• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

B&W 804 D4 review and measurements by Stereophile

Xenomorph

Member
Joined
May 11, 2022
Messages
20
Likes
6
If you signed up to this forum specifically to obsessively defend one particular model or brand of speaker, you're gonna have a bad time. Just FYI.
Lol...sure I am going to have a bad time on a forum. Now what are you peeps going to do then? Lynch me?
I'm not defending the brand. I dont work for them, nor do I have any particular affiliation for them. I do however disagree with nonsense. One could argue about the 804D4 frequency response being a bit hot on certain frequencies (like so many other "audiophile" speakers).
But surely you can agree with me that disregarding the positive aspects in both measurements and listening experience cannot simply be neglected. And if you cannot, we'll that's too bad.
 

Xenomorph

Member
Joined
May 11, 2022
Messages
20
Likes
6
unless the brand is revel or genelec :)
Yeah...I think I just called the Revel Salon2 irrelevant, since there was a "textbook perfect speaker" for a way lower price according to Geert. Now they are all pissed at me :)
 
Last edited:

Ageve

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2021
Messages
192
Likes
640
Location
Sweden
But surely you can agree with me that disregarding the positive aspects in both measurements and listening experience cannot simply be neglected. And if you cannot, we'll that's too bad.

If you mean that there are still positive aspects of the speakers, even though they are bad compared to 24 year old models, well then you are right. The drivers still have low distortion, and the cabinets are well made.

I don't know if it's still true, but they used to be among the best in the industry when it comes to pair matching (within 0.5dB). The crossover components are "audiophile" parts from Mundorf. But the problem is that they don't sound very good compared to better designs. It has nothing to do with poor quality control. It's clearly how B&W wants them to sound.
 

Xenomorph

Member
Joined
May 11, 2022
Messages
20
Likes
6
If you mean that there are still positive aspects of the speakers, even though they are bad compared to 24 year old models, well then you are right. The drivers still have low distortion, and the cabinets are well made.

I don't know if it's still true, but they used to be among the best in the industry when it comes to pair matching (within 0.5dB). The crossover components are "audiophile" parts from Mundorf. But the problem is that they don't sound very good compared to better designs. It has nothing to do with poor quality control. It's clearly how B&W wants them to sound.
Yes, I was referring to the positive aspects (both measurements and listening experience) as mentioned in the stereophile review.
I know the older models very well. Owned the 802S3 and 801S3 for years. I enjoyed them a lot, however compared to the D3/D4 they lack dynamics, openess and speed. Soundstage was limited between the speakers, never extending beyond the speakers. They lacked liveliness, no matter how well the frequency response measured. But thats just my experience.
 

steve59

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
1,017
Likes
726
Yeah...I think I just called the Revel Salon2 irrelevant, since there was a "textbook perfect speaker" for a way lower price according to Geert. Now they are all pissed at me :)
By revel's own standards the f228 bested and f208 is as good as the salon 2 so you didn't step on any toes.
 

steve59

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
1,017
Likes
726
If you mean that there are still positive aspects of the speakers, even though they are bad compared to 24 year old models, well then you are right. The drivers still have low distortion, and the cabinets are well made.

I don't know if it's still true, but they used to be among the best in the industry when it comes to pair matching (within 0.5dB). The crossover components are "audiophile" parts from Mundorf. But the problem is that they don't sound very good compared to better designs. It has nothing to do with poor quality control. It's clearly how B&W wants them to sound.
I find this post interesting. Do you think the forum founder places measured response before listening impressions or build quality? I have tinnitus and likely wouldn't care for the B&W, but can't help to think they know something.
 

Putter

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
492
Likes
771
Location
Albany, NY USA
I find this post interesting. Do you think the forum founder places measured response before listening impressions or build quality? I have tinnitus and likely wouldn't care for the B&W, but can't help to think they know something.
I would say no, but Amir afaict does expect a reasonable correlation between measured response and listening quality and has commented when they didn't match as well as expected. As far as preference not matching measured response (which is say reasonably flat response and good dispersion and to a lesser degree low distortion) most, but not all here subscribe to Toole's observations and published papers that found that most people (>80%) prefer those characteristics vs. uneven frequency response and dispersion.

