2. speakers
  3. 174352-154490

Underpowered?

Hi guys.  Newbie here asking for advice. 

I recently purchased a pair of B&W 702 Signature (8Ω, 30-300W, 90 dB) to replace my old faithful 683s (8Ω, 20-200W, 90 dB).  I am running them with a McIntosh MA252 (100W into 8Ω, 160W into 4Ω).  I purchased them thinking they would complete my end-game system.  However, my excitement turned into disappointment when I realized the lows were somewhat lacking.  For all their faults, the 683s had a great dynamic low kick (no sub) that I was looking to take one step further.  Unsurprisingly, the highs and mids on the 702s were indeed more detailed and separation was clearer, but I couldn't get over the uninspiring lows.  I found myself listening at higher volumes chasing for that bass oomph.  Neither playing with the EQ at the source nor the amp was satisfactory.  So, I did the research that perhaps I should've done before purchasing the 702s and found out they are quite power hungry despite the specs being similar to the 683s.  I emailed B&W and McIntosh and they agreed the amp is probably underpowered for the 702s.  B&W described the sound of an underpowered speaker as one lacking low response and details, which is spot on. McIntosh suggested the MA352 (200W into 8Ω, 320W into 4Ω).

Of note, I love the MA252 and really wish there was a way to make this work.  I don't need a DAC/streamer/etc so I'm happy to put all my money on better sound vs tech features.  But I also think the speakers sound amazing even when somewhat underpowered and I'm considering upgrading to a MA352, Michi X3, Hegel 390.  Another option could be to get a sub? But I feel that would defeat the purpose of having a 3way standing speaker and then I might as well get a pair of bookshelf speakers (805 D4s, LS50 metas?).

So what do you guys think? Is it normal for a speaker that's rated 30-300W to be underpowered with a 100W amp?? What would you do:

  1. Sell the 702s and look for a better match for my MA252?

  2. Upgrade the MA252 (MA352? Michi X3? NAD 33?)?

  3. Get a subwoofer?

I would really appreciate your thoughts/advice!

dridel
lak's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
lak
4,665 posts
 

I agree with one or two powered subs. Two is better than one IMO.

mofojo
2,304 posts
 

Wow that amp should be enough power I would think. 
 

Maybe the 683s have a bass “party” hump that you are used to? 

erik_squires
16,243 posts
 

I just looked at the specs.  There's a combination of fast roll off below 100 Hz (pretty high for a floor stander!) and an impedance dip there at the low end.

I'd strongly suggest you measure your room before making any adjustments, but I would not be surprised if you are a very good candidate for a sub. 

You'll want something with some built in DSP capabilities to help you manage room modes, and, as always, consider room treatment before you do anything else.

erik_squires
16,243 posts
 

Actually I just thought of a combination for you to try. Plug the ports and move the speakers closer to the wall. Plugging the port will damp the peak at 100 Hz but more importantly slow down how fast it rolls off below that.

If they still sound anemic, you definitely need a higher current amp (not necessarily more watts, more watts in the bass).

If they suddenly improve, but you still want more bass a sub is a good option.

ctsooner
2,480 posts
 

I have some friends who use the new Vandersteen Sub 3 over their previous REL in that situation since they design them to keep the sound of the main amps so you can tell where they cross over , plus that takes the load under 120hz away from the main amp and speakers.  Speakers and a,ps get the advantage here. They are also fully adjustable for the room with a built in 11 band EQ. Just a thought. Designs change and maybe the newer speakers just don’t kick like the older ones. No idea there. Good luck 

More to discover