Is purchasing B&W 702 S2’s a bad idea?

[test1223]

It should be added though that your old 705s come from a time where the B&Ws had smoother directivity so they can be better equalised than their later offerings.

I don't agree here the power di of the newer B&W seems to be slightly better than di of the older models if you have a look at the spinoramas which are available at least.
You need to ably more eq though.

Newer Bowers & Wilkins 803 D3

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

pierreaubert.github.io

Older Bowers & Wilkins 802N

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

pierreaubert.github.io

Newer Bowers & Wilkins 607 S2 Anniversary Edition

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

pierreaubert.github.io

Older Bowers & Wilkins 805S

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

pierreaubert.github.io

Edit: P.S. The wopping Preference Score of 8.7 with a perfect subwoofer and EQ of the 802N shows why even some studios use this speaker with eq.

 

[fpitas]

I wouldn't pay a lot for something with an FR like that. But it's your money.

 

[tmtomh]

It should be added though that your old 705s come from a time where the B&Ws had smoother directivity so they can be better equalised than their later offerings.

Good point - thanks!

 

[waynel]

Hi. I’m considering purchasing B&W 702 S2 speakers. I heard them at Best Buy recently, then again at a local shop. I kept coming back to them over others. Then, while researching them on this forum, I saw a post from someone about having wasted money on them prior to knowing the importance of measurements. That surprised me. Is that a known thing? I’d love to know more so I don’t waste money. Isn’t hearing them all you need (versus measuring)?

I appreciate any advise you can give!
-Justin

I certainly would not recommend buying them. They are far from neutral. In that price range and size I would look at Kef R7 and Revel F206 which are far better choices.

 

[Deleted member 50971]

I certainly would not recommend buying them. They are far from neutral. In that price range and size I would look at Kef R7 and Revel F206 which are far better choices.

Hi, I agree they may not be the most neutral.

I have my flame suit on lol, but what if I told you that some of us don’t especially like a neutral speaker? I mean is it set in stone that we all have to like the same thing? Everybody talks about a neutral speaker, and I think some of them are a little too polite for all of us to like.

I prefer a speaker that digs a little deeper than some, and I like my Wilson Audio speakers. Although they don’t dig as deep as Amir‘s salon 2. I also like a little added mid range, and I may want the highs boosted a bit because I don’t hear as well as I used to.

I know the consensus is neutral, and everybody works towards it basically in the whole audio chain. But I come from an era of tone controls on my integrated amp or receiver, and I’ve been known to turn the bass up a bit, as well as the treble. I also have three large subwoofers that I turn on for two channel occasionally depending on my mood. One size does not fit all with speakers is my point, and some people like the B&W house sound… neutral or not. Plus that 702 is a spectacular looking speaker in my opinion, as well as its big brothers are also. Very handsome speakers indeed.

So let me ask can a speaker be neutral and still maintain it’s house (brand) sound? That may not be such an easy question to answer, and I think some of these manufacturers try to maintain their house sound, and stray a bit from neutral.

My opinion anyway.

 

[waynel]

Hi, I agree they may not be the most neutral.

I have my flame suit on lol, but what if I told you that some of us don’t especially like a neutral speaker? I mean is it set in stone that we all have to like the same thing? Everybody talks about a neutral speaker, and I think some of them are a little too polite for all of us to like.

I prefer a speaker that digs a little deeper than some, and I like my Wilson Audio speakers. Although they don’t dig as deep as Amir‘s salon 2. I also like a little added mid range, and I may want the highs boosted a bit because I don’t hear as well as I used to.

I know the consensus is neutral, and everybody works towards it basically in the whole audio chain. But I come from an era of tone controls on my integrated amp or receiver, and I’ve been known to turn the bass up a bit, as well as the treble. I also have three large subwoofers that I turn on for two channel occasionally depending on my mood. One size does not fit all with speakers is my point, and some people like the B&W house sound… neutral or not. Plus that 702 is a spectacular looking speaker in my opinion, as well as its big brothers are also. Very handsome speakers indeed.