Build quality is a separate issue that may to some degree correlate with good measurements, but is also a reasonable item of preference.
 

MaxBuck

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
1,515
Likes
2,116
Location
SoCal, Baby!
Personally, I pay little attention to anyone's opinions on transducers (in this case loudspeakers). They are all sufficiently nonideal that selecting one's favorites on the basis of one's own subjective preferences seems unimpeachable, at least to my thinking.
 

steve59

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
1,017
Likes
726
It takes me 4 pages to say what you just did in that paragraph.
 

Ageve

Active Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2021
Messages
192
Likes
640
Location
Sweden
I find this post interesting. Do you think the forum founder places measured response before listening impressions or build quality? I have tinnitus and likely wouldn't care for the B&W, but can't help to think they know something.


amirm said:
I have a scale for how much measurements matter for each category of products:

DACs: 100%
Amplifiers (headphone and speaker): 80 to 90% due to variability of available power. Hard to internalize how much power is available/enough without listening tests.
Speakers: 70 to 80%
Headphones: 50 to 80% (measurements too variable)

This is why you see me do listening tests for the last two categories and half of second (headphone amps).

I have listened to newer B&W models, and they all had a bright and unpleasant sound. It might seem like extra detail or "air", but it isn't. The raised tweeter level increases distortion.

805 D4:

Listening window, and distortion:
fr_listeningwindow.png thd_90db.png
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,313
Location
UK
Salon 2 is a great speaker. 804 D4, nope...
I agree. I auditioned a Salon2 and a 801 D3 for a month in my acoustically treated music room. I sent the B&W back and kept the Revel.

The only thing that I liked the 801 D3 for is their largeness of the sound. When I first heard them at Abbey Road, one of the engineers described it as "awesome". That is similar to what JA said on his Stereophile review.

Overall, however, I found the 804 D4's sound seductive. This is a loudspeaker you need to audition.

They have indeed sounded seductive. They made everything sound "awesome." It made you smile. However, it also made a delicate Chopin piano piece or a sad Fado song "awesome" too. Those made you cringe... They were not Hi-Fi as in High Fidelity.

If all you are listening is modern music, pop or Mahler :) you will love 801 D3 but if you are a Hi-Fi enthusiast with a wide range of musical tastes then you will soon hate them.
 
Last edited:

itz_all_about_the_music

Active Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2022
Messages
125
Likes
112
ASR doesn't pay much value to subjective opinions, especially when executed without controls.

A speaker that impresses ASR measures likes this:

index.php


That's close to textbook perfect. They're about 60% of the price of 804 D4's.
And if the room size dictates adding two W371 SAMs @ $9,000 each...
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,937
Likes
3,525
And if the room size dictates adding two W371 SAMs @ $9,000 each...

No one says you need w371's. You can find very capable subs for less then a quarter. And if you're focused on cost, which was not my main message, than take into account this alternative provides a fully active system with integrated DSP for the same price. And there are other alternatives, like the Dutch & Dutch 8C.

But this is all not relevant. I just intend to show you where state of the art speaker design is currently at. For many ASR members such performance level is the current benchmark for expensive speakers. And from the few examples I gave you can conclude that it's not only Harman who targets such frequency and directivity response. We recently even learned PS Audio, a company known to put high value on listening, aimed for a flat power response for their new FR30 flagship speakers.
 
Last edited:

d3l

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2022
Messages
37
Likes
88
I think there is a common misunderstanding about the purpose of control rooms in recording studios. I was recently in the control room at Abbey Road Studio 1. The B&Ws in there(800 D3) sound fine, they get the job done. They're certainly not amazing, and the room itself is a bit too dead to really sound good for stereo anyways. That probably helps the speakers since off-axis response doesn't matter as much. The seating positions of the various people working on the recording are all over the place. The room is not optimized for great sound either, as stated by the senior recording engineer on duty at the time. Not my opinion. The large glass window causes undesirable reflections and the large console causes bass issues.

