B&W 800D4 series

[Doodski]

At 3600 ft above sea level it's much colder here too, which his perfect for big class A amplifiers.

Yes, to big linear output class A.

 

[MarcT]

I'll have to send photos next week, because I'm away from my main residence and living mostly at my second residence in the mountains until covid restrictions are fully lifted - in about 4-6 week's time. So I'm only driving back down every couple of weeks to collect the mail and mow lawns etc.

But in answer to the questions, the diffusers are located at the first (primary) reflection points on the ceiling, which is the usual 8 ft high. I actually made them myself because I couldn't find anything available commercially that was fully adequate.
I designed the dimensions of the diffusers such that they work at frequencies above about 4 kHz, so they mostly 'diffuse' energy in the range 5-6 kHz, - due to the polar response of the tweeter and the overall room / listening position geometry. Without the diffusers there was (measurably) a bit too much energy in the low treble at the listening position (averaged measurements), and the treble balance is 'audibly' much better with the diffusers in place.

I'll hopefully have a purpose built listening room (up here in the mountains) completed by mid next year. It will have a 10 ft ceiling and ideal acoustic dimensions, and built with materials for lowest resonances and soundproofing etc. At 3600 ft above sea level it's much colder here too, which his perfect for big class A amplifiers.

Lol, my Krell FPB 400cx would certainly help keep you warm!

 

[MarcT]

I have never purported to be a speaker techie type other than being subjective about them and the basic design differences. I found speakers to be a very technical complicated subject and therefore have put my time and effort into solid state stuff and mechatronics. Other than the basic sales pitch and mechanical design I pretty much have been subjective when choosing speakers. So the difference between a 804 and a 702 physically and mechanically eludes me and I would approach the matter with a subjective bend and knowing warranty service arrangements and other simple stuff.

Well, I just read a review with measurements of the 804 D3 and the +/- 3.4 dB bass response turned out to be 37 Hz, so quite a bit higher than B&W's claimed 24 Hz. Still, not bad for the size, and it can apparently be reallycranked without much distortion.

 

[Doodski]

Lol, my Krell FPB 400cx would certainly help keep you warm!

Wowow. Those draw 3000 watts at full tilt. What are you using to power that bad boy?

 

[Doodski]

Well, I just read a review with measurements of the 804 D3 and the +/- 3.4 dB bass response turned out to be 37 Hz, so quite a bit higher than B&W's claimed 24 Hz. Still, not bad for the size, and it can apparently be reallycranked without much distortion.

Two 6.5" woofers with the mid and top end usually has some giddy up and go. But there will be limitations in total output and that's why I'm interested in the difference in total output from the 702 vs the 804 D3.

 

[richard12511]

Looks like there are several dealers in the Houston area. I may have to take a little road trip to hear these.

 

[MarcT]

Wowow. Those draw 3000 watts at full tilt. What are you using to power that bad boy?

Sadly, a standard wall plug. I keep thinking about getting getting a couple of 20 amp lines run to the room, but just haven't gotten it done yet. But my speakers' sensitivity is 93 dB, so they don't really need that much power to play loud.

 

[Doodski]

Sadly, a standard wall plug. I keep thinking about getting getting a couple of 20 amp lines run to the room, but just haven't gotten it done yet. But my speakers' sensitivity is 93 dB, so they don't really need that much power to play loud.

Do it just for the peace of mind in delivering maximum power transfer.

 

[preload]

That's interesting, because the D2 model is definitely 2nd order M-T.

For what it's worth, the much revered Salon2 also employs 4th order filters and with crossover points at 150, 575, and 2300, so group delay will look even worse due to the extra crossover point.

Gasp

 

[preload]

Although I disagree with some of preload's thoughts earlier,

I fully expect that nobody will agree with my views on B&W, given the Harman focus of ASR. Of course, I currently or previously owned speakers from Revel, Genelec, and KEF, in addition to B&W, but never mind that.

Another example, the CDM1, reviewed in 1996:
View attachment 153691

View attachment 153692

Same story.

I'm so glad that you mention the CDM1. I happen to own a pair and listened to them pretty regularly for about 10 years in 5 different rooms, so I'm pretty familiar with them. And I also have a pair of 802Ds, which I've listened to for about 8 years in 2 different rooms. And I recently did a very brief comparison between the two in the same room, just to refresh my memory.

