B&W 683 S2 speakers for Arcam FMJ A19 amplifier

[hybridauth_Google_107074969209142745862]

Hi Guys,

I recently purchased an Arcam FMJ A19 amplifier and irDac to replace my Marantz PM6005 that is paired up with B&W 685 S1 speakers. My question to you is, will the Arcam amplifier be able to drive the B&W 683 S2's in a large room? (My 685's are stunning but larger speakers would make a noticable difference in a larger area.)

I have heard the 683's many times before on Marantz and Synthesis electronics and absolutely loved them. The reason I didn't upgrade my PM6005 to a bigger model (PM 7005 / PM 8005) was the fact that i got the Arcam package at an irresistible bargain and just had to have it.

Please note that I am only interested in B&W speakers . Unfortunately I'm not able to take my Arcam for a demo as I have relocated far away from my previous local B&W dealer.

Your advice and inputs would be appreciated.

 

[Al ears]

Hi Guys,

I recently purchased an Arcam FMJ A19 amplifier and irDac to replace my Marantz PM6005 that is paired up with B&W 685 S1 speakers. My question to you is, will the Arcam amplifier be able to drive the B&W 683 S2's in a large room? (My 685's are stunning but larger speakers would make a noticable difference in a larger area.)

I have heard the 683's many times before on Marantz and Synthesis electronics and absolutely loved them. The reason I didn't upgrade my PM6005 to a bigger model (PM 7005 / PM 8005) was the fact that i got the Arcam package at an irresistible bargain and just had to have it.

Please note that I am only interested in B&W speakers . Unfortunately I'm not able to take my Arcam for a demo as I have relocated far away from my previous local B&W dealer.

Your advice and inputs would be appreciated.

There should be no reason the Arcam cannot drive the 683's as they are even more efficient than your 685's.

 

[manicm]

The A19 should drive the 683s fine, but they are NOT more efficient than the 685s. Efficiency should be seen as a combination of sensitivity and impedance, and while the the 683s have slightly higher sensitivity it's negated by its lower minimum impedance - it dips to 3 ohms instead of the 685s 3.5 ohms.

 

[Al ears]

The A19 should drive the 683s fine, but they are NOT more efficient than the 685s. Efficiency should be seen as a combination of sensitivity and impedance, and while the the 683s have slightly higher sensitivity it's negated by its lower minimum impedance - it dips to 3 ohms instead of the 685s 3.5 ohms.

Which, in my humble opinion, is b#gger all. If it drives something that goes down to 3.5ohm if it can drive that successfully then 3 ohm drivable to, the increased sensitivity is a bonus. It's not a difficult load for a decent amp.

If it couldn't drive something that dips as low as 3 ohm I would have mentioned it.

 

[manicm]

Slightly increased sensitivity is negated by lower impedance when analysing overall efficiency. It's generally better for the amp to drive speakers with slightly lower sensitivity than ones with significantly lower impedance.

Also, in case of B&Ws traditionally the paper specs have seldom told the whole story - they've always gone better with more power, admittedly not to the extent of Dynaudios, but in real world tests their floorstanders have always been less efficient.

But agreed, the A19 should drive them fine.

 

[Al ears]

Slightly increased sensitivity is negated by lower impedance when analysing overall efficiency. It's generally better for the amp to drive speakers with slightly lower sensitivity than ones with significantly lower impedance.

Also, in case of B&Ws traditionally the paper specs have seldom told the whole story - they've always gone better with more power, admittedly not to the extent of Dynaudios, but in real world tests their floorstanders have always been less efficient.

But agreed, the A19 should drive them fine.

Whilst I agree with you that the paper specs are often way off what is actually measured independently if you read reviews in publications that actually measure these things and don't just take manufacturers specs as gospel then the B&W's of this world are far from the worst offenders. Generally the better the amp you have will drive any load better, obviously. However, here I think the OP is worrying about nothing.

Yes, an A29 would deal with them much better, but that's a whole new financial ballpark.

 

[hybridauth_Google_107074969209142745862]

Yes, I also thought that the A29 would be the better fit in which case I rather would have gone for something like the Marantz PM 8005.

The fact that What Hi Fi reviewed the B&W 683 S2's paired with the A19 and Audiolab cd player made me think about it's abillity to drive such a speaker and my upgrade path.

Al I can say is that my 685's are power hungry little beasts themselves. I've gone through a NAD c326bee, NAD c356bee and Marantz PM6005 untill I ended up with the A19. Soud quality aside, each time I noticed a gain in scale, composure and control when being pushed hard. At higher volumes the NAD's started to sound bright and unorganised while the Marantz really made a difference in terms of overall performance. The A19 was my step out of the budget entry level range and I can truely say that it does my 685's justice afterall these attempts. I can just imagine what it will do with the S2 models together with the Kimber 8PR cables in my setup.

Thank you for the feedback, I will be keeping you guys informed about my progress.

 

[plastic penguin]

Have to bear in mind the volume levels you play at. Perhaps on a short audition, caning the Arcam and 683s might sound impressive but over longer periods little deficiencies may start to notice.

I've owned 40 watt Arcam amps and they sound great at low to medium levels but cranked up that's a different matter altogether. It'll be the same with any low powered amp.