here seem to be on a bipolar

biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifeek.gifrolleyes.gifwink.gif

campaign of subterfuge when there is positive talk of higher end B&W.

To each his own how they whittle away their time...


Regarding fit in your space, I would suspect 805's on stands would be a very similar footprint to the 804's standing on the floor, though they will look more imposing given their monolithic structure. This is much more about budget.

Most importantly, if you can listen, do so and ignore all of us.

Actually, with music, it isn't this clear. I have the 804s in my HT, and the 805s with a REL sub upstairs. Same amplification and source on both, I prefer the 805s a bit. While the midrange is excellent on the 804, the 805 gives a more coherent image. I figure this is because there is no additional crossover right in the middle of key instrument ranges. the sub on the 805s kicks in low, well below the ranges of all but the deepest basses. This doesn't mean the 804 sounds bad, far from it. I just prefer the 805. For reference:

post #16211 of 17959
Hello,

I am planning to get the CM10s and I have a couple doubts about matching them with the center and soundround spakers, I am quite a newbie on this…:

• Right now I have a CMC, so I was planning to sell it and get a CMC2, but I am reading some post about the CMC2 not matching the 10s either, and that B&W will probably release a CMC3 to match it. What is you opinion? I don’t want to be this the CMC for some years waiting for the CM3, but I don´t want either to buy the CMC2 and have the CMC3 on the market in some months!

• My system will be 60% music / 40% HT. Music will be just with the front speakers. So I thought about saving some money for the rear speakers and buy the CM1 . Since most of the HT sound is coming from the front and center speakers (ins´t it?), will I fell such difference for soundround effects and voices if I go with the CM1 instead of the CM5? For me it seems a pity using the CM5 just for rears…

Thanks!
post #16212 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

You have 7 hours!

I went to BB Magnolia for a mini-demo. I started with the 804D. An impressive speaker. I then listened to the 805D with and without a sub (Martin Logan). It was a bit hard to directly compare the 804D and 805D because they were in different rooms. However, it wasn't until I went back to the 804D that I really felt like I could hear the difference in the two speakers.

My initial goal was to see if I could hear the difference between the highs and mids between the two speakers.

Does the FST midrange on 804D make a difference?

I certainly could not hear a difference in the highs. However, I could hear quite a substantial difference in the mid to lows. I am not much of a sound expert to understand what I was exactly hearing that was different, but it was definitely different.

Imaging on both speakers was great, but I felt that when listening to the floor standers I felt like I was hearing more instruments or notes that did not seem as clear or present with the 805D. With the 804D there just seemed to be more going on at all levels (highs, mids and bass) that was just not present with the 805D. As you all know I may be splitting hairs because both speakers were really fantastic.

One of my other observations was that using a sub with the 805D really made a difference. I would imagine that both speakers would benefit from the addition of a sub. I have a Rel T9 sub and the Rel (or a pair) would work nicely with either speaker.

The sales agent indicated that both the 804D and 805D would work well with HTM4 Diamond. I was concerned that if I went with the 804D that I also needed to match the fronts with HTM2 Diamond. I am sure this would be a better timbre match, but is it critical?

Also, in reading some of the reviews on the 804D I understand that I may need to upgrade the rest of my equipment in order to really take advantage of the 804D. I currently have an Onkyo TX SR 805 receiver. From what I have read my receiver might work with the 805D, but I would certainly benefit from better / more amps from Parasound, Mcintosh, etc.

So if I go with the more expensive speakers (i.e. the 804D) then I would also need to make additional investments in the electronics. If money was no object, I would have done this already.

The sales agent said he would be willing to bring both sets of speaker to my home for a demo with my own equipment in the actual listening environment. I may take him up on the offer.
post #16213 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iostream View Post

Actually, with music, it isn't this clear. I have the 804s in my HT, and the 805s with a REL sub upstairs. Same amplification and source on both, I prefer the 805s a bit. While the midrange is excellent on the 804, the 805 gives a more coherent image. I figure this is because there is no additional crossover right in the middle of key instrument ranges. the sub on the 805s kicks in low, well below the ranges of all but the deepest basses. This doesn't mean the 804 sounds bad, far from it. I just prefer the 805. For reference:


I love the chart of frequency ranges for musical instruments. Do you have a link to a high resolution version of it?

I think it's interesting that the highest frequency on the chart is just below the crossover that B&W uses for Diamond tweeters (4kHz). And you're correct that the crossover B&W uses between midrange and bass (350Hz) is right in the middle of most of the instruments' ranges.
post #16214 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillJulyan View Post

I love the chart of frequency ranges for musical instruments. Do you have a link to a high resolution version of it?

