Anyone upgraded from the 802Di to 800Di?

[RebelMan]

Edit: I did think that my 803Ss had very good bass definition though, nowhere near 802s but still very good for the amount they cost me.

Agreed. Bass with the 803S was quite good but it did suffer a handicap. In an ideal setting the woofers should recreate sound from the signal fed to them and add nothing more. The 803S weren't content in doing that but rather went a step further by adding the drivers' resonant signature into the mix. It's not unusual for the characteristics of the driver to bleed over to some extent but in this case it was a bit more noticeable then it should have been. The issue did clear up in the 800D and it remained that way with the introduction of the 804D2. The new motor system has no doubt improved the linearity of the bass driver's response which manifests in lower harmonic distortion than in the previous series.

[TomScrut]

It was a massive improvement from the Nautilus range though!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[RebelMan]

It was a massive improvement from the Nautilus range though!

Indeed.

[Mark_NZ]

The 803D/D2 is difficult to get dialed in correctly and even then the midrange is not as well represented. Bass is good though but unfortunately it only adds to the disparity between the mids and highs making it the least tonally balanced of the series. Factor in the difficulty navigating it around the room and there is even less reason to appreciate it. I like the 803D2 but it doesn't posses the kind of value that the 804D2 and the 802D2 do.

Respectively that is not my experience. I have lived with the 803Diamond (803D2) almost 2 years, prior that the 803D for a few years, and prior to that the 804S. Also demoed the 803Diamond vs 802Diamond vs 800Diamond in direct comparison, and auditioned the 804Diamond, 802D and 800D separately. I have really enjoyed both the 803D2 and 803D due to their overall balance of virtues, and in particular I found that they provide excellent, if not the best in the range, bass quality vs quantity trade-off (in my open lounge area of approx 6m vs 15m).

Here are few comparisons I have made over the years:
803D vs 804S: no context, 803D better is every respect. 804S bass was noticeably dynamically constrained compared to 803D, and needed to be pushed hard whereas the 803D provided satisfying bass balance at both low and high volumes. Midrange of 803D was also more open.
803D2 vs 803D: 803D2 is better in most respects, but not quite as well balanced tonally as 803D. I think the 803D2 tweeter is about 1dB too hot compared to midrange. However the 803D2 midrange and bass is very well integrated with a lack of male voice chestiness that can be occasionally heard with the 803D. Overall the 803D2 has better clarity throughout frequency range, and an excellent agile bass with satisfying weight. Despite the slightly bright top end, it sounds overall well balanced due to decent bass.
803D2 vs 802D: newer 803D2 is better, perhaps midrange openness still belongs 802D, but in every other respect I found the 803D2 better. In particular I was bothered by the 802D bass that was noticeably undamped which resulted in lack of bass precision.
802D2 vs 802D: I think the 802D2 is a useful improvement, in particular I noted the improved bass agility (I guess something I focus on!) and overall improvement in clarity.
803D2 vs 802D2: As per 803D vs 802D, the 803D2 bass is a more articulate and differences between bass weight/depth minimal. 802D2 midrange is better but I haven't qualified the extent of improvement from my auditions. Also as per 803D2, the 802D2 tweeter is bit hot compared to midrange - so requires careful amplifier matching. Classe works well, but another hi-end amplifier auditioned resulted in too bright balance.
804D2 : Huge step forward compared to 804S with impressive bass dynamics on the end of a Devialet (SAM function helped!). But doesn't have near the weight of the 803D2 or 802D2.
800D2 vs 802D2 / 803D2 : Significant improvement in bass weight and overall presence. Difference is more noticeable compared to that between the 803D2 vs 802D2.

With respect to dialling in the 803D/D2: I will admit to spending an inordinate time tweaking the position of loudspeakers and system. However this is no more difficult or less required than for other speakers I have owned. As a result I have consistently found my system outperforms systems with 802D2 and 800D2 that have not been as carefully setup. See a post elsewhere on my experiments with isolation under the 803D/D2.

With respect to value - interesting the 803D2 was until recently the best value in New Zealand - mostly because the prices of the 802D2 and 800D2 was ridiculous inflated. The 800 series prices were recently brought into line with elsewhere in world, and in fact I think the 802D2 now probably holds the value/price sweet point followed by the 803D2.

Perhaps one unique advantage of the 803D/D2 compared to the rest of the range is that the 3 bass drivers spread-out the launch of the bass over wider area, and hence result in a smoother interaction with the room. (One of the reasons Magico uses 3 bass drivers in the Q3, Q5, and latest M).

[TomScrut]

803D2 vs 802D2: As per 803D vs 802D, the 803D2 bass is a more articulate and differences between bass weight/depth minimal. 802D2 midrange is better but I haven't qualified the extent of improvement from my auditions. Also as per 803D2, the 802D2 tweeter is bit hot compared to midrange - so requires careful amplifier matching. Classe works well, but another hi-end amplifier auditioned resulted in too bright balance.

I certainly don't agree with your views on the bass here. The 803 IMO sound forced with its bass, it's a bit more in your face with it than the 802 and I certainly don't call that more articulate. The 800 and 802 are far more effortless which leads to a more balanced and natural sound IMO.

I thought all the tweeters were hot compared to the midrange? The 804 and 803 were both measured hot by a magazine IIRC, with the 802 if anything being less pronounced. In room my 802s do have a slight boost in the treble though.

