B&W 802D3 received same score from HiFI news as new Alexia Series 2...

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by Levitator

Hi Art

Can you elaborate on the differences you have heard between the 800's and Alexia 2's? I am looking at a speaker replacement soon and the 800's are much closer to my price point than the Alexia's

Hi Lev,

The price gap is bigger in Aus than the USA. In fact more than 2:1, so the 800D3 is an easy choice here I would say.

As for the differences, the Alexia 2 bests all other passive 3-way speakers I've heard for being able to sound like a single driver speaker. IOW, there's really no sense of driver transitions or any shift in the harmonic texture, and the transient attack / decay is impressively real.

Not that the 800D3's are slouches in those areas of course. Where the 800D3's may have the edge is the ability to convey a life-like sense of scale and authority. They extend to subterranean depths. The 800D3's also excel in their ability to convey the full ambience of a recording venue. With the Alexia's the soundstage is detailed and layered in all dimensions, - probably more so than the B&W'S, but without quite the same sense of space and acoustic from the venue itself.

Tonally, the B&W's add a touch of romance and sweetness but they're totally pristine through the mids and treble. The D3 tweeter is obviously very special. The Alexia V2 treble is definitely more open and extended than V1 but probably not quite as open, pristine and resolving.

If the price was the same I would probably buy the Alexia's, because I prefer jazz and pop/rock over classical. People who listen to classical would favour the B&W's I suspect. But the price is not the same of course.

YMMV, and I would advise anyone to listen to both and decide for themselves. At least listen to the Alexia's so that you know what you'll be missing.

AV

[GregGale]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

Sometimes?

Kal you could make an argument that Stereophile rating class could be somewhat arbitrary as well.

Is there a consensus of multiple people that determine what the class rating should be in Stereophile? Sometimes you see high class A or border line a particular rating. So in my mind HFN points which maybe "somewhat arbitrary" could be looked upon the same way as Stereophile gives their ratings.

I look at the points given at HFN as an indicator of sound quality value in relationship to other products at their respective price point.

I have noticed that HFN very rarely gives points above 90 for any audio piece of equipment. When I see something that gets 90 or above from them I associate this with a Class A Stereophile rating, although I don't think their point system equates to the same point system that is used to give grade designations in typical school systems where 90 and above is an A.

HFN does provide information that I find interesting in terms of distortion measurements at different sound frequencies and power levels that could have some value for example if the distortion differences are far less than another speaker at certain frequencies than maybe the product sounds more "pristine". Also many of the German Audio magazines publish maximum loudness the speaker is capable of without exceeding certain distortion levels they have established which gives you an idea on what the sound level capability might be of a certain speaker.

As we all know however the proof is in the listening to the product yourself, but I do feel that if you have a consensus from multiple review sources globally on a product giving excellent ratings this at least gives me a higher sense of security where I could purchase a product without auditioning on my own which is not always easy to do.

[gadawg]

Originally Posted by 2fastdriving

i don't know how they arrive at these points, but perhaps value is a factor. Both speakers are fantastic at their respective price points. They are certainly not equal.

+1... Just my biased personal opinion. Speakers are clearly a very personal choice and I love the Wilson's but have a good friend who loves the new B&W's ... and we can both be right!

George

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by GregGale

Kal you could make an argument that Stereophile rating class could be somewhat arbitrary as well.

Undoubtedly.

Is there a consensus of multiple people that determine what the class rating should be in Stereophile? Sometimes you see high class A or border line a particular rating. So in my mind HFN points which maybe "somewhat arbitrary" could be looked upon the same way as Stereophile gives their ratings.

As a scientist, my objection to the HFN point system is the implied granularity/resolution of the scale. What is the interpretation of a 5 point or less difference when based on a subjective assessment? Stereophile's handful (or less) of categories should imply clear distinctions except when one of us shades it with a "near" or "almost."

I look at the points given at HFN as an indicator of sound quality value in relationship to other products at their respective price point.

Perhaps. I do not know what their criteria are but Stereophile's do not include price considerations.

[joey_v]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

Undoubtedly.

As a scientist, my objection to the HFN point system is the implied granularity/resolution of the scale. What is the interpretation of a 5 point or less difference when based on a subjective assessment? Stereophile's handful (or less) of categories should imply clear distinctions except when one of us shades it with a "near" or "almost."