So let me ask can you speaker be neutral and still maintain it’s house (brand) sound? That may not be such an easy question to answer, and I think some of these manufacturers try to maintain their house sound, and stray a bit from neutral.

My opinion anyway.

I think that you will get the sound you want with EQ more easily if you start with something that's flat on axis and smooth off-axis. The problem with picking a speaker due to a sound signature is that its going to be different and less predictable in every room. I used to own Wilsons and I thought they sounded good too but after switching to Revels I'm never looking back.

 

[SynthesisCinema]

Hi. I’m considering purchasing B&W 702 S2 speakers. I heard them at Best Buy recently, then again at a local shop. I kept coming back to them over others. Then, while researching them on this forum, I saw a post from someone about having wasted money on them prior to knowing the importance of measurements. That surprised me. Is that a known thing? I’d love to know more so I don’t waste money. Isn’t hearing them all you need (versus measuring)?

I appreciate any advise you can give!
-Justin

Justin, if you go forward with them make sure you get good discount! New 700 S3? range is to be introduced soon hopefully. In UK they have up to -40% discounts for 700 S2 range. Buddy of mine bought 704 S2 for 900£, normally 2400£. Sadly they are very bright speakers giving him some listening fatigue, too much with some songs.

@Kal Rubinson reviewed the 702 S2 speakers which were linked earlier here. I believe Kal prefered Monitor Audio Silver 300s which are also lot cheaper and measured better. If you are open for other brands check out MA Silver 300 7G and Silver 500 7G plus of course Kef and Revel.

 

[Deleted member 50971]

I think that you will get the sound you want with EQ more easily if you start with something that's flat on axis and smooth off-axis. The problem with picking a speaker due to a sound signature is that its going to be different and less predictable in every room. I used to own Wilsons and I thought they sounded good too but after switching to Revels I'm never looking back.

It’s possible, room correction has gotten so good that it can fix a lot of problems, just look at some of Amir‘s reviews. He thought they sounded horrible without it, and loved it with it.

But does it sound correct, or is it a Band-Aid on a bigger problem?

I’m old-school, and I believe in treating the room also not just depending on room correction. I see some of these reviewers, and I’ve seen it right here on this website… Absolutely no treatments on the walls, no bass traps in the corners, no carpeting on the hardwood floor, sitting 6 inches off the wall and right in the corners of the room… so everything is evened out with room correction. To me that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Not just that everybody hears differently and we don’t hear like a microphone unfortunately lol. At my age I probably have a hard time hearing past 15k.

So why go audition new speakers if you know that they measure neutral and you can do room correction?

My point is they could be neutral and sound different from one another, and I don’t think we can treat them like an amplifier or a DAC.

Edit;

By the way I went the opposite direction, I have a set of Revel F52’s sitting in another room, and I prefer the Wilson’s. The F52s were considered one of their most musical speakers, but they didn’t compare to the Wilson’s, not in my room anyway.

Double edit lol.

My Wilson’s are over 20 years old, and they are the only ones that I’ve ever heard, and I like a lot of different kind of speakers, but these will be staying with me for quite a while. I would love to get a pair of salon 2’s but I’m just not willing to pay that kind of a money for a speaker. So used one day, and maybe Amir will give his up haha.

Thanks for the discussion it was interesting.

 

[Marc v E]

(...)

So why go audition new speakers if you know that they measure neutral and you can do room correction?

My point is they could be neutral and sound different from one another, and I don’t think we can treat them like an amplifier or a DAC.

(...)

Hmm good point for another discussion topic. Ime so far a speaker's characteristic can change so drastically with eq, that I would recommend using a well measuring one. Especially concerning side reflections.

I think you can make a speaker sound just like another with eq, but that is just my expectation based on first experience.

And less coloration and/or distortion lets my mind relax its judgement and just listen to the music. Anyway that's just my 2 cent. Ymmv

 

[fpitas]

Hmm good point for another discussion topic. Ime so far a speaker's characteristic can change so drastically with eq, that I would recommend using a well measuring one. Especially concerning side reflections.

