Best of both worlds, Vandersteen and B&W

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but any time there is an issue with the bass, subwoofer recommendations seem to be plentiful regardless of the scenario. Looking at basic specifications of the two speakers in question,

B&W Matrix 802 Series 3

Frequency Response - 42Hz – 20kHz ± 3dB
Sensitivity                   - 90dB spl(2.83V 1m)
Impedance                 - 8 ohms nominal (minimum 3.4 ohms)

Vandersteen 3A Signature

Frequency Response - 26Hz – 30kHz +/- 3dB
Sensitivity                   - 87 dB, 1 meter/2.83 volt input
Impedance                 - 6 ohms nominal 4 ohms minimum

Since the 3A's are 6 ohm that makes their 1 watt sensitivity ~85.5db compared to the 1 watt sensitivity of the 802's being 90db. With the 3A's going deeper in the bass but with a much lower sensitivity, I'm thinking the issue is power, but can only guess not knowing the amp being used. Also, having experience with both speakers, I do somewhat agree with this comment,

"Both speakers play well with the right set-up and equipment. If not, the Vandersteens may bore and the B&W’s may glare/sizzle. I can't imagine them working interchangeably in the same system."

I have 3A Sigs driven by a NAD S200 (225w/channel into 8 ohms and it close to doubles into 4 ohms).  I would never think to comment that these speakers are bass shy or anemic in any sense.  A room/placement problem is often to blame for bass issues, but I have found those issues are better solved with a pair of Vandersteen subs than by moving your speakers in a way that improves bass to the detriment of other things.  Just my $0.02.

Tls49

B&W Matrix 802 Series 3

Frequency Response - 42Hz – 20kHz ± 3dB
Sensitivity - 90dB spl(2.83V 1m)
Impedance - 8 ohms nominal (minimum 3.4 ohms)

Vandersteen 3A Signature

Frequency Response - 26Hz – 30kHz +/- 3dB
Sensitivity - 87 dB, 1 meter/2.83 volt input
Impedance - 6 ohms nominal 4 ohms minimum

Tls49
if you go to the actual owners manual you will see the 802 speaker specs with the BAF.

frequency range 22k -25k ± 6db
frequency response 27k - 20k ± 2db

All matrix series 2 and 3 models were designed by John Bowers to be used with the BAF for fuller range.

Tls49

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but any time there is an issue with the bass, subwoofer recommendations seem to be plentiful regardless of the scenario.

Subwoofers are certainly all the rage these days. :^)
One can go ahead and EQ with a subwoofer, sure.... or in this case with this 802 speaker, you can just EQ them with the BAF, as they were designed this way to be more full range...... for those needing / wanting it. The BAF also keeps the impedance more linear making them more amp friendly.

bewoods1962 - did you use them with the BAF ?

Cheers

ct0517

Yes, I have knowledge of the BAF, however the vast majority of Matrix 802’s are being used without one. This was an optional piece sold separately. The specs I cited are straight from a B&W brochure. I agree that if he is using a BAF, my comment is irrelevant, however I seriously doubt he is using one. In that case I stand behind my original comment.

"Subwoofers are certainly all the rage these days."

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that any bass issue can be solved by adding one."

As I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion, however due to his comment,

"Flaccid, aneimic, distant, without any drive or authority."

I see this as a power issue. The 3A’s go fairly deep, but with inadequate power would have no punch, drive, or authority and what was adequate for the B&W may not be enough for the 3A's due to the much lower sensitivity.

Have Vandersteen 2ce signatures and have had B&W Matrix 802's and 805's the B&W's made my ears bleed.  The Vandies are a far better all round speaker IMO. Never had any complaint regarding any aspects regarding the sound they go low and the bass is always tight and detailed never intrudes into the mid's like a lot of speakers are inclined to do.
they do however like to be well out into the room, the tilt is important.
Once set up properly they positively sing, get it wrong they sound mediocre.

Have been very happy with the Vandersteens ; now comes the rub have now found some speakers that seem to my ears at least, to have the best of all worlds.  Same sound signature it is very similar to the Vandersteens ; not boxy, sweet and 3 dimensional.
Bob Crites Cornscala 'D' - Tighter  faster deeper bass than the Vandersteens and as sweet on the tops. The tops are more extended and the detail is all there and the decays are much more extended.
They are seamless and the bass is not muddy boomy and never intrudes into the mids.
Built them, they sound just great do everything well do not cost much, are super sensitive, very quite not a hint of hum or hiss on all 3 of my valve amps.
They do all music well, Opera, Classical Baroque, voices male and female plus rock music sounds like you are attending a concert what more could you ask. Bad recordings, including the dreaded loudness mash are now listenable and sound as good as possible. 
They realy rock, go down low, are super quick and tight, no fatiguing and sweet.
Very pleased, they are big and ugly granted that being said they certainly sound better and are more easy to live with than speakers I have heard (at least to my ears) to date costing 6 times and in a lot of cases a hell of a lot more.