Perhaps. I do not know what their criteria are but Stereophile's do not include price considerations.

Wait, you’re saying there’s more ambiguity with HFN rating because they use numbers rather than vague classes on stereophile?

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by joey_v

Wait, you’re saying there’s more ambiguity with HFN rating because they use numbers rather than vague classes on stereophile?

No. I am saying that their choice of number scale implies more precision than it can support. From 0 to 100, there are 101 values and I don't believe than anyone can resolve differences that precisely, let alone accurately. Now, if we were making these ratings based on a statistically large sample, integer values could have some meaning.

That is why the use of 4 categories, A(A+), B, C and D, for the basic rating groups is more reflective of the kind of segmentation we might be capable of.

[2fastdriving]

Not to mention, the scale is actually constantly changing! A full 100 score from 20 years ago is probably equivalent to an 80 now. Or something...

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

No. I am saying that their choice of number scale implies more precision than it can support. From 0 to 100, there are 101 values and I don't believe than anyone can resolve differences that precisely, let alone accurately. Now, if we were making these ratings based on a statistically large sample, integer values could have some meaning.

That is why the use of 4 categories, A(A+), B, C and D, for the basic rating groups is more reflective of the kind of segmentation we might be capable of.

I never could understand some of the ratings expressed in numerical values. Sound performance of a component judged at 85% for example... As compared to what? Something better the reviewer has heard? In his own system, outside of his own system, with those speakers, with other speakers? What if he hasn't heard something even better yet as there is always something better out there? Does that not change the whole scale for that reviewer? It should...

Something that can not be accurately measured and recorded so as to be compared to another set of data but can only be subjectively based on what one hears in the context of his/her own system can never be expressed as a numerical value....with all the variables that go into components/speaker/room/cabling/genres/recording quality... it is misleading at best. Pure nonsense.

At least the Class A/B/C categories give some kind of a hint as to the performance levels of highest and lowest categories of performance even if the division lines are not exactly clear.

Perhaps the best approach is still just saying it like it is, I have heard better bass with ABC, smoother treble with DEF, etc... but overall this product is very enjoyable and is worth the asking price based on "my experience as a reviewer so far"

[W9TR]

The only way I've found to sort this out is by using the approach Stereophile uses.
Biased reviewer listening impressions accompanied by a suite of objective measurements.
I can understand and take into account the reviewer's bias, especially for reviewers that I've been following for awhile.
I can also compare the technical specs to find a product I'll like the sound of.
That's why I ended up with the Sonus Faber Amati Futura.
Combination of my own listening (not really very satisfactory - see thread on retail business) combined with subjective and objective reviews.

I am looking for some smaller floor stander and heard a lot of glowing reports on the Zu Audio Soul.
I looked at the Stereophile review, Herb's subjective review and JA's measurements.
Then I went to listen at RMAF. That godawful experience literally drove me from the room.
Totally predicted by JA's measurements, and alluded to in Herb's subjective review.
So I now know these are not my cup of tea - while very dynamic and expressive, they are very colored.

Point is, it was all there for me to discover and understand. Not a number on a 0-100 scale. Bravo!

[2fastdriving]

Originally Posted by W9TR

The only way I've found to sort this out is by using the approach Stereophile uses.
Biased reviewer listening impressions accompanied by a suite of objective measurements.
I can understand and take into account the reviewer's bias, especially for reviewers that I've been following for awhile.
I can also compare the technical specs to find a product I'll like the sound of.
That's why I ended up with the Sonus Faber Amati Futura.
Combination of my own listening (not really very satisfactory - see thread on retail business) combined with subjective and objective reviews.

I am looking for some smaller floor stander and heard a lot of glowing reports on the Zu Audio Soul.
I looked at the Stereophile review, Herb's subjective review and JA's measurements.
Then I went to listen at RMAF. That godawful experience literally drove me from the room.
Totally predicted by JA's measurements, and alluded to in Herb's subjective review.
So I now know these are not my cup of tea - while very dynamic and expressive, they are very colored.

Point is, it was all there for me to discover and understand. Not a number on a 0-100 scale. Bravo!

Interesting... I really liked the Zu audio stuff at RMAF!