My Pocket Rocket; A High Performance 805S Based Alternative

[Karma]

HI All,
I’m in the midst of an experiment. The HT system I am currently putting together is for my bedroom. It’s now mostly finished and I must say it sounds very good. Here is the essence of the experiment.

Can I use a good bookshelf speaker (the 805S) and a good subwoofer (ASW800 X 2) to equal or exceed the performance of a 800 series floor standing speaker in the limited acoustic space with which I am concerned? Judging from the relative rarity of 805S mentions here I assume not many are running this same experiment but I think it is an interesting question with interesting answers.

I hate crossovers! They are, at best, a necessary evil to be avoided if possible. I have been listening to full range electrostatic speakers (Martin Logan CLSIIA’s) for 15 years. They have no built-in crossovers. I have added subwoofers which do require an external active crossover but the frequency is set quite low at 67 Hz; well out of the midrange. This has put me into the position of being very sensitive to crossover effects especially when the crossover frequency is in the all important mid-range as most 3 way systems are designed. I can hear crossovers, even good crossovers on good speakers, and they make me nuts. I wanted to figure out a way to avoid them in this new bedroom system.

I chose the 805S for my main front speakers for several reasons (I also have the HTM4S center but it is not a part of this discussion): 1. It has a great tweeter; 2. Bass tuning of the cabinet is excellent; 3. Matrix construction eliminates the boxy sound; 4. It sounds wonderful. I can’t hear crossover effects; 5. The bass (such as it is) behaves very well making it easy to integrate with the subs; 6. Great imaging and sound staging. The speakers simply disappear; 7. They look stunning on their dedicated stands if a little svelte compared to the large B&W’s.

Note that the 805S is a two way system with only one crossover for the tweeter at 4 kHz which is aso the tweeter crossover frequency used by all the floor standers. The mid/woofer driver covers the frequency range from 4 kHz to its natural roll off frequency of 49 Hz. The 4 kHz crossover is above what most people consider the mid-range. It’s either low treble or very high mid-range according to whom you read. Either way, I cannot hear it which makes it desirable. Yes, I can hear that high, I promise!!! 8)

The 805S places very difficult demands on the mid-range/bass driver. It has to cover the range of 4 kHz to sub 50 Hz. So the next question is how well it does it perform? If you survey the B&W 800 series floor standing speakers, without exception the 6 inch midrange driver crosses to the woofer at 350 Hz which is in the lower mid-range. But the 805S uses a special 6.5 inch driver that B&W claims to have special design features that permit it to work well over the extended frequency range. I believe it. This is a great driver that does not sound strained covering this range.

Using the 805S’s and coupling it to ASW800 subs, I have a speaker system that covers the frequency range from 22 kHz to under 20 Hz. Effectively, it is a three way biamped system with crossover frequencies of 4 kHz and 45 Hz which avoids the critical midrange.

All this would be moot if the subs (I have two) do not integrate properly with 805S’s. I’m still in the process of balancing the system but I already have very good integration.

So what does this little pocket rocket system, considered as a system, give up to the larger 800 series speakers? The main difference is power handling ability. The 805S is power rated to only 125 W. The 800D and the 801D are rated to 1000 W (very impressive)! The 802D, 803D, 803S, and the 804S are variously rated from 500 W to 200 W. This means these floor standing speakers will play louder; in some cases a lot louder. In a large room, with certain program material, and/or heavy handed owners, this is important. In my 1440 cu. feet bedroom the 805S plus subs go plenty loud even with soundtracks. Sensitivity of the floor standers is slighly greater at 90 dB verses 88 dB for the 805S. Not significant. Another is weight which ranges from the 800D’s 275 lbs. to the 804S’s 62 lbs. The 805S is a light weight at 26 lbs. excluding my lead and sand filled dedicated stands which are about 60 lbs. each. I will talk about the sound below. Speaker integration could be an issue but I bought the ASW800’s specifically because I thought they would integrate very well with the 805S’s. So far, this has proven to be true.

What are the gains offered by this little system? First and most important to me is there are no mid-range crossovers to drive me nuts. Next is the bass response which exceeds any of the floor standing speakers by a significant amount and, because the subs are self-powered, provides a biamped configuration. The bass is solid, deep and powerful when necessary. It can also be subtle and simply there. It does not call attention to itself, the mark of good bass. The 801D is specified down to 29 Hz while the 802D goes down to 34 Hz. Very good but exceeded by the ASW800 subs. Smaller size and less weight allow the speakers to be easier to move but these things are not critical to me. The footprint of the 805S on the dedicated stand is about the same as the 804 so, again, space saving is not significant. But the 801D is huge by comparison.

