B&W 800D4 series

[Matias]

Thats clearly a joint venture. Both parties benefits from the exposure. 1+1=2
Very like the english way, keeping traditions alive.

"We give you our new flagship speakers for free if you allow us to use your name, shoot videos and use your employees for promoting our brand, how about that?"
"Agreed."
<sing contracts, shake hands>

 

[thewas]

I even think the too large mids are on purpose as they increase the directivity at the critical presence region and enhance the euphonic sound power dip there, which can both be advantageous at the typical high end temple too high listening distance and too few absorption.

 

[preload]

I even think the too large mids are on purpose as they increase the directivity at the critical presence region and enhance the euphonic sound power dip there, which can both be advantageous at the typical high end temple too high listening distance and too few absorption.

This is how I account for it as well.

A lot of folks here seem to assume that B&W engineers are idiots and couldn't figure out how to design a speaker that matches the Harman design goals. As in its a huge secret that a 7" midrange will get directional within its passband (shhhh don't tell anyone).

A lot of folks here also seem to assume that Abbey Road and Skywalker Sound engineers are also idiots who are willing to risk their brand and reputation (worth hundreds of millions of $) by using horrible sounding speakers so that they can get a little kickback from B&W.

And finally, a lot of folks here seem to think people who have listened to far more loudspeakers than they have, and own models that perfectly match the Harman goals of smoothness and directivity, are idiots because they obviously can't hear how bad the B&W's must sound.

Many people "think" they understand how loudspeakers "should" measure and they "think" the science around it is complete, just as it is for sota solid state devices. It's not.

You can't reliably predict how a loudspeaker will sound from eyeballing measurements. Even if you computer analyze them, your predictive value is still far from perfect. That's what the science shows, boys. Sorry if this is the first time you're hearing it. I went through my disappointment years ago (the papers have been out for a while).

 

[tuga]

Then most of the members including the very founder of the forum must be fooling themselves, Spinorama is the right hand an the purpose of speaker measurements here, so I think yeah, it is a big deal, and one of the most useful tools available at our hands.

The spinorama is manifestly insuficient for the characterisation of performance. It provides little information about driver, cabinet or port resonances, and nothing about HD and IMD (notice how these complementary measurements have been added to the spin?). It's a good marketing tool though, at least between objectivist-driven consumer-audiophiles.

 

[tuga]

Speaking of Abbey Road…

Interesting that they now prefer dual smaller woofers "as it allows them to better engineer the drivers for control purposes", whatever that means. The video is a stark reminder of why I don't watch YouTube...what a waste.

This is what BnW wrote in the 801N white paper:

The New 15 inch Bass Unit

The rationale of using a single large pulp-coned driver for the bass of the NautilusTM801 was not immediately apparent. Early attempts at producing prodigious bass from domestically acceptable enclosures, utilised multiple drivers in slim MatrixTM cabinets.
(...)
Two large drivers operating in free field conditions will produce a largely coherent wavefront comparable to a point source at a position equidistant from the two sources. Divergence from the central position will produce an anomaly in arrival times. Now place the same two drivers in an environment with at least one near field boundary at a normal to the array, the two drivers now experience different driving point impedances, their outputs will vary in magnitude and phase and the coherency of the wavefront is now further degraded. Take into account the effects of the inconsistent directivity of a large two element line source on a multimodal room environment, as well as a host of other reservations, and the arguments for using multiple drivers become less clear cut when large amounts of air are to be displaced in a domestic environment, and there is floor space for a single unit. A single circular cone is simply the most spatially efficient dynamic radiator available. This was part of the rationale behind the development of the 15 inch unit.
The PDF version is available here.

 

[preload]

Interesting that they now prefer dual smaller woofers "as it allows them to better engineer the drivers for control purposes", whatever that means. The video is a stark reminder of why I don't watch YouTube...what a waste.

This is what BnW wrote in the 801N white paper:

The New 15 inch Bass Unit

The rationale of using a single large pulp-coned driver for the bass of the NautilusTM801 was not immediately apparent. Early attempts at producing prodigious bass from domestically acceptable enclosures, utilised multiple drivers in slim MatrixTM cabinets.
(...)
Two large drivers operating in free field conditions will produce a largely coherent wavefront comparable to a point source at a position equidistant from the two sources. Divergence from the central position will produce an anomaly in arrival times. Now place the same two drivers in an environment with at least one near field boundary at a normal to the array, the two drivers now experience different driving point impedances, their outputs will vary in magnitude and phase and the coherency of the wavefront is now further degraded. Take into account the effects of the inconsistent directivity of a large two element line source on a multimodal room environment, as well as a host of other reservations, and the arguments for using multiple drivers become less clear cut when large amounts of air are to be displaced in a domestic environment, and there is floor space for a single unit. A single circular cone is simply the most spatially efficient dynamic radiator available. This was part of the rationale behind the development of the 15 inch unit.
The PDF version is available here.

Edit: I guess B&W does care about directivity after all! (except it's LF directivity, ha)

 

[richard12511]

I even think the too large mids are on purpose as they increase the directivity at the critical presence region and enhance the euphonic sound power dip there, which can both be advantageous at the typical high end temple too high listening distance and too few absorption.