One key thing about your comparison is that you mention treble mid and bass individually, and I think that is how they sound on the 803. With the 802 and 800 the sound is all as one, where it almost doesn't seem like you are listening to speakers anymore.

I aren't knocking the 803, as I do feel it is a good speaker and I would have bought a pair if I hadn't got 802s, but I did feel that there wasn't anything sound wise that the 803 did better than the 802. The only reasons for buying 803s rather than 802s are price, space, WAF/appearance IMO.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Mark_NZ]

The 803 IMO sound forced with its bass, it's a bit more in your face with it than the 802 and I certainly don't call that more articulate. The 800 and 802 are far more effortless which leads to a more balanced and natural sound IMO.

The 802 and 803 use very similar bass drivers - 2 x 8" vs 3 x 7", but 802 has greater internal volume. As a result the 802 bass response is bit more undamped than the 803. And this is what I hear in my comparisons, the 803 a bit more articulate in bass (e.g. bass lines slightly more delineated) and 802 a bit more extended. On the other hand I found the 800 was a significant step up in overall bass performance.

BTW - as an interesting side-note - the best bass performance I have ever heard from a loudspeaker is from the Jamo R909 - incredible clarity and impact on bass heavy music.

I thought all the tweeters were hot compared to the midrange? The 804 and 803 were both measured hot by a magazine IIRC, with the 802 if anything being less pronounced. In room my 802s do have a slight boost in the treble though.

Correct - the 80xD2 series tweeter measures on-axis consistently 'hot' and the speakers do reflect that to varying degrees. The extent that this is an issue depends on type of room, positioning, front-end gear etc. However I do want to qualify that because the Diamond tweeters sound incredibly clean, this not that noticeable. Success for me is how long I listen before getting fatigued or irritated by tonal imbalances - and with my current system I can listen the whole day :P

One key thing about your comparison is that you mention treble mid and bass individually, and I think that is how they sound on the 803. With the 802 and 800 the sound is all as one, where it almost doesn't seem like you are listening to speakers anymore.

I don't hear this discontinuity with the 803D or 803D2 (whereas there was a hint of this in the older 804S). The integration is remarkable given the disparate driver materials. I expect the Marlan head by design to improve integration between midrange and tweeter. So my guess is that a long-term owner of 802/801/800 may be able to latch onto a deficiency in this area with the other models. I would love to hear from others on their experiences?

I aren't knocking the 803, as I do feel it is a good speaker and I would have bought a pair if I hadn't got 802s, but I did feel that there wasn't anything sound wise that the 803 did better than the 802. The only reasons for buying 803s rather than 802s are price, space, WAF/appearance IMO.

Phew - don't call my children ugly No - seriously though - I look for truth, performance and aesthetics. I have always been a fan of the 802 design, to the extent that it has been my top desired loudspeaker to own ever since the 802N was released! But I have been discouraged to upgrade because I found the differences were not overwhelming in favour of the 802 for the historical price difference. Given the recent local reduced price differential, I will now recommend the 802 over the 803 for it's overall clarity - and in fact I recently guided a relative to that choice.

[RebelMan]

Mark, I don't doubt your findings but for us sitting on the sidelines it's difficult to accept your conclusions without better knowledge of each test case setup and environment? Were all the conditions the same or were there variations in place and time, etc.? I noticed the 803S was a missing test subject. Why?

The sad truth is the 803D/D2 is rarely ever setup to sound proper. It's a big speaker in every dimension and is heavy making it awkward to place. The 802 can be rolled and the 804 can be lifted which are significant advantages when fine tuning. The 803D/D2 has to be scooted and if it's on carpet it should also be spiked. Speaking of spiking this is the 803D/D2 achilles heal. Unless the listing position is seated on a 3-4" platform or is a significant distance back from the speakers, imaging fails to coalesce as well as the others. Bass and midrange frequencies will sound mildly disjointed. To compensate, I have had to rake the 803D/D2 forward to bring the vertical dispersion more on point when listening from a typical seated position. Not the best thing to do as it can mess with timing but the tradeoffs favor it. The Marlan head eschews this issue by a wide margin and so the 802 needn't use these positioning tactics to tame the baffle misgivings of the 803D/D2. The 804 lines up right out of the box so it's a minor issue to contend with.

I agree that the bass is probably the best thing going for the 803D/D2 but it is also the primary source of the problems further up the band. Unless the dispersion issues I mentioned are carefully dealt with, the bass will overpower and cloudy up the midrange making for a hotter top end. The baffle step exacerbates this with a 6dB rise between 550Hz and 2KHz (by my estimates). Cabinet diffraction on the 804 suffers in a similar way but comes in about 500Hz later with a smoother slope and and a flatter curve before crossing over. To compensate and smooth out the in room response the speaker can be positioned closer to the wall thereby simulating an infinite baffle but then the 803D/D2 is plagued with too much boundary gain. The 804, on the other hand, benefits from close placement which not only gives more weight to the lower frequencies it does so at minimal cost to midrange smearing. The 803D/D2 loses this advantage which further limits the scope of placement opportunities and drives up the compromises.

The 803D/D2 doesn't give anything up in the treble region but it doesn't win any awards either with respect to the other Diamond floor standers.

