HTM2 vs HTM4s

[luszer]

Recently received my 4s, replacing the HTM2.

Appereance:
Although weighing an additional 6 lbs, the overall feel of the speaker is on the cheap side. The tweeter is extremely wobbley and the golf ball flowport is a rubbery, gummy material. Also, the bullet is not surrounded by the metal ring and meets directly to the yellow Kevlar. The jumpers are flimsy, banana on one end and a cheap spade on the other.
I think a few shortcuts we required in order to keep cost down, however the performance is what we are all concerned about. Nice segway into performance....

The tweeter certainly is more natural and will only get better once burned in, but out of the box the unit sounds great. Much better integration and imaging across the front 3 channels. I have the 4s mated with Sig 805s, Rotel 1068, Arcam DV89 source, powered by an Aragon 3005.
Overall a smoother sound and more life-like. I have used a few concert DVDs, some TV and 1 film thus far. The highs are a little edgy, but good extension, certainly will settle down with a few more hours of use.

Good listening, Ron

[jlee]

1. I think B&W may have a good excuse for the wobbly tweeter. Didn't they use some new material to further isolate the tweeter from the cabinet? Does anybody know if they could have made it have a more solid feel and maintain the extra degree of isolation? If so, I would be disappointed at this new cheap aspect.
2. Does anybody know if there is a sonic benefit to the rubbery gummy material of the flowport?
3. The 704, 705, the new 805S, new HTM4S, new SCMS all have the bullet attached to the kevlar. The 705 and 704 started this new trend. It is for sonic benefits. Before, it was not attached to reduce weight of the driver for quicker response and more accurate sound. Later, it was determined that during deeper bass where the cone has to move a lot from center, the dispersion of the sound waves was not optimum. With the bullet attached to the cone, it preserves the same "dispersion shape" so to speak no matter where the cone is. I think they have managed to make it light enough or make the magnet stronger to counteract the extra weight.
4. I thought the jumpers that came with the HTM2 were top notch (for jumpers that come with speakers at least... the 700 series jumpers are cheap looking and poor performing). The old jumpers were spade on 1 end and pin on the other. Are the new ones really cheaper looking than the old ones?

For $500 more, I would be seriously disappointed if B&W actually tried to save money by using cheaper materials without sonic benefit...

[luszer]

1. The tweeter is more isolated, the cabinet top does not have the curved in portion, so the tweeter does not sit a craddle beveled out section on top. Tweeter is also shorter, does not have the long gray contured end. Not really short and stout, just not as defined in length as it tapers off.

2. Not sure, welcome thoughts....

3. I believe the magnet is larger, recall reading something in the release literature.

4. Agreed, I believe they were Cardas. My Sigs are bi-wired so I can nab a set from those. I on plan to bi-wire the center as well, but there really cheap, like Rat Shack cheap. The binding posts are not as high quality as on the Sig 805s.

The minor finish details, such as, the B&W logo is not as nice looking. However, the grill is more shapely on the ends, a slicker design and it has a snap into place design for a much sturdy fit than the HTM2.

However, I do feel sonically it is better that the HTM2. Not by great lenghts but its presentation is more believable. It has a smoother, natural sound, the Live in Paris, D Krall DVD does sound pretty remarkable. A well balanced sound stage across the front.

I am thrilled to have grab the Sig 805s, rather than wait for the new 805s.

[DanR]

I agree with your choice of Sig 805. They sound better than the the 805S.