I would love to report the sound of my pocket rocket system to be as good as or better than the floor standers. I can’t. I have not, and never will, had the opportunity to compare my pocket rocket system, as it stands, to the larger, more expensive 800 series systems. I have compared the 805S’s, without the sub’s and using my dealers electronics and cables, to the 802D’s. It’s a difficult comparison because of the 802D’s excellent native bass response and the different room. To my ears, the 805S equals the 802D in all respects except loudness and bass. Don’t misunderstand. I’m not discounting these 802D advantages. The 805S imaging, sound staging, general smoothness, detailing, macro and micro dynamics, are excellent. The 805S’s simply disappear into a wide and deep and detailed sound stage. Just as good as the 802D, I think. But when the going gets tough (meaning VERY loud) the 802D shows its stuff. The 802D will be singing while the 805S will be melted. With the subs the 805S’s sound is big, big, big in my acoustic space. That’s an important caveat.

Now let’s discuss cost. My pocket rocket system is not inexpensive. We will talk about retail prices. The 805S pair is $2500. The ASW800 sub is $2300 per for a total of $4600 for two. Throw in stands at $600 a pair and extra interconnects for the subs and you end up with about an $8000 total. The 802D runs about $12,000 while the 800D is $20,000 and the 801D is $16,000. No, I did not forget the extra expense of the Diamond tweeter which I wish I had on the 805S. But still, the tweeter on the 805S is excellent at the volume levels common to my use.

So, the difference of $4000, when comparing to the 802D, buys much more dynamic range but with significantly less bass response and an audible crossover in the mid-range. I like the trade off.

I wrote this to report that there is a viable alternative for those of us who can do without the imposing appearance and impressive dynamic range of the B&W floor standers. There is a cost savings but my pocket rocket system is still expensive. The performance of the pocket rocket is world class if I may say so. The experiment has proven to be a success when functioning in my bedroom.

If any of you are so motivated, I would love to hear your comments. I certainly don't wish to insult owners of floor standing B&W's. You have magnificent speakers but they, mostly, were not meant to fit into my bedroom. The 805S's, thankfully, are.

Sparky

[sikoniko]

sparky,

the 805s's would be a great choice. one of the things to consider when choosing a speaker is room size. the bigger the speaker, the bigger the room you need to give it.

[thyname]

Wow, great post Karma, apart from asking a question, you answered several questions I had. B&W 805s are my dream speakers, that sometime in the future I may couple with my recently bought REL Q150 subwoofer. I would be very interested to learn about experiences people have with Bookshelves plus subwoofer systems. Currently I use high-pass connection in my sub for my Axiom floorstanders, with crossoff at 40. I know that I have to do a lot of experimentations though.

[Karma]

HI thyname,
Thanks for the good review!

Yes, do experiment and do a lot of critical listening. The main/sub interfaces can be very tricky to get right. The main reson many audiophiles hate subwoofers is because they have never had success with the integreation. I agree in part. I have heard many systems where the integration is terrible. I would do away with the subs before living with such poor results.

Understand, sometimes proper integration is not possible. It all depends on the speakers. Some just do not work well together. Panel speakers are especially difficult to integrate. Be careful to look for this when choosing speakers. You should be thinking "Subwoofers" right from the beginning of the selection process. If you keep this in mind, you should be OK.

Sparky

[thyname]

Thanks Sparky for the advice. I always thought that I would have hard time to integrate a sub in a stereo system, until I heard somebody's system, with Totem Signature bookshelves and a custome made, 10", sealed sub. Awesome integration, accurate and fast bass, and you could not tell if there was a subwoofer involved. Of course, that guy had some expensive gear, Passe tubes pre amp and a cute 30WPC power amp. That is my future objective system, but I am aware I would not afford such system for a few years to come. Until then, B&W would have probably come up with new speakers to replace 805s perhaps.

[perato]

Subwoofer equalizers, such as the Velodyne SMS-1, would make subwoofer integration easier.

[thyname]

Subwoofer equalizers, such as the Velodyne SMS-1, would make subwoofer integration easier.

Even for 2channel (stereo amp plus stereo preamp)? First time I heard about these. I am going to research them right now...

[audioqueso]

"..It’s a difficult comparison because of the 802D’s excellent native bass response and the different room. To my ears, the 805S equals the 802D in all respects except loudness and bass..."

My setup includeds the 805s with a Velodyne sub. Though I like my setup, and it now sounds really good, the midrange of the 802D+ is night and day difference from the midrange of the 805S. I do agree that the advantage of having the 805+sub combination exceeds freq range of most speakers, but I have did audition the 805s + 825 sub combo at the dealership. At the time it was against the 704. But after listening to them, I walked over the room with the 800s, and played my CDs again, and the feeling was real. The 800s make the music sound so real. My speakers make it sound good, real good, but there's no way I could say the mid-range or higher on the 805s sound the same as the 800s.

