• 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 800 D3 vs KEF Blade. Let's discuss.

tecnogadget

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
558
Likes
1,012
Location
Madrid, Spain
Sure, why not:
View attachment 125047

This is a series of 3 MMM measurements using a UMIK-1 with calibration file loaded in REW with L+R playing simultaneously., presented at 1/6-oct smoothing. Source was the same pink noise track played back over Roon.

Red - Genelec 8351B's + SVS SB-3000 Pro, single measurement, GLM EQ only, very small room
Blue - Genelec 8351B's + SVS SB-3000 Pro, avg of 4 measurements, GLM EQ + Roon EQ to match 802D's above 500Hz
Orange - B&W 802D's + JL F112, average of 2 MMM measurements, large room

You can’t be serious o_O ! Taking a perfect response and matching it with a flawed response... It’s ok if you like it and prefer that way. But please make sure to highlight its just a personal taste. I think the measurements and simple logic speakers by it self.
Good thing the 8351B's has been measured By Amir this week :cool:.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,568
Likes
1,723
Location
California
You can’t be serious o_O ! Taking a perfect response and matching it with a flawed response... It’s ok if you like it and prefer that way. But please make sure to highlight its just a personal taste. I think the measurements and simple logic speakers by it self.
Good thing the 8351B's has been measured By Amir this week :cool:.

Actually I'm starting to theorize that there is some merit to the BBC dip for some rooms, some recordings, or a combination of the two. It's just too much of a coincidence that multiple speaker manufacturers intentionally build it in. And in my car stereo, even when I PEQ'd everything to the Harman curve using the methodology of a former Harman engineer, I still ended up needing to add graphic eq on top of it which ended up corresponding to a BBC dip. I thought maybe its a preferential curve when sidewalls are very close (like in my genelec room and in a car cabin), which is NOT the environment where the Harman curve was developed I presume, but my B&W's are in a larger open room, so who knows.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,939
Likes
17,119
Possible reason I think is that also many recordings are mixed and mastered with loudspeakers having such a presence dip which of course then the recording engineers compensate and then such recordings have too much energy in that region when played through loudspeakers without it.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,328
Location
UK
800D3 is a thoroughly primitive design next to the Blade.
Can you care to explain what is primitive in 800 D3 design?
 

M4RK5

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Messages
11
Likes
1
Actually I'm starting to theorize that there is some merit to the BBC dip for some rooms, some recordings, or a combination of the two. It's just too much of a coincidence that multiple speaker manufacturers intentionally build it in. And in my car stereo, even when I PEQ'd everything to the Harman curve using the methodology of a former Harman engineer, I still ended up needing to add graphic eq on top of it which ended up corresponding to a BBC dip. I thought maybe its a preferential curve when sidewalls are very close (like in my genelec room and in a car cabin), which is NOT the environment where the Harman curve was developed I presume, but my B&W's are in a larger open room, so who knows.

You might want to speak to Alan Shaw of Harbeth Acoustics as to why the BBC dip came about in the first place, it might surprise you, it was deliberately engineered but not for the reason most think.....
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Messages
33
Likes
22
800D3 is a thoroughly primitive design next to the Blade. Unfortunately audiophiles outside ASR are largely ignorant of the engineering and care only about the stories and myths built up over time.

Where have you based these claims on?

According to newport labs, the B&W800 D3 has one of thé flattest frequency response of non DSP speakers on the planet:
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zLp38hnZSD9Bb9PRep97KU-970-80.jpg.webp

The B&W 800 D3 is designed using finite element analysis.
What do you consider to be the criteria for calling a speaker design sophisticated or primitive?

I listened multiple times to both speakers, and I don’t want to be disrespectful, but in my opinion, the KEF blade (plastic) speakers are nowhere near the qualities of the B&W 800 D3.

I know which one I would choose!

BTW, I’m not a B&W fanboy.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,328
Location
UK
800D3 is a thoroughly primitive design next to the Blade. Unfortunately audiophiles outside ASR are largely ignorant of the engineering and care only about the stories and myths built up over time.
Is that why The most respected recording studio in the world, Abbey Road, use them throughout as their main monitors?
 

cany89

Active Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2020
Messages
251
Likes
128
800D3 is a thoroughly primitive design next to the Blade. Unfortunately audiophiles outside ASR are largely ignorant of the engineering and care only about the stories and myths built up over time.

lol
 

cany89

Active Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2020
Messages
251
Likes
128
@bandit I'm not against actives but based on my experience, I would go with dac/pre + power amp.

You mentioned AHB2, I think I found a better amp. SPL Performer S800. Just listened to it and ordered one. Try that out if you can in your country. Got tons of power, doesn't need to bi-amp with most speakers. I was using 2xNAD C270 before this. It has 285W / channel in 4 ohms so I'll just ditch the NADs...

I'm not delving into the speaker topic. I would never buy anything without listening. Period.
 

