B&W 802D vs Wilson WATT Puppy

Cics,
it's true that the magnet change was first introduced in the sig 800, but NOT the crossovers
the 1st order xover is the new for the new 800 series

btw, what kind of music do you mostly listen to?

Dgad,
I agree with you that the bass of WP7 is awesome.
it doesn't lack a bit

btw, IMHO, the midrange of the 802D was much better than the 803D's..I don't think you can claim that the midranges of all the 800 series are the same- why would they put the head in the first place...

I'm gonna go do A/B on the 802Ds and the Sophias this weekend -
who knows I'll become an wilson fan after this weekend :-)

Bass on Wilson speakers is a step above B&Ws and this also applies to JMLabs (Alto & Nova). My only reference on Wilson speakers is the Grand Slamms (Series 2). Whilst there are improvements in B&W, these don't approach the performance of either Wilson or JMLabs. I find B&Ws can't go low (the 800D specs refer to 32Hz & 25Hz @ -3db & -6db) and don't have the necessary midrange clarity to deliver the critical bass harmonics.

BTW, on low end, the Sophias go down to 29Hz, WP7 to 21Hz, Alto is 30 (25 @ -6db) and Novas 25 (20 @ -6db).

Jungsan: My music preferences vary from classic to pop&rock and I have a strong bias towards natural instruments.

Also, be careful when comparing speakers in fixed price ranges. Some comments suggest that it’s unfair to compare high-end Wilsons and JMLabs to B&W as the price differential is high. I would suggest that you take a total cost view over a longer term (2 years).

Let’s say you shelved out $12000 for an 802D - its obvious sonic performance is a high priority. Once you get over the honeymoon period, you start to realize some weaknesses as I have. So in the case of the 802D, going lower on the bass will mean you either buy a subwoofer or change to 801D/800D. After a couple thousand more dollars (including cabling etc. if you go with the subs) and more time, you realize more performance is needed. This is where you get stuck with B&W as it does not offer a high-end speaker. Now you faced with switching to a high-end make but you loose more dollars on your initial spend as the dealer can’t do a good trade-in deal (or alternatively you go through the hassle of selling privately…).

If you do the sums, it makes better dollar sense to save more upfront and get the high-end speaker than to spend less upfront but pay much more once you add up all the incremental spend. Put another way, you eventually buy a high-end speaker that you could’ve bought upfront but instead have had to suffer more losses.

Cics,
for me to buy the Alexandria?
not in next 20 years :-)

I gotta have something before then, right ?
yor analogy applies not only to the B&W speakers but also to any lesser speakers than.. say Alexandria or Nova Utopia (i.e. I'm sure I'll desire more bass from the Sophia, according to what you say) To my ears, the bass of the 802D was enough... I don't listen to much rocks at all
btw, did you see the THD/frequency plot of the 800D in their white paper? it doesn't seem high to me...at all :-)

and..I've seen some pple switching from the wilsons to the B&Ws... again, it boils down to the personal choices

my next speaker upgrade will be a long-term temporary settlement- at least 5 yrs- I gotta get new mcintosh or pass amps, too...

anyhoo,
I'm not completely leaving the wilson's out from my future path- my current options are - Sophia, 802D, Aerial 9T, or ML Summit... happy choices :-)

as far as the bass go, the ML summit goes lower than any of these guys! a self-powered woofer for my mama's sake :-)

good day, gentlemen

Hello Jungsan, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm suggesting that costing is done over a 2 year period. So a speaker costing x, one adds additional upgrade costs if incurred giving a total cost of y. Comparatives are then made against speakers at this level.

In your example, y could be well below alexandria's and wouldn't be compared. Instead, should you find a speaker at y or less, and wouldn't need upgrades for 2 years, then this is a better decision.

On THD, i've looked at the 800D white paper. Wilson's for example offer better performance, a characteristic of high-end speakers. B&W also don't show the 2nd & 3rd HD which is worse than the THD profile presented. I will gladly send you the HFN review where this is measured via email.

Hope this clarifies.

Ps- my need for bottom-end performance comes from some instruments that go really low and when reproduced they bring a different perspective entirely versus speakers that can't.