Sorry for necroposting, but I haven’t found much on the topic around the web — I’ve been wanting to write about the differences for a while, and I figure this is as good a place as any to do that.
I’ve owned both the 6000s and the 6002s for a couple of years, and I like both of them, but contrary to popular opinion, they sound quite different, or rather — they have similar character, but quite different capabilities.
First off, the bass.
The 6000s do have bass, but they do not go very deep by modern standards. 55-60 Hz (~ a A1 or B1 on a piano) seems about the lowest note it can confidently hit. Depending on the music you like, that might be OK for you. Additionally, the bass range has many peaks and valleys, making some songs appear quite bass heavy, while others only have their bass-lines hinted at — you have to use your imagination. This, for instance is unlike the 8000s, which also don’t play very deep, but do so much more predictably and consistently. The bass that the 6000s do produce, is nice — it has a comforting warmth and sometimes, a neat punch to it. If you want louder bass from them, like with any speaker, you can place them near a wall or corner, at the expense of some accuracy.
The lower register on the 6002s, on the other hand are, is notably more powerful and accurate. Notes at about 42 Hz still have some impact and weight! To me, that’s an impressive achievement, especially using the same chassis — it shows what a difference 20 years make in electronics engineering. That 42 Hz milestone is also a pretty significant one — it’s roughly E1, the lowest note on a regular double bass or bass guitar, meaning the speakers are more-or-less full-range if you squint, and you don’t have to worry so much about missing out on bass-heavy performances. Also, the peaks and dips below 100 Hz are much less noticeable. The overall result is that you get more scale from your music, and more resolution down low — you can actually hear mostly what’s going on down there without having to guess too much and performances seem bigger. Also, B&O have put a useful position switch (wall, corner, free) so you can try to counter room resonances. I have one on free, and one on wall. It helps a bit, and I’d rather have that option than not.
In the mids and highs the picture is not quite as clear.
The 6000s have a warmth to them, and to my ears, a pretty clear focus on the mids. It makes some vocal performances really, really, enjoyable. Cymbals kind of have a safety net over them.
Like a poster be for me has mentioned, that warmth is clearly dialled back on the 6002 — they are a bit more clinical or “cooler” in the mids and highs. The presentation overall is slightly cleaner and a bit more focused on the highs. To me, that voicing is more “modern”, but it looses a little bit of charm.
However, on the whole, I think both speakers are voiced similarly: the 6000s and 6002s are a bit laid back, a bit recessed, a bit less forward and sharp, than post-2012 speakers from B&O, say, the Beolab 17s. There is definitely a charm to that voicing, but I’ve decided to move on from it.
If I had to choose, I’d go with the 6002s.
.
