Amplifier for B&W 802

[Kamilfx]

What amplifier can you recommend for B&W 802 speakers in surround setup?

[boojum]

Originally Posted by Kamilfx

What amplifier can you recommend for B&W 802 speakers in surround setup?

None. Send those speakers to me - I'll pay shipping - and get some speakers at RadioShack to replace them and some RadioShack amps. You'll be fine. LOL

I would say that any good amp would do the job. I use hafler DH500's for driving my better speakers. But I would think any good amp, with lots of power, would do the deal.

There is a page at B & W which has the manual for these speakers but I have been unable to download it. Here is the link and maybe you will have better luck than I.

http://assets.bowers-wilkins.com/med...800_Series.pdf

[Kamilfx]

Thank you.
I've been reading some audiophile forums and they recommend something like Pass Labs X series, Classe Audio or Krell. I do not believe audiophiles and I would like to hear some sound engineers opinion because I want work with these speakers not only listening to the music

[rumleymusic]

Bryston amps are certainly up to the task. Or look into Lipinski's.

[Simon Lomax]

Originally Posted by Kamilfx

What amplifier can you recommend for B&W 802 speakers in surround setup?

Not sure about amplifying surround but I would recommend this: Tellurium Q home for cabling. I only have a stereo pair of 802s but it was like a huge upgrade to the newer 802D just by using the new cable!

Come to think of it, I think the same designer behind the cable is working on a new class A amplifier - not sure if it's surround or if you'll need 3!

Si

[tsvisser]

Originally Posted by Kamilfx

Thank you.
I've been reading some audiophile forums and they recommend something like Pass Labs X series, Classe Audio or Krell. I do not believe audiophiles and I would like to hear some sound engineers opinion because I want work with these speakers not only listening to the music

Those are all some good suggestions. I think the Classe stuff tends to be overpriced. There is no such thing as a "Krell sound" as their different generations of amps have had different voicings. Krell is generally also very "boutiquey" and expensive, but because they have been around so long, there are some good deals to be had on their older amps. I think their KSA series was top notch, even some of the FPB may be reasonably priced these days. I personally use Pass Lab X series amps on my L-707s and am very happy with that, and I believe Nelson makes a quality and good value product.

[matt thomas]

Perreaux are good, someone is selling a 2 channel in the classifieds, I use the current 200 wpc model on my lipinskis

I think they make an all in one surround version

matt

[tsvisser]

I think bottom line, any decently built amplifier will do you fine. The 802's sensitivity is nothing unusual, they are fairly easy and loads with no significant anomalies. Buying a really expensive amp is really a luxury, that shouldn't be important, but is to some of us. There are those who would say the money would be better spent elsewhere.

If you had 801's maybe I'd put a little bit more credence into amplifier selection, but then I'd probably also tell you to trade those in for 802's.

[mpdonahue]

Originally Posted by Kamilfx

What amplifier can you recommend for B&W 802 speakers in surround setup?

Well, before any recommendations can be made you need to tell us which 802's you are talking about.
802 Matrix, Series 2, Series 3, Nautilus, S or Diamond. Each of these has very different power requirements.

All the best,
-mark

[Kamilfx]

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

Well, before any recommendations can be made you need to tell us which 802's you are talking about.
802 Matrix, Series 2, Series 3, Nautilus, S or Diamond. Each of these has very different power requirements.

All the best,
-mark

All this information I need for the project of new control room. Probably we will finish this in next 2 or 3 years so we will buy current products. I'm so excited because at least I will have 50m2 control room with full 5.1 monitors and probably Stagetec Aurus desk for opera recordings

[Roland]

At the risk of being controversial, all the 802's I've ever heard have been very ordinary to say the least. At the ROH in London they have 802 Nautilus which I didn't think much of, by consequence they also had the 805 Nautilus, which when paired with the B&W sub was an impressive combination.

Regards


Roland

[tsvisser]

Originally Posted by Roland

At the risk of being controversial, all the 802's I've ever heard have been very ordinary to say the least. At the ROH in London they have 802 Nautilus which I didn't think much of, by consequence they also had the 805 Nautilus, which when paired with the B&W sub was an impressive combination.