Ilkless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
1,792
Likes
3,546
Location
Singapore
Where have you based these claims on?

According to newport labs, the B&W800 D3 has one of thé flattest frequency response of non DSP speakers on the planet:
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zLp38hnZSD9Bb9PRep97KU-970-80.jpg.webp

The B&W 800 D3 is designed using finite element analysis.
What do you consider to be the criteria for calling a speaker design sophisticated or primitive?

I listened multiple times to both speakers, and I don’t want to be disrespectful, but in my opinion, the KEF blade (plastic) speakers are nowhere near the qualities of the B&W 800 D3.

I know which one I would choose!

BTW, I’m not a B&W fanboy.

Show off-axis curves, not some on-axis curve and anecdotal experience. We aren't here to fetishise antiquated design formats as bleeding-edge engineering.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,328
Location
UK
Show off-axis curves, not some on-axis curve and anecdotal experience. We aren't here to fetishise antiquated design formats as bleeding-edge engineering.
I really wonder if the poster knows anything about speaker design?
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,939
Likes
17,119

tecnogadget

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
558
Likes
1,012
Location
Madrid, Spain
The B&W 800 D3 is designed using finite element analysis.
What do you consider to be the criteria for calling a speaker design sophisticated or primitive?

I listened multiple times to both speakers, and I don’t want to be disrespectful, but in my opinion, the KEF blade (plastic) speakers are nowhere near the qualities of the B&W 800 D3.

Well...even my circa 2005 Boston Acoustics CR57 little surround speaker (that I got for $100 and love, even brought it inside my suitcase when I moved to a different continent) had been designed using finite element analysis. One thing is to copy/paste marketing gimmick, and a very different is to know what you are talking about.

index.php

To be honest, any cutting-edge technology is always welcome when it comes to design. But this does not guarantee you anything if the operator of that technology is not clear on what decision or compromises to make.
I don't care if the loudspeaker is designed with pen and paper, as long as the person holding the pen is a good engineer, the result will be good.

Anyway, the response of this 800 D3 is very good, so bravo for them. But this does not take away from the fact that the previous Diamond series left something to be desired.

In any case, I would not compare a B&W 800 D3 with the KEF Blade, it would be more appropriate to compare it with The Reference 3 or 5.

The fact that the blades are made of plastic, and for that reason, you reject them, as if they were something cheap, shows that you do not understand their industrial design, nor the importance and justification of the use of the material.

Anyway, I repeat, it would be easier for you to compare them mentally with the Reference series, handmade in the UK, with the same quality standard as the Diamond.
 

Attachments

  • 1627389487665.png
    1627389487665.png
    62.1 KB · Views: 471
  • Boston Acoustics - CR 57, 67, 77, C7.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 419
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Messages
33
Likes
22
@tecnogadget You accuse me of copying marketing talk and not knowing what I am talking about. Let us please refrain from derogatory comments.
It is not very pleasant and it does not pay off.

For a $100 product, you obviously cannot expect the same level of product development as for a $30,000 speaker.
A gimmick is when you try to sell something of inferior quality for a superior one. This is clearly not the intention here.
B&W's 800 line is the best they have to offer. It is an evolution of technologies and insights from several decades.

I attended a lecture at an audio fair where they explained how the 800 D3 line was designed and even an old B&W designer was present.
Admittedly, it was a lecture by B&W.

According to this presentation, the finite element software was used to remove resonances from the speaker cabinet, tweeter, and midrange housing, and speaker diaphragm, speaker baskets, and base plinth. Obviously, these simulations are only worth something when you adjust your design. This costs time and money because several prototypes had to be built and measured. For example, based on the measurements, the drivers were mounted on the other side of the cabinet. Because of this, rings were needed to mount the drivers and a new metal (or aluminum?) backplate. This only becomes clear when you put the old and new ones next to each other. In terms of sound quality, I personally think that the D3 is a giant leap forward compared to the D2.

It is partly true that I do not like the KEF Blade because they are made of plastic. However, the reason is not only that plastic is cheap, but because acoustically it does not have the best properties. But the main reason is that I think that for $20,000 they should sound "better". Either it's a sound I don't like. I also think that the B&Ws look like an art object. And yes, I would have less of a problem paying such a price for these than for a plastic speaker.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Messages
33
Likes
22
Show off-axis curves, not some on-axis curve and anecdotal experience. We aren't here to fetishise antiquated design formats as bleeding-edge engineering.

I have the feeling that you are very attached to measurements of speakers. Although they certainly serve their purpose during the design phase, they will not tell you at all how they will sound in your living room.

For example, I have Wilson Benesch speakers which are far from having a perfect frequency response, but still I think they sound amazing.

Speakers have to be heard and best of all in your own environment.
 