The 803D/D2 is a good speaker that can sound great but not without expending a lot (assuming the constraints in the room will even allow it).

Even if the 803D/D2 didn't have these considerations, I would still have a hard time getting over the image I see of a silly little penguin from Madagascar. The 803D/D2 is not portly by any means but from the head up "Skipper" is staring back. :P

804D2 : Huge step forward compared to 804S with impressive bass dynamics on the end of a Devialet (SAM function helped!). But doesn't have near the weight of the 803D2 or 802D2.

By the way, how did you get SAM working for the 804D2 on the Devialet? It wasn't available when I demoed it at home for the week and as far as I can tell is still in development. Perhaps bass from the 804D2 (unaided by SAM) impressed you more than you realize? With better placement (and maybe SAM) I am sure you'll find the 804D2 competes well with its brothers.

[Mark_NZ]

Mark, I don't doubt your findings but for us sitting on the sidelines it's difficult to accept your conclusions without better knowledge of each test case setup and environment? Were all the conditions the same or were there variations in place and time, etc.?

Fair question - you can also see my system evolution on Audiogon - search for "A New Zealand System" in Virtual Systems.
I owned the 804S, 803D and now the 803D2 and used in the same room and against the same wall.
The system components included: Marantz SA14S2/SA11S2>Jeff Rowland Synergy/Corus Preamp>2 x biamped Marantz SM17/Cambridge Audio 840W/Classe2300. Used the same components at time of switchover from one loudspeaker to the newer model. Comparisons between subsequent models were made with the same front-end, speakers run-in and positioning optimised.

My auditions of the other 800 series speakers were in various B&W stores:
Recently did a side by side comparison of 803D2, 802D2 and 800D2 on Classe CP800 dac/preamp>Classe M600 amplifiers. Focused on overall tonal balance, clarity and bass quality - didn't bother to compare soundstaging due to adjacent speakers.
Listening extensively to a family member's 802D2 on Classe CP800 dac/preamp>Classe M600 amplifiers.
Auditioned 802D2 on Jeff Rowland Corus preamp + 625 amplifier.
Auditioned 802D on Wadia CD Player + integrated amplifier (I believe it was a Plinius).
Recently auditioned 804D2 on Devialet 200, and 802D2 on Devialet 200.
And there a few other short auditions not worth mentioning.

I noticed the 803S was a missing test subject. Why?

Unfortunately never got to audition the 803S.

It's a big speaker in every dimension and is heavy making it awkward to place. The 802 can be rolled and the 804 can be lifted which are significant advantages when fine tuning. The 803D/D2 has to be scooted and if it's on carpet it should also be spiked.

Agree - it cannot be easily picked up and moved as with the 805 and 804. But in reality once the 800 and 802 are spiked, you have the same challenge.
Also the 803 is a bit top heavy which combined with the small spike area and spikes that don't easily penetrate the carpet - you looking at a potential toppling disaster. I solved this problem with both the 804 and 803 by not using the B&W spikes, by building a heavy plywood platform (using 28mm thick marine Brown wood) with spikes further apart and that penetrate the carpet into the chip floor board.

Unless the listing position is seated on a 3-4" platform or is a significant distance back from the speakers, imaging fails to coalesce as well as the others. Bass and midrange frequencies will sound mildly disjointed.

I believe part of the problem is that first order crossovers require some distance from the drivers for the sound to integrate.
One advantage of the height of the 803 is that the image seems to be positioned fairly high and decoupled from the speakers.

To compensate, I have had to rake the 803D/D2 forward to bring the vertical dispersion more on point when listening from a typical seated position.

I rake my 803 forward a few degrees by adjusting the spikes. But because I use a platform this does not further destabilise the speaker.

The Marlan head eschews this issue by a wide margin and so the 802 needn't use these positioning tactics to tame the baffle misgivings of the 803D/D2. The 804 lines up right out of the box so it's a minor issue to contend with.

Good to hear the Marlan head solves this.

I agree that the bass is probably the best thing going for the 803D/D2 but it is also the primary source of the problems further up the band. Unless the dispersion issues I mentioned are carefully dealt with, the bass will overpower and cloudy up the midrange making for a hotter top end. The baffle step exacerbates this with a 6dB rise between 550Hz and 2KHz (by my estimates). Cabinet diffraction on the 804 suffers in a similar way but comes in about 500Hz later with a smoother slope and and a flatter curve before crossing over.

Interesting. I did notice that you needed to position the loudspeaker for best bass vs midrange clarity. However this is a challenge for any decent sized speaker though. Never noticed the top end 'hotting' up - but always found that it sounds about 1dB elevated compared to midrange.

To compensate and smooth out the in room response the speaker can be positioned closer to the wall thereby simulating an infinite baffle but then the 803D/D2 is plagued with too much boundary gain.

Yes - noticed that it cannot be positioned too close to rear wall - mine are 85cm between wall and back of speaker.
Is this a similar issue for 802/800?

The 804, on the other hand, benefits from close placement which not only gives more weight to the lower frequencies it does so at minimal cost to midrange smearing. The 803D/D2 loses this advantage which further limits the scope of placement opportunities and drives up the compromises.

That is good news that the 804 allows closer to the wall positioning.

The 803D/D2 doesn't give anything up in the treble region but it doesn't win any awards either with respect to the other Diamond floor standers.