Regards


Roland

for the most part, I agree with you, especially when taken in context of their cost. I've always been a ProAc fan.

[bforest4]

B&W are some of my favorite speakers ever, and when you buy used they are a great deal. I really like the older Matrix 801's and 802's for the money. Not really into the smaller speakers. Bryston Amps are great. I am currently useing a Yamaha p2700, not the greatest, but gets the job done for dirt cheap. Sounds better than mains at 5 times the price.

[meltemi]

The electronic chain (i.e. DA, preamp, power amp, cabling) and the room acoustics will determine, what you can get out of B&W 800 series speakers. If they sound uneven, grainy, just ordinary or lack punch in the bass, there is almost certainly a sonic mismatch somewhere in the electronic chain, so get the very best components you can afford and listen to the complete system before you buy. (I know, the whole 5.1 or 6.1 surround monitoring will get very expensive though).

Choose amp power rating close to the upper limit of B&W's recommendations.

Bi-wiring is an absolute must (bi-amping would be even better).

_________________________________
B&W Matrix 801 Series 3
Accuphase P-800 (2x 400W RMS at 8 Ohms)
Audioquest Dragon (bi-wiring)

[tourtelot]

Someone in the classifieds is selling a Bryston 3B. Might work for you.

No connection with me.

D.

[Petrus]

Originally Posted by meltemi

Bi-wiring is an absolute must (bi-amping would be even better).

What is the scientific reasoning behind bi-wiring? The way I see it as an electronic circuit there is absolutelly no difference how far from the power amp terminals the wires are split to crossover componets. With single wire it happens next to the components, with bi-wire maybe 2 meters from the components. ????

Back to topic: my favourite is the NAD 208 used. Solid piece of no nonsense gear, for any load.

[tsvisser]

Originally Posted by Petrus

What is the scientific reasoning behind bi-wiring? The way I see it as an electronic circuit there is absolutelly no difference how far from the power amp terminals the wires are split to crossover componets. With single wire it happens next to the components, with bi-wire maybe 2 meters from the components. ????

Back to topic: my favourite is the NAD 208 used. Solid piece of no nonsense gear, for any load.

There is no scientific reason. The explanation that I used to hear was that it was to prevent back EMF flux from the woofer cone movement affecting the tweeter. That the physical distance or the resistance between the wires of the woofer and tweeter would provide a buffer, thus improving performance. This is a nice explanation that makes sense if your talking about backflow and fluids in pipe, but the principles do not apply to electronic circuits. The original reasoning for bi-wire inputs was really for bi-amping, and some people took advantage of these posts in single amp applications. generally speaking, lower gauge or higher thickness of wire is good, up to a certain point, so if you were using something like 18 gauge wire, bi-wiring it would increase the aggregate gauge... which is a good thing. If your using 16 or 14 gauge wire, like that is typical for speaker cable, I don't think you would be able to detect any difference, as the difference would likely be to subtle to detect. Even if there was a detectable difference, the main thing that one would hear would be an increase in volume as the resistance between the amp and speaker would be just that little bit lower. That being said, I typically bi-wire when dealing with speakers that have 2 sets of posts. I generally make my own cables and it would be easy enough to unsolder the amp end if I needed bi-amp connections. It simply adds an extra set of spade lugs or bananas to the cable cost, so why not?

[mpdonahue]

Originally Posted by tsvisser

There is no scientific reason.
<Snip>
I generally make my own cables and it would be easy enough to unsolder the amp end if I needed bi-amp connections. It simply adds an extra set of spade lugs or bananas to the cable cost, so why not?

Well, the real reason to bi-wire is so that speaker wire salesmen can make their commissions.
However, bi-wiring does not increase the amount of current available from the amplifier, it effectively cuts it in half. By separating the 2 wire sets at the speaker, you are limiting the available current to that of the smallest gauge pair of cables. The funny thing is that if you put the jumpers back between the speakers binding posts, you will get the combined current handling of both cables. It really is tough to break the laws of physics....
As always, YMMV.