During the process of recording, they're not EQing the sound or adjusting microphones based on what comes out of those speakers. They're for monitoring the music that is being recorded -- what typically gets adjusted is the musicians playing the music.

The place where the sound of the final output is decided is the mixing/mastering studios. Some of those(especially classical ones) do still use B&Ws, but many do not. And in general, most competent studios are going to check music on several different models of speaker before finalizing it, not just 1.

With all respect. I think there might have been a misunderstanding or two while speaking with the engineer.

Yes, control rooms with big consoles and large windows have their issues with acoustics but saying that the room is not optimized for great sound is a huge understatement. Bunch of incredibly skilled people are putting their knowledge. effort and resources to make any control room of that calibre as good as it can possibly be.

Also stating that things don't get eq'd or mics moved based on what's coming out of control room speakers is as wrong as it can be. That is exactly what its for, hence 'control room'. Things get EQ, compressed, limited, distorted and processed in every conceivable way during the recording process and every judgement concerning these decisions are made from behind the console and with the speakers in hand. In Abbey road's case with 801's as midfields and choice near fields to suit the engineers needs.
 
Last edited:

d3l

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2022
Messages
37
Likes
88
Anyone running the 804 D4 as their main speakers at the moment? If so, what is your front end and how do you like it?

Went to listen to these a few times now and have to say I'm beyond impressed. Never before have I heard such details on even my most listened records. Unlike some super analytical speakers, these somehow seems to sound both musical and extremely accurate on the same time. Closest to these on the same shop were amphion 7LS. Extremely impressive for the price but on a different level all and all.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
With all respect. I think there might have been a misunderstanding or two while speaking with the engineer.

Yes, control rooms with big consoles and large windows have their issues with acoustics but saying that the room is not optimized for great sound is a huge understatement. Bunch of incredibly skilled people are putting their knowledge. effort and resources to make any control room of that calibre as good as it can possibly be.

Also stating that things don't get eq'd or mics moved based on what's coming out of control room speakers is as wrong as it can be. That is exactly what its for, hence 'control room'. Things get EQ, compressed, limited, distorted and processed in every conceivable way during the recording process and every judgement concerning these decisions are made from behind the console and with the speakers in hand. In Abbey road's case with 801's as midfields and choice near fields to suit the engineers needs.
Not sure what I'm supposed to do with this post or what purpose it's supposed to serve, but what I said was correct. If you don't believe me I guess that's more of a personal problem.

There are no nearfield monitors in the control room, either, only the B&Ws(and some ceiling mounted surrounds). You seem to have mixing and recording confused or something.

Not to mention, a tiny bit of research would show that EQing at the recording stage varies based on the engineer and studio, some really don't like it, some do, and the amount varies. As with everything else in the music industry, there's few standards and many opinions.
 
Last edited:

d3l

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2022
Messages
37
Likes
88
Its not a matter of belief. I was simply pointing out a few things you stated as facts. Which they are not.

You are talking about things in this thread which you have no clue about. Sorry to be blunt. Anyone working in audio production will see thru it immediately.

There is no shame in not knowing, you might learn a thing or two in the process of asking. I have, many times. Thinking that you know is not only counter productive for you but also for people reading and maybe believing these things.
 

caught gesture

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
443
Likes
936
Location
Italia
Not sure what I'm supposed to do with this post or what purpose it's supposed to serve, but what I said was correct. If you don't believe me I guess that's more of a personal problem.

There are no nearfield monitors in the control room, either, only the B&Ws(and some ceiling mounted surrounds). You seem to have mixing and recording confused or something.

Not to mention, a tiny bit of research would show that EQing at the recording stage varies based on the engineer and studio, some really don't like it, some do, and the amount varies. As with everything else in the music industry, there's few standards and many opinions.
Microphone placement (as well as microphone selection) would be considered as a form of EQ. That would be monitored in the control room.
 
Top Bottom