Narrowed to 3: 802D3, Sopra 3, Reference 3


Hi all,
Here's the situation:
Room is 14x17 with vaulted ceilings from 9" to 14", and the room is mostly open to a foyer with high ceiling and is about 10x10.

I'm currently running a setup scavenged from my home theater:
Mytek Brooklyn DAC+ > Rotel RC-1590 Preamp > Rotel RB-1582 mk2 amp > B&W 805 D3

The sound overall is excellent, but it's a little bright and lacks bass presence (as you'd expect for a 2 way bookshelf). Here are my top speakers I've auditioned:

B&W 802D3 ( Auditioned with: Mytek Brooklyn DAC+ > McIntosh C52 > McIntosh 601) at Magnolia

KEF Reference 5 (Auditioned with Mytek Brooklyn DAC+ > McIntosh C47 > McIntosh MC452) at Magnolia at the same time as the 802.

Focal Sopra 3 (Auditioned with NAIM DAC > NAIM NAP 500 DR Amp - 140W per channel) at difference location

I also heard the KEF Reference 3 and Blade but ruled them out, the Ref 3 for sound, and the Blade for price and it being kind of ugly.

Here's the thing, I feel like I'm not sure what to get. I love the general sound of the 802, but I'm afraid even with the MC452 it'd be a bit bright. It also really lacked the presence in the bass like the Reference 5.

The Reference 5 sounds wonderful, and the bass is prolific, but I'm a little concerned about it being too warm. I heard the Ref 5 and 802s in the same room with virtually the same equipment, back to back, and they were so very different. The Ref 5 was warm, with rich full mids, that maybe were even too lush, with bass so good I honestly thought the subwoofer was on.

The 802 had good bass, but nothing to write home about (and it even had the more powerful 601 monoblocks), but the clarity was astounding, I just fear it'll be a little too bright for my room, which seems to lean bright already. That said, there is just something so exciting about the sound of this speaker playing orchestral. The problem was I much preferred the KEF for rock/r&b.

Then, to add to the mix, I liked the Focal Sopra 3 a lot, but I also felt it lacked bass presence, though it was on the weakest amp by a wide margin. The Focal seemed to be the middle ground between the B&W and KEF, but the bass concerned me. I'm not a bass nut, but I do want my bass to be powerful and don't want to have to add a sub. (Even for orchestral, I felt the Focal lacked a bit in the low cello and bass parts)

My plan was to keep the Mytek, and probably get a McIntosh C47 and MC452 or MC462, as I think the Rotels are probably too bright and underpowered for any of these setups. I was definitely hitting 300+W on the 802s during my audition while listening to orchestral music.

Thoughts? Is the KEF really that pudgy in the middle, is the B&W really that bright, and does the Sopra 3 really lack bass presence?

p.s. I thought the Blade was better balanced, but also still pretty warm.


Ag insider logo xs@2xmayoradamwest

Showing 3 responses by prof



Our golden rule on cabling is that cabling should be 30% of a systems overall budget.




Well that rule sounds great for salesemen.  Not so sure the consumer ought to buy in to it.

audiotroy,

I’m not saying in your case that you are out to shaft people in selling cables. I see no reason to think you don’t honestly believe what you say about the performance of high end audiocables.


And I’m trying to convince you otherwise.

Your car/tires analogy only might hold if audio cables had the type of audible difference you and other audiophiles ascribe to them, which is begging the question at hand. If high end cables are changing the sound in a tone-control manner, that’s not higher fidelity, it’s choosing a way to color the sound. If they perform "better" in terms of actual fidelity, actually passing more, and more accurate information than lower priced competently made cables, then that claim seems to remain problematic.I’ve given reasons in long threads on this elsewhere so need to go in to it here.

What you offer is anecdote, and I have my own anecdotal evidence to justify why I personally wouldn’t take your "30 percent of the budget" advice. I’ve heard speakers I own hooked up to regular old belden cables, and also hooked up to $40,000 worth of Nordost (and other) cables. If there was *any* sonic difference going on, it didn’t jump out and sure as hell wouldn’t have been worth such an insane difference in price point between the cables to me.

I’m no high roller, but a rough estimate of part of the system I’ve been using at home is around $45,000 in speakers/amps/pre/turntable/dac.Yet a rough estimate I spend on my cabling (mostly belden and old kimber pbj and some other cables) is around $400. (Which is probably more than I’d spend now if I were to re-do it).

So that’s about .8 percent of my budget on my cables. Whereas if I’d spent your recommended 30 percent, I’d have laid out about $13,600 just for cables!!! I can buy amazing speakers for that amount of money!

As I’ve detailed in a long thread on this forum, I’ve been out auditioning a great many terrific, well regarded loudspeakers. And usually they have been hooked up to very expensive audiophile brand cables, power conditioners, ac cables etc. Yet, as I have expressed that thread, almost none managed to impress me as much as my own speakers - in any respect, be it detail, resolution, tonality, etc. And my poor speakers are being fed by "meager" cheap cables.


That strongly suggests to me that my audio budget - as outrageous is it is in light of your advice about cable expenditure - has been spent more wisely where it matters to me; the quality of speakers in particular far swamps any apparent contribution of expensive cabling. I’ve "saved" a tremendous amount of money that I would have had to spend if I listened to rules like the one you espouse. If I had another $13,000 to spend, I’m quite sure that sonic benefits would be much better realized by putting it into even better speakers (or room treatment) etc, vs cabling.

You have your views based on your experience. I get that. I’m just offering another view, and why I’m glad I don’t follow the type of advise you are giving.  And offering alternative viewpoints may make someone, like the OP, think a bit more before simply imbibing audiophile lore about the money they should put in to cabling.  It may be helpful, maybe not, depending on the mindset of whoever reads it.  But that's how it goes.


(That’s all I’ll write on that subject here, as it’s been covered in the cable forum anyway).
Cheers,

Whoops, I meant to write: "I’m NOT trying to convince you otherwise."

(Your anecdote about the a system "springing to life" after changing the Ethernet cable only adds to my skepticism about your other anecdotal experience with other cables. Having seen many debates over ethernet/digital cables, with input from electrical engineers, it seems to me the technical case made for audible differences is weaker than the one for audible differences to be extremely unlikely. But many audiophiles think *everything* makes a difference, which is precisely what can happen when one relies purely on uncontrolled, subjectivity-based anecdote. Our perception can change for various reasons, and when you always ascribe this to an outside cause,  it allows people to come up with all sorts of dubious and contradictory ideas.   It’s why the world is filled with crack-pot medical nostrums - and countless other wild claims - that have fervent believers).