• 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

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
Its not a matter of belief. I was simply pointing out a few things you stated as facts. Which they are not.
You're a random anonymous new poster, things you type aren't going to be interpreted as facts without citations, especially when they're obviously wrong. This will be my last good faith response.

What I wrote in my post is what I was told at the recording session. There is no mistake and no misunderstanding. In fact I was surprised when they didn't seem to be touching the equipment or doing any EQ, so I asked about it. I was told that they don't typically do any EQ or make any changes to the setup during the recording session, unless something goes wrong, like mics not working properly(which happened on a few of the ~80 channels at the start and so they did need to fix that). That sort of digital EQ is what I was referring to, not anything else. That is generally what is understood by "EQ" on this forum.

That doesn't mean that their setup doesn't include some high-passed mics, nor that they don't do level-setting, etc. The very particular mics they use for different purposes are obviously a form of EQ, as is the microphone placement and angles, and the room itself, which is desired for its particular sound. That's why the vast majority of big budget film soundtracks are recorded there, after all. That stuff is all done beforehand, and they seemed rightfully proud of the fact that they have a lot of practice and don't need to change anything during sessions because everything is already set up perfectly.

If you still think this is wrong, as I said, a tiny bit of research shows that different recording studios and engineers have vastly differing practices, and amount of EQ varies widely. There are even engineers like Morten Lindberg who don't do digital EQ for mixing, handling everything by changing physical microphone placement at the recording venue.

Anyway, I'm done. YMMV. Believe what you want.
 
Last edited:

d3l

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2022
Messages
37
Likes
88
It makes no difference to me really if you believe me or not, as I've stated before. What I dont think is productive nor ok is stating things in public forums that are out of touch with reality.

I happen to run a studio and have been for the past 20 years, hence I might know a thing or two about the given subject.

Control rooms are there to control the process of recording, every aspect of it. As you have hard time believing me you can go and ask any actual engineer the question and listen to the answer.

Whatever a particular engineer does or does not choose to do during any process of audio production is up to them and their methods. It has no relevance to what particular spaces inside the studio are meant for.

This talk about digital eq makes 0 sense. Abbey uses Neve 88RS in the room which is top of the line analog console.

Equipment selected for the work in hand differs from one studio to another. What does not differ is that basic principle that any equipment in these establishments is there for one reason only. That reason being a tool for getting the job done.

If Abbey uses 80x series in their room as midfields they do it because that is what they have decided to give them best results in that particular application. They could have any other speaker in the world but chose have these.

Thinking that these are somehow random choices is just absurd and downright insulting to the people behind the decisions. These are people on top of their craft actually working in the studio day in day out.

I've allways thought it to be a bit of a left field choice to have the 80x's in studio enviroment but after listening to the 804's a few times, I can clearly see why someone would make that decision.

I would not personally replace my 8351B's with them but could see having a pair as midfield-main monitors for sure. For mastering, 802 or 801 most definitely.
 
Last edited:

bo_knows

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 17, 2020
Messages
797
Likes
788
Location
Dallas, Texas USA
It makes no difference to me really if you believe me or not, as I've stated before. What I dont think is productive nor ok is stating things in public forums that are out of touch with reality.

I happen to run a studio and have been for the past 20 years, hence I might know a thing or two about the given subject.

Control rooms are there to control the process of recording, every aspect of it. As you have hard time believing me you can go and ask any actual engineer the question and listen to the answer.

Whatever a particular engineer does or does not choose to do during any process of audio production is up to them and their methods. It has no relevance to what particular spaces inside the studio are meant for.

This talk about digital eq makes 0 sense. Abbey uses Neve 88RS in the room which is top of the line analog console.

Equipment selected for the work in hand differs from one studio to another. What does not differ is that basic principle that any equipment in these establishments is there for one reason only. That reason being a tool for getting the job done.

If Abbey uses 80x series in their room as midfields they do it because that is what they have decided to give them best results in that particular application. They could have any other speaker in the world but chose have these.

Thinking that these are somehow random choices is just absurd and downright insulting to the people behind the decisions. These are people on top of their craft actually working in the studio day in day out.

I've allways thought it to be a bit of a left field choice to have the 80x's in studio enviroment but after listening to the 804's a few times, I can clearly see why someone would make that decision.

I would not personally replace my 8351B's with them but could see having a pair as midfield-main monitors for sure. For mastering, 802 or 801 most definitely.
I would really like to hear your opinion when you audition a neutral and flat speaker like a KEF Blade/2 meta.
 

Xenomorph

Member
Joined
May 11, 2022
Messages
20
Likes
6
Ah well, this is a nice website. All these wannabee "scientists". Accepting measuring sine waves, which measures behavior playing one frequency at a time, but not real life perfornance playing multiple frequencies (music) at a time. Off course that influences speaker behavior. Yet its neglected, just like other measurements are neglected.
I wonder how many people here have perfect (adjusted) room accoustics, spent months getting the "perfect" cable and still wondering what they miss in their system...worse...in their life.
 

