B&W 800D4 series

[preload]

Of couse I and many can accept that even nowadays, measurements can’t predict 100% listener preferences. In fact they may never do, since human subjective variation is abysmal.

The issue isn't just human variation, but also the circle of confusion, and our incomplete understanding of how to translate 4-dimensional measurements of loudspeakers in a room (let alone looking at anechoic 2d charts and trying to predict how it'll perform in a room) into listener preference.

But dont try to trick me into thinking a big dip around presence region is a good thing,

You can believe what you want. But the fact that multiple, independent manufacturers and engineers have included a presence dip over the decades should at least clue you in to the fact that there is merit. I've even eq'd my genelec 8351b monitors to have a presence dip and match the treble response of my B&w floorstanders and I actually prefer it in the room that they're in.

or a very big peak through midrange/treble is fantastic, or desirable.
The existence of either one won’t mean the speaker doesn’t sound good as a whole, but it rules out the merit of being the reference/perfection.

Reasonable people often look at measurements of DACs and amps and assume that a flat horizontal line is also desirable with transducers. Consumer Reports made that same mistake years ago and thankfully the Harman team corrected them with actual research. The problem being, of course, that Consumer Reports was interpreting the sound power curve, which we know now should be sloped downwards. And we also know now that the range of curves when looking at a target in room response isn't even a straight line, it's a bendy curve.

So consider the fact that just because an FR measurement of a speaker isn't a perfectly straight line, it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't going to sound excellent in your living room, particularly if you aren't being clear about which measurement (I.e. Anechoic on axis, listening window, sound power, etc) you're interpreting for flatness to begin with.

 

[thewas]

Reasonable people often look at measurements of DACs and amps and assume that a flat horizontal line is also desirable with transducers. Consumer Reports made that same mistake years ago and thankfully the Harman team corrected them with actual research. The problem being, of course, that Consumer Reports was interpreting the sound power curve, which we know now should be sloped downwards. And we also know now that the range of curves when looking at a target in room response isn't even a straight line, it's a bendy curve.

So consider the fact that just because an FR measurement of a speaker isn't a perfectly straight line, it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't going to sound excellent in your living room, particularly if you aren't being clear about which measurement (I.e. Anechoic on axis, listening window, sound power, etc) you're interpreting for flatness to begin with.

Still, according to the Harman team research you correctly mention (similar to electronic devices) the best target to start with is linear=flat direct sound and to only correct bass modes that are added from the room and then you can still add bass or treble if needed to deal with imperfect recordings (audio's circle of confusion) and personal taste. Its rather unlikely and unflexible to have just one and permanent voicing EQ for all recordings, but in the end what matters is listeners individual satisfaction.

 

[preload]

The trend was of course rather continuous and not a step response with the Nautilus 800 measurements already measuring less neutral then their predecessors, who know maybe they were also one reason while Dickie left?

But still there is a significant difference between them, even on-axis, for example 805 Nautilus

vs 805 D3 (Stereophile unfortunately didn't review or measure the in-between 805 models)

or 801 Nautilus

vs 800 Diamond

Source of all above measurements is https://www.stereophile.com/

It's always interesting to see how the measurements of B&W speakers evolve over time. Yet despite the pundits claiming that these measurements predict B&W models sounding worse with each generation, the opposite is apparently true as is reported over and over again (speaking about the 800-series). Again, I think this reflects our incomplete understanding of how loudspeaker measurements predict listener preferences. And while Harman has shared its research findings, other companies clearly have not.

Also, we need to be careful. Simply eyeballing the stereophile on-axis anechoic listening window charts doesn't even tell you half the story about how that speaker measures, let alone sounds.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Still, according to the Harman team research you correctly mention (similar to electronic devices) the best target to start with is linear=flat direct sound and to only correct bass modes that are added from the room and then you can still add bass or treble if needed to deal with imperfect recordings (audio's circle of confusion) and personal taste. Its rather unlikely and unflexible to have just one and permanent voicing EQ for all recordings, but in the end what matters is listeners individual satisfaction.

I prefer poorly recording sounding smooth rather than bright without body, thats why i dont like bright speakers because i can deal with some smoothness but no too much with brightness

But this for some people sound dull and may lack of '' emotions '' ? , everyone have different ears, taste... and music, there is some music that is overall well recording, for example Metal recording arent the best always

 

[preload]

Still, according to the Harman team research you correctly mention (similar to electronic devices) the best target to start with is linear=flat direct sound and to only correct bass modes that are added from the room and then you can still add bass or treble if needed to deal with imperfect recordings (audio's circle of confusion) and personal taste. Its rather unlikely and unflexible to have just one and permanent voicing EQ for all recordings, but in the end what matters is listeners individual satisfaction.