I think it's interesting that the highest frequency on the chart is just below the crossover that B&W uses for Diamond tweeters (4kHz). And you're correct that the crossover B&W uses between midrange and bass (350Hz) is right in the middle of most of the instruments' ranges.

I do not have a higher resolution version, but I am sure they exist.
While the highest frequency on the chart is below the tweeter crossover, this is just the fundamental frequencies. If you take away all of the harmonics, things would get very boring indeed. The quality of the tweeter is still incredibly important. I am also certainly not saying that the 804 is an incoherent mess in the 350Hz range. The crossovers are pretty good. I am simply stating that I prefer music listening on the 805, and i am guessing this is the reason why.
post #16215 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iostream View Post

Actually, with music, it isn't this clear. I have the 804s in my HT, and the 805s with a REL sub upstairs. Same amplification and source on both, I prefer the 805s a bit. While the midrange is excellent on the 804, the 805 gives a more coherent image. I figure this is because there is no additional crossover right in the middle of key instrument ranges. the sub on the 805s kicks in low, well below the ranges of all but the deepest basses. This doesn't mean the 804 sounds bad, far from it. I just prefer the 805. For reference:


Differences in rooms can be a factor. Your experience is opposite of my in home trials - With the 803D's (still owned), 804D's (borrowed), and 805D's (formerly owned now sold) in the same room, same amp, processor, subs, I found the 804D's to be more natural in midrange, with a greater soundstage.

But this only speaks to the importance of trying to hear things on one's own as much as possible, especially since room, source, processor, and amplification variables can have an audible impact.

Of course, what one prefers is ultimately the correct choice.
post #16216 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeda View Post

The sales agent said he would be willing to bring both sets of speaker to my home for a demo with my own equipment in the actual listening environment. I may take him up on the offer.

Unless you level match (the 804D is 2dB more sensitive/louder than the 805D) and remove the bass from the equation (using subwoofers for bass), it will not be a fair comparison.

I reiterate that the 804D is 2dB LOUDER than the 805D if you do not volume level match!

Louder will sound "better, more detail, clearer, better bigger soundstage, sweeter, better imaging" and blah, blah, blah.

Where the speakers are placed and the interaction with the room will affect the imaging and soundstage for sure.

The only way to do it right is to take them both home.

You have to level match and use the same system for both speakers and take the bass out of the equation by using subs.

Unfortunately by now, the 805D is predestined and predisposed to fail since everyone says so.

Bias is a bee-otch. biggrin.gif

I would much rather have the 805D2 + some great subs, unless aesthetic of towers is a factor. biggrin.gif

So if we are all just sitting around talking, I would say the only difference between these speakers is the bass.
Edited by AcuDefTechGuy - 2/3/14 at 7:28am
post #16217 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillJulyan View Post

I think it's interesting that the highest frequency on the chart is just below the crossover that B&W uses for Diamond tweeters (4kHz). And you're correct that the crossover B&W uses between midrange and bass (350Hz) is right in the middle of most of the instruments' ranges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iostream View Post

I am also certainly not saying that the 804 is an incoherent mess in the 350Hz range. The crossovers are pretty good. I am simply stating that I prefer music listening on the 805, and i am guessing this is the reason why.

Given the R&D money B&W has at its disposal and given all of its important customers (Abbey Road, Skywalker etc), why would B&W choose 350 Hz unless the advantages FAR outweighed the disadvantages? I am sure they tried many many different XO freqs before setting the design in stone and going into final production.

I don't think we have all the technical data to make an informed decision on whether or not 350 Hz is sub-optimal or not for a given speaker. There are so many other engineering factors involved - driver design and materials, cabinet size, enclosure shape etc etc.

I think 350 Hz is probably a "good" design and whether you like 804 or 805 is more due to room interaction and personal preference.
post #16218 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acerox View Post

Hello,

I am planning to get the CM10s and I have a couple doubts about matching them with the center and soundround spakers, I am quite a newbie on this…:

• Right now I have a CMC, so I was planning to sell it and get a CMC2, but I am reading some post about the CMC2 not matching the 10s either, and that B&W will probably release a CMC3 to match it. What is you opinion? I don’t want to be this the CMC for some years waiting for the CM3, but I don´t want either to buy the CMC2 and have the CMC3 on the market in some months!