Good post though Karma.

[Karma]

HI Juan,
Before we can discuss the relative merits of the 805S verses the 802D midrange and highs we must discuss the listening situation. You mention in your post that that you went to a different room to audition the 800S. (Do you mean 800S or 800D? If you really mean 800S then that speaker uses the exact same tweeter as the 805S and the same crossover frequency. There should be no significant differences in tweeter performance.) That's pretty normal dealer marketing behaviour. Put the expensive speakers is the "high end" room. Makes sense to me. My dealer does that too. That implies different amps, different room acoustics, different cables, and a different source player.

Usually I have found that the 805S is consigned to the "apartment dwellers" room which is fitted with lower quality components across the board not to mention component switching systems which does terrible things to the signal. You do not mention your home listening conditions (room, electronics, cables, treatment, etc.) at all.

This is not a fair test. To make the test meaningful, the speakers must be demoed under exactly the same conditions. I was able to do that. Furthermore, I used a Krell KAV 2250 outboard amp at home and for the demo. Since you didn't mention them, I can't speak about your amplifiers but they make a big difference especially with speakers as good as the ones we are talking about. Also, I have never heard a sub and main combo properly set up at a dealers. They have to do too much mixing and matching with different mains to keep a proper setup. I'm not even sure many know how to do it. I do know that most will not take the time to do it.

When I ran my comparison I tried to match my home conditions as closely as possible. My demo was not exact. We were in the high end room which is quite a bit bigger than my bedroom. Other than that the room acoustics were quite close. I also used the same electronics as I have at home. This meant that we had move chairs, tables, and the speakers themselves to match my home listening distances, speaker toe-in, distance between the speakers, etc. Yes, I took a tape measure and drawings. I was quite serious about setting up a useful demo. Luckily, I have a very patient dealer.

The point is valid conclusions can only be made if the tests are as controlled as possible. If you think I am picking nits, you are wrong. These listening conditions are very important.

OTH, you should happy. I'm suggesting that you have top end speakers if you take them seriously enough to extract the best from them. Most folks and dealers still consider 805S's "apartment speakers", surround them with "apartment" electronics and cables, do not take room acoustics seriously, and pine away for the larger 800 series which may someday come into their lives.

One more point. The 350 Hz mid to woofer crossover is still audible to me. That fact alone is sufficient motivation to seek alternatives.

Sparky

Edited to Add: I owe you all an apology. I got a bit defensive concerning the mid range issue. I'm not here to convince anybody that my pocket rocket is the way to go. I really wanted to bring up the issue of mid range crossovers, how they can be avoided, and that the 805S might offer an out. I does hurt a little when I judge the mid range of the 805S to be world class and someone else claims to hear a night and day difference. Clearly we are hearing different things. I guess it's up to you to resolve the issue. Anyway, I'm sorry.

[bigburner]

Many thanks for a very interesting post Sparky.

A few questions if I may...

What is it that you hear in a crossover (particularly in the mid-range) that you don't like? Can you describe it to us?

When integrating a sub (or subs) with main speakers, what is your definition of good integration, or conversely, bad integration? What are you hearing or not hearing?

When setting the crossover frequency for subs, is your approach to set the crossover for the subs to just below the roll-off frequency of the mains? For example, if the roll-off frequency of the mains was 30 Hz would you automatically set the crossover frequency for the subs to 29 Hz or thereabouts?

Why do you think that B&W pre-set the high-pass filter in their subs to 80 Hz?

[thyname]

Many thanks for a very interesting post Sparky.

Why do you think that B&W pre-set the high-pass filter in their subs to 80 Hz?

Hi bigburner, good questions! I was wondering if you have any answer for your last question. You sound like you do...Very curious to learn.

[Karma]

HI big,
My sometimes cynical side tells me that you know a lot more about your questions than you’re letting on. I’ve seen your posts and you are far from a beginner. But your questions are good ones. Answering them will stretch my ability to use the language. If I fail to convey the ideas it’s not because the concepts are faulty but because they are so difficult to talk about. Wish me luck.

We will be working with the following basic definitions. Each has multiple meanings. I cherry picked the ones that apply to our discussion.

INTEGRATE
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Main Entry: in•te•grate
: to form or blend into a unified whole

SIGNATURE
Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Main Entry: sig•na•ture
Function: noun
: a distinguishing or identifying mark, feature, or quality;


First, let’s talk about signatures because that’s what your questions boil down to. The perfect audio device would in no way alter the signal or sound. But in the real world every step along the signal path each component adds its characteristic personality. The sound we hear is the accumulation, or sum of all the signatures along the way. In amps the effect is small. In speakers it’s huge. With speakers we have a very complex situation where a number of signatures are combined that results in the characteristic sound of the speaker. Generally, signatures are not desirable and designers work very hard to eliminate or reduce them.