That could be true, too. Definitely another explanation. I think I just have a bias against uneven directivity, mainly cause it can't be fixed with EQ. But the same is true the other way as well. You can't EQ a smooth directivity to sound like an uneven one .

 

[Beave]

Oh and here's a data point for you. I have spent more $$$ on genelec 8351b and Revel bookshelf speakers because they supposedly measure better and neither comes anywhere close to my first gen 802D's.

How did you compare them? Same room? Level matched? Did you institute a highpass filter to negate the obvious bass advantages of the B&Ws? Were you blinded? How did you switch quickly between them? What tracks did you play in your comparison?

 

[preload]

How did you compare them? Same room? Level matched? Did you institute a highpass filter to negate the obvious bass advantages of the B&Ws? Were you blinded? How did you switch quickly between them? What tracks did you play in your comparison?

You mean was it a controlled comparison? Nope. The conditions were: the same set of demo tracks that I always use, played back on multiple multiple occasions over the course of several months. Both speakers had a comparable subwoofer. The rooms were different, but Genelecs are designed for nearfield anyway and had the benefit of GLM calibration (i.e. their use case). You cannot listen to 802 towers nearfield.

So, is it possible that the room accounted for the differences? Sure. Is it possible that the Genelecs would sound better if set up in the same room? Maybe. But what I can say is that despite having measurements that strictly adhere to Harman engineering goals for FR and directivity, in my set up, the Genelecs were not superior to the B&W's on ANY of my usual demo tracks.

And this is from someone who should have been biased to favor the Genelecs since I expected them to be the reference standard based on what I hard read. That and they cost a ton, and I was familiar with the Harman preference score research.

 

[Geert]

So, is it possible that the room accounted for the differences? Sure. Is it possible that the Genelecs would sound better if set up in the same room?

What room(s) are we talking about? How were they acoustically treated, and if not perfect, did you use DRC?

And how where the 802 better? More bass obviously, and...

 

[richard12511]

Another fun video to watch. Really goes to show the amount of engineering that goes into these speakers.

 

[Frgirard]

Another fun video to watch. Really goes to show the amount of engineering that goes into these speakers.

Amount engineering? Hand-made solders. Guarantee of non-quality depending on the time of day and the proximity of the closing.

 

[TheBatsEar]

"Biomimetic Suspension technologies" reminds me of the retro encabulator

And here is the original, from 1970, uploaded by the original camera man (and the dude that laughs at the end):

Anyway, make sure all six hydrocoptic marsel veines are free and everything will sound just fine.

 

[TheBatsEar]

Only that this B&W was released almost 20 years before the Aria:

View attachment 147875

Interesting to see in above photo also that the waveguide was abandoned after the 3rd generation (all 600 series models).

First three gens, the fronts where made from injection molded plastic, after that they went to a cheaper manufacturing method. You need to understand that these 600 series are built to make money and to project the illusion of good sound, not to actually sound good (i had the first gen and liked them, my first pair ever). The goal is to sell product in volume. Once the margin of profit falls, they have to make sacrifices to stay in their price bracket and yet bring profit margins up.

Sadly, it's sales all the way down.

One thing that I found strange is the tweeter housing. I thought they had this long shape in order to damp the sound behind the driver ("Nautilus tapered damping tubes"). But instead of a long hollow tube with precise geometry, these have mounting blocks right behind the tweeter. Doesn't this defeat the purpose? Has this become a visual art housing more than functional engineering?

I suspect there are two main goals, dampen sound from the rear of the membrane, with a tapered thin tube, to reduce resonances. And the outer form in the first few cm to shape the radiating properties to the room. I could imagine the mount doesn't matter to either functions much.

I'm fascinated by how many people think that it's possible to "listen" to high-end loudspeakers that have been recorded using a mic, then compressed to youtube, and then played back on even lower-fidelity transducers like mid-fi headphones.

Agreed. BTW, your avatar hurts my eyes. Do i dare ask what happened? Was it a child? It was a child, wasn't it?

 

[Pearljam5000]

What room(s) are we talking about? How were they acoustically treated, and if not perfect, did you use DRC?

And how where the 802 better? More bass obviously, and...

Would also like to know

 

[Art Vandelay]

They look very nice in the flesh.......801D4.

These are currently on loan to a magazine reviewer who lives not too far from me, and I gave him a hand to move them into his listening room last week. I'll have a private listen to them when he's finished his reviewing in a week or so from now.

The published review probably won't be available until November, but it's purely subjective anyway, so probably of little interest for most here.

 

[ctrl]

If you still haven't heard enough listening comparisons between the D3 and the D4 series, here's more...

Song 1 original - Time Traveling - Sarah Kang and Anthony Lazaro
Song 1 - 802D3
Song 1 - 802D4

Song 2 original - Howling At The Moon - D Fine Us
Song 2 - 802D4
Song 2 - 802D3

AB-Comparison D3 vs D4

 

[kchap]

The originals sound better.

 

[ti33er]

The D4 looks better…

 

[ti33er]

<cheese>