B&W N805 vs. Revel M20

I did a comparison of the B&W N805 and the Revel M20 at Marvin Electronics in Fort Worth, Texas. I found the M20s to be on the "cold and analytical" side of neutral.

I own the N805s and my primary (and only) complaint is that I feel that they could (and should) throw a larger sondstage - they sound like point sources. However, since my listening environment isn't ideal to begin with, this currently doesn't bother me. Match the N805s with a REL Strata III and you'll be a happy camper.

I also listened to the M20s at a dealer in Richardson, Texas. Even with different back-end hardware, I felt the same way.

To be fair, in both circumstances, I don't feel the M20s were adequately broken in at either location.

I prefer the neutrality and softer tweeter of the M20

I've heard both on a Levenson system. Why pay the price of the M20s and have to spend 200 hours breaking them in? If you have tube gear, think of the cost let alone the time. For that reason alone, I like the 805-that is an unbiased, general opinion that can not be argued with. Even Revel tells you to break them in.

The 805s sound simply sweet, open and lively out of the box! Yes, the Revels are nice after break in but by then you have a hell of an ear ache.

Hello S7horton,

I have owned both the Revel M20 and the Dynaudio 1.3MkII. I also extensively auditioned the N805 and my findings are as follows: I was in love with the N805, the detail and high end resolution was a marvel. But the same things that Elevick said about them, "The 805s sound simply sweet, open and lively out of the box!" are the things that I ended up finding irritating, because that quality never seems to mellow with break in, and caused me to look elsewhere. I then purchased the Revel M20 and found them to have more mid range detail then the N805 and better high-end extension. But, alas, to me, the forwardness of the sound and the very same high-end extension began to grate on me and made me feel fatigued. I even tried a different amp, from the Krell KAV-500 to the Plinius SA-250 MkIV, to try and tame the forwardness and slight brightness but to no avail. I then moved to the Dynaudio 1.3MkII and I thought I was in heaven. The high end was extended but very smooth. The mids were broad and deep with excellent detail and space between the instruments and vocals. The bass was adequate but, then again, they are monitors. Matched up with a good sub, they should be fine. I was sure that I had found the speaker for me. Then I end up at a friend’s house that is a distributor. He introduces me to the Jean Marie Reynaud Trentes. I was aghast, the detail, that far out performed my Dyns, was incredible. The soundstage was tremendous and there was so much bass, I was searching for the sub. I still had my doubts, because the associated equipment included a tube pre amp. I let my friend know that I did not feel that these speakers would do the same in my system with my processor. He proceeded to pack them up and give them to me for a weekend home demo. To my astonishment, they sounded just as good in my system as they did in his. Everything was there, from the huge soundstage and extremely sweet highs to the astonishing detail and the room shaking bass. If I could have I would have never bought them back and I plan on purchasing them as soon as finances allow. So, There it is, my personal progression through this impressive group of speakers. Of course, what I find impressive, others will find ho-hum and visa versa. Also, associated equipment has a lot to do with how one or the other speaker will perform as well as room dimensions and furnishings, so please, keep that in mind. I hope this helps. Happy hunting and good luck......John

Good point, about associated equipment. I have a very toasty system (for SS that is--YBA Passion,Audio Aero Prima )and the M20s work beautifully. What can I say? They work for me. I love 'em.
peace,
warren