I don't disagree, but let's be clear - these characteristics (specifically linear/horizontally flat anechoic on-axis response) CORRELATE with more preferred speakers, but would not reliably predict listener preference on its own.
And yes I totally agree with you that it's the end listener's perception that matters at the end of the day.

 

[thewas]

It's always interesting to see how the measurements of B&W speakers evolve over time. Yet despite the pundits claiming that these measurements predict B&W models sounding worse with each generation, the opposite is apparently true as is reported over and over again (speaking about the 800-series).

Personally I have seen also reviews of people not liking the newer as much as the previous one but anyway I don't trust much such "reviews" as they are rarely done directly and under controlled conditions and strongly dominated by bias, typical new toy syndrome and audiophool marketing press, to which every new device/loudspeaker generation is a significant step forward, which if it would be true, loudspeakers like the 47 year old Yamaha NS-1000 or old B&W 801s should be so much worse and if directly do such a comparison you realise that this is far from the truth.

I don't disagree, but let's be clear - these characteristics (specifically linear/horizontally flat anechoic on-axis response) CORRELATE with more preferred speakers, but would not reliably predict listener preference on its own.
And yes I totally agree with you that it's the end listener's perception that matters at the end of the day.

Yes, of course they cannot predict individual preference but the average preference correlated even at the recent binaural ASR blind test surprisingly well to the Harman prediction, still nevertheless 13,5% of the listeners preferred the B&W voicing.

 

[thewas]

I prefer poorly recording sounding smooth rather than bright without body, thats why i dont like bright speakers because i can deal with some smoothness but no too much with brightness

But this for some people sound dull and may lack of '' emotions '' ? , everyone have different ears, taste... and music, there is some music that is overall well recording, for example Metal recording arent the best always

That's why Toole recommends rather an amp or EQ with adjustable bass and treble, as you wouldn't want always too dark loudspeakers just for some heavy treble recordings, unless you only listen to a very limited bandwidth of recordings which all were recorded very similarly and one EQ fits all very well.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

That's why Toole recommends rather an amp or EQ with adjustable bass and treble, as you wouldn't want always too dark loudspeakers just for some heavy treble recordings, unless you only listen to a very limited bandwidth of recordings which all were recorded very similarly and one EQ fits all very well.

I don't know, i think one important thing is know the own personal preference, most people dont realize what kind of FR they like more imho

Im pretty good with a neutral/natural with some smoothness, not dark or too colored but for example vocals never sound piercing or bright in my R7s.. neither dark to my ears, just very well balanced, but this is very personal..

 

[thewas]

I agree that there can be some individual general trends on the tonality as there are also for the directivity width that both depend on some individual parameters like listening apparatus properties, room acoustics, listened music and SPL and of course also habituation.

 

[Invinoveritasty]

Personally I have seen also reviews of people not liking the newer as much as the previous one

I'm in that camp. I favor the Dickie designs, but I have not yet listened to the D4s

 

[Descartes]

Looking forward to reviews of the D4!

 

[richard12511]

Looking forward to reviews of the D4!

Same. I'm really hoping @hardisj or @amirm can get one for review.

The leather on top of the bass cabinet has really grown on me.

 

[Descartes]

Same. I'm really hoping @hardisj or @amirm can get one for review.

The leather on top of the bass cabinet has really grown on me.

The 802D had leather as well, looks like they are going back in time

 

[richard12511]

The 802D had leather as well, looks like they are going back in time

801D4 is the prettiest speaker there is, though I know that's highly subjective. I'm not a huge fan of the latest Sonus Faber flagship(I thought the Aida was prettier).

 

[preload]

Personally I have seen also reviews of people not liking the newer as much as the previous one but anyway I don't trust much such "reviews" as they are rarely done directly and under controlled conditions and strongly dominated by bias, typical new toy syndrome and audiophool marketing press, to which every new device/loudspeaker generation is a significant step forward, which if it would be true, loudspeakers like the 47 year old Yamaha NS-1000 or old B&W 801s should be so much worse and if directly do such a comparison you realise that this is far from the truth.


Yes, of course they cannot predict individual preference but the average preference correlated even at the recent binaural ASR blind test surprisingly well to the Harman prediction, still nevertheless 13,5% of the listeners preferred the B&W voicing.

