B&W 800D4 series

[witwald]

The fidelity-online.de measurements of the B&W 800 D3 are interesting, especially as a result of their extensive nature. However, aspects of the assessments aren't entirely clear. I'd imagine that if they were to measure the B&W 800 D4 then nominally similar comments would result.

For example, the spectrogram of the B&W 800 D3, which is a loudspeaker costing around €30,000, is described as having an almost perfect decay behavior. This is considered to be due to the "special membranes of the B&W drivers and the design of the housing that can show their qualities. The decay behavior is almost perfect. There are virtually no resonances, not even at the highest frequencies."

But are those driver membranes all that special? Moving to the review of the KEF Reference 1 (fidelity-online.de), which is a loudspeaker costing about €6,000, we get a very similar, if not better, spectrogram than that produced by the much more expensive 800 D3. Their spectrograms are compared below.

Is the 800 D3 really state-of-the-art in this respect, considering that it involves a price premium of €24,000? The review of the Reference 1 comments that "the decay behavior of the Reference 1 is almost perfect. The few barely visible small resonances hardly need mentioning and could arise from the natural frequencies of the housing volumes. Partial vibrations of the diaphragms seem to be a completely foreign word for the mid-high unit." This seems to be more or less entirely equivalent to the description accompanying the 800 D3 spectrogram.

In fact, it appears that the differences in their respective spectrograms arise from the differences in their frequency response curves caused by the locations and the intensities of peaks and dips. If no peaks or dips were present, then could we not assume that we would get a much better spectrogram for the dynamical system under test (the loudspeaker)?

Hence, it would be very interesting to be able to see the calculated spectrogram of a simulated loudspeaker system that has a very flat, if not perfectly flat, frequency response, would it not? This would serve as a reference for comparison purposes – the ideal behaviour that no passive loudspeaker system could match. Of course, for a high quality comparison to be achievable and more meaningful, the simulated loudspeaker would need to have its frequency response appropriately tailored to match the real loudspeaker to which it would be compared.

 

[witwald]

Because they use the ground plane measurement method where the floor reflection doesn't play a role:

Source of the photo: https://www.fidelity-online.de/kef-reference-1-messungen/

The size of the room, distance of mic and gating limits the measurements to the written 100 Hz.

Thank you for the photo and the link. I noted too that they use quite a large distance between the microphone and the loudspeaker. This potentially is a better choice than a 1 metre measuring distance, which isn't as representative of typical living room listening situations.

 

[thewas]

Thank you for the photo and the link. I noted too that they use quite a large distance between the microphone and the loudspeaker. This potentially is a better choice than a 1 metre measuring distance, which isn't as representative of typical living room listening situations.

You are welcome, that higher measuring distance though has other reasons, like for example to ensure the baffle step is always fully captured.

 

[ctrl]

Can anyone provide an explanation as to how a test chamber with an "absolutely reverberant concrete floor" can enable "free field conditions from approximately 100 Hz upwards"? Reverberant and anechoic would seem to be diametrically opposed. Admittedly, the sound pressure response measurements look to be quite reasonable, but are they affected by measurement errors caused by the sound-reflective floor?

I want to ay that half anechoic would mean that only the walls are anechoic but their claim of that being free field would still be a contradiction.

The keyword is ground plane measurement. They perform a ground plane measurement in the anechoic chamber.
If you are interested in how loudspeaker measurements are performed, I can recommend again the Arta Handbook by Heinrich Weber.
S. 87 + 88 Ground plane measurement

This "eliminates" the perfectly reflective floor of the chamber, so to speak, and only the side walls and ceiling limit the accuracy of the measurement - in this case to about 100Hz.

For the frequencies below that, near-field measurements of the woofers and the BR port were made, the ratio of the effective piston area between woofer and BR port was corrected, a baffle step correction done and the measurements were summed and combined with the ground plane measurement.
This method, when done correctly, gives very good results, but this is also where most of the errors happen - for example, all of Stereophile's measurements in this range are wrong (below the frequency of the merge).

Update: Sorry @thewas you already answered the question - overlooked your post.

 

[witwald]

Update: Sorry @thewas you already answered the question - overlooked your post.

I don't think there is any need to apologise. I appreciate the additional answer and the tip to take a look at the Arta Handbook.

 

[tuga]

Is it that surprising that some people are finding them the best thing out there? It would be mildly surprising if that weren't the case, irrespective of the fact that B&W designs from 45 years ago were probably performing equally well, if not overall better. The applause and support happens with most new products these days, if the reviews are anything to go by.

I’ve listened many times to a friend’s 801Fs (silk-dome, sealed bass bin, pre-matrix), which are unarguably the best measuring B&W ever made. Even better than the Nautilus which I also had a chance to listen to, although not in the best conditions.

