2. speakers
  3. 147649-86984

B&W 802d3 vs 802d2

The B&W 802d3's are everything the 'Stereophile' and other reviewers stated.
I cannot improve on their descriptions, including the d3's better integrated diamond tweeters.
Comparison with the d2's, which I just sold, 'gives one pause'.
'Two roads diverged...', and 'would I could travel them both'.
On first audition of the d3's I wondered if I'd made a big error.
Where was the immediately exciting and enchanting resonance of the d2's ?
On further audition of the d3's resonance emerged, but now it derived
more or less entirely from the audio source rather than as an accoutrement of the loudspeakers themselves.
The d3's required higher volume settings in order for the audio source resonance to emerge.
Whereas the d2's accorded a pleasing resonance to older and 'thinner' piano recordings, the d3's
did not yet convincingly conveyed the resonance of a fine piano recording.
Which brings me to ask if anyone has A/B'd the 802d3's with the 800d3's, if the latter convey a degree
of concert hall ambiance where the 802d2's may improved upon, and if a subwoofer might render the 802d3's a bit more exciting even if less realistic. 
Thanks for any input.

seventies
arty_vandelay
28 posts
 
@auxinput1,   I've heard 802D2 and D3 side by side, so my comments relate to those models, and what I heard is more or less supported by Stereophile and other 3rd party measurements. The older D2 definitely has more weight and warmth from a more generous bass output.

Noting too that the old Kevlar does operate through its non-pistonic range, but that's up near 4kHz, so a long way from the low mids and most of the piano range too.  

For what it's worth I agree with you re the 805D3 vs D2. 
 
seventies OP
67 posts
 
Thanks to all who responded to my request for comments.
Your responses are very much appreciated.
The remarks 'by design less warm/rich sounding', 'the older d2 definitely has more warmth and weight through a more generous bass output', and 'what you are hearing is breakup distortion of the kevlar speaker cones' had particular 'resonance'.  Ditto the remarks regarding speaker positioning.
For what this might add, removal of rugs facing the d3's added what I might call 'glare' to the sound, without influencing the frequency weighting.
Regarding 'direction of energy to bass or treble', and insofar as the d3's crossover is presumably passive, knowledge of the engineering considerations would be entertaining.
Regarding addition of a subwoofer...and it would if only for space availability be a single subwoofer such as the Rythmik...I remain intrigued by the possibility of altering the output of such a device in order to tailor sound to different acoustic sources and different audiences.  Further thoughts or experience in this realm are of course welcomed.
Again thanks, Seventies.
varon's avatar
varon
1 posts
 
And my comments are more about 802's (d2 vs d3's).
My overall auditioning experience with 802 d3’s is... Less warm, not as rich and not as flavorful, thinner sound with more mid’s, less weight and base. Not what I was expecting, colder and more metallic sounding in a way compare to 802 d2’s.
I prefer the 802 d2’s rich, warm sound much better.
I also agree with speaker replacement suggestions.
More to discover