Difference between B&W 800N/SIG and B&W800D

I have owned the Signature 800s and now currently have the 800D. The Sig 800 were driven with Bryston 4bsst and an audio research LS-16 tube pre-amp, and the 800D is on Classe Cam-400 monos and a Classe CP-700 so it is not a direct comparison. However, I am very impressed with the diamond tweeters lack of "ringing" in the top end. Some may call it boring, but I listen to a lot of vocals and I am still often blown away with how good the 800D is. I have directly compared the 802 to the 802D and in my opinion the 802D is a much better speaker. Up and down the whole range it is much more refined, and transperent without being harsh. The bottom end on the 800D is also incredible. The only slight negetive and it may just be my small room, but sometimes they can sound a little heavy in the lower mid-bass. They are by far the best speakers I have owned and I have had many.

Could you discribe the differences between them?

I have owned the 800 Sigs and currently own the 800d's. The 800d is a much more amazing speaker than the sigs. It could also be that the new design works better with my "cursed by the gods" room that I have, but they work for me. I am comparing these speakers using all the same equipment. I don't know if Sphere has done the same type comparison. If he listened to two different speakers in two different systems or anything else was changed when the speakers changed, could make all the difference in the world. If it were same for same, Sphere just has different tastes than I do, and/or a better room.

>>It would be interesting to hear the HONEST opinions of the engineers at Abbey Road studios<<

They probably don't care a whole lot one way or another. The recording studio is where they work. I'd bet that most of them aren't audiophiles and would be happy with just about anything.

I think Abbey Road gets them for free, or just for a bargain. I think people should listen and make there own decision. Every speaker had his strong parts and less impressive parts. When I listend to the 802D I heard the sweat high's, and also a better comtrol in the low freq. But still I heard that humm in the low freq. as my old 802N did. And there was something inside me that told me the low freq. are not that natural. I had the feeling that I was listening to a subwoofer. But I still have not heard the 800D, so I cannot give my opinion. I am curious if there are people who bought 800D after they had owned the 800N or Signature.

I am always puzzled how one person can think the 800D is fantastic and another thinks it totally sucks.
It would be interesting to hear the HONEST opinions of the engineers at Abbey Road studios.

When I have the change to listen to the 800D, I will let you know my comment.

Dear Leonx,
The 800d uses a diamond tweeter,great marketing if you ask me,because it sounds so dull and lifeless.Now some would say that is because it is so smooth,I say crap, because it does not sound like a cymbal,triangle,bells etc,nor does it allow the energy in upper harmonics of stringed and wind instruments to come through.The crossover between the bass to mid to high has some anomaly, in the sense that there is a cupped feel which people mistake for richness.Add overripe bass to this and you see what I mean.A speaker for the couch potato listener.
The Signature 800 was a different animal altogether. Completely neutral,fast, and it had fantastic interdriver coherence.The metal dome used in that tweeter was a marvel.The speaker could deliver an extremely vast soundstage,I mean huge, coupled with pinpoint imaging.
I could go on,but will say this,Dave Wilson was so blown away that he actually cracked open to see what B&W did in the Signature series,and to the best my knowledge he did no such thing with the Diamond series.That alone should say it all.
Sphere.

Sphere tell me what the differences are? And why you don't like the 800D? I agree that the way of advertisement B&W uses is not the most unnest way of making advertisement.

The older 800Sig outstrips the 800D in every aspect of playback.The truth is that the audio press does not have the guts to say so.I have heard both these loudspeakers, and can say that the 800Sig is an all time great loudspeaker design while the 800D is a sorry marketing stunt.All those reviewers who go gaga over the B&W diamond tweeter should go hear the Avalon Eidolon diamond, that should clean up their ears a bit.
What a full page advertisemnt can achieve is amazing in the audio world.
Sphere.

I had the 802N's for more than 6 years. I heard the 802D, but I didn't like the low freq. In the januari I heard the 800N and I was convinced to buy this one over the 802D. But I still haven't had the change to listen to the latest 800D. I read some articles about it, but I am more interessted in the experience of people here at audiogon.

I think that 802D bass observation is dependant on the room and positioning and I have experienced that it can be corrected. The big advantage of the 800D over the N800Sig is in the new technology for the tweeter and woofers as well as the attendant crossover improvements. If you liked the highs on the 802D, you will like them on the 800D.

Hi, I cannot attest to the 800 series but I do currently have the 802d and I agree with your assessment of the bass. I love the midrange and highs but the bass sounds loose and boomy to me. I am considering moving on to a different speaker. That being, I still do love my 802D and I have friends with the 800d that are also in love. May I suggest that you visit the BW user forum on HT Guide and ask your question there. No doubt you will get a lot of answers. http://htguide.com/forum/forumdisplay.php4?f=22

Hope this helps.