I think that it was from the Nautilus onwards that the whole "tailored" response thing started. These measurements show the new trend of a dip in the presence region where the midrange hands over to the tweeter. It looks as though the combination of a hard "midrange" which cannot be crossed higher and and tweeter that is crossed too high is to blame (and perhaps the absence of a tweeter baffle?).

B&W Nautilus – https://audio.com.pl/testy/stereo/kolumny-glosnikowe/59-bowers-wilkins-nautilus#laboratory



Things seem to have gotten worse with the diamond tweeter.

B&W 800 Diamond - https://audio.com.pl/testy/stereo/kolumny-glosnikowe/157-801d#laboratory

 

[thewas]

I’ve listened many times to a friend’s 801Fs (silk-dome, sealed bass bin, pre-matrix), which are unarguably the best measuring B&W ever made.

Funnily B&W just posted this on their FB page, the good old more honest days of hifi

https://www.facebook.com/BowersWilkins/photos/a.189490564402285/6714297211921555

801 Matrix heading into the anechoic chamber at SRE

 

[tuga]

Funnily B&W just posted this on their FB page, the good old more honest days of hifi

https://www.facebook.com/BowersWilkins/posts/6714297211921555

Unfortunately the content is not accessible without a FB account.

 

[thewas]

Unfortunately the content is not accessible without a FB account.

Thanks for letting me know, just copied and pasted the image and text in the post so it is visible for everyone.

 

[thewas]

Harking back to the B&W DM6 of 1975 vintage (see below), why is the measured response apparently so much smoother, falling within ±1dB limits between 70Hz and 16kHz, than those of the 801 D4 and 800 D3? Has there been a major change in design philosophy?
View attachment 155301

Yes, around end of 90s when also Lawrence Dickie left.

Also talking about narrow FR limits, in 1992 when I had to chose my first decent hifi loudspeaker, I purely went by specs as I couldn't visit many shops and my choice was a pair of B&W loudspeakers (which I am glad to still have today in my vintage loudspeaker collection) as they were one of the very few manufacturers back then giving their FR in ±2dB band. In 2021 unfortunately not much has changed in the hifi scene and B&W has even widened their tolerance band to ±3dB...

 

[atsmusic]

Well why you all complaining I am totally enjoying my 800 D3's. I just traded in my 802Ns and could not be happier. I am not sure what you all have to gain by sitting around talking down B&W honestly. OK they don't have the response you want. I have a feeling if it wasn't that it would be something else. Maybe not, but seems people have a bone to pick with them. Probably because most here feel they are too expensive. I could not be happier with my choice in speaker. Also I can't believe that someone in this thread actually had the gull to say that B&W owners on this site are too scared to say they own B&W speakers. How crazy.

 

[bo_knows]

Well why you all complaining I am totally enjoying my 800 D3's. I just traded in my 802Ns and could not be happier. I am not sure what you all have to gain by sitting around talking down B&W honestly. OK they don't have the response you want. I have a feeling if it wasn't that it would be something else. Maybe not, but seems people have a bone to pick with them. Probably because most here feel they are too expensive. I could not be happier with my choice in speaker. Also I can't believe that someone in this thread actually had the gull to say that B&W owners on this site are too scared to say they own B&W speakers. How crazy.

"Well why you all complaining I am totally enjoying my 800 D3's" This is what this hobby is all about! I'm genuinely happy for you. I'm sure B&w 800D3 would be an end-game speaker for many of us. As I mentioned before in my earlier post, I've heard the speakers and subjectively was very impressed.

 

[Pearljam5000]

They sound good here but less than the D&D 8C and ATCs that played the same song in another video they did.

 

[changer]

The musician analyzed the FR quite accurate if I recap the previous posts correct: highs on top of everything else (adds to spaciousness), mids compressed. Why is the one guy holding an umbrella all the time it is ridiculous. Btw, the speakers where not room corrected below 400 Hz I assume? Quite some bass, but sounds comforting.

 

[Geert]

0

Why is the one guy holding an umbrella all the time it is ridiculous.

Because he's supposed to represent the UK.

 

[MasterApex]

The fidelity-online.de measurements of the B&W 800 D3 are interesting, especially as a result of their extensive nature. However, aspects of the assessments aren't entirely clear. I'd imagine that if they were to measure the B&W 800 D4 then nominally similar comments would result.

For example, the spectrogram of the B&W 800 D3, which is a loudspeaker costing around €30,000, is described as having an almost perfect decay behavior. This is considered to be due to the "special membranes of the B&W drivers and the design of the housing that can show their qualities. The decay behavior is almost perfect. There are virtually no resonances, not even at the highest frequencies."

