802D2 vs 802D3... a lucky comparo

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by joey_v

FR charts still cant explain why 802D3 sounds much more focused in terms of imaging compared to the 802D2.

Not fully, but it's probably partly responsible. On the new D3 model the saddle between 2 and 3kHz is largely filled in, mostly because there's no longer the broad peak around 600Hz or the spike at 3.6kHz. Because the presence region energy is no longer as attenuated, the sense of focus will be improved.

[AudioA100]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

From Australian HiFi magazine, I've attached the on axis tweeter height responses of the 802D2 and the 802D3.

The difference in between the two gives some clews to the subjective differences. Interestingly, the D3 bass response appears to roll off slightly earlier, but overall the response is much flatter, particularly through the crossover region.

From the chart, the 802 Diamond truly represents the FR on the spec sheet from Bowers & Wilkins website, which is 34HZ to 28KHZ +-3 db. However, the 802 D3's measurement tells a so much different story from the spec sheet from Bowers & Wilkins, which states 17HZ to 28KHZ +-3db. Whilst the real bass FR on -3db basis should be 40HZ on the chart. It's way beyond the stated 17HZ.

If one experience the 802D3's bass is tight, you might see the 802D2 delivers more. Please don't tell me 802D3 just got everything better, regardless the measurement that shows the fact that it is not entirely true.

[bart]

Originally Posted by AudioA100

From the chart, the 802 Diamond truly represents the FR on the spec sheet from Bowers & Wilkins website, which is 34HZ to 28KHZ +-3 db. However, the 802 D3's measurement tells a so much different story from the spec sheet from Bowers & Wilkins, which states 17HZ to 28KHZ +-3db. Whilst the real bass FR on -3db basis should be 40HZ on the chart. It's way beyond the stated 17HZ.

If one experience the 802D3's bass is tight, you might see the 802D2 delivers more. Please don't tell me 802D3 just got everything better, regardless the measurement that shows the fact that it is not entirely true.

Charts are important.
But hearing them will tell you more.
I heard them side by side.
The D3s are better.
Everybody at the show found the same.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by AudioA100

From the chart, the 802 Diamond truly represents the FR on the spec sheet from Bowers & Wilkins website, which is 34HZ to 28KHZ +-3 db. However, the 802 D3's measurement tells a so much different story from the spec sheet from Bowers & Wilkins, which states 17HZ to 28KHZ +-3db. Whilst the real bass FR on -3db basis should be 40HZ on the chart. It's way beyond the stated 17HZ.

If one experience the 802D3's bass is tight, you might see the 802D2 delivers more. Please don't tell me 802D3 just got everything better, regardless the measurement that shows the fact that it is not entirely true.

It was mentioned in another thread that the quoted low frequency spec is now derived from a newly developed model that simulates the response in a typical room with boundary reinforcement. Previously, the specification was derived from anechoic measurements.

The new D3 series appears to have an over-damped alignment which is more likely to produce a flatter response in a domestic environment, which is sensible.

[joey_v]

Originally Posted by bart

Charts are important.
But hearing them will tell you more.
I heard them side by side.
The D3s are better.
Everybody at the show found the same.

Agree 100%.

+ 1

I heard side by side, I own 802D2. Hands down, 802D3 all day, every day.

[2dparrish]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

From Australian HiFi magazine, I've attached the on axis tweeter height responses of the 802D2 and the 802D3. The difference in between the two gives some clews to the subjective differences. Interestingly, the D3 bass response appears to roll off slightly earlier, but overall the response is much flatter, particularly through the crossover region.

Any idea why they chose to measure at tweeter rather than midrange height? Don't know that it would make much (if any) difference, but Hi Fi news measured at midrange height due to being "closest to typical seated height". Further, they stated that "the 20 hz port tuning frequency identified by nearfield measurement of the bass drivers suggests that B&W's 17Hz to 28kHz (+ or - 3db) is not wide of the mark".

Ultimately, I agree that bass response is largely dependent on the room and placement. There is no doubt, however, that the new d3's have taughter bass, and subjectively this could be perceived as less. On the other hand, I have been so far VERY impressed by the 802's handling of very low frequency information. I haven't tried organ pedal sounds yet, but timpani sounds AMAZING compared to my 803d2's (I know it's not apples to apples though). I have no complaints with bass definition nor weight so far (15+ hours on the new speakers). I do have a DB-1 though, just in case .

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by 2dparrish

Any idea why they chose to measure at tweeter rather than midrange height? Don't know that it would make much (if any) difference, but Hi Fi news measured at midrange height due to being "closest to typical seated height". Further, they stated that "the 20 hz port tuning frequency identified by nearfield measurement of the bass drivers suggests that B&W's 17Hz to 28kHz (+ or - 3db) is not wide of the mark".

Unless specified by the manufacturer, tweeter height is the assumed reference height and the height your ears should be when listening. Fwiw, b&w specify that the ideal height is very slightly lower than the tweeter height. The difference between the Aus Hi-Fi and Hi-Fi News response charts above 1kHz is all to do with the height and distance that the measurements were taken. The Hi-Fi News measurement was taken in the near field at the FST mid height which is not a point where the mid and tweeter outputs correctly sum, hence the uneven response. The Aus Hi-Fi measurement is very much more in line with the response your ears will process at a distance of 3 metres.

Originally Posted by 2dparrish

Ultimately, I agree that bass response is largely dependent on the room and placement. There is no doubt, however, that the new d3's have taughter bass, and subjectively this could be perceived as less. On the other hand, I have been so far VERY impressed by the 802's handling of very low frequency information. I haven't tried organ pedal sounds yet, but timpani sounds AMAZING compared to my 803d2's (I know it's not apples to apples though). I have no complaints with bass definition nor weight so far (15+ hours on the new speakers). I do have a DB-1 though, just in case .

I've heard the 802d3 and D2 models and agree that the bass is better on the D3. The combination of the new alignment and new drivers produces a bass that sounds audibly cleaner to me. My older but larger 800 D2's still convey greater bass authority but it's not something that would bother me if I traded my 800D2's for 802D3's.

[Pio]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

From Australian HiFi magazine, I've attached the on axis tweeter height responses of the 802D2 and the 802D3.

The difference in between the two gives some clews to the subjective differences. Interestingly, the D3 bass response appears to roll off slightly earlier, but overall the response is much flatter, particularly through the crossover region.

Art Vandelay

Thanks for this, the 802D2 response looks very similar to what Stereophile reported for the 802D




Glad to see B&W fixed the uneven response in the 3.5khz and 10khz range. I always thought mine sounded a bit "screamy" in the midrange - but I always thought it was my room. It's amazing how many studio's used the 802's for mixing with these peaks.




Interestingly - the Hi Fi lab wasn't as smooth with the new D3