Brad you may find this interesting... Just to prove I'm not hearing things, I did a search on some 802D reviews & found one done by Kalman Rubinson at Stereophile. While he praised them on the whole there were a couple of lines that stood out to me. Which I'll quote below...
| Quote: |
Another issue some will have with the 802D is with a feature that I found very attractive. Unlike many more timid speakers that are characterized by a slight midrange dip (such as the original Kharma Ceramique 2), the 802Ds projected the music and the soundstage out in front of them. This made listening to them sound like listening in the nearfield even when I sat, as I do, about 12' back. I found this exciting, involving, and addicting, and though I expected it to become fatiguing, over the span of months that has not happened.
|
...
| Quote: |
Wild's Baldwin piano sounded excitingly big and up-front through the 802Ds. There was tons of detail, high and low, and I could easily discern the changing resonances of the piano's body as Wild held, then released the sustain pedal. It was as if the piano was situated directly between the 802Ds, with Wild at the keyboard to the left. However, I thought I could also discern treble and bass notes as sounding somewhat separate from each other in space, and from the resonances radiating from the cabinet.
When I switched back to the Revel Ultima Studios, I needed some time to adapt before I could again appreciate my reference speakers. Even after I'd compensated for the B&W's higher sensitivity, the piano was immediately more tightly defined in space and farther away, and its details and intricacies were much less apparent. The Revels' highs often stood out brightly on the ping of treble notes. Nonetheless, I felt that the Revels integrated all of the piano's various parts into one coherent instrument, as well as revealing more of the performance space. The 802Ds were much more revealing of the piano itself, and threw it in greater relief against the backdrop of the recorded ambience. I can easily appreciate how mastering and balance engineers might find the B&W 802D a magnificent tool for hearing into a mix.
|
A number of things stood out to me which I've highlighted in bold. These rang true to what I was hearing when I listened to them even in that crappy show room. For instance I enjoyed the fact that you could listen to them from 10-12' away & still hear the detail of the highs & mids almost like listening to nearfields. I also enjoyed the wide & deep sound stage of the mid/highs & never felt it was too fizzy or unbalanced tonally. But what I disliked & what disarmed me was the cohesion between the high/mid & low drivers. The low mids/lows did feel like they were in a different time & space to the mid/highs. I bet if we could pull the cabinet apart & leave the dome part of the cabinet at 12' & bring the low drivers somewhere between 8-10' they might re-align at some point & regain their cohesiveness.
Anyway thought this might be useful info for those looking at the newer 802D's. Whether the N802 exhibits these same characteristics I can not say. However it was enough of a problem to turn me away from purchasing them for my room.
I think I'm going to order some Lipinski L707's & buy an extra DD12 to make stereo subs. Even risking not hearing them, I've gathered enough information to know that they are more in line with what I'm looking for in my next monitors.
Matt