Xenomorph

Member
Joined
May 11, 2022
Messages
20
Likes
6
Do you have any new robot / algorithm for analyze the speaker while playing music? Or do you use "earss"?
If you, or anyone else on this forum do NOT use ears to listen to music, seek a psychiatrist.
I wonder what is wrong with all these forum "so called" scientists here...drawing conclusions from limited measured performance. Only in the most extreme circumstances, fully treated room & equipment, these measurement would really matter. But really...who has that? And if you do...whats wrong with you?
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
Uh oh. The trolls, they be trollin'
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
Uh oh, is this about my reply? If it is, can you be more specific, or do you lack any form of social interaction? Which is fine of course...
Being a chatbot, I can do basic social interaction, humanoid life form.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,834
Likes
16,496
Location
Monument, CO
Ah well, this is a nice website. All these wannabee "scientists".
And real, actual scientists even. I am not, just a hairy-knuckled engineer, but it's nice to read about the technical stuff for those who care.

Accepting measuring sine waves, which measures behavior playing one frequency at a time, but not real life perfornance playing multiple frequencies (music) at a time. Off course that influences speaker behavior. Yet its neglected, just like other measurements are neglected.
Amir's reviews routinely include multitone testing to better emulate more complex signals like music. As one would expect, they do not change anything significant, as the physics ("science") does not change. Fourier and all that jazz... The components don't care what the input signal looks like, their job is to amplify it cleanly. Unless the device is clipping, performance with one or a hundred signals is no different, just harder to measure and relate the distortion components to the actual circuit.

I wonder how many people here have perfect (adjusted) room accoustics, spent months getting the "perfect" cable and still wondering what they miss in their system...worse...in their life.
My room is treated, that took time, but my cables are pretty standard and fairly inexpensive. I have not mucked with it; once it is set up and working I'd rather just listen or watch than fiddle with the gear. OTOH I have friends who "live" to fiddle with their gear, just no longer my focus. Spent too much time on that in the past. No desire to run them down for it.
 

BrokenEnglishGuy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,914
Likes
1,147
If you, or anyone else on this forum do NOT use ears to listen to music, seek a psychiatrist.
I wonder what is wrong with all these forum "so called" scientists here...drawing conclusions from limited measured performance. Only in the most extreme circumstances, fully treated room & equipment, these measurement would really matter. But really...who has that? And if you do...whats wrong with you?
You need to re think.
You need to use your ears for listen... But not for claims.., measurements are for claims
 

Harry1973

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
38
Likes
31
Location
Finland
Does anyone know are there any measurements for 804 Nautilus (1998) available ?
Answering to myself. Could not find 804N (1998) measurements anywhere. 805N was tested at Stereophile. I would guess all older Nautilus models are quite similar(?). Not too bad? -To my ears they have gotten brighter over the years with each new model.

B&W805 Nautilus:


805fig4.jpg
 

tecnogadget

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
558
Likes
1,011
Location
Madrid, Spain
Equipment selected for the work in hand differs from one studio to another. What does not differ is that basic principle that any equipment in these establishments is there for one reason only. That reason being a tool for getting the job done.

If Abbey uses 80x series in their room as midfields they do it because that is what they have decided to give them best results in that particular application. They could have any other speaker in the world but chose have these.

Thinking that these are somehow random choices is just absurd and downright insulting to the people behind the decisions. These are people on top of their craft actually working in the studio day in day out.

I disagree with your logic, which has been tirelessly repeated in numerous threads by different users.

Why? Because I think this is a classic causal fallacy, where the argument incorrectly concludes that a cause is related to an effect, in this case you think that because Abbey Road studio is world renowned, their technicians and engineers should be unimpeachable experts in terms of design response and installation of their monitors. The reality is that we do not have, nor do I believe we have, any evidence reliable enough to be able to say that the above is unequivocally true.
Without knowing the specific cause, the success of that recording studio could be attributed to a hundred different factors, from their business strategies regarding which bands to record, to the individual talent of the artists that have passed through it, marketing, treatment of their clients, end result of the product, success on the billbord, etc.
Let's think for a moment, do we have any certainty if there is any causality between having excellent monitors or acceptable monitors in a recording studio and the final result of the product (the Album that is then heard on the radio or the CD that we then buy). Perhaps it is possible that with only a few acceptable monitors music is produced that is then very well received by audiophiles or that is a total success of reproductions, I am neither affirming nor denying it, just making a reflection.

I have worked in multiple sectors, small companies, large companies, aeronautical sector, health, factories, education and currently financial. And one of the few things I have learned is that qualifications, international standards, certifications, and degrees are worth little or nothing. Humans make mistakes and nothing is infallible, in ALL sectors, and if there is a chance people will usually try to create a shortcut.

People (specially under educated in the matter and trolls) laugh at us and this forum for considering us scientists who only hear with our eyes through measurements. But the reality is that the work and knowledge of users that is cooked here does not come from almost any university. Excellence in audio fidelity reproduction is a field in which research and new advances are still being made, it is not yet a closed book. The nature of all that is discussed here can only be achieved by constant multidisciplinary training and in most cases on one's own.

So it may well be the case that abbey road's engineers are more trained and concerned with their day-to-day work, which is to produce and record the material of the artists who hire them, than to specialize particularly excessively in the performance of the loudspeakers they use, and instead simply rely on the track record and success of Bowers&Wilkins and the good results that this partnership has given them over the years, basically the same thing you do by relying on the reasoning of the abbey road technicians for their choice of monitors based solely on the popularity of the studio.
 
Top Bottom