• My system will be 60% music / 40% HT. Music will be just with the front speakers. So I thought about saving some money for the rear speakers and buy the CM1 . Since most of the HT sound is coming from the front and center speakers (ins´t it?), will I fell such difference for soundround effects and voices if I go with the CM1 instead of the CM5? For me it seems a pity using the CM5 just for rears…

Thanks!

The CMC2 is a much better speaker than the CMC and if your are staying in the CM line it is an easy choice to update to it. I found the CM10's to have slightly more detail in the highs and a bit wider soundstage vs. the CM9's. The CM10's also have more low end extension, but a good sub goes a long ways to equalize this. They are better speakers to be sure, but I found them more of an incremental step than a major leap over the CM9's. So whether the tonal differences when pairing the CM10's with other speakers in the family is worth the compromise really hinges on how much difference you perceive in the speakers (CM9 vs 10) and how much more you value 2ch material vs. multichannel. As I said before it would be so much easier if B&W would round out the CM10's with a matching center and rear speaker. I don't envy your choice.

I posted some findings in this thread when I was deciding between the CM1s and CM5s for surround duty. As much as I wanted to save money on the CM1's they simply did not match the CM9/CMC2 combo all that well (the CM1 is noticeably deficient in the highend and midrange). The CM5 on the other hand matches excellently. Multichannel music, concerts and orchestral film scores make a very seamless envelope of sound. If you have the ability to demo a setup with both, I encourage you to do so. It's hard to describe just how much nicer the CM5's sound even in surround duty vs. the CM1.
post #16219 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by bao01 View Post


Given the R&D money B&W has at its disposal and given all of its important customers (Abbey Road, Skywalker etc), why would B&W choose 350 Hz unless the advantages FAR outweighed the disadvantages? I am sure they tried many many different XO freqs before setting the design in stone and going into final production.

I don't think we have all the technical data to make an informed decision on whether or not 350 Hz is sub-optimal or not for a given speaker. There are so many other engineering factors involved - driver design and materials, cabinet size, enclosure shape etc etc.

I think 350 Hz is probably a "good" design and whether you like 804 or 805 is more due to room interaction and personal preference.

350Hz is a fine place to put the crossover, the important thing here is the speed of the drivers. Larger drivers are harder to move at higher frequencies, and the crossover has to be placed at the appropriate place to maintain speed and resolution. I was never arguing with where the crossover was placed, in a 3 way design, a crossover has to be put *somewhere* in the range. I was simply stating that no crossover is generally better than crossover for soundstaging and coherency.
And yes, you mention Abby Road, they do use 800 Diamonds which have these same crossover frequencies. Though they also use different crossovers. From a mastering standpoint, you do want full range monitors, and the 800 is a phenomenal full range monitor. Notice they also have a pair of 805s in every studio for nearfield monitoring. Their website has a list of all gear available in each studio room.
Skywalker is a different beast, they care much more about TV and movies than music. Dynamics are king here, Mastering for 7.1 or 7.2 is a very different listening environment. I also use 804s in my HT setup for a reason, I need to fill a larger room, and I want to be able to move more air than the 805s will move when it is called for.
At some point I plan to add a pair of 800s to my setup as well, but as a different perspective in the room with my 805s, not as an upgrade to the 804s in my HT. For my particular needs, I think the 804s do a fantastic job in HT, and I do most of my critical music listening up here anyway. The 800 will not replace the 805, it will be a second point of reference.
Every speaker is series of compromises. Two way versus three way are a different set of compromises. When you look at the macro level, both can be very good compromises. When you look at the details, one set of compromises can be more appealing than the other to your particular needs. Notice I never said emphatically that the "805 is a better speaker for music than the 804", I simply said that I prefer the 805 to the 804 for music, and this is why I think that is the case. Yes, I think you do trade a little bit of detail and a bit more impact for a little bit of coherency and transparency by going with a 2 way. I have them set up in such a way that the impact is certainly not an issue, so the trade makes sense to me, and I am happy with the results. I do still listen to music on the 804s, just not as often...
post #16220 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post

The CMC2 is a much better speaker than the CMC and if your are staying in the CM line it is an easy choice to update to it. I found the CM10's to have slightly more detail in the highs and a bit wider soundstage vs. the CM9's. The CM10's also have more low end extension, but a good sub goes a long ways to equalize this. They are better speakers to be sure, but I found them more of an incremental step than a major leap over the CM9's. So whether the tonal differences when pairing the CM10's with other speakers in the family is worth the compromise really hinges on how much difference you perceive in the speakers (CM9 vs 10) and how much more you value 2ch material vs. multichannel. As I said before it would be so much easier if B&W would round out the CM10's with a matching center and rear speaker. I don't envy your choice.