All the best,
-mark

[Teddy Ray]

Pass Labs Amplification and Bryston work well...Krell... the best ive ever heard was FM Acoustics, but thats some serious cash... BK electronics in ENgland make some nice amplifiers too, they match quite nicely with the B+Ws.

MXF900

[meltemi]

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

However, bi-wiring does not increase the amount of current available from the amplifier,

Correct

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

it effectively cuts it in half. By separating the 2 wire sets at the speaker, you are limiting the available current to that of the smallest gauge pair of cables.

Wrong, because you assume, that the current is fed to the entire crossover, which ist not the case with B&W 800 series speakers (models Matrix 801 Series 3 and later). Instead these speakers provide two entirely separate signal paths (LF with low pass / Mid+HF with bandpass + highpass), and each of the two paths has its individual current requirement.

By the way, in your B&W Matrix 801 Series 2 (Studio B) you have an inductive coupling between LF and Mid/HF part of the crossover, even if you take out the bridges for bi-wiring. That's why B&W completely separated LF crossover and Mid/HF crossover from Matrix 801 Series 3 up.

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

The funny thing is that if you put the jumpers back between the speakers binding posts, you will get the combined current handling of both cables.

You put the speaker cables in parallel instead of putting the LF and Mid/HF paths in parallel on the amp.

For bi-wiring always use same type, same gauge, same length of cables to prevent any sonic differences inflicted by the cables.

For the 80xD (Studio D) B&W says in the user manual: "(bi-wiring) is the minimum we recommend", and you can hear the difference.

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

It really is tough to break the laws of physics....

Sorry Mark, but a more detailed understanding of how things are really working does not break the law of physics :-)

[mpdonahue]

Lets address each topic individually-

Originally Posted by meltemi

Wrong, because you assume, that the current is fed to the entire crossover, which ist not the case with B&W 800 series speakers (models Matrix 801 Series 3 and later). Instead these speakers provide two entirely separate signal paths (LF with low pass / Mid+HF with bandpass + highpass), and each of the two paths has its individual current requirement.

Please see explanation below.

By the way, in your B&W Matrix 801 Series 2 (Studio B) you have an inductive coupling between LF and Mid/HF part of the crossover, even if you take out the bridges for bi-wiring. That's why B&W completely separated LF crossover and Mid/HF crossover from Matrix 801 Series 3 up.

Unless you move the coil off board.....Like we did 25 years ago...

You put the speaker cables in parallel instead of putting the LF and Mid/HF paths in parallel on the amp.
For bi-wiring always use same type, same gauge, same length of cables to prevent any sonic differences inflicted by the cables.

But riddle me this- If you have the individual sections of the speaker on separate cables, then the LF driver, which takes significantly more current than the MF/HF, is current starved while the MF/HF section has excess capacity. As far as I understand V/R=I still works. If you increase the resistance by halving the gauge of the wire, you will reduce the available current.
OTOH, If you jumper the speaker at the crossover, you have the same overall available current, but it will be distributed to the section that is calling for the most current.
Bi-amping is a reality, Bi-wiring is a myth.

For the 80xD (Studio D) B&W says in the user manual: "(bi-wiring) is the minimum we recommend", and you can hear the difference.

The user manual written by a Hifi company for the home user is obviously the premier source of irrefutable information. Let me get out the manual from my Shun Mook stones....

Sorry Mark, but a more detailed understanding of how things are really working does not break the law of physics :-)

I guess that I need to bone up on the new math...
-m

[tsvisser]

I've already stated that I don't feel that bi-wiring provides any scientific advantage, other than an aggregate lower gauge wire between amplifier and speaker, which is generally good, but normally not necessary. The only possible positive result would be a slightly increased output level, but probably not detectable if the original wire being used is at least baseline suitable for speaker wire use.

When bi-wiring, you never take an existing wire and split it in half, you always add an extra run of cable, so you would always have twice the cable you normally would have run in a single-wire application. I don't understand this talk of current starved drivers.