A speakers signature can thus be variously described as “bright”, “constricted”, “smooth”, “grainy”, “musical”, etc. Within these general descriptions is what I call “micro signatures”. These are the really dirty ones. One of these is the sound of the crossover networks. The average listener will hear it and react with uneasiness at certain points in the music. They generally are not trained enough to react with anything more than uneasiness. It may cause them to reject a speaker without knowing why. Some talented listeners, especially those who are sensitive to the issue, will track it down to a discontinuity when particular instrument is playing particular notes. It is not integrated.

How will they know there is a problem? It calls attention to itself. It is a distinguishing feature, as the definition says. Your mind will come to expect it under certain audible situations. In time your mind will predict its onset by simply knowing where the melody or bass line is going. Being this exact is difficult because the conditions that cause the discontinuity come and go. Extended listening will eventually reveal its nature without any real effort. You will hear the guitar playing a scale and a note in the middle is apparently missing. Or the image becomes unstable. Or the violin shrieks all out of proportion to the average. Or any number of other nasty behaviors some quite subtle while others pound me in the head. Some times we hear of a speaker designer "voicing" a speaker design. This is just a poetic way of saying he is being driven to distraction by micro signatures.

Our hearing is most sensitive in the mid range frequencies. At bass and treble frequencies our hearing becomes much more non linear with reduced volume. Thus we have the famous Fletcher/Munson loudness sensitivity curves. This is a well known and documented effect. But in the mid range our hearing remains remarkably linear and sensitive. Also, most sonic information is concentrated in the mid range. For a speaker design to succeed it must have a great mid range. Mid range crossovers work to defeat even the best speakers. They certainly defeat me.

Good speakers have good crossovers. These are harder to hear. Also, since most audiophiles have spent 100% of their time with crossovers, they take the crossover signature to be the natural order of things. They are not sensitive to the discontinuities. I’m a different case. Most of my time as an audiophile has been spent with full range electrostatics. These have no crossovers thus they are lacking the discontinuities. Consequently, when I listen to a crossed over speaker, my attention is drawn very quickly to the crossover micro signatures. It drives me nuts because it spoils what is other wise a good experience. This sensitivity has chased me away from otherwise good conventional speakers for years.

The best anodyne (means cure and is the name of the tube DAC in my main system; I couldn't resist using such a nice word) is to stay away from speakers without crossovers. Of course by staying away you deprive yourself of the best sound hi fi has to offer, IMHO. It seems like a bad trade off to me.

This is enough for one night. You wouldn’t want me to pull a brain muscle. I will continue with the subject of subwoofer integration tomorrow. Keep the definitions in mind because we will return to them.

Take Care, Sparky

[bigburner]

I was wondering if you have any answer for your last question. You sound like you do...Very curious to learn.

I always presumed it was because B&W had spent thousands of hours researching the optimal crossover frequency for integrating their subs with their speakers.

Another possible reason is that B&W are protecting their heavy handed customers from melting their main speakers.

The first explanation always seemed more likely to me, but after reading Sparky's post I'm not so sure now.

[bigburner]

HI big,
My sometimes cynical side tells me that you know a lot more about your questions than you’re letting on. I’ve seen your posts and you are far from a beginner.

Well that just goes to show it's possible to fool some of the people some of the time!

The truth is that I am just a beginner when it comes to this subject. When I bought my ASW750 sub I simply took B&W's advice on how to integrate it with my system. I did experiment with connecting my main speakers at full signal and altering the low-pass filter on the sub, but after a few hours of trial and error I came to the conclusion that B&W's recommended approach sounded best to me. However I should mention a couple of caveats here:

1. I don't believe that I have an audiophile's ear (compared to my friends I do but compared to many members of this forum I don't) so perhaps I wouldn't know bad integration if I fell over it. Alternatively my decision could have been influenced by caveat #2.

2. I listen to music quite often at high volume and I want to avoid melting my main speakers, so perhaps this was weighing more heavily on my mind than the integration aspect. Using the high-pass filter on the sub certainly does protect my main speakers.

Now that I'm on holiday for a few weeks I have the opportunity to experiment further, hence my questions to you on this subject. I am planning to go back and connect my main speakers (3-way floorstanders with roll-off at 30 Hz) at full signal and vary the low-pass filter setting on the sub. I do remember what came out of my sub when I disconnected my main speakers and the low-pass filter on the sub was set to 30 Hz, and it made me wonder why I would bother having a sub. In fact I would say the same for 45 Hz. However I do have an open mind on this subject and am looking forward to part 2 of your reply Sparky!

[grit]

Ohh, I'd like to add some questions (just trying to learn more).

