B&W 802D vs Wilson WATT Puppy

Hello Jungsan, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm suggesting that costing is done over a 2 year period. So a speaker costing x, one adds additional upgrade costs if incurred giving a total cost of y. Comparatives are then made against speakers at this level.

In your example, y could be well below alexandria's and wouldn't be compared. Instead, should you find a speaker at y or less, and wouldn't need upgrades for 2 years, then this is a better decision.

On THD, i've looked at the 800D white paper. Wilson's for example offer better performance, a characteristic of high-end speakers. B&W also don't show the 2nd & 3rd HD which is worse than the THD profile presented. I will gladly send you the HFN review where this is measured via email.

Hope this clarifies.

Ps- my need for bottom-end performance comes from some instruments that go really low and when reproduced they bring a different perspective entirely versus speakers that can't.

Cisc,
That'll be very kind of you if you can send me a copy of the review ([email protected])
I understand what you're saying and I do agree with you on the excellence of the wilson's; your choices of the wilson speakers are very well respected. Like I said, the wilsons, especially the bigger ones, are simply astonishing!

however, here is a little catch on juding speakers solely on the measurements:
take the paradigm signature 8 (or even some NHT speakers). it has less THD than both the 800D and the WP7s. Not to mention more flatter response over the entire frequency range.
Does it mean that we should all buy the paradigms and a subwoofer for total $10K and save the other $10K for say... diamonds for wives? :-)
(based on the measurements published by soundstage.com) I'm not a speaker engineer but THD of the WP7 and the 800D seem about the same... :-)

to me, buying hifi equipments are based on 1. science and 2. X-factors (all kinds of stuff...).. of which the latter often prevails..To me, at this high end, arguing one is better than the other is like saying "my wife is better than yours cuz she's got___" (fill in the blank with whatever you wish ;-)

I'm trying not to be judgemental as possible in life and like i said in the other post, I might become an wilson fan as early as next week, too. However, for now I'll stick with what sounds better to my ears which have heard numerous live classical concerts :-)
to me, consumers at this level are not dumb at all.. they cannot fool us with some junks with ridiculous price tags.. I re-empasize, I believe all the speaker companies discussed here make great products!

btw, I envy your system, ML 33s etc. I hope I can afford that kinda goodies when I get a little older :-)
(post some pics of your system that I can drool on !)

good day

here is my update on the battle between the Wilson and B&Ws

I had a very long session comparing the ML summit, Wilson Sophia, and B&W 802D
electronics were MuFi A5s (int.Amp and CDP) some thick transparent single wire speaker cables and it was the same room as the one I heard the 802Ds last time, but different directions (the longer side of the rectangular room)

ML Summit: very transparent clear.. arguably the best on vocals (both classical and jazz) but it sounded so much laid back.. easy on the ears but not so involving..
generally very good bass.. however, I'm not gonna consider this speaker any more..

B&W 802D: sounded much forward compared to the Summit.. maybe a little harsh.. bass didn't really impress me this time.. amp? room placement? it sounded equally good at vocals and instrumentals

Wilson Sophia: ... well I have to admit.. I retract all the comments I've made about the wilsons... it was a revelation... I can see how I and others perceive this speaker as cold, analytical, and not involving...
it is so DARN NEUTRAL and ACCURATE !!!!

it was right in between the logan and BW... superb imagery.. focus, and seamlessness top to bottom.. and the mid sounded acutally clearer than the 802D's!!! (I can't belive I'm saying this...) Bass does not yield at all either.. very firm, tight and deep.. (deeper than the 802D). No muddiness at all! every aspect sounded better than the 802D..... simply..musical!

--one minor point is that the 802D was not biwired-.. I'm a beliver of biwiring..and belive that single wiring to the tweeter side always makes things sound more forward and weaker in the bass.... or is the MuFi A5 not good enough for the 802D?... but sure it was good enough for the Sophia...

I'm going to have at least one more head-to-head comp. between these guys before I make up my mind (with a better amp and biwiring etc..)...I still prefer the aesthetics of the 802D... and the bling bling on the top.. :-)

good day gentlemen

Jungsan,

I my self had a nice listening session with the 802D for the first time last night. I have heard the 803D and 800D before. I started my session listening to the Sonus Faber Stradivari driven by the MF KW500, front end was the new esoteric player ($13,000) retail. Of course all hizute cable including the power cords.

Then the 802D driven with Classe' electronics, front end was a lesser esoteric DVD player ($6,000) retail. The Classe' electronics were mid level not to be compared to the MF KW500.

These speakers were well broken in and in a large rather dead room. The bass was tight and focused the mids were to die for. Track 8 of disc 2 Neil Diamond's Hot August Night the drums came to life. Not the feel but you could hear the volume of each drum as it was struck. Vocals were spot on. On other track's and disc's the acoustic guitars were to die for each and every pick the decay. The symbols sounded like symbols.

Just a few thoughts.

Michael

Jungsan - It seems as though you've finally heard the Sophias for what they are. Congrats! I'm currently saving up for them. Simply the most accurate and well balanced pair of under 20K speakers that I've heard. They make any B&W sound like a toy.