2. speakers
  3. 1203118930

Buy a sub or ditch my new speakers altogether?

I recently picked up a pair of B&W 602.5s, brand new, for a song. Turns out to be the wrong song, and it was a final sale. :/

They have loads more midrange and high end detail than my former Allison CD6s, but the Allison's 8" woofers had the B&Ws beat in the low end.

The B&W's lows are boomy and pretty out of control, and when listening to TV at a lower level, there's almost no bass at all. The port plug tightens up the boominess, at the expense of even less bass overall.

So, the question becomes, do I put these brand new B&Ws up for sale, and look for something else, or do I pick up a subwoofer and attempt to salvage the sound? I am quite happy with the 602.5's mids and highs. I find it interesting that many reviews of the next (discontinued) model up, the 603, mention needing a sub, despite having a dedicated 6.5" bass driver.

If I do end up getting a sub, for say $500, I'm then into the current setup for $900. This begs the question, what could be had sans sub, with similar punchy mids and clear highs, but with deep(er) clean(er) bass, in the same price range?

Logic tells me that a 2 mains and a sub beats the low end capabilities of a $1000 speaker with no sub.

Many thanks for any advice.

rkny
rkny OP
47 posts
 
Thanks for the reply. At the moment I'm running off of a Cambridge Audio 340A integrated, but it's being replaced next week by an Arcam Solo (CD), which should provide a bit more power.

The speakers sound decent with music, just not very much bass detail.

The more I think about it, the more I want to skip the subwoofer and either find a pair of 603s, or pay the piper and move up to 683s. This is what I get for trying to save a buck and rushing in!
schipo
1,268 posts
 
I would not dictch the speaker because of a lack of better base response than your older speaker. From your statement about the B&W 602.5s that it betters your Allison in the most important areas such as the mids and top thats where most of where the music is. I would work with moving the speaker out from all walls and a possible change in amp. Now a good sub such as an REL StrataIII or a similar sub of good quality can always be incorporated into your system no matter what speaker you wish to play with in the future. Also a possiblility that good stands such as the sound anchors might extend base response and such stands can be used again with other speakers if you feel the need to change.
veroman's avatar
veroman
299 posts
 
if the lows are muddy or boomy now... a sub will not eliminate that noise. the sub in your case should really be for extreme lows, not to handle entire bass response. also, your amp may not work any more efficiently when sub is added unless you have a crossover setting from amp to roll off signal to your main spkrs., which then would open up sub potential. otherwise, imho, play with location and if that does not help, ditch those spkrs. are you really sure you want the b@w sound? many find them as you described them, i personally find all but the really $$$ ones to be slightly warm and murky in low bass. just my tastes tho.
elevick
2,638 posts
 
The Solo should have a subwoofer output. It will make it easy and clean to add a sub. If you can borrow one, do it first and see the difference.
rkny OP
47 posts
 
The Solo has a pre out, but not a dedicated sub out. Maybe the Movie version does. A sub, as my audio dealer (and Veroman) put it, will be more of a band-aid on the problem than a solution.

I auditioned the B&W 683s today. They are the speakers I want and should have bought from the beginning. Now I'm faced with the untidy task of selling the 3 day old 602.5s and somehow sneaking the 683s into the apartment without my girlfriend noticing the switch. B&W has made this pretty difficult, as they don't sell the 683 in light oak finish in the U.S...the 602.5s are light oak.
More to discover