Cut the 803 some slack 8) - the treble sounds similar across the range.

The 803D/D2 is a good speaker that can sound great but not without expending a lot (assuming the constraints in the room will even allow it).

The room positioning is definitely a constraint in that requires positioning further out in the room. However the front-end does not have be expensive. The surprising thing is that the 803 works well with low power (with decent current capability). For example I used the Marantz 60W amplifiers on the 803D with no significant limitations in volume or dynamics. I once tried a Marantz SM11 amplifier which has power output meter - I averaged a few watts when listening very loud. And the 803D2 is even more sensitive than the 803D. A Cambridge Audio 840W with decent DAC with built-in volume control will make for a very affordable high end system.

Even if the 803D/D2 didn't have these considerations, I would still have a hard time getting over the image I see of a silly little penguin from Madagascar. The 803D/D2 is not portly by any means but from the head up "Skipper" is staring back. :P

How could you do that to me - I will never will get that image out my mind now 8O.

By the way, how did you get SAM working for the 804D2 on the Devialet? It wasn't available when I demoed it at home for the week and as far as I can tell is still in development.

I may have misheard the sales person when I auditioned. I was very surprised by the bass quality compared to my memory of the 804S.
BTW I recently auditioned Devialet with SAM enabled on the 802D2 - it definitely improved the bass, but didn't fully bridge the gap between the 802D2 and 800D2 - sigh.

[Greg Gale]

I certainly don't agree with your views on the bass here. The 803 IMO sound forced with its bass, it's a bit more in your face with it than the 802 and I certainly don't call that more articulate. The 800 and 802 are far more effortless which leads to a more balanced and natural sound IMO.

I thought all the tweeters were hot compared to the midrange? The 804 and 803 were both measured hot by a magazine IIRC, with the 802 if anything being less pronounced. In room my 802s do have a slight boost in the treble though.

One key thing about your comparison is that you mention treble mid and bass individually, and I think that is how they sound on the 803. With the 802 and 800 the sound is all as one, where it almost doesn't seem like you are listening to speakers anymore.

I aren't knocking the 803, as I do feel it is a good speaker and I would have bought a pair if I hadn't got 802s, but I did feel that there wasn't anything sound wise that the 803 did better than the 802. The only reasons for buying 803s rather than 802s are price, space, WAF/appearance IMO.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

In regards to the treble being hot this is true on the 800 series range showing broad peaks in treble energy in the 7 to 16Khz area; however the 804D has the greatest variation and the reports from Stereophile and HI FI World show a suck out for the 804D at 1.5 to 3Khz and then peaks in the treble at 7Khz and 16 KHz. HIFI world shows a 6Db peak at 12Khz.

If you look at the measurement in the most recent Stereophile on the 804D, between the suck out between 1.5 and 3Khz and the treble peak at 10Khz, it is around 12 db which is a much greater variation than the 803D2, 802D2 or 800D2.

Not sure why this is the case on the 804D2 versus the others.

[aarsoe]

I don't doubt the findings described above but I truly doubt that all speakers were completely broken in. Especially the 802 and 800 takes a long time to reveal what they are capable off. Not to mention making them play nicely in the listening room is not always that easy..

[RebelMan]

In regards to the treble being hot this is true on the 800 series range showing broad peaks in treble energy in the 7 to 16Khz area; however the 804D has the greatest variation and the reports from Stereophile and HI FI World show a suck out for the 804D at 1.5 to 3Khz and then peaks in the treble at 7Khz and 16 KHz. HIFI world shows a 6Db peak at 12Khz.

If you look at the measurement in the most recent Stereophile on the 804D, between the suck out between 1.5 and 3Khz and the treble peak at 10Khz, it is around 12 db which is a much greater variation than the 803D2, 802D2 or 800D2.

Not sure why this is the case on the 804D2 versus the others.

I touched on the suck-out subject a little a while back in this post. The problem with observations like these is the ease in which they can be taken out of context. To fully understand what the graphs are trying to tell, a clear understanding of the test methods used to arrive at them is critical. Stereophile is clear about the the techniques they use but HIFI World's testing methods seem devoid of any explanation.

Looking back, audio.pl states in their review of the 804S that it takes an approximate 3 dB dip at 2.5kHz which is somewhat consistent with reports from Stereophile's and HFI World's review of the 804D2. audio.pl also noted that if the gentle slope of the crossover filters didn't need to integrate the wideband extremes (breakup points) between the FST and tweeter drivers the 804S would measure to within the +/- 2.5dB throughout 40Hz - 20kHz.

My guess is HIFI World is taking in room measurements, possibly in the far field, given the variations they reported. In spite of the results they also stated that "In practice the dip shown tends to change according to microphone position..." The author eventually concludes that the 804D2 were at times breathtakingly pure and concise and "... at times had me wondering whether an audience of broad taste would think this is what a high fidelity loudspeaker should sound like". In Stereophile, Kal had a favorable take on the 804D2 in his demo room also.

According to B&W the 804D2 measures to within 38Hz - 28kHz ±3dB in the lab but in room response is closer to -6dB at the 30Hz and 33kHz extremes. So who's right? Why do the 804D sound better than the measurements typically show? It's important to B&W to have a speaker that measures well but it is more important to them to have a speaker that sounds well and is why they are voiced. Measurements can't always explain what we hear but they can help us understand why we hear what we do. I have heard poor sounding speakers measure well as much as I have heard good sounding speakers measure poorly.