Χ Ξ Σ

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
457
Likes
1,981
Location
UTC-8
I have just dipped into this thread after a long absence and I apologize in advance for not having read all entries in the thread. However, I have noted that B&W 800 series speakers are reported as showing up in control rooms, implying that they have some special quality missing in "non-classical" monitors. Sorry, but this is simply human nature at work. There are facts and there are opinions - the two frequently differ.

I cannot speak for the latest version of the 800 series, but in previous incarnations they have by measurement and by double-blind subjective testing been shown to be less-than-neutral sounding loudspeakers. They are not "bad" but they don't win double-blind listening tests. The most neutral, transparent, loudspeakers do, and this can be deduced from a comprehensive set of on- and off-axis anechoic measurements, especially if those data are presented in the spinorama format, which estimates the sounds arriving at a listener in an acoustically typical room.

B&W have done a superb job of marketing their product, and servicing customer needs, which are admirable traits. But if one is interested in hearing unadulterated, neutral, versions of the signals that were recorded, these speaker have not done it. Yet they have a following amongst some, not all, classical recording engineers. I have a theory which goes back to the analog-to-digital transition decades ago.

Long ago I had been using LPs as musical sources for listening tests in my research. I came to understand the medium extremely well, even to the point of creating test records to test the capabilities of the medium. It is sadly lacking - it is simply not possible to hear what was on the master tape when playing back an LP. It can be extremely pleasant if the music is to your liking but, objectively, the detailed sounds reaching your ears are not the sounds that were on the master tape.

At a point, through personal connections, I was able to acquire a PCM digital version of a master tape, and an analog duplicate at 15 ips. I also had the LP release of the music. I cannot recall what it was, but it was one of the "warhorse" symphonies, very popular and in a highly thought of rendering. The first thing that was clear in the simplest of listening comparisons was that the PCM version and the one-from-master tape versions were essentially identical. The LP version was very different. This is precisely as I had expected.

The monitor speakers used in the recording were B&Ws and I had anechoic chamber measurements of them. They exhibited much the same upper midrange dip in frequency response that is seen in recent 800 series monitors. In fact several of the less expensive B&W models at the time had similar characteristics, indicating that there was corporate performance target. People had thought about it and decided that flat was not ideal. Why?

In my double-blind listening tests of that period - and to this day - loudspeakers exhibiting flat, i.e. neutral, on-axis response and similarly smooth off axis behavior, were highly rated in most of the tests with most of the recorded music of the several genres that were auditioned. But, this particular recording, while being very enjoyable musically, was frequently judged to be somewhat too bright.

In the day, and now, recordings of classical orchestras were often made with microphones placed in elevated positions above the violins. These instruments radiate strong high frequencies upwards, not towards the audience in a concert hall. They are heard by the audience, but after reflection and reverberation in a physically large space - they add "air" to the illusion. The microphones were relatively close and in a position to collect more high frequency energy than is likely to be heard in the audience, certainly in the ground level seats. It turns out that loudspeakers with slightly attenuated upper-mid/lower highs sounded better. So, instead of listening to neutral monitors and adding a little EQ attenuation in the offending frequency range, they decided to listen to the flattering monitor speakers and leave the excessive highs in the recording.

In short, the non-flat loudspeakers were being used as a program equalizer, and the results would only be appreciated if customers had similarly non-flat loudspeakers. In my terms the "circle of confusion" would be eliminated, but only for recordings made using these monitors and for customers with similarly colored loudspeakers. In the real world this could not really work, because even at that time a flat axial frequency response was the normal target performance, albeit often violated in random ways. Now it is pretty much the norm, for those companies with the engineering competence to achieve it.

A feature of the 800 series not commonly appreciated is that its behavior is predictable from visual inspection. The midrange speaker is quite large, meaning that it is becoming significantly directional before it crosses over to the tweeter. When the tweeter comes on, it has wide dispersion which is enhanced by its unbaffled mounting, which aggravates the problem. Today, it is becoming common to see tweeters on baffles with waveguides to improve the directivity match with the midrange speaker at the crossover frequency - thereby achieving what is widely regarded as a desirably smooth directivity index as a function of frequency.

I am confident that the B&W engineers know all of this, but by now the 800 has achieved a certain status among consumers and professionals and the attractive physical form and appearance are iconic symbols. Sadly they make good acoustical design very challenging. Wise studios would have an alternative, neutral loudspeaker, to audition as well, and many do.

So, is the appearance of this speaker in recording studios a validation of its acoustical excellence and neutrality? No.

Spinorama data on this and many other loudspeakers can be found on the internet, in my two books, and AES papers by Dr. Sean Olive.

I love when an Audio Luminary not holding back on criticism.
 

Koeitje

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
2,314
Likes
3,985
Personally I would never buy speakers this expensive, let alone make a lifetime purchase, without listening. Most people will tell you to get the Kefs but there is still a fair chance that you might prefer the B&Ws. Most symphony hall and classical music label control rooms use 8-series B&Ws, they can't be that bad...
B&W sponsors these studio's.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,328
Location
UK
Top Bottom