Difference in B&W sound

"01-21-15: Stringreen
I had a top of the line model (don't remember what). I got them on a wim when first wife passed...anyway, they were very disappointing...changed to top of Vandersteen line. Smiles."

I had top of the line B&W's too, but I downgraded to the entry level Vandersteen's. Smiles.

even largest ones have very poor bass no matter how much power you give'm pointless.
midrange and trebble are very clean, but no need to go for the higher-end ones. the cm series probably best choice on price per performance. i also agree that matrix series sound substantilly better than n8xx

B& W , rich mans Bose.

Since B&W has poor bass, is it a better idea to go with their bookshelf models and just add a subwoofer? Seems like you'd get their best virtues -- good mids and clean treble -- and just substitute their weakness with a dedicated sub. Just throwing that out there.

"01-22-15: Mkash3
Since B&W has poor bass, is it a better idea to go with their bookshelf models and just add a subwoofer? Seems like you'd get their best virtues -- good mids and clean treble -- and just substitute their weakness with a dedicated sub. Just throwing that out there."

I don't see how a setup like that would be an improvement. To start off with, the OP already has 2 pairs of B&W's. If you are trying to achieve better bass, it would make more sense to match a sub to a pair of the floor standers that he already has. Its much easier to integrate a sub into a system that has full range speakers to begin with. If you were to change over to something like an 805, there would be a huge gap between the low frequencies on the 805's and the highs on the sub. The best way I can describe the results, would be that it sounds like there's a hole in the music. Part of it is missing.