If the 800 series sound like they "suck", well then perhaps the room does too.

[kalikid2013]

Help with 802, 803 or 804 in small, 10X12 room.

Hi,
This is my first post here, if this is not the correct place for the post, please let me know and accept my apologies. It seemed as though my question was related to the current discussion of the 800D series speakers. And based on the current discussions, you guys seem to know what you are talking about.

I was wondering if some of you guys with more experience might be able to offer some advise. I am about 2 years into this hobby, and eagerly learning.

I was wondering how much room size should factor in when considering speakers.

I have a 10'X12' dedicated, treated room with 8' ceilings and I am trying to determine if 803 or 802 would be too much or too big for the room.

Currently have 4 CM10, CM2 Center and ASW12CM, and I am considering an upgrade within the next couple weeks. I recently borrowed from my dealer a pair of 804, I want to get the best quality in the 800D series, but don't want to overdo it for room size, but would like to go 803 or 804 if it works in a smaller room.

Not sure if I want to stay with 5.1 or go to 2 channel, but the wall where my fronts and center would go is 10', but I have a 3' jog from a closet in the hall on the other side of the room, so the space I have for the fronts and the center is 7' (84"), my seating position is 9' from the center.

The 802D with the HTM2 will take up 62" out of my 84", leaving me 22" to play with for spacing from the walls and the center channel, the 803 with the HTM2 will take up 57"of my 84" giving me 27" to play with. So I was wondering if that leaves enough space from the side walls and from the fronts to the center channel. The 804D are not much bigger than my current CM10, so no issue there.

Was also wondering if I did 2 channel 802D, 803D or 804D if that might work better than 5.1 in limited space. Have 5.1 now, don't watch many movies, but enjoy the occasional 5.1 concert and do like the option of having 5.1, but 2 channel might be a better way to go, considering I do way more 2 listening.

I have posted a photo of the wall where my fronts and center will go, to help paint a picture of what I am dealing with. So the space you are looking at, will hopefully get either 802D, 803D or 804D, with or without a center and rear is yet to be determined, currently have 2 CM10 in the rear. If I did go 5.1, I would probably do 805D in the rear, if I went 804D in the front, for a few bucks over the 805D, I could do 804D in rear also. I suppose if I go 804D, I can also do 804D center instead of HTM2, but my dealer says getting a single speaker is not easy. I don't know if 804D center would be better than HTM2.

So many options....

Thanks for any help, I really enjoy reading this board and learning, I hope as my knowledge increases, I will be able to give back to the forum.

[Greg Gale]

I agree that the theoretical flat response does not necessarily mean good performance or sound from a speaker. I was only commenting that the 804D has a larger deviation in measured response with the suck out between 1.5 Khz and 3 KHz and a substantially greater peak in the treble at 10Khz versus the 802D2 or 800D2. Maybe the reason the 802D2 and 800D2 does not have this same suck out deviation due to the FST in the Marlan Head and different midrange cross-over components. I am puzzled though on the treble peak which is substantially greater on the 804D which is not the same with the 802D or 800D2 at least on JA's measurements.

At any rate by varying the toe in of the speakers you can adjust the sound to suit your ears.

[tanwn]

Hi,
This is my first post here, if this is not the correct place for the post, please let me know and accept my apologies. It seemed as though my question was related to the current discussion of the 800D series speakers. And based on the current discussions, you guys seem to know what you are talking about.

I was wondering if some of you guys with more experience might be able to offer some advise. I am about 2 years into this hobby, and eagerly learning.

I was wondering how much room size should factor in when considering speakers.

I have a 10'X12' dedicated, treated room with 8' ceilings and I am trying to determine if 803 or 802 would be too much or too big for the room.

Currently have 4 CM10, CM2 Center and ASW12CM, and I am considering an upgrade within the next couple weeks. I recently borrowed from my dealer a pair of 804, I want to get the best quality in the 800D series, but don't want to overdo it for room size, but would like to go 803 or 804 if it works in a smaller room.

Not sure if I want to stay with 5.1 or go to 2 channel, but the wall where my fronts and center would go is 10', but I have a 3' jog from a closet in the hall on the other side of the room, so the space I have for the fronts and the center is 7' (84"), my seating position is 9' from the center.

The 802D with the HTM2 will take up 62" out of my 84", leaving me 22" to play with for spacing from the walls and the center channel, the 803 with the HTM2 will take up 57"of my 84" giving me 27" to play with. So I was wondering if that leaves enough space from the side walls and from the fronts to the center channel. The 804D are not much bigger than my current CM10, so no issue there.

Was also wondering if I did 2 channel 802D, 803D or 804D if that might work better than 5.1 in limited space. Have 5.1 now, don't watch many movies, but enjoy the occasional 5.1 concert and do like the option of having 5.1, but 2 channel might be a better way to go, considering I do way more 2 listening.

I have posted a photo of the wall where my fronts and center will go, to help paint a picture of what I am dealing with. So the space you are looking at, will hopefully get either 802D, 803D or 804D, with or without a center and rear is yet to be determined, currently have 2 CM10 in the rear. If I did go 5.1, I would probably do 805D in the rear, if I went 804D in the front, for a few bucks over the 805D, I could do 804D in rear also. I suppose if I go 804D, I can also do 804D center instead of HTM2, but my dealer says getting a single speaker is not easy. I don't know if 804D center would be better than HTM2.

