But the truth is, I'm not so sure that I like the 802's overall presentation after comparing them with the Sonus Fabers. I went to a dealer in Boca and he was great. I was very impressed with the Cremona M's and after listening to them and the 802's I feel like I could listen to the Cremona's for hours.
You should never compare by memory in different rooms. The only valid comparison is both speakers, optimally positioned, in your room.
The B&W's make my ears feel like they are going to bleed after about 30 minutes.
Then why did you buy them?
The looks? The price? The "audiophile" raves....based on looks and price? Was the (B&W) dealers room very wide/dead, with the speakers positioned well out into the room?
I don't know if an EQ will fix that and I truthfully don't know if I would even know where to begin in trying to get an EQ to do that.
I repeat (even if you don't understand), EQ at a single spatial position
cannot correct a global power response problem.
If the off axis tracked the on axis response, then you could.
I know Chris has offered his help and I really appreciate it. I might still take him up on it as well, but I don't know that any EQ is capable of changing the natural presentation of a speaker. I could be wrong on that though. I'm a hobbyist and no expert!
The latter is the reason for the majority of threads. Unfortunately, as with all online forums, the vast majority of those who post assertively are non-experts, though they are blissfully unaware. I'll ask again, where are you?
My philosophy is that "expert" talk is cheap (and even cheaper online). I can not only tell you, I can demonstrate for you, in person, exactly what I speak of. The choice is yours.
If you do not accept my word on the subject, then who's can you believe?
Books/websites - Sean Olive, Floyd Toole, Siegfried Linkwitz, Earl Geddes, JBL tech library, etc, etc.
The 802N's special features is that it has far less of a signature than most other speakers, because it is free of virtually any source of resonance, unlike most other speakers.
Please present you data to back this claim.
Here's mine:
What is your explanation for the severe deterioration of nearfield vs far farfield MF/HF response?
Answer: the diffraction effects of the tweeter "bullet" over the mid sphere and cone. The fancy looks come with an audible price. And diffraction
is aubible...and uncorrectable with EQ.
But 802's signature is overall neutral.
Because Chris said so...or based on evidence/data?
Here's mine:
Look at the vertical scale. See the huge power flare at 5k. Just above the 4k tweeter crossover, where the 1" piston source is omni-directional...and the 6" piston source is severely directional. This is a global (power) problem. It
cannot be corrected by single point EQ, shelving or otherwise.
Some one was complaining about the off axis performance of the 802N. Well, it has about average off axis performance, and with a simple narrow band effected (like on the 802N), it's not a big deal, compared to other standard monopolar speakers. Also, the 'percieved' effect, when wide enough in bandwidth, is not to produce 'forward' sound. The situation is not that simple.
So because it has terrible polar response like the majority of tragic cone 'n dome speakerboxes, it's no big deal? The fact that "forwardness" and "fatigue" is
exactly what greg complains of...and exactly what is predicted by the measurements notwithstanding? Really?
The two shelving filters I specified before using the DCX correct BOTH of these issues.
Nope, sorry Chris, they cannot. A better understanding of the acoustic issues and what can be corrected by single point EQ is required. Btw, I have both a DEQ and DCX...and can demonstrate this to greg, in person, rather than in anything is possible cyberspace.
Choice is his.
cheers,
AJ