I have audiotoned the two as a possible move back into 2 channel setup.
I used a burmester 001 direct to power amp via nordost spm reference IC's
I found to my ears that the in this sceanrio the Wilson was the better match with the burmester. It not the B&W's were bad, far from it. But it didn;t seem to convey a soundstage width as wide as the WB's. It sounded very constricted.
The B&W's sounded very very forward in that it placed you right up to the front of the performance. Which proved for me anyway somewhat fatiguing. I found that the B&W didn;t dissappear as well as the WB.
Having said that and while it comes looking across as the B&W didn;t perform very well I think it just didn;t like my source. Had I used my Mark Levinson I am sure that it would perform on a more even keel, as I like the Mark Levinson and B&W sound.
But in the context of using my burmy then I would of chosen the Wilson benesch speakers instead. Although I have read that some people might find it clinical.
I used a burmester 001 direct to power amp via nordost spm reference IC's
I found to my ears that the in this sceanrio the Wilson was the better match with the burmester. It not the B&W's were bad, far from it. But it didn;t seem to convey a soundstage width as wide as the WB's. It sounded very constricted.
The B&W's sounded very very forward in that it placed you right up to the front of the performance. Which proved for me anyway somewhat fatiguing. I found that the B&W didn;t dissappear as well as the WB.
Having said that and while it comes looking across as the B&W didn;t perform very well I think it just didn;t like my source. Had I used my Mark Levinson I am sure that it would perform on a more even keel, as I like the Mark Levinson and B&W sound.
But in the context of using my burmy then I would of chosen the Wilson benesch speakers instead. Although I have read that some people might find it clinical.