So many options....

Thanks for any help, I really enjoy reading this board and learning, I hope as my knowledge increases, I will be able to give back to the forum.

Your room is definitely too small narrow for even a pair of 804 as they are too close to the side and rear wall and it will sound boomy unless you can pull the speakers out. Do u have another location in the house.

[TomScrut]

It all depends on what you are doing as regards to EQ. My room is 4.0 x 3.6m (so about 13' x 12') and I have 802s. I have the front of the speakers about 0.75m from the wall firing across the 3.6m. If I move my sofa forwards I can get a quite balanced sound before EQ but the soundstage isn't as good as I am too close to the speakers. Still enjoyable though. So, if I then move the sofa back to the wall, and as I use a USB DAC (CP800) I can use Dirac on the PC to eq the bass to get rid of the hump from being near the back wall. If you go down this route do not EQ above the bass as it doesn't sound good IMO. My ceilings are less accommodating than yours as they are sloped but I have the back wall treated behind the speakers which might be more useful than the ceiling treatment you have.

So, it might be possible but I only think it will be if you EQ. They sound good without EQ and the sofa forwards but for me if I didn't have the EQ I might have bought 804s. The 802s sound better in my room than I believe 804s would as I think I have got the 802s sounding better than when I demoed them and the 804 was obviously inferior to the 802 when I compared. Make sure you borrow them though, I borrowed mine for a week beforehand (and they never went back) to make sure the room wasn't a massive issue. The absolute key to positioning is getting them as far away as possible from the walls as you can, and contemplating how much it compromises the functionality of your room. I do actually think they are a bit less position sensitive than my previous speakers, 803Ss due to the downward port, but still need to be away from the wall. You will never know if you are doing the right thing or not unless you get a pair in there and experiment. If I had read all the stuff online about room sizes for these and not tried myself I wouldn't have got them.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[TomScrut]

Your room is definitely too small narrow for even a pair of 804 as they are too close to the side and rear wall and it will sound boomy unless you can pull the speakers out. Do u have another location in the house.

But yes I do think that how you have the Cm10s now they can't be sounding their best and I don't even think you would fit 802s in the gaps very well. Especially getting distance from the walls!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[TomScrut]

This is my room:



As you can see, even though they are similar sizes the layout affords loads more space. I suppose my room is slightly bigger and that might make all the difference.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[leo2498]

This is my room:

As you can see, even though they are similar sizes the layout affords loads more space. I suppose my room is slightly bigger and that might make all the difference.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

how far to the back wall are you sitting? it's possible that you could post a pic of this? did you work with acoustic treatment in your back wall as the front wall?

[leo2498]

Your room is definitely too small narrow for even a pair of 804 as they are too close to the side and rear wall and it will sound boomy unless you can pull the speakers out. Do u have another location in the house.

But yes I do think that how you have the Cm10s now they can't be sounding their best and I don't even think you would fit 802s in the gaps very well. Especially getting distance from the walls!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

I have the 804D in my setup and it's working very well, I had my doubts about the sound so I bought a measurement equipment to see whats going in my room but the result is pretty good like me ears said. I have small issue with some dips in my room but the waterfalls looks pretty good also.

if Rick will go with the two channels options the 802Di will work very good and he will need to filling the corners with something like tri corner bass trap or megatraps it will depend of his budget.

[TomScrut]

how far to the back wall are you sitting? it's possible that you could post a pic of this? did you work with acoustic treatment in your back wall as the front wall?

The sofa is touching the wall so my head will be between 8 and 12 inches from the wall. I will post some photos when I get home. I am away on holiday at the moment!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[TomScrut]

I have the 804D in my setup and it's working very well, I had my doubts about the sound so I bought a measurement equipment to see whats going in my room but the result is pretty good like me ears said. I have small issue with some dips in my room but the waterfalls looks pretty good also.

if Rick will go with the two channels options the 802Di will work very good and he will need to filling the corners with something like tri corner bass trap or megatraps it will depend of his budget.

Yeah I have a minidsp UMIK1 and have used both REW and Dirac with it. Apart from bass humps and nulls the room is ok. I aren't a believer in flat responses being paramount in importance as long as big nodes in bass are taken care of

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[kalikid2013]

Your room is definitely too small narrow for even a pair of 804 as they are too close to the side and rear wall and it will sound boomy unless you can pull the speakers out. Do u have another location in the house.

Hi,

Thanks for the reply.

When you say "pull the speakers out", you mean away from the back wall? That would be easier with 804, very difficult with 803 or 802, as they are way deeper. When I first saw the 803, I was like...wow, they are way bigger than I imagined. When you use a tape measure in an empty room to gauge the size, you really don't get the whole feel of how big they are.

Currently, I am 9' from the center and fronts, do you think if I move my CM10 a little closer to me and away from the back wall that closing the 9' gap will be a factor and become too close?

My ears are no where near as good as you guys here...but I don't really feel the CM10 sound very boomy when running them full range, my dealer came over and he felt the same. The room was very high end reflective before I treated it, but he didn't feel the bass was a problem. When I cross the fronts over at 80Hz to the sub, the ASW12 can sound a little boomy. Some music sounds great running the CM10 full range and some sounds like the bass needs a kick in the ass from the sub. So it can be frustrating, I get a good sound for some music, and then other stuff I have to re-adjust for best results.