If you were to believe these FR charts, you would easily conclude that the CDM1, which its ultra-flat response would easily be superior to the 802D, other than the bass response. But I can tell you that without a doubt, there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly prefer the sound of the CDM1 over the 802D, it's just not even in the same ballpark.

People can stare at FR graphs all day and pretend that they have "a gift" and can reliably predict how speakers will sound based on eyeballing them (and btw, these aren't even full spinoramas that you're posting). But the reality is that Harman's own research demonstrates that computerized analysis of a full spin measurements can only explain 74% of the variability in listener preference scores.

I'm personally fully convinced that their current tuning tendencies have more to do with 'standing out' than optimizing sound for a majority of listeners,

And spending time on ASR might help to reinforce that belief. People who believe similar tend to migrate here. And I started to believe it too, until I put my money where my mouth was and purchased the Revel m126be and Genelec 8351b, both of which were touted to have near perfect Harman qualities when measured and NEITHER outperformed my trusty B&W 802Ds downstairs. But to each his own.

 

[thewas]

I'm so glad that you mention the CDM1. I happen to own a pair and listened to them pretty regularly for about 10 years in 5 different rooms, so I'm pretty familiar with them. And I also have a pair of 802Ds, which I've listened to for about 8 years in 2 different rooms. And I recently did a very brief comparison between the two in the same room, just to refresh my memory.

Please keep on mind though that the CDM tweeter performance unfortunately deteriorates with age, due to drying ferrofluid. Not that with a perfect one it would sound better than your 802D (already the bass performance of the latter is so much better than everyone would prefer it) but the difference in the upper octaves could be possibly smaller than it its currently.

 

[Koeitje]

I hear that a lot on here. What is the house sound they have? And all the nautilus series have it?

Too much treble, thin mid range.

 

[tecnogadget]

People can stare at FR graphs all day and pretend that they have "a gift" and can reliably predict how speakers will sound based on eyeballing them (and btw, these aren't even full spinoramas that you're posting). But the reality is that Harman's own research demonstrates that computerized analysis of a full spin measurements can only explain 74% of the variability in listener preference scores.

And spending time on ASR might help to reinforce that belief. People who believe similar tend to migrate here. And I started to believe it too, until I put my money where my mouth was and purchased the Revel m126be and Genelec 8351b, both of which were touted to have near perfect Harman qualities when measured and NEITHER outperformed my trusty B&W 802Ds downstairs. But to each his own.

How can comparison between 802D3 and 8351B be fair? 8351B are output limited because they are active, and their main function is nearfield. 2 x 200mm bass drivers + whatever high Wattage amp you are using, vs active amplification...and don't forget cabinet size differences. Even Amir stated in his subjective comparison that he noticed this limitation compared to his Salon 2.
802D vs M126Be? Same story. One column with 2 x 200mm bass drivers vs 2-way 6.5" bookshelf?
Unless you have balanced the conditions, either by introducing a subwoofer in the 2 small speakers or by limiting the output of the 802D with a high pass filter...that comparison doesn't tell us much, other than which you prefer...the opinion of a single individual, an overwhelming scientific rigor.

I think we are making the big mistake of associating and confusing the objective, measurable, and consistent Klippel NFC data with Harman's preference research. The fact that they were among the first to use this set of measurements should not give us the right to call the Spinorama "Harmanesque", it would be like calling the steering wheel of a car "Fordesque". If it wasn't Harman, it could have been anyone else, "Spinorama" is something obvious that science would come to at some point. It is a standard and it is called CEA-2034. This, and any other valid measurement, are currently our most reliable tools. Not for a second could we compare them to the subjectivity, bias, and variability of results from a pair of ears and what "the listener thinks".

That the Spinorama explains only 74% of the variability in listener preference tells me absolutely nothing. It does not detract from the scientific rigor and accuracy of the measurements. It only tells us what is obvious, that people are not measuring instruments and that 100% could not distinguish between 2 loudspeakers the best one. I see everybody complaining, but nobody proposes how to fill in the 26% of the equation? With fantasy and opinions?
Forget for a moment the correlation with preference, preference is subjective. We have a pair of eyes to convert those measurements into input, and a brain to interpret them. Adding that we know very well that even the best loudspeaker in the world, in an average room, will have problems below the transition frequency, because of the inherent physics of room modes. Loudspeakers are instruments that reproduce an input signal in a non-linear way. Therefore we know that to get the best possible result we need DSP. We can therefore say that a loudspeaker is a means to an end.