But are those driver membranes all that special? Moving to the review of the KEF Reference 1 (fidelity-online.de), which is a loudspeaker costing about €6,000, we get a very similar, if not better, spectrogram than that produced by the much more expensive 800 D3. Their spectrograms are compared below.

Is the 800 D3 really state-of-the-art in this respect, considering that it involves a price premium of €24,000? The review of the Reference 1 comments that "the decay behavior of the Reference 1 is almost perfect. The few barely visible small resonances hardly need mentioning and could arise from the natural frequencies of the housing volumes. Partial vibrations of the diaphragms seem to be a completely foreign word for the mid-high unit." This seems to be more or less entirely equivalent to the description accompanying the 800 D3 spectrogram.

In fact, it appears that the differences in their respective spectrograms arise from the differences in their frequency response curves caused by the locations and the intensities of peaks and dips. If no peaks or dips were present, then could we not assume that we would get a much better spectrogram for the dynamical system under test (the loudspeaker)?

Hence, it would be very interesting to be able to see the calculated spectrogram of a simulated loudspeaker system that has a very flat, if not perfectly flat, frequency response, would it not? This would serve as a reference for comparison purposes – the ideal behaviour that no passive loudspeaker system could match. Of course, for a high quality comparison to be achievable and more meaningful, the simulated loudspeaker would need to have its frequency response appropriately tailored to match the real loudspeaker to which it would be compared.

IMHO Measurement data is one data point, listening in a room in a whole different level.
Ordering food based on specification is not the same as eating it and telling how it tastes.

I have owned 640i, then 801 Matrix then N801 then 802D3....each one is an improvement in listening room in term of life-like sound reproduction. In between I have owned the KEF reference series , so far 802D3 is another level beyond KEF reference. I look forward to listening to the D4.

I saw decent measurement of Revel F228Be from here

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/revel-f228be-predicted-in-room-frequency-response-measurements-speaker-floor-standing-png.131684/

However, in the room the initial impression by the reviewer was "First impression was NOT positive! The sound was boomy and vocals lost in the midst of all that...". Until he did room correction. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-f228be-review-speaker.23659/
The point being , one has to listen to the speakers in addition reading the measurement.

 

[atsmusic]

IMHO Measurement data is one data point, listening in a room in a whole different level.
Ordering food based on specification is not the same as eating it and telling how it tastes.

I have owned 640i, then 801 Matrix then N801 then 802D3....each one is an improvement in listening room in term of life-like sound reproduction. In between I have owned the KEF reference series , so far 802D3 is another level beyond KEF reference. I look forward to listening to the D4.

I saw decent measurement of Revel F228Be from here

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/revel-f228be-predicted-in-room-frequency-response-measurements-speaker-floor-standing-png.131684/

However, in the room the initial impression by the reviewer was "First impression was NOT positive! The sound was boomy and vocals lost in the midst of all that...". Until he did room correction. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-f228be-review-speaker.23659/
The point being , one has to listen to the speakers in addition reading the measurement.

That is what I find really nice about the D3s. Whatever they did things just sound more natural and real to me.

 

[bo_knows]

IMHO Measurement data is one data point, listening in a room in a whole different level.
Ordering food based on specification is not the same as eating it and telling how it tastes.

I have owned 640i, then 801 Matrix then N801 then 802D3....each one is an improvement in listening room in term of life-like sound reproduction. In between I have owned the KEF reference series , so far 802D3 is another level beyond KEF reference. I look forward to listening to the D4.

I saw decent measurement of Revel F228Be from here

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/revel-f228be-predicted-in-room-frequency-response-measurements-speaker-floor-standing-png.131684/

However, in the room the initial impression by the reviewer was "First impression was NOT positive! The sound was boomy and vocals lost in the midst of all that...". Until he did room correction. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-f228be-review-speaker.23659/
The point being , one has to listen to the speakers in addition reading the measurement.

Here are some samples from the "LowBeats Sound Oracle Floorstanding Speaker".

One can easily open multiple pages and do a quick comparison between B&W 802 D3 and KEF Ref 3 using good headphones.

LowBeats Klang Orakel Standlautsprecher - LowBeats

Wer mit einem Standlautsprecher als Schallwandler liebäugelt, ist hier genau an der richtigen Adress

www.lowbeats.de

 

[changer]

Every other time I read a new posting in this thread, I feel the need to quickly check if I put the URL right, because I fancy I had possibly typed www.audiosubjectivismgalore.com instead

 

[atsmusic]

Every other time I read a new posting in this thread, I feel the need to quickly check if I put the URL right, because I fancy I had possibly typed www.audiosubjectivismgalore.com instead

We already established people don't like the FR. I mean how many times can people post the same charts. What else is there to say really?