Well you're welcome to believe that B&W makes their speakers sound LESS preferable with each subsequent generation. However, having personally owned an older and "flatter" measuring B&W CDM-1 bookshelf and comparing it to the newer 805D2 bookshelf, I can say that there's pretty much no comparison, and the differences were not subtle.

Also, I absolutely do not subscribe to the notion that it's possible to reliably compare loudspeakers through binuaral recordings that are played back over headphones (or loudspeakers) that are of even lower quality than the original loudspeakers and each have their own transfer function - I mean gimme a break. I know you probably spent a lot of time setting up that experiment, but I just can't get behind it. I didn't bother reading the rest of the thread you linked, but I'd be surprised if someone didn't point this out. And if you had told me that 90% of subjects had preferred the B&W recording using this "method," I still wouldn't have accepted those results.

 

[thewas]

Well you're welcome to believe that B&W makes their speakers sound LESS preferable with each subsequent generation.

I didn't write that, but that every generation not always sounds better to everyone which is obviously isn't true, see also https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/b-w-800d4-series.25801/page-22#post-932894 as such an example. I used even myself to own 2 pairs of the "newer generation" B&W loudspeakers and liked them and had been used to their voicing, one of them is now at a friends home where it now sounds too coloured for my taste.

Also, I absolutely do not subscribe to the notion that it's possible to reliably compare loudspeakers through binuaral recordings that are played back over headphones (or loudspeakers) that are of even lower quality than the original loudspeakers and each have their own transfer function - I mean gimme a break. I know you probably spent a lot of time setting up that experiment, but I just can't get behind it. I didn't bother reading the rest of the thread you linked, but I'd be surprised if someone didn't point this out. And if you had told me that 90% of subjects had preferred the B&W recording using this "method," I still wouldn't have accepted those results.

I didn't expect a different answer from you and I am not sure you would have written them same thing if results would have turned out favourably for your favoured brand. Interestingly quite many listeners could describe quite well the heard differences which reflect on the typical voicing and measurements. Also research has shown that such a method can work still quite well despite its limitations https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...st-of-4-loudspeakers.26785/page-6#post-924548
Personally I am quite sure that in a real blinded direct comparison the average results wouldn't be significantly different (that most people will prefer the less coloured loudspeakers) as also all Harman tests have shown, the problem are buyers almost never doing real direct and blinded comparisons themselves as most current high end stores and brands on purpose will do anything to avoid those.

 

[VintageFlanker]

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?

This part I simply don't get it at all.

Why would @preload negate the obvious bass advantage of the B&W? Isn't bass extension a specific characteristic of the speaker itself? I believed the purpose of blind tests was to identify differences and eventually preference, not to do everything in intend to make both speakers sound identical. If the 802 hits deeper, it hits deeper. Period. Then this could be considered as a factor of preference (or advantage) even tho when level matched, blind or whatever.

 

[Beave]

If you're not using subs and you're running your speakers full-range, then obviously bass extension is an important factor to consider when choosing a speaker.

But if one is going to use bass management with, say, an 80Hz crossover, then the bass extension of one speaker might lead to it winning a comparison when the actual use of the speaker won't take advantage of that extension.

Bass extension is clearly a factor in speaker preference, enough so that a speaker with excellent bass extension but significant flaws elsewhere could beat out a speaker with less extension but solid performance from the upper bass through the treble.

If you're comparing two similarly-sized large towers, or two similarly-sized bookshelf speakers, then bass extension is probably comparable.

But when you're comparing a large tower against a small bookshelf speaker, the large tower will usually have a considerable advantage in bass extension. Such is the case here.

Now, in that case, if you compare them full-range, the tower might win overall entirely because of that extra bass extension. It might lose out in the mids and treble but still "win" merely because of its impressive bass reach. By removing the bass extension advantage of the large speaker over the small speaker, it allows a fair comparison of the two in the upper-bass through the midrange and treble.

 

[Koeitje]

The issue isn't just human variation, but also the circle of confusion, and our incomplete understanding of how to translate 4-dimensional measurements of loudspeakers in a room (let alone looking at anechoic 2d charts and trying to predict how it'll perform in a room) into listener preference.

That's why you are better off with buying speakers that have low linear distortion (a.k.a. a flat frequency response) and adjust afterwards. Buying loudspeakers with high linear distortion and especially rough directivity, such as B&W, will just make it impossible to properly adjust for the circle of confusion using equalizers/DSPs. If you don't know if the recording you are going to listen is bright, dark, or whatever then you need a loudspeaker that you can accurately adjust to the source. B&W doesn't make those kind of loudspeakers.

 

[Frgirard]

The great and usually b&w bashing.
The pro world they have not the such prejudices.