B&W's Diamond series is a clear testament to the engineering and industrial design. They are probably loudspeakers that sound very good to a large majority of people, and possibly anyone who listens to them can enjoy the music more than adequately. What I don't understand is the resilience in not wanting to accept that a noticeable deviation in on-axis frequency response is something that is far from ideal, and the same for off-axis deviations. Or that the progressively measured off-axis response loses consistency. Or that there are discontinuities in dispersion and directivity in certain frequency ranges. How can all this be a good thing? If the aim is to reproduce the program content as linearly as possible. This is very basic logic.

That these deviations exist while they do not exist in other loudspeakers, doesn't characterize it as a bad speaker, but they do determine that these are further away from the ideal response than those with better results. Does this mean that 100% of the listeners will prefer a loudspeaker with the ideal response? NO. And this happens in a lot of other fields where we use our senses... a wine tasting, a cheese tasting, a ham tasting, etc.

Speaker A measures better than speaker B.

• Individual X prefers speaker A: This means that he prefers a more linear and faithful reproduction.
• Individual Y prefers speaker B: This means that he/she prefers a slightly less linear reproduction, with extra input from the speaker.

Neither option is correct or incorrect. But let's differentiate between the two examples.

 

[garbz]

I think people often look at measurements and forget to understand what they mean in a practical context. Many people do like the B&W diamond series. They have some poor measurement characteristics such as dispersion, but important to remember is that this causes a lot of room influence to be relevant. I'm reminded of the Stereophile review of the 800D3 which said something along the lines of some of the negative aspects cancelling each other out in certain large room and it being a speaker that was seemingly designed by ear in a large room rather than by measurement.

I can only agree with the assessment. My older 805s sounded great in my previous house, they sound much worse now in my far smaller living room. I auditioned a set of 802D3s and decided against them... in this room. The fascination with good dispersion characteristics need to be related to the room they will go in. I'm leaning towards something like a Dutch and Dutch 8C now due to these restrictions. But in the auditorium where I heard the 802D3s before bringing them home they sounded *wonderful*.

Shame they didn't suit the room. I have no reason to believe the D4 series would be any different.

 

[preload]

Please keep on mind though that the CDM tweeter performance unfortunately deteriorates with age, due to drying ferrofluid. Not that with a perfect one it would sound better than your 802D (already the bass performance of the latter is so much better than everyone would prefer it) but the difference in the upper octaves could be possibly smaller than it its currently.

Thanks, I'm aware of the ferrofluid issue and had one of the tweeters replaced already. That really wasn't the issue. I had a subwoofer attached to the CDM1 (one of those floorstanding Hsu Research tubes, wow that was some great bass back in the day), so if anything, I should have preferred the CDM1 if i were solely making a prediction based on eyeballing Stereophile measurements, which only contain a fraction of the data in a spin, as I'm sure you know.

 

[GD Fan]

I wonder how many ASR members use Bowers speakers in their main setup but do so quietly due to the scorn and derision heaped upon the brand here?

 

[richard12511]

But I can tell you that without a doubt, there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly prefer the sound of the CDM1 over the 802D, it's just not even in the same ballpark.

There's no way you can say that, just because you massively prefer it. There will always be individual preference

 

[MarcT]

After this whole thread, I think, first, because of the directivity issues, the mid range frequency dip and 10kHz boost, and, secondly, the fact that I do not have a palatial listening room which would somewhat mitigate those issues, that the 800 D3 or D4 series are probably not going to be a great option for me. Especially, considering the prices it requires to get into them and that I would almost certainly be buying used, which would put the onus on me to turn around and sell them if I just didn't like the sound.

I think I'll look more towards speakers that exhibit the response curve and directivity that is more likely to be preferred when used in a more typical, average sized domestic listening environment, such as my family room.

 

[napilopez]

I fully expect that nobody will agree with my views on B&W, given the Harman focus of ASR. Of course, I currently or previously owned speakers from Revel, Genelec, and KEF, in addition to B&W, but never mind that.



I'm so glad that you mention the CDM1. I happen to own a pair and listened to them pretty regularly for about 10 years in 5 different rooms, so I'm pretty familiar with them. And I also have a pair of 802Ds, which I've listened to for about 8 years in 2 different rooms. And I recently did a very brief comparison between the two in the same room, just to refresh my memory.