I've been struggling with adding a sub for 2ch music because in order to do so, my pre-pro (Rotel 1068) converts my analog stereo signal back to digital rather than just sending the full range signal to the sub and allowing the sub to handle the crossover. The process of converting the sound back to analog deteriorates the quality, so I live without a subwoofer for music. Is this problem eliminated with 2-ch pre-amps or higher quality pre-pros? I noticed a comment above about component switching causing a problem. Could you elaborate on that?

Crossovers... I listened to a pair of B&W 803's vs Aerial Acoustic 7b's the other day (everything else was static), and it seemed to me the B&W's accentuated certain sounds or decentuated (did I just make that word up?) other sounds. The Aerial's sounded more "flat"... as though they were not adding or removing anything from the intended sound. As an example, one Frank Sinatra song from "Live at the Sands" has always sounded beautiful to me on my B&W 703's (then again, I've never compared it to anything). The impression I immediately got on the Aerial's was "wow, this is probably how it sounded live".

I don't mean to criticize B&W in any way... I own 703's and love them. My question though is - are the differences I'm hearing a result of this crossover effect? I know both speakers have crossovers, but perhaps they're responsible for different effects in the music? If not, what causes speakers in the same price range to sound so dramatically different if everyone's trying to get their speakers to make music sound as close to live as possible?

[thyname]

I agree, good thread for us beginners to learn. Thank you Karma and Bigburner..

I recently purchased a REL sub Q150E to go with my 2 channel Rotel/Axiom system. I use High-pass level connection in my sub, but I don't seem to set the crossover in the sub right. I initially thought it sounded right around 40 MHZ but then I moved it up to around 60 and sounded kind of better. My speakers are three-way floorstanders (axiom M60). Any suggestions??

[RebelMan]

Sparky interesting experiment. I think, however, you are overlooking one very important aspect. The acoustical colorations of the bass/mid-band driver of the bookshelf speakers, i.e., 805S's, are inherently more audible than the "perceived" discontinuities of the 350 Hz crossover frequency between the woofer and midrange drivers of the corresponding floor standers.

The FST midrange driver was designed and implemented to reduce by absorbtion both the point-source (forward) and transmission line (reverse) resonances that occurred with the bass/mid-band drivers used in the 805S's. Furthermore, B&W laboratory experiments have demonstrated that the energy not absorbed by the the half rolled surround was reflected back down into the cone. Reflections also occur at the place where the surround is joined to the chassis. This coupling effect of the up and down sound waves also contributes to audible coloration's.

My experience with both the 805S's and the 804S's in the same environment driven by the same equipment were clearly distinguished in the midrange frequencies. So significant the differences were, that to further consider the 805S's (price differences and all) would have eventually lead to regret. Understand, I had every intention of purchasing the 805S's, that was until I heard the 804S's. The FST driver was the primary reason why I ended up with a pair of floor standers.

The 805S's are great speakers but in the words of audioqueso, the difference "is night and day".

[Karma]

HI All,
The subwoofer discussion will have to wait. A challange has been issued and must be dealt with. By a Rebel no less. I always thought I was the rebel. I have been upbraided by conventionality.

I don't know how to respond to your post. You state facts as though they must be accepted as God's good word but there's no meat. If one just looks at the published specifications of the 800 series there are definite distortion differences between the models. The 805S exhibits the worst harmonic distortion but is far from terrible In fact it's quite good.

No doubt this is related to the big job the mid/bass driver has to do. My argument has always been carefully referenced to the acoustic space of my bedroom. It's what makes the experiment interesting. What can one do with a small acoustic space?? Should I mention the terrific bass? I hope you know I would never seriously try to compare the larger 800 speakers to the 805 in a large or even moderate space. Why do you make it seem as though I am?

If you are going to make an argument from B&W's laboratory work and expect me to accept it at face value I decline. State your sources, define the experiments, define the test conditions, when were these tests run, on the 805S drivers specificaly? Give me a chance to evaluate the data and tests. I'm a technical person. They are not beyond me, I assure you.

Look I don't want to go to war over this issue. I'll stick to my listening experiences which tell me the 805S compares very favorably with the larger systems in the environment where I use them. In fact, thats where they are designed to be used. The larger systems are designed for larger spaces and are at a distinct disadvantage in a small space. You don't seem willing to acknowledge that my acoustic space is not an auditorium. Why do you refuse to look at that part of the experiment? It's crucial. I don't understand.

One more thing. Crossovers are audible. By me, by many others and certainly by speaker designers. I sort of caught an arrogant put down by your use of work "perceived" in quotation marks. It's not not my responsibility that you can't hear them. That does not mean that are not audible and important. I hope I'm wrong about my impression. You seem smarter that that.

Sparky

[bigburner]

The subwoofer discussion will have to wait.