I think you can make a speaker sound just like another with eq, but that is just my expectation based on first experience.

And less coloration and/or distortion lets my mind relax its judgement and just listen to the music. Anyway that's just my 2 cent. Ymmv

You can't modify the dispersion characteristics with EQ. You can say, flatten the on-axis, which is a good thing, but the off-axis will be EQd right along with it, for better or worse.

 

[Marc v E]

You can't modify the dispersion characteristics with EQ. You can say, flatten the on-axis, which is a good thing, but the off-axis will be EQd right along with it, for better or worse.

Yes. That was exactly what I was saying in an earlier post.

 

[sofrep811]

No

 

[dshreter]

I prefer a speaker that digs a little deeper than some

I also like a little added mid range

I may want the highs boosted a bit because I don’t hear as well as I used to.

So you want to boost the low end, mid range, and highs? Isn't that just turning up the volume with a neutral speaker

But I come from an era of tone controls on my integrated amp or receiver, and I’ve been known to turn the bass up a bit, as well as the treble.

In my opinion, starting with a well-behaved neutral speaker and handling EQ via the electronics is the best approach. I don't think listening to neutrality is righteous in some way, and it really matters how loud you listen what will sound best. If a speaker isn't neutral, that's not the end of the world because that can be corrected, but if dispersion is uneven there's nothing you can do to fix that.

 

[Deleted member 50971]

So you want to boost the low end, mid range, and highs? Isn't that just turning up the volume with a neutral speaker


In my opinion, starting with a well-behaved neutral speaker and handling EQ via the electronics is the best approach. I don't think listening to neutrality is righteous in some way, and it really matters how loud you listen what will sound best. If a speaker isn't neutral, that's not the end of the world because that can be corrected, but if dispersion is uneven there's nothing you can do to fix that.

I understand your point, and I may mess around with some room correction for two channel music. In the meantime I’m just enjoying what I have, and I understand that people like neutral.

Personally for home theater I like some tactical bass, and I doubt that is very neutral LOL

Thanks for your post.

 

[Chrispy]

What do you have now? What did you compare them to in the two stores? I would also encourage if you can do an in-home trial to go that way, but retailers may not have such available. In the end it's preference.....personally B&W hasn't done it for me, there are others I'd rather have.

 

[MattHooper]

Hi. I’m considering purchasing B&W 702 S2 speakers. I heard them at Best Buy recently, then again at a local shop. I kept coming back to them over others. Then, while researching them on this forum, I saw a post from someone about having wasted money on them prior to knowing the importance of measurements. That surprised me. Is that a known thing? I’d love to know more so I don’t waste money. Isn’t hearing them all you need (versus measuring)?

I appreciate any advise you can give!
-Justin

The short and easy answer is always "Buy What You Like."

On the other hand, since you have heard the speakers, liked them, but are still asking if there's any reason not to buy them...then as some members have pointed out: yes, there is a case for not buying them (even if you liked them). There are other speaker brands that you'd be more likely to rate as "better" sounding in blind tests, and those are based on science that has pointed towards which measurements predict higher sound quality ratings in listeners.
So in a way a brand that departs from this - like the way B&W departs in it's uneven on and off-axis frequency response - may be the riskier purchase.

A number of members here will buy based off speaker measurements above all else, for these reasons. Which is a totally reasonable approach.

Personally, I want to hear a speaker, whatever it's measurements, before deciding to buy. And ultimately I'd purchase based on which speaker I perceive I like better. I've heard some speakers that measure more virtuously that left me unmoved, and others that aren't quite as perfect that I found I couldn't tear my ears away from and loved everything I heard. In the end I bought the speakers that engaged me under the conditions in which I'd be using them, it's it's worked out well for me.

But, again, there are reasonable arguments either way, and it will likely come down to your own temperament or goals as to which appeal more.