If you were to believe these FR charts, you would easily conclude that the CDM1, which its ultra-flat response would easily be superior to the 802D, other than the bass response. But I can tell you that without a doubt, there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly prefer the sound of the CDM1 over the 802D, it's just not even in the same ballpark.

People can stare at FR graphs all day and pretend that they have "a gift" and can reliably predict how speakers will sound based on eyeballing them (and btw, these aren't even full spinoramas that you're posting). But the reality is that Harman's own research demonstrates that computerized analysis of a full spin measurements can only explain 74% of the variability in listener preference scores.



And spending time on ASR might help to reinforce that belief. People who believe similar tend to migrate here. And I started to believe it too, until I put my money where my mouth was and purchased the Revel m126be and Genelec 8351b, both of which were touted to have near perfect Harman qualities when measured and NEITHER outperformed my trusty B&W 802Ds downstairs. But to each his own.

I get your point that you shouldn't dismiss a speaker just because it doesn't measure 'harmanesque.' I don't necessarily disagree.

It's surely true that being on ASR can reinforce one way of thinking, though I personally have not shied away about mentioning times I've enjoyed speakers that don't measure perfect (the JBL L100 classic is one of my favorites, for instance). Sometimes that's led me to some insights about what kind of deviations from 'perfect' I like (as some here know, I'll take wide directivity, even if somewhat uneven, over 'perfect' narrow directivity any day).

In any case, I think we need to be pretty realistic about comparisons, and that's why I clarified things like 'timbral neutrality' vs preference. I don't expect small old monitors to best newer floorstanders, and I don't think most people here would either, for various reasons.

I'd like to highlight the distinction between figuring out "preference" and "what a speaker will sound like" from measurements.

I do think it can be hard to distinguish between which of two speakers someone will prefer just by eyeballing them, unless the differences are dramatic. However I disagree that one can't substantially determine what a speaker "will sound like" from looking at a few key measurements, especially when one is aware of how their own tastes correlate with the data.

Those are two different things. You reference the the famous olive preference paper (part 2), but for the most part all it tries to do is predict preference from measurements -- it says very little about what listeners thought the speakers sounded like from these measurements.

It is from other research (including but certainly not limited to the oft-ignored part 1), that we know measurements can be largely associated with different aspects of sound quality, and that flattish on-axis and smooth directivity are generally perceived as neutral. (Maybe you've read it, but reiterating here for the sake of the wider discussion). And then Part 2 tells us that it just so happens most people prefer speakers that measure like that. But it doesn't imply "you can only predict what a speaker will sound like with 74% certainty."

By comparison, Part 1 shows both the measured spinorama and the perceived tonal balance, as well as top listening comments. So even though it's the smaller study, I find it much more interesting. The comments, and perceived tonal balances described, to me seem utterly predictable from the spinorama. Here was the top speaker:

Here was a the #9 ranked speaker:

And here's #10, one that's interesting because it's a bit more neutral but, still not perceived as great. The main negative comment was instead about imaging.

I do not think it's outlandish that someone can look at a spinorama and detailed off-axis data, and make a reasonable conclusion about what a speaker will sound like. It's just determining whether one speaker will be preferred over another for a specific listener in a specific home while those sound qualities that things gets tricky.

Anecdotally, I've almost never been surprised by how a speaker measured after extensive listening, nor surprised by the sound after seeing measurements. For the most part, it's pretty straightforward. There are exceptions, but in my experience that just proves the rule.

I suppose you might counter that the above examples are just broad trends and that it's hard to tell the subtleties from just eyeballing a measurement, not enough to make a decision among some high end speakers. It'd be an interesting experiment: get together a group of measurements-familiar audiophiles, ask them to predict sound based on measurements without telling them which speaker is which. Then make them listen to the speakers blind and match the sound with the measurements.

 

[Vear]

Speaker measurements can also be misleading, so many variables from the room itself to the actual microphone placement.
Many enthusiasts would glance at the two graphs below and automatically predict that the first speaker has a much more "neutral" and "correct" sound and that the second speaker has a pronounced "artificial" or "colored" top end.

The problem is that it is the same speaker (which I also owned at one time), so which graph tells the "truth" and gives a better indication of how the speaker will sound?





https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=839:nrc-measurements-polk-audio-lsim703-loudspeakers&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=18

https://www.stereophile.com/content/polk-lsiiim703-loudspeaker-measurements