Such a disappointment for a girl...

Prince Ludwig the Indestructible in Blackadder the Second, Episode Six, "Chains".

[RebelMan]

Sparky, no attempt to discredit your experimental observations (what you hear in your room with your equipment) has been made. However, if an experiment such as this is to be taken for what seems to be intended, i.e., a pair of 805S's and a well integrated subwoofer can circumvent most if not all the benefits a pair of floor-standers could provide given similar room conditions, then I believe it prudent for the experimenter to consider all of the (significant) variables at work. It seemed to me that one very important variable was missing from your analysis, a comparison of the different drivers used to recreate the all important midrange.

All listening rooms will impose some amount of character to the sounds moving about the room. How the room behaves is largely dependent on what is in it and how the speakers are arranged. You gave no description about your room's composition. Nor did you conduct the same tests using speakers other than those that you own. You did offer a disclaimer to this fact, however, I think some assumptions made regarding the benefits the floor-standers would have or would not have provided, without "testing" them, can present misleading conclusions.

Our opinions simply differ in this case and that is okay. However, an experiment (informal or otherwise) that is conducted without considering all of the necessities for an unbiased outcome and then sharing that information with other impressionable readers I think is a disservice. You suggested that I share with you my references otherwise the information I provided will fall on deaf ears. I could entertain your request and simply furnish the results but what is the fun in that? The search for understanding is part of the fun in this hobby. I can give you a hint that may help guide you in your quest... whitepaper.

Crossovers can be audible, that is not in dispute. The question is to what extent? What I find interesting about your experiment, beyond what has already been mentioned, is the crossover frequency you chose to analyze. You freely admit that the 4 KHz crossover point between the midrange and tweeter drivers is not audible to you. Yet your time spent with electrostatic speakers, which as we know does not use crossovers for midband and treble frequencies, would seem to suggest that you should. Either B&W did a very good job in building their crossover network or pyschoacoustics are involved. I like to think it was the former.

However, most electrostatic speakers, like those from Martin Logan, use low order crossovers because we also know that they do a poor job delivering dynamic impact and lack low frequency extension and therefore are typically augmented with separate dynamic woofers or a subwoofer. To me these hybrid types can sometimes exhibit an audible discontinuity at the transition frequency more readily than the likes of dynamic monitors. And like dynamic speakers they use crossover frequencies (that I have seen) that range from 100 - 400 Hz, similar to the 350 Hz found on the B&W floor-standers.

I would be curious to know what your conclusions would have been if a pair of floor-standers, e.g., 804S's, could be had for the same price as your bookshelfs.

[Karma]

HI Rebel,
Thanks for comming back with your thoughts. Let's see, where shall I start?

This is the not the first high quality system I have installed in my bedroom. It's just the latest and best. Prior to this one I had a system based upon Celestion SL-600 speakers plus subs. They needed bass help but never integrated as well as the 805's and the ASW800's. Are you old enough to remember these? They were hot about 15 years ago. When John Atkinson first arrived from England to take over editorship of Sterephile magazine the SL-600's were his reference speakers. They remained so for several more years. I know John since we both lived in Santa Fe and had a commoin passion for audio. I also knew his reviewers that lived in Santa Fe. Gordon Holt absolutely has the finest ears I have ever been around. Awesome!!

Dick Olsher, a friend for 25 years and former Stereophile reviewer and tube maven, and I have auditioned many systems together. He lives about a mile from me. He used SL-600's as his reference before he moved on to Sound Lab stats. Isn't dropping names fun? The SL-600's were good speakers, even revolutionary, but not as good as the 805's. Time marches on. The point is I know this room very well, quirks and all. Why would you think I wouldn't? The room is the most vital element that directs every decision an audiophile must make about equipment. The system must be considered as a system and not a collection of individual elements hooked together by expensive cables. And that system hugely includes the room.

Next, if you were me, you would not be arguing about extent of crossover audibility. True, some are worse than others. Mostly, makers hope we don't notice. And many don't.

I don't want speakers that impose signatures on the sound. Life is too short. Of course, all speakers have signatures. The best we can do is try to limit them or decide which ones are most offensive. Since I know I can hear the crossovers, and they are very offensive, why would I subject myself to the pain? Are they worse than other speaker problems? Hard to say generally, but in the case of the pocket rocket system, the sound fits my priorities.

Last, and most important. I don't buy ANY audio equipment based upon spec sheets. Often I don't even refer to them at all. I depend entirely on what I hear. In the case of amplifiers I make an exception because I want to be sure the amp exceeds the speakers power handling abilty. Ears are the key and they reveal the truth. I really don't care what others opinions are. I can only believe my ears. And these are very experienced ears. Talented ears? Don't know. I'd like to think so. They certainly have selected some fine systems over years, IMO. I TRUST MY EARS.

