B&W 802D vs Wilson WATT Puppy

I have a friend who runs 802D's with a pair of Cary 805C's, Walker T.T. (Koetsu), Steelhead Pre., Revelation cabling throughout, sounds great, I thought it wouldn't work, go figure.

ok... you guys cannot compare the 802D against the grandslams, Nova utopias, or even W/P7s!
they are all much more expensive than the 802Ds!!!
W/P 7 should be compared to the 800D and the rest should be against the *shell* Nautilus (B&W doesn't really have a competition for the grand slamms!)

I just had a lenghty A/B session this weeked comparing the 803Ds and 802Ds
the 803D sounded a little colored in the mid and the bass lacked a little
but No way these were true for the 802D!

I've heard both sophias and the 7s.. they are all great speakers- comes down to the personal choice..
yet the wilson speakers never appealed to me that much.. not only aesthetically but also sonically (I agree with Michael on the "muddiness" of the wilsons -at least the 7 and sophia)

The 802D employs a pair of 8 ohm woofers in parallel for an impedance of 4 ohms (roughly) in the range of the woofer (bass) region. The rest of the speaker is nominally 8 ohms. While you might think that a tube amplifier playing on this speaker is making good bass, it is a fact that most tube amplifiers would do a better job if the woofers were somehow 8 ohms with all other things being equal.

But here we are in the real world. In order for the 802D to make flat frequency response according to design, it must be driven by an amplifier capable of constant voltage response regardless of load; this means a transistor amp, as this characteristic is not associated with tube amps! IOW a tube amp will have shelved bass response (NOTE: *not* rolled off) as its output will be about 3 db less than anticipated by the designer in the bass region.

Some people hearing tube amps running this way will describe them as doing 'a fine job' but the fact of the matter is they can do better- they just need a proper load. My earlier point is that the Wilson provides a very friendly load for tube amps relatively speaking.

Atmasphere,

1. you are right on B&Ws sounding better w/ SS than tubes- 800N with AR tubes were the worst set up I've ever heard. very sharp observation indeed! :-)

a point to consider, though.
2. WP7's impedence plot shows that it too dips down near 2 ohms- stereophile sept. 2003
and JA also recommends a high current amp.. BUT you're still right that WP sounds better with tubes than the 800s with tubes ;-)

it is general notion that the wilsons are easier to drive.. (true for sophias) but.. could this be a marketing stuff?
the sensitivity and impedence are no where close to say.. JBL S9800 horns, which sounds FNATASTIC with anything....

looking at other measurement there are more resonance in cabinet and in the waterfall plot on the WP than say the old 801N or 800N... not to be a geek or jerk.. but I'm wondering where this superior midrange of WP is coming from?
I'm not trying to start a war or anything.. just MHO :-)

The WP7 has a 2KHz trap to deal with a resonance, resulting in an impedance dip at that frequency. As you might imagine, transistor amps tend to heat that trap in the crossover rather nicely, where in a tube amp the filter does its job rather well. Tubes have always driven the speaker fairly easily. Were that 2 ohms covering a spectrum rather then being a tight band reject filter, the speaker would be a lot harder to drive; the reality is it is easy to drive.

As far as which has the better midrange I am not commenting on that, merely that the impedance of the 802D points to compromising the bass performance of tube gear used on the speaker.

I say this a lot: if you are going to invest in tube amplification, your investment dollar is usually best served by a speaker that is 8 ohms or more (particularly in the bass region) all other things being equal. Tube amplifiers for the most part prefer higher impedances, and given what they are capable of, why not show them in their best light?