I posted some findings in this thread when I was deciding between the CM1s and CM5s for surround duty. As much as I wanted to save money on the CM1's they simply did not match the CM9/CMC2 combo all that well (the CM1 is noticeably deficient in the highend and midrange). The CM5 on the other hand matches excellently. Multichannel music, concerts and orchestral film scores make a very seamless envelope of sound. If you have the ability to demo a setup with both, I encourage you to do so. It's hard to describe just how much nicer the CM5's sound even in surround duty vs. the CM1.


Thanks for the quick reply.

If I understood it correctly you would recommend the CMC2 and the CM5, even with the CM10.

I went to listen and compare the CM9 and CM10. I have to be honest, it was something quick, 15 minutes where I compare both speakers with the same avr (Marantz SR7007), I am planning to get the SR7008 but they didn’t have it. For me there was difference in the highs and lows. The highs were not so different between both, but where I could feel it was in the lows. The bass in the 10s seemed much more controlled and clear than in the 9s. The difference in sound (without a sub) was worth the money for me. That was what led me to the 10s instead of the 9s, that and also that this is long term investment… smile.gif
post #16221 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acerox View Post

Thanks for the quick reply.

If I understood it correctly you would recommend the CMC2 and the CM5, even with the CM10.

I went to listen and compare the CM9 and CM10. I have to be honest, it was something quick, 15 minutes where I compare both speakers with the same avr (Marantz SR7007), I am planning to get the SR7008 but they didn’t have it. For me there was difference in the highs and lows. The highs were not so different between both, but where I could feel it was in the lows. The bass in the 10s seemed much more controlled and clear than in the 9s. The difference in sound (without a sub) was worth the money for me. That was what led me to the 10s instead of the 9s, that and also that this is long term investment… smile.gif

Yes, the CMC2 and CM5 would be my recommendation with either tower.

Unless you absolutely do not want any processing applied to 2ch material, then the integration of a good sub will negate a lot of what you are hearing on the low end. Personally when I listen to 2ch material I use the stereo mode on my Integra preamp to not only use the sub, but gain the room and speaker corrections. The CM9's crossed over to the sub don't exhibit any bad behavior as far bass goes. I believe I cross them over at 50 or 60Hz.
post #16222 of 17959
Excuse the mess but I finally got my 7.3's in and I am in the process of getting in the new credenza for them. I am also redoing the audio rack with new components so I have not even been able to hear them yet. Getting the ci664 for the rear and sides and they should be in this weekend.





post #16223 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

Unless you level match (the 804D is 2dB more sensitive/louder than the 805D) and remove the bass from the equation (using subwoofers for bass), it will not be a fair comparison.

I reiterate that the 804D is 2dB LOUDER than the 805D if you do not volume level match!

Louder will sound "better, more detail, clearer, better bigger soundstage, sweeter, better imaging" and blah, blah, blah.

Where the speakers are placed and the interaction with the room will affect the imaging and soundstage for sure.

The only way to do it right is to take them both home.

You have to level match and use the same system for both speakers and take the bass out of the equation by using subs.

Unfortunately by now, the 805D is predestined and predisposed to fail since everyone says so.

Bias is a bee-otch. biggrin.gif

I would much rather have the 805D2 + some great subs, unless aesthetic of towers is a factor. biggrin.gif

So if we are all just sitting around talking, I would say the only difference between these speakers is the bass.

In terms of aesthetics I am more of a minimalist. As such, I prefer the look of the 805D. In terms of cost, I prefer the price of 805D. I have a Rel T-9 sub and could get another to support the 805D. I could also get the timber matched HTM4.

The all in cost would be much preferable to the 804D.

Now, the question is whether I could really hear the difference in sound quality (bass removed, adjusted for volume level match, etc) between 805D and 804D?

Your take is that the difference in negligible. Add to this my preference for bookshelf and lower price point, and the 805D is the clear winner. True???

I understand that you have a Kef 201/2. I have listened to the Kef 201/2 and I am a big fan. However, I am not sure it is worth the $1500 additional price over the 805D. What do you think? Also, have you heard any rumblings on what Kef is going to do with their reference line. They made some impressive speakers with R-serie (better I think than B&W CM series). Are you aware of any plans to replace the 201/2?
post #16224 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

Unless you level match (the 804D is 2dB more sensitive/louder than the 805D) and remove the bass from the equation (using subwoofers for bass), it will not be a fair comparison.

I reiterate that the 804D is 2dB LOUDER than the 805D if you do not volume level match!