Electrostatic speakers have a whole other world of issues. One they don't have is crossover sound. Bass performance is terrible, both in terms of depth and dynamic range. I agree. Hybred designs have not impressed me. I have not heard the Martin Logan Statements which are said to overcome the panel/woofer discontinuities. Maybe, but I'm sceptical. My Martin Logan CLSIIA's with the Kinnergetic SW 800 subs are quite simply the finest speakers I have ever heard. And I've heard many fine ones. There are no audible discontinuities and the bass is to die for. Most, not all, electrostatic quirks have been overcome. I wish you could hear them. I think you would agree. But gosh, in todays dollars, this is a $50,000 dollar system. It should be good and it is. Its Audio Research tube preamp and power amp are wonderful beyond description. Trade in your Rotels's, cost effective as they are, for tubes. You'll never be sorry.

May I add that all this prefection came at a price. I worked hard to get the system where it is. I'm most proud of the integration of the subs and stats. It is audibly perfect; not an easy task.

I'm going to end this now. I have been lured into discussing my qualifications as an audiophile. I'm willing to play that game for a while. In the end it is not productive exept, maybe, to convice you that I am not the uninformed, earless, clueless audiophile you seem to assume I am. Let me end by saying that I hope you make the commitment to fine sound that fine sound requires. You have not yet made it. Last piece of wisdom. There are no shortcuts in this game. You get what you pay for including the pocket rocket. In general, it has limitations but they are few and small in magnitude. They are not the limitations on which you are concentrating.

Sparky

[RebelMan]

LOL, believe it or not I do remember those SL-600's, all too well. However, I seem to remember them from almost 20 years ago. It was at a time when I began my AV pursuits. Indeed a young pup to the hobby, literally (I was a young teen). I almost bought a pair. Ended up with a couple of Mission 707's instead. It was a price thing.

I make no assumptions about your room or your familiarity with it. I do believe that your are satisfied with the performance your new arrangement provides you. I stated that the 805S's are fine speakers and I considered adopting them. Paired with the right subwoofer "configuration" I believe they make a fantastic solution for many HT enthusiasts. Musically speaking, I found them lacking. Congested in their presentation. Good but not good enough... to me.

This observation came free of any preconceived notions about benchmark tests. Technical information should only be used as a guide for understanding what it is and why it is we hear what we do. I am happy to see that you feel the same.

Admittedly, I am probably less sensitive to crossover anomalies than you. However, I am well tuned to detecting musical transparencies or the lack there of. I find the excessive coloration's of the 805S's drivers unacceptable. My initial encounter with them was pleasant but not enough to satisfy my ears. Throw dollars into the equation and then some "sense" must be made. Are they worth the money? That more than any room determines what we end up with. Agreed?

About my Rotels, they are fine specimens and do what is expected of them very well. I know I can do better and at some point I will. Tubes are not on the radar at this time nor will they be anytime soon. As pleasant as they may be to the ears they can scare off the timid on paper!

You are speaking to a guy that also finds vinyl the best a man (woman) can get for their ears, but there is something tangible about convenience, ala CD's and iPods (uncompressed mind you). Call me a sellout, I don't mind! :lol:

[scottielee]

thanks to Sparky and RebelMan for a great debate. i thoroughly enjoyed the read and thought there are very good arguments from both sides.

i don't have much to add, but i couldn't resist posting a few unscientific conclusions/preferences of my own.

my system consists of a pair of Signature 805, a single Velodyne DD-12, Jadis JA30, and Wadia 861b connected directly to amps and sub. i have owned the Signature 805 for 2 years.

i think it is pretty safe to say that both crossovers and drivers are among the most important aspects of speakers, along with cabinet design. since no design is ever perfect, which compromise one choose over another is entirely up to one's taste.

after hearing numerous systems in different settings that sound better than my own to my ears (more refined, detailed, immediate, lively...), i have developed a taste for the following:

1. high efficiency drivers for their sense of effortless
2. separate enclosures for tweeter, midrange, and bass drivers for less cross-talk

looking at many great speaker designs to which #2 applies, such as the B&W Model Nautilus, Goldmund Epilogue, Wilson, Avantgarde, and Acapella (my favorite), i have no doubt that a monitors+subs setup can certainly work wonders.

happy listening and have a great new year!
scott

[Karma]

HI All,
I want to let you know that the promised write up on subwoofer integration is not forgotten. I decided the write up may have a larger audience than just to those who have participated in this thread.

So, I made a whole new post in the B&W Speaker Club. I hope you read it.

Thanks, Sparky

[JKalman]

I always presumed it was because B&W had spent thousands of hours researching the optimal crossover frequency for integrating their subs with their speakers.

