B&w 803s. Vs nautilus 802

I like the Rowlands, and the Vandersteen 5A's, but they don't work well together. Try Ayre or Audio Research...sometimes McIntosh with Audioquest Sky/Everest cables. ...however, I think you should put your money into B&W speakers....I know ....I'm the Chief

Stringreen may not like the midrange. The design is definitely a smile EQ type presentation with recessed upper mids and accentuated bass and tweeter. You can see this from Stereophile off axis frequency plots of its successor the 802D. This kind of presentation is indeed extremely popular. Not fuzzy but slightly recessed. It will alter the timbre of violin for sure. Violin tends to have more reflected sound than other instruments (as it really projects upwards) and the lower off axis response in the 802 mid range should create a noticeable imbalance in most far-field setups.

Now you done did it, all of us B&W owners are going to need to now defend the honor of the brand since someone tinkled on it.

I dont own the Nautilus line but do own the 803 Diamonds and must say they sound simply delicious. I would imagine the compaison here between the 803 & 802 Nautilus is very similar to the comparison I did between the 802 Diamond & 803 Diamonds not too long ago.

I went into the store with a "Must Have" attitude towards the 802 but after hearing the two side by side and taking my room dimensions into heavy consideration I went with the 803 instead and have no regrets. The 803 is a very capable speaker in a properly matched system and room.

Shadome keeps bringing up the one plot of the OLD 802D and I completely agree but the OP is not asking about the old 802D. I had the 802D and thought they left much to be desired BUT the 802N is not the same speaker but has it's own weaknesses but a midrange dip it does not have. The new 800 diamonds are very good speakers.
Lastly,we all hear differently and have different rooms and therefore speaker/room interfaces.If we all had the same tastes we would all have the same speakers and the same rooms ect etc. You may not like B&W but they are one of a handful of good speakers.I would also include PMC,ATC,Tannoy,JBL etc in the "good speaker club". There are others of course but those are the ones that come to mind.
There are also others which have been highly touted that I don't like one bit.However, I don't feel the need to constantly visit those threads to BASH the product.There are some on here who feel it is their duty to continually bash a good product they don't like. These people tend to think much more highly of themselves than anyone else does. It's time you got over yourself and accept the fact that many don't share your opinion.

Budt,

B&W are tremendously successful. The majority of their designs have a recessed mid range or a smile EQ presentation due to the narrowing (beaming) of the upper mid range. This is caused by having a crossover at 4 KHz on a 6 inch mid range driver. It is simple physics. B&W are not the only one, in fact, the vast majority of speakers do this. Why? Because people prefer this presentation and it sells well. Given a stereo with bass and treble controls, most people tend to boost treble and bass much more than any other settings (with the exception of flat). A speaker that is already boosted in the bass and treble is likely to win in comparisons on the Hi-Fi store floor. Like food with more salt and spice - a small taste demands more attention - even if it may be overpowering when sitting down to a full meal. There is only a very small minority who do not appreciate this more spicy presentation and who would prefer to have a more balanced presentation - all I am saying is that Stringreen may be one of those very few. That B&W is so extremely successful speaks for itself - they make great sounding speakers. B&W is an admirably long-lived successful company in a niche that is littered with has one-hit wonders.

So although you may not like a little criticism of B&W, you see we actually agree for the most part. Great company. Great speakers.