KEF 205.2 or B&W 802D2?

I’ve not had the opportunity to listen to the 802D3, so can’t reach any conclusions.  After my evaluation of the D2’s vs my KEF 205’s, I found the KEF’s more musical overall, without the listener fatigue experienced the D2’s too hot high end.  I find piano very realistic from the KEF’s.  I’m always taken when I can hear the harmonics and decay as the piano sounds fade.  Of course the source makes a huge difference too.  
Hope this helps!

Gentleman,
Can you share any thoughts regarding the B&W 802D2 versus the 802D3?
If cost is not an object, should one automatically prefer the newer of these ?
Amongst considerations are 1. the 802D2's in rose-nut are to my
eye significantly more attractive than the 802D3's....to the extent that if switching to the D3's I lean towards the gloss black finish, which
de-emphasizes the protruding front (also black) woofer grills, and 2. the 802's through the 802D2's are known for a somewhat lush sound which is highly pleasing even if....to a pianist....the sound of a piano on the D3's is unequivocally more realistic.
Is there a better arbiter of realism in sound reproduction than the piano ?
Seventies

Delpi

Good observations.... :)


Erik

Thanks for your input!  I've done lots of listening....at the expense of chores that should be done, LOL.  They're certainly both very fine speakers.  I already own the 205's.  The 802s are good buy, but I think for my taste, the 205s are better on vocals, and bass, def much more open-better imaging/soundstage.  Although my room is heavy with upholstered furniture, and a thick oriental carpet, the 802s seem to sizzle way too much on the high end.  Bass likep Power is likely not an issue, using a MC452 power amp and a JL Audio F112 (v-1) sub.

The first difference you would notice would be the increased bass depth and dynamics. The 205/2 were a little on the lighter and tighter side and while they have good dynamics, they didn't plumb the depths as well. You might have even put them bit closer to walls for boundary reinforcement, which has its own set issues to certain points of in room imaging.

Both speakers are known to have a more forward mid range, but the B&W us definitely tuned to sound a certain way in the mid range. Its intentional and coming from the Kef and its more neutral sound might be to or not to your liking. This is certainly one of the key areas where people like or loathe that B&W sound. I also believe it will take a bit more work to get the B&W to work properly in room with its dispersion characteristics not being as linear as the Kef.

At the treble, the B&W will be somewhat more lively, but also quite refined.  A hot recording will so on either speaker, but the B&W might be less forgiving with it having a bit more energy, but its still a very clean transducer so it won't be a fault on the tweeter but simple how the recording was made.

So I would take my top vocal tracks, both male and female, and see you enjoy their house sound. If you go on from there, bring a track you enjoy but also something that might be a bit too enthusiastic in the treble. 

The final note is power, which I believe the B&W to be more of a load into lower impedance. The key factor is the demand is in much of the mid range, which also tends to have the highest energy levels. If you under power them, it will likely be more noticed.

Thanks for your input.  I already own the 205.2s, I've been offered the 802s at a substantial discount.  As you probably know, the 802Ds have been replaced by a updated model, 802D3.

Um, that you should listen to the top of the line Monitor Audio before making any choices.

Also, if you will use this for movies at all, pay particular attention to the clarity of voices, especially when very soft. Now that I think about it, that's a good approach to all of them.  Set your music to your normal listening volume and compare end to end tonal balance on each. My suspicion is that you'll notice some difference across the brands, that one you'll be happier playing softer than the others.

Best,

Erik