Louder will sound "better, more detail, clearer, better bigger soundstage, sweeter, better imaging" and blah, blah, blah.

Where the speakers are placed and the interaction with the room will affect the imaging and soundstage for sure.

The only way to do it right is to take them both home.

You have to level match and use the same system for both speakers and take the bass out of the equation by using subs.

Unfortunately by now, the 805D is predestined and predisposed to fail since everyone says so.

Bias is a bee-otch. biggrin.gif

I would much rather have the 805D2 + some great subs, unless aesthetic of towers is a factor. biggrin.gif

So if we are all just sitting around talking, I would say the only difference between these speakers is the bass.

I am assuming you have heard both of these speakers then?
Cheers
post #16225 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by petetherock View Post

I am assuming you have heard both of these speakers then?
Cheers
I have heard the entire Diamond series at the same time in the same room and same system. Repeated 3 different times just to make sure. Volume level matched with my Galaxy digital SPL meter for peak volume. Same dealer. 800D, 802D, 803D, 804D, 805D.
Edited by AcuDefTechGuy - 2/4/14 at 6:49am
post #16226 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeda View Post


Your take is that the difference in negligible. Add to this my preference for bookshelf and lower price point, and the 805D is the clear winner. True???

I understand that you have a Kef 201/2. I have listened to the Kef 201/2 and I am a big fan. However, I am not sure it is worth the $1500 additional price over the 805D. What do you think? Also, have you heard any rumblings on what Kef is going to do with their reference line. They made some impressive speakers with R-serie (better I think than B&W CM series). Are you aware of any plans to replace the 201/2?

Yes. That is how I personally feel after comparing the 800D2, 802D2, 803D2, 804D2, and 805D2 at the same dealer on 3 different days.

As far as KEF goes, you can get the 201/2 brand new at MUCH lower prices. Believe me. wink.gif

I did not pay even remotely close to retail for my six 201/2 speakers. biggrin.gif

The 805D2 would have cost me $1500 MORE than the 201/2 if I had gone that route.

However, as forum policy goes I cannot reveal. Send me a PM if interested.

But I am not in the habit of buying speakers that measure a lot poorer over speakers that measure better than almost every speaker out there - regardless of price difference, unless the speakers have Marlan Heads. biggrin.gif

No, I have not heard of any rumors for 201/2 replacements. These speakers measure just about better than every speaker on the planet, so it would be difficult to replace with something better. Maybe even risky. biggrin.gif
Edited by AcuDefTechGuy - 2/4/14 at 6:46am
post #16227 of 17959

silly question, but what does the "2" refer to in 805d2? is this the same model is the current 805?

 

Any thoughts on how this improves over the pm1s? I know its a bigger woofer...Will the 805 be able to handle all kinds of music, or will it have some limitations due to having just 1 main woofer vs floorstander? 

post #16228 of 17959
There is a significant difference in sound betwen the 804 and the 805. If you can't hear it, then you should probably be looking to spend less money on speakers to begin with... eek.gif

edit: i would say there is a lesser difference between 804 through 800 than there is between 805 and 804....
post #16229 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by papashango61 View Post

silly question, but what does the "2" refer to in 805d2? is this the same model is the current 805?

Any thoughts on how this improves over the pm1s? I know its a bigger woofer...Will the 805 be able to handle all kinds of music, or will it have some limitations due to having just 1 main woofer vs floorstander? 

technically there is no 805d2. but people say d2 so that everyone knows we are talking about the latest version.
post #16230 of 17959
Quote:
Originally Posted by papashango61 View Post

silly question, but what does the "2" refer to in 805d2? is this the same model is the current 805?

Any thoughts on how this improves over the pm1s? I know its a bigger woofer...Will the 805 be able to handle all kinds of music, or will it have some limitations due to having just 1 main woofer vs floorstander? 

The D2 means the Diamond tweeter is the second generation. It has nothing to do with the speaker itself, just the generation of the diamond tweeter.

When the third diamond generation comes out, it will be the D3, forth generation will be D4, etc.

The original 805 bookshelf did not have a diamond tweeter.

So the only 805 available brand new today is the second generation diamond tweeter, hence 805D2.

Even if you have compared the PM1 vs. 805D2 and think they sound similar, you should never say so on forums. People will just laugh at you.

So, duh, of course, the 805D2 sounds unequivocally better than the PM1 in every way.

Never ask that question again. Ever. biggrin.gif
Edited by AcuDefTechGuy - 2/4/14 at 8:21am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › B&W Owner's Thread