The science that refutes advantages to bi-wiring also defends it, in that you can't claim that it actually harms performance.

[meltemi]

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

Unless you move the coil off board....

Correct measure.

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

Like we did 25 years ago...

Matrix 801 Series 2 came on the market in 1987; that makes 23 years, at least to my humble math, and you knew better than the manufacturer himself at that time. Congratulations.

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

But riddle me this- If you have the individual sections of the speaker on separate cables, then the LF driver, which takes significantly more current than the MF/HF, is current starved while the MF/HF section has excess capacity.

Putting two impedances in parallel on a current source leaves one of the impedances current starved? Oh, gimme a break.

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

As far as I understand V/R=I still works. If you increase the resistance by halving the gauge of the wire, you will reduce the available current.

Use two identical cables, do not halve the gauge.

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

Bi-amping is a reality, Bi-wiring is a myth.

Doing something with two separate current sources is a reality, and doing the very same thing with just one current source is a myth? Gimme a second break.

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

The user manual written by a Hifi company for the home user is obviously the premier source of irrefutable information. Let me get out the manual from my Shun Mook stones...

Oh, B&W is just a Hifi company, so they do not know what they write and why? Gimme a third break.

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

I guess that I need to bone up on the new math...

The laws of Kirchhoff for instance, dealing with current nodes, and they are no myth.

Kirchhoff's circuit laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Petrus]

I look at it this way: in single wire the signal splits somewhere withing the crossover network, of in case of bi-wire ready speaker, at the bridged back terminals to low and hf sections. Now, lets do an experiment where we start moving this separation towards the power amp terminals. First 10 cm (1.05 wired?), then halfway between speaker and amp (1.5 wired?) and finally to the amp terminals. At which point start the benefits become audible??? I think it is elecrically identical circuit all the time in this scale, ecept maybe that the cables get thicker in total. But getting thicker cables need no bi-wireing. Bi-wire just looks so "pro" while in reality it is completely "amateur".

In speaker cables the cable resistance does measurably affect the frequency response, and it can be heard. But it happens only with serously thin cables. After you pass a certain point the effect is so small that it can be totally ignored. There have been many tests which show that this point is around 2.5mm2 copper cross section thickness with reasonable cable distances under 10m (normal home installation 16A/230V cable is 3x2.5mm2), after which the sound difference disappears. For peace of mind 4mm2 speaker cable is fine, after that it is just mental. Sorry I have no gauge conversion for you imperialists.

A funny (?) example: one guy here had a system which was tri-wired with the most expecive cables possible, total cost aproaching 100k€ for the cables alone (idiot). Even though the idea of good speaker cable is to make it disappear it never occurred to him that for much less money he could have a system with only digital cabeling, having DACs and amps hardwired to each other and the speakers: voila: no speaker cables, total transparency! The ultimate speaker cable: none.

[Roland]

The worst thing about this argument above is that neither the 801 or the 802 is that good a speaker to be this worried about. In reality removing the bridging plates between the crossover is pretty academic because they are just bridged 10ft further back at the amp, this is all complete pseudo-science again.

In practice, actively driven speakers more often than not will beat the hell out of passive networked ones. As for the heritage of B&W speaker, I remember their hi-fi past way back in the 70's way before they hit the studio market. The 801 was their first Studio monitor, IMHO a pretty, dull and lifeless speaker which lacked any real depth and had a strangely veiled sounding top end. It's best attribute was the start of the concept of trying to get mid and tweeters off the same baffle as the bass driver, which should reduce "smearing" caused by diffraction effects. They did a similar thing with a speaker called the DM7 a few years before, however this was a terribly inefficient design that (IMHO) didn't sound very good. The modern range is IMHO, a huge improvement over their speakers of yesteryears, but there are a few other contenders for this market too, namely ATC, PMC, and Meyer with the X10. You also have the likes of Revel speakers who are starting to generate a lot of interest amongst mastering engineers.

Regards



Roland