Which has more bass? 683's vs CM9's?

[JaguarXKR]

Which of these speakers have better bass, since i am building my system and i have two 684's right now, but want my next pair to have more bass. So which of these two have better bass, 683 or the CM9's?
Thanks for any info,
Mike

[stuofsci02]

Which of these speakers have better bass, since i am building my system and i have two 684's right now, but want my next pair to have more bass. So which of these two have better bass, 683 or the CM9's?
Thanks for any info,
Mike

You want more bass SPL or better bass?

I would surely go CM9... I had 683 for a long time, and while they have a lot of bass for their size, the CM9 has better bass.

Cheers....

[PewterTA]

I agree, the 683 will probably have a lot of bass...but it won't be as tight and accurate as the CM9.

The CM9 will seem like it has less bass in a side-by-side comparison...but it's actually about the same, just tighter and more articulate which often gets confused with sound like there's less.

[leej]

not to mention the enhanced cabinet, beauty and better overall sound.

[JaguarXKR]

Does it matter the type of material the woofers are made out of? Since the 683's with the metal finish look like they can push more air than the ruber looking ones of the cm9's.

[dukester]

I too owned the 683s and never had any problems with their bass output. FWIW I didn't care for their mids/highs...too closed IMO. However I do agree that the CM9s outperform them in all areas.

[stevek]

i am currently using the cm9s in a very large open area and ive been quite happy with thier bass output.when i listen to 2 channel music i usually turn off my subs and i can tell you they are pretty accurate and depending on what music it is i can feel it to.as ive slowly upgraded my electronics they have gotten better and better in the low end.

[stuofsci02]

Does it matter the type of material the woofers are made out of? Since the 683's with the metal finish look like they can push more air than the ruber looking ones of the cm9's.

The CM9 use a kevlar woven material called rohacell for the bass drivers. This is a superior material to the 683.

If your main focus for a speaker is bass output, I would steer away from B&W all together. You can spend less money and get more bass output (Cerwin Vega).

B&W produces excellent well balanced speakers. The CM9 is better then the 683 in every way. If you can afford the CM9 over the 683 there should be no reason the get the 683.

Stuart

[madmac]

A good speaker will produce good, tight bass. Proper bass....not boomy!. I agree with the post above in that regard. Most speakers nowadays are housing 6.5 inch drivers or less so in most cases, if you want to get nice, rolling, deep bass, you're going to need a good sub, regardless of the brand of speaker you buy.

[JaguarXKR]

I own a pair of B and W 684 and love them, just want a little more bass. Since i also have a pair of cheap sony ssf7000 and it feels like there is so much more bass there to play with. Since i dont want to add a sub since i can tell the delay between the speakers and the sub and dont like that much.

The CM9 use a kevlar woven material called rohacell for the bass drivers. This is a superior material to the 683.

If your main focus for a speaker is bass output, I would steer away from B&W all together. You can spend less money and get more bass output (Cerwin Vega).

B&W produces excellent well balanced speakers. The CM9 is better then the 683 in every way. If you can afford the CM9 over the 683 there should be no reason the get the 683.

Stuart

[stuofsci02]

I own a pair of B and W 684 and love them, just want a little more bass. Since i also have a pair of cheap sony ssf7000 and it feels like there is so much more bass there to play with. Since i dont want to add a sub since i can tell the delay between the speakers and the sub and dont like that much.

Your sub is just not set up correctly then...