26-Jun-2015, 05:11
(25-Jun-2015, 19:01)Dvlt PhD Wrote:(25-Jun-2015, 17:35)streamy Wrote:(25-Jun-2015, 11:06)stonedragon Wrote: I say that is a pretty good endorsement - especially this quote...
Question deux: Does the Phantom sound as good as an Editor’s Choice $50,000 stereo system, featuring a gaggle of components, oxygen-free python cables, and monolith speakers? No. But the disparity isn’t a chasm; it’s more like a small gap.
So to naysayers... what say you?
From my personal experience my B&W's didn't stand a chance and 3 months on, I don't regret my purchase. Not ONE BIT!!
I second this, 100% same with me!
Hi stonedragon; streamy
What B&W's versions are you both referring to, please? It'd be good to know.
Regarding the quote from the review, I guess it's a good idea to make less expensive version, because the idea of having to spend $10K in a surround system, it's not a good feeling. Like another said, for rear it'd be good, apparently...
I have first edition B&W 802 (not actual 802 diamond). They are still working well, but have clear deficits in Bass reproduction compared to the Phantoms. Mids of the 802 are less neutral, sound stage is slightly narrower.
