macjonny1 wrote:
Except the BL 8000s are much better looking. Of course that's an opinion...but BL5s belong on the set of Star Trek! 😁
Seriously, both are pretty. Okay, granted, the BL5s looks more like "the bizz", but they look an awful lot better than "real" far-field studio monitors.
The 8000s and the 5's aren't really the same when it comes to the tech. The obvious one is the ALT lens, but it goes deeper than that. The 8000 is a"hybrid" design. It's not a true active. If you want deep bass and connect a subwoofer to it, the sub will be making use of a passive crossover, whereas the rest of the speaker units employ active crossovers.
I just did some reading up on the BL8000s, and it seems they "actively" bodged some things in it to make it function. Not to make it sound better and more accurate but band-aided it to a) give it more bottom at the cost of precision and in effect making it into a two-way speaker, and b) put some electronic circuit into it so it would last a bit longer.
So, although I really don't like "night-and-day" comments because they remind me audiophilics, the BL5s are in a completely different league in every aspect. There is not a single point where the BL8000 is comparable technically or audio wise. It is almost as clear cut as comparing a passive with an active design, a turntable with a cd, or a reel-to-reel to an uncompressed digital file.