I do have another room, I have a living room that would accomodate 803 or 802 very easily. The room is 17'X14', the wall where the fronts and center would go is 14', so plenty of room. I had my CM9 and CM10 5.1 set-ups there, but I moved it to the smaller room. I like the smaller room as it is private and it has a man cave feel. I could easily move the 11 Acoustimac 4'X2'X2" panels I have in the smaller room and treat the big room.

I really kinda want to keep everything in the smaller room though. The living room has the front door of the house opening to outside, an opening into the kitchen and also into the hallway, the room has a fireplace in the area where the first reflection would be on one side. The hallway has hardwood floors and nothing on the walls, so it is very reflective. Just opening the door in the smaller room that goes to the hall, you can hear massive high end reflections in the hall, so I just keep the door closed. I don't know how this would affect the sound if I moved back to the living room. I would probably have to treat the halls as well.

In a couple of weeks, I will be able to do some serious evaluation of the 802D, 803D and 804D side by side with Rotel and Classe electronics in in very well treated, designated, professional rooms. So I imagine if I am totally blown away with the 803 or 802, I could decide to pack it all up and move it into the living room and go with the 802D or 803D, but I really like this little room I have set up. It is very cozy and private, and I like that I can close the door and no one knows what lurks behind the door. I don't have a lot of people over my house, but if I move back to the living room, anyone coming to my front door or coming in the front door would be in my home theater / listening room, and I prefer the privacy afforded me by the spare bedroom, even thought it is only 10'X12'.

So I want the best of both worlds....I want my small little room with top of the line speakers that sound incredible....:lol:

[kalikid2013]

It all depends on what you are doing as regards to EQ. My room is 4.0 x 3.6m (so about 13' x 12') and I have 802s. I have the front of the speakers about 0.75m from the wall firing across the 3.6m. If I move my sofa forwards I can get a quite balanced sound before EQ but the soundstage isn't as good as I am too close to the speakers. Still enjoyable though. So, if I then move the sofa back to the wall, and as I use a USB DAC (CP800) I can use Dirac on the PC to eq the bass to get rid of the hump from being near the back wall. If you go down this route do not EQ above the bass as it doesn't sound good IMO. My ceilings are less accommodating than yours as they are sloped but I have the back wall treated behind the speakers which might be more useful than the ceiling treatment you have.

So, it might be possible but I only think it will be if you EQ. They sound good without EQ and the sofa forwards but for me if I didn't have the EQ I might have bought 804s. The 802s sound better in my room than I believe 804s would as I think I have got the 802s sounding better than when I demoed them and the 804 was obviously inferior to the 802 when I compared. Make sure you borrow them though, I borrowed mine for a week beforehand (and they never went back) to make sure the room wasn't a massive issue. The absolute key to positioning is getting them as far away as possible from the walls as you can, and contemplating how much it compromises the functionality of your room. I do actually think they are a bit less position sensitive than my previous speakers, 803Ss due to the downward port, but still need to be away from the wall. You will never know if you are doing the right thing or not unless you get a pair in there and experiment. If I had read all the stuff online about room sizes for these and not tried myself I wouldn't have got them.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Ok, thanks for the help.
So having them farther from the walls is more important than having them farther away from each other, or are both factors equally important?

Thanks.

[TomScrut]

Both factors really. Boominess is affected by wall distance, soundstage width and imaging by distance apart

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[kalikid2013]

Both factors really. Boominess is affected by wall distance, soundstage width and imaging by distance apart

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Ok, thanks.

I just moved the CM10 forward a bit and away from the side walls.

So they are 12" from the rear wall, 9" from the edge of the Acoustimac panel on the side wall, end to end 5'6" away from each other and about 9' from my ears.

The 804 are only 1/2" deeper, so I would be able to maintain the back wall distance, the 804 are about 1-1/2" wider.

[kalikid2013]

This is my room:



As you can see, even though they are similar sizes the layout affords loads more space. I suppose my room is slightly bigger and that might make all the difference.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

How do they sound with the Classe?

Have you ever used anything else with the 802D?

You do have a little more space than I do.

[TomScrut]

To what Rotel do you refer? That is a Classe amp!

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk

[kalikid2013]

To what Rotel do you refer? That is a Classe amp!

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk

Sorry, I meant Classe....

[TomScrut]

It works very well with them, it's actually for sale though as I have just bought a CA2300 as I don't need all five channels anymore. But I really like the sound of it hence why I just bought another Classe amp but a stereo one.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[leo2498]

Yeah I have a minidsp UMIK1 and have used both REW and Dirac with it. Apart from bass humps and nulls the room is ok. I aren't a believer in flat responses being paramount in importance as long as big nodes in bass are taken care of

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Hi Tom I found a picture of your back wall with your couch and I wondering if you have bass problem with the 802D’s it's very narrow in that picture the background, how was the result with REW? do you found nulls and what frequency? Thanks for your input and if it’s possible for you when you have time please you could share this graphics.

[TomScrut]

Hi Tom I found a picture of your back wall with your couch and I wondering if you have bass problem with the 802D’s it's very narrow in that picture the background, how was the result with REW? do you found nulls and what frequency? Thanks for your input and if it’s possible for you when you have time please you could share this graphics.