Another possible reason is that B&W are protecting their heavy handed customers from melting their main speakers.

The first explanation always seemed more likely to me, but after reading Sparky's post I'm not so sure now.

80Hz is the crossover point that THX specifications define for their standard. I'm not certain if this is why B&W uses it, but it seems reasonable to consider it a possibility.

[george_k]

Karma,

I hate crossovers! They are, at best, a necessary evil to be avoided if possible.

Have you given these a listen?

http://www.reference3a.com/dulcet.htm

"As with all our other REFERENCE 3A designs, Dulcet's main driver is also directly coupled to amplifiers. Without crossover components interfering with musical signal flow the sound is responsive, fast and articulate. A simple, very high quality high pass filter is used on the treble unit for better integrated sound."

[audioqueso]

Edited to Add: I owe you all an apology. I got a bit defensive concerning the mid range issue. I'm not here to convince anybody that my pocket rocket is the way to go. I really wanted to bring up the issue of mid range crossovers, how they can be avoided, and that the 805S might offer an out. I do hurt a little when I judge the mid range of the 805S to be world class and someone else claims to hear a night and day difference. Clearly we are hearing different things. I guess it's up to you to resolve the issue. Anyway, I'm sorry.

lol.. I just realized that it was directed towards me. I didn't catch it as offensive the first time. No harm done, no feelings hurt, Karma. I actually had to reread your reply to see what you were offensive about.

However, getting back to the subject... yes, the midrange is world class, but I still get amazed by the performance of the 802+. I've heard some every impressive setups with the 805, but for me it's the 800-802 that does it for me. Then again, I think your ears are very different from the most of us here in that you have a life long acquired hearing to electrostatic speakers. So your ears are very sensitive to any change to a perfectly flat freq response, wouldn't you agree? I hear excellent x-overs and it sounds good to me. You can hear the differences though. Good article though. Thanks.

[Karma]

HI audioquesto,
Good to hear from you again. I have given a lot of thought to the point you brought up about my "stat background". I think you are right about it influencing my expectations. The lack of crossovers and the pristine clarity of electrostatics create over time a different perception and different sonic priorities.

High on my priority list is clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and minimal signature. But here is the problem. I think everybody who is into high end audio would say the same thing. These are basic priorities for any audiophile. They do not constitute a difference. So, where does the difference lie? I think it is only a matter of degree and the balance between them. This is very hard to for me to discuss in a way that can be understood. I'm not even sure I understand it.

I do not want to be drawn into a discussion of this speaker verses that speaker. To argue against the B&W 800 series floorstanders is silly and I'm not going to do it. They are all wonderful speakers. My purpose in starting the Pocket Rocket thread was to examine the possibilities that the 805S's offered and report what I had found. I feel quite certain that 805S's are never taken seriously enough to surround them with top notch electronics, great cables, seriously considred room treatment and and good subwoofers. Therefore, they are never heard at their best. For most folks they are a stepping stone to bigger systems.

I have always liked top end monitors because of their imaging which I think is the best available short of electrostatics. That plus they are two way systems without mid range crossovers which results in a realistic relationship with good subwoofers. But I had never taken them to the limit. In the 805S I found a monitor around which I thought a true high end system could be built without any appologies. It was an experiment. The thread was an attempt to see what others thought about it.

What I found was a lot of negativity. Frankly, this confused me. Now I realize that I was doing more than offering an alternative. I was challaging the quality of the floorstanders relative to the puny 805S's which people of good audio integrety did not like. I don't blame them. I wouldn't either.

I do think that the folks who responded were too busy defending their choice and not open to an alternative that many could take advantage of and get a great system for small spaces. I found this disappointing. Heck, I would love to have any of the floorstanders. But I love my Pocket Rocket system too. I still think it gives most of the systems built around the larger speaker systems a run for their money and in some ways is better for the space in which it is installed. I am unrepentant. But I do regret forcing folks into a defensive posture when it wasn't necessary and inhibited the open flow of ideas. But, it was a good thread, I think.

Sparky

[audioqueso]

Karma, take this with a grain of salt... I think you're talking too much. lol I just reread the entire thread. I feel because of how much you were 'selling' your idea that you took people's comments the wrong way. Somebody correct me if my I'm wrong, but it really didn't seem like people were being defensive. Just commenting their views in a neutral way. But like I said, I think you were so ready to tell everyone about your experiement (which was good) that you took some things the wrong way. You had a very valid point about the 805s versus the rest of the 800 series. It had excellent information. And that's it. Nothing wrong. lol

Now go have a good day, Karma.

[Karma]

HI audioquesto,
I agree. Thanks for your honesty. The only excuse I have was (is) my enthusiasm for the performance of a system that not many are taking seriously.

Sparky