 

[thewas]

I don't agree here the power di of the newer B&W seems to be slightly better than di of the older models if you have a look at the spinoramas which are available at least.
You need to ably more eq though.

Newer Bowers & Wilkins 803 D3

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

pierreaubert.github.io

Older Bowers & Wilkins 802N

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

pierreaubert.github.io

Newer Bowers & Wilkins 607 S2 Anniversary Edition

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

pierreaubert.github.io

Older Bowers & Wilkins 805S

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

pierreaubert.github.io

I agree that the power directivity index of the 803 D2 looks smoother than the 802N one, although the 805S one looks better to me than the 607 S2 one (different classes and sizes still).
Also we must keep in mind that the directivity indexes adds horizontal and vertical directivities in one curve and can hide more individual problems in each, therefore I prefer looking at the horizontal and vertical directivities separately, here some from Stereophile:

Older B&W DM603 S3

(source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-dm603-s3-loudspeaker-measurements )

vs its few generations younger grandson 683 S2

(source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-683-s2-loudspeaker-measurements )

Or the old Matrix 801 Series 2

(source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-matrix-801-series-2-loudspeaker-measurements )

vs a modern 800 series model, the 802 D3

(source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-802-d3-diamond-loudspeaker-measurements )

Edit: P.S. The wopping Preference Score of 8.7 with a perfect subwoofer and EQ of the 802N shows why even some studios use this speaker with eq.

Which confirms that the older B&Ws with EQ are better behaving and thus scoring, the 802 D3 gets 8.5.

 

[test1223]

Which confirms that the older B&Ws with EQ are better behaving and thus scoring, the 802 D3 gets 8.5.

My guess is the preference score of the 802D3 is slightly worse due to more very small peaks and dips of all curves from the spin, which indicates higher resolution or less smoothing of the measurements/ calculation. Therefore I assume a slightly lower score of the 802N with comparable measurements.

I agree that the power directivity index of the 803 D2 looks smoother than the 802N one, although the 805S one looks better to me than the 607 S2 one (different classes and sizes still).

Yes there are some pros and cons for both DIs. Therefore I made the post to challenge the often heard argument that the older models are much more linear. This claim is IMHO true if you apply no equalisation but with eq the newer models are at least on a par or IMHO slightly better.

Also we must keep in mind that the directivity indexes adds horizontal and vertical directivities in one curve and can hide more individual problems in each, therefore I prefer looking at the horizontal and vertical directivities separately, here some from Stereophile:

Yes the more measurements you have the better. But the main problem with having measurements of one horizontal and one vertical plane only is that these measurements have to be transferred (in your head) to get a meaningful interpretation of a few important aspects of the loudspeaker, which correlate with the overall perceived sound quality. But other important aspects can't even be extracted in a meaningful way with an algorithm since there is much data missing. Therefore these measurements lead to a lot of wrong conclusions.
There are many good reasons why the specific curves of the spinorama were put into the standard and other measurement were not.

 

[thewas]

This claim is IMHO true if you apply no equalisation but with eq the newer models are at least on a par or IMHO slightly better.

I beg to disagree there though, look at the normalised directivity plots I posted above, this mess cannot be corrected by EQ.

But other important aspects can't even be extracted in a meaningful way with an algorithm since there is much data missing. Therefore these measurements lead to a lot of wrong conclusions.

I see it rather the other way around, the DI can smear/hide many problems and lead to wrong conclusions.

There are many good reasons why the specific curves of the spinorama were put into the standard and other measurement were not.

The DI are just a small part of the spinorama, also the Harman score equation doesn't take into consideration the DI curves at all as their correlation was smaller than on other variables, see AES 6190 paper.

 

[Recluse-Animator]

Many alternatives to choose from in that price range with better measurements.

JTR
KEF R11
KEF LS60 ( Active )
Buchardt A700 ( Active )
Goldenear Triton Two ( Active bass )
Philharmonic BMR Tower
Polk L600
Arendal 1723
Salk SS7F

Even Polk R700 measures better at half the price which means you could buy dual subs.