Yes I use Dirac to EQ to about 450Hz. Big hump about 40hz +6-8dB then nulls -3-4 dB from 50-100Hz. But as I said on this or another thread (can't remember) I do EQ. When I first got them I used the CP800 PEQ but then I bought Dirac. If I move the sofa forwards I don't need the EQ it becomes flatter quite quickly but that removes a lot of quality from the soundstage and imaging. EQ sorts the room out so I don't need to compromise on other things. The photos you have found might be slightly out of date but probably still relevant

[leo2498]

Yes I use Dirac to EQ to about 450Hz. Big hump about 40hz +6-8dB then nulls -3-4 dB from 50-100Hz. But as I said on this or another thread (can't remember) I do EQ. When I first got them I used the CP800 PEQ but then I bought Dirac. If I move the sofa forwards I don't need the EQ it becomes flatter quite quickly but that removes a lot of quality from the soundstage and imaging. EQ sorts the room out so I don't need to compromise on other things. The photos you have found might be slightly out of date but probably still relevant

Thanks, the filters in the CP800 did not worked well? how are you using dirac, what version? One stupid question if you have a good DAC with the CP800 and when you use dirac, do you not lose quality with this?

I have not so good response in my room because it's not flat in the bass region but the waterfalls in full band look good, I not have any room mode but I have two dips in 89 and 250 HZ that I want improve but I don't know what is the better way to do that.

[TomScrut]

I used REW to create the filters for the CP, it worked quite well but not as well as Dirac. Why would Dirac make any difference to the CP800 DAC? I run it on my PC and then it goes to the CP so the DAC is downstream of the EQ. I don't use one of the minidsp Dirac boxes

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[TomScrut]

And one issue with the CP is you can't boost more than 3dB per band

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[leo2498]

I used REW to create the filters for the CP, it worked quite well but not as well as Dirac. Why would Dirac make any difference to the CP800 DAC? I run it on my PC and then it goes to the CP so the DAC is downstream of the EQ. I don't use one of the minidsp Dirac boxes

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

mmm ok I thought that it will received the signal in analog and then EQ so I was wrong, I can't use the EQ in my CP800 because I have not room modes according the response that my XTZ PRO II did. I wondering if you detected a bass problem with your ears when switched from your 803 to the 802D or it was detected by curiosity with REW.

[TomScrut]

Well I had the sofa further forwards with my 803s as I got my CP and 802s at the same time so I couldn't EQ the 803s.

If you don't have room modes you shouldn't need EQ. I only use it to 450hz to give me the curve I want, which isn't the one Dirac recommended as it is way too bassy. I prefer it sloping off early which I find is better to my ears

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[leo2498]

Well I had the sofa further forwards with my 803s as I got my CP and 802s at the same time so I couldn't EQ the 803s.

If you don't have room modes you shouldn't need EQ. I only use it to 450hz to give me the curve I want, which isn't the one Dirac recommended as it is way too bassy. I prefer it sloping off early which I find is better to my ears

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

yes I guess so but you know how is this hobby, always looking for better sound. I want more pannels and ceiling treatment but just for decoration of my room.

[TomScrut]

Yeah I am going to try and get a Gik tuned trap for 40hz, I think then I might be able to get away without EQ maybe!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Greg Gale]

I am running at CA3200 and had a CA2200 previously and it was a huge step up in terms of sound quality over the previous version Delta series as the circuit topology is completely different and includes the ICY Tunnel which keeps the amplifier at the optimum operating temperature. I have mine in an enclosed cabinet and the previous version did not get enough air circulation. The new one in this type of installation works great.

[TomScrut]

I am running at CA3200 and had a CA2200 previously and it was a huge step up in terms of sound quality over the previous version Delta series as the circuit topology is completely different and includes the ICY Tunnel which keeps the amplifier at the optimum operating temperature. I have mine in an enclosed cabinet and the previous version did not get enough air circulation. The new one in this type of installation works great.

Cool, I will look forward to the improvements going from a 5200 to a 2300 then!

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk

[windshear]

I am running at CA3200 and had a CA2200 previously and it was a huge step up in terms of sound quality over the previous version Delta series as the circuit topology is completely different and includes the ICY Tunnel which keeps the amplifier at the optimum operating temperature. I have mine in an enclosed cabinet and the previous version did not get enough air circulation. The new one in this type of installation works great.

Do you mean the CA2300 maybe?

[TomScrut]

Do you mean the CA2300 maybe?

That's what I took it to mean! A 3200 and 5200 should sound the same as a 2200 shouldn't they!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Greg Gale]

Do you mean the CA2300 maybe?

Yes my mistake it is a CA2300 not CA3200.

[TomScrut]

I got my 2300, a lot better bass control than the 200 series. Apart from that it's not a lot better but it is a very noticeable improvement in the bass department.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Greg Gale]

I moved up from a CA2200 to the CA2300 and the extra 100 watts and the completely new PCB and Power supply improvements were noticeable in bass and treble dynamics keeping the same smooth midrange.

The extra power does come in handy when I get the urge to really crank it up which happens every time my wife leaves the house .

I got my 2300, a lot better bass control than the 200 series. Apart from that it's not a lot better but it is a very noticeable improvement in the bass department.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk