Bowers & Wilkins 805S Bookshelf Speaker Review

[TomJ]

A DPS corrected on axis frequency response like that is pointless without showing both the horizontal and vertical off axis response +-90degrees.

Jake, this is not a near-field on axis response that fails to show the horizontal and vertical off axis responses that could be measured for one speaker mounted in a Klippel NFS rig. If you put one of these speakers into an NFS rig and recorded its on axis FR with a Dirac v3 filtered sweep stimulus, that measurement would not look anything like this.

This is a REW measurement at one mic position (my listening position) in my living room that shows the spatiotemporally integrated SPL arriving at the mic capsule, including direct (on axis) SPL from both stereo speakers plus the SPL of all room reflections arriving at the capsule within the brief time interval during which REW collects and records the sweep stimulus response at the indicated frequency, for speaker inputs that were filtered with a Dirac v3 algorithm to match a target curve.

 

[TomJ]

Look nice but what is the significance when it is equalized using a dsp? Relevant would be a measurement from an anechoic room or a nearfield measuring device.

The significance is that this is what you hear (the integrated FR of the SPL of the Dirac v3 filtered sweep stimulus) when you sit in my listening position in my living room during REW measurement of same. In his review which @thewas kindly linked, John Atkinson provides near-field measurements of the same speaker model and says the LF bump is near-field mic artifact.

An obvious limitation of the post-Dirac REW FR I posted is that a sweep signal is far simpler (by design) than a complex music signal. That said, both REW and Dirac v3 use it. Another limitation is the mean SPL. I chose 75dB because that's the average level I usually listen to (with peaks into the 90s), but others may listen at higher levels at which room mode and reflection stats differ.

I was actually a skeptic about DRC and used my own pEQ curve for a year after buying an SHD Studio. I recently decided to give Dirac v3 a try based on @Kal Rubinson comments in his M33 review and was surprised by how much it improved the SQ in my room (thank you Kal).

 

[TomJ]

These measurements by D.B. Keele Jr. for Audio are from the 802 Nautilus (if I'm not mistaken the same model that was Spin'ed by Harman)

The 802N FR is less even on and off axis than the 805N (see the John Atkinson review which @thewas kindly linked), likewise the 801N (https://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-nautilus-801-loudspeaker-measurements-part-2). I didn't know that when I bought these new 20 yrs ago to replace my KEF 105 before their foam surrounds failed. After listening to all three models, I thought the 805N sounded more natural and life-like with the music and sound levels I listen to, and more coherent, better imaging. I used a sub for the first few years but not since then.

 

[TomJ]

I have head most of this line. Way too bright...

Agreed ever since the 800 S series, but not before. Here's the uncorrected in-room 805N FR at my listening position, overlaid on the DRC FR that I posted earlier:

 

[ferrellms]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the B&W 805S Bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a member. The 805S is discontinued but seems to draw on the same principals of their speakers so makes for a good test. Looks like the original cost was US $2,500.

Despite being bookshelf speakers, the 805S is heavy and fancy looking to be sure:

View attachment 86536

Everything is curved which likely adds to the cost of manufacturing. Styling is all B&W and attractive.

The back side is designed for bi-amping/bi-wiring and came with a set of wire jumpers which is a bit unusual:

View attachment 86537

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

I used 1000+ measurement points which is higher than my normal for bookshelf speakers. This was good enough to compute the sound field of the speaker within 1% error.

Temperature was 71 degrees. Measurement location is at sea level so you compute the pressure.

Measurements are compliant with latest speaker research into what can predict the speaker preference and is standardized in CEA/CTA-2034 ANSI specifications. Likewise listening tests are performed per research that shows mono listening is much more revealing of differences between speakers than stereo or multichannel.

For reference point, I used the tweeter axis. The main grill was removed.

Spinorama Audio Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 86538

We seem to enjoy smooth and flat response to 1 kHz and then hell breaks loose for a while. Directivity is shot at 1 kHz and on-axis remains poor to 3 kHz. Even beyond we have somewhat uneven response with some peaking above 7 kHz which may make the direct sound too bright.

Looking at the driver responses gives us a clue as to the underlying problem:

View attachment 86539

I wonder why the crossover frequency was picked to be so high (4 kHz). It might be that the small enclosure around it is too small to allow lower frequency response. Touching the tube behind it while playing music, it sure resonated well as if it was an alternate driver! This actually caused problems for the Klippel system's field separation. It confused the that with the room reflection and caused significant error. I adjusted the measurement parameters and fixed it but clearly this speaker has problem in this mid region. It is like two speakers stacked on top of each other -- one for woofer and port, and another for tweeter.

Back to our spinorma measurements, here is our early reflections:

View attachment 86540

Blending of the reflections and direct axis smoothens the response some:

View attachment 86541

Had to know where to draw the trend line visually. As shown it will likely sound recessed in mids but slightly emphasized lows and highs which is supposed to be good in a showroom.

Distortion in bass was kept in check which was nice:

View attachment 86542

View attachment 86543

Impedance graph shows a resonance around 1 kHz:

View attachment 86544

Beamwidth is usually prescriptive but I think in this case it makes things look too good:

View attachment 86545

The -6 dB line in red is quite good and smooth. But then the drop off to -12 dB (pink) is quite uneven. We can see this better in our traditional contour graph:
View attachment 86546

Vertical directivity narrows in the problem area so best to make sure the speaker stand places the tweeter at your ear height:

View attachment 86547

Speaker Listening Tests
The instant, "out of box" impression was, "this is not bad...." Ten seconds later though you realize there is too much highs although they seemed to be quite clean. With female vocals, the voices were as if they were coming through a mask. There was a low frequency overtone that shrouded them.

A bit of EQ made a big difference:

View attachment 86548

The boost in the 1 to 3 kHz brought out vocals and now made them be center stage as they should be. A/B test showed that even male vocals were suffering without this correction.

There was still too much highs but that is easy to fix to taste.

Dynamic capability was quite good. Yes, I could get them to bottom out but otherwise, they could play very loud. I put in a high pass filter at 35 Hz which fixed the bottoming out but then subjectively there was too little bass so I left it off in the above settings. The 805S definitely plays louder and cleaner than your typical budget bookshelf. Its larger enclosure definitely helps with that.

Conclusions
A veteran high-end audio dealer once told me that the only two brands of speakers worth selling were Martin Logan and B&W. Both would draw customers to your door rather than you looking for them. The iconic look of the B&W shows why that is the case. Design wise though, this is a clearly flawed execution. Who would wish to have the frequencies in 1 to 4 kHz screwed up and recessed in their speakers??? While not so obvious when you just listen to them, correct them with EQ and you don't want to listen to them without it.

There is a feeling of quality to the speaker that saved it from getting a "headless panther" rating. Bass and dynamic performance is quite good. And the highest -- despite being excessive -- seemed clean.

Personally I would want a speaker to be much more perfect than this so can't recommend the B&W 805S.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Picked a few ripe sunflowers couple of weeks ago. Left them on the porch to dry but that was not doing the job as it doesn't get much sun there. So I decided to bring them inside, pull the seeds and dry them individually. Check out this "mammoth" sunflower:

View attachment 86549

I put my hand in there for scale. It is probably 16 inches across if not more. The birds had helped themselves to portion of it on top as you see (happy to share the harvest with the little fellows). After pulling all the ripe seeds (not an easy job), here is how much I had:
View attachment 86550

They have such a sweet flavor and soft texture at this stage which is to die for. I had saved the seeds for this plan years ago and was so happy to see them still viable. They grew to 10+ feet with little water and tough soil at the end of our garden. Nothing screams "garden" more than sunflowers.

That was the highlight of the day. Couldn't enjoy it for long as our septic tank overflowed early once again and we are without facilities until .Thursday when we get it pumped. Using our camper van for toilet. Depr essing to say the least as I can't process any more produce either without the ability to wash things indoor. If you want to make me happy, dept

 

[alexb997]

Hmm, you know, sometimes I wonder why some folks have issues with these sorts of reviews and I now know why. I OWN these speakers, and while that would naturally make me biased, I did pick these after searching for MONTHS and auditioning dozens and dozens of speakers, including their lager sibling 804!

Measurements alone, albeit these actually measure OK, can't tell the whole story, SPECIALLY for a speaker. 805s NEED good amplification, so I have no idea what amplification is used to do the test, BUT these things with a pair of Classe' amps, on its own stand, absolutely CRUSHED any other bookshelf speakers I've ever listened to, including the ones I directly compared in the same room! It wasn't even close! The amount of bass out of these bookshelves SHAME many tower speakers, and they can surely sing a great tune.

Questions for Amir:
- Did you use the B&W Speaker stands? If not, how were they mounted?
- What amplification is used to test?
- Which bookshelf speaker, regardless of price, could match these in both low and high end of spectrum

Moral of the story, read and know the measurements BUT TRUST your ears! Anyone reading these measurements and thinking these speakers are meh, are sadly mistaken. Have a listen and compare to similarly priced/sized speakers and you'd be blown away! NOTHING replaces auditioning with similar equipment you own, and specially auditioning at home (in your room) that some dealers allow. What I did, I took my amp to the dealer and listened to various speakers, THEN brought it home and made sure it works in my setting. I suggest most do the same specially buying expensive pair of speakers!

 

[PyramidElectric]

Hmm, you know, sometimes I wonder why some folks have issues with these sorts of reviews and I now know why. I OWN these speakers, and while that would naturally make me biased, I did pick these after searching for MONTHS and auditioning dozens and dozens of speakers, including their lager sibling 804!

Measurements alone, albeit these actually measure OK, can't tell the whole story, SPECIALLY for a speaker. 805s NEED good amplification, so I have no idea what amplification is used to do the test, BUT these things with a pair of Classe' amps, on its own stand, absolutely CRUSHED any other bookshelf speakers I've ever listened to, including the ones I directly compared in the same room! It wasn't even close! The amount of bass out of these bookshelves SHAME many tower speakers, and they can surely sing a great tune.

Questions for Amir:
- Did you use the B&W Speaker stands? If not, how were they mounted?
- What amplification is used to test?
- Which bookshelf speaker, regardless of price, could match these in both low and high end of spectrum

Moral of the story, read and know the measurements BUT TRUST your ears! Anyone reading these measurements and thinking these speakers are meh, are sadly mistaken. Have a listen and compare to similarly priced/sized speakers and you'd be blown away! NOTHING replaces auditioning with similar equipment you own, and specially auditioning at home (in your room) that some dealers allow. What I did, I took my amp to the dealer and listened to various speakers, THEN brought it home and made sure it works in my setting. I suggest most do the same specially buying expensive pair of speakers!

Stating the obvious here, but just because you like a speaker doesn't mean it's accurate with regards to the signal. Having said that, tons of people prefer inaccurate speakers, absolutely nothing wrong with that, but this whole site is aimed at finding (with measurements) what is accuate and what is not...

 

[MZKM]

so I have no idea what amplification is used to do the test,

The Klippel doesn’t care what amp is used, a second pair of speaker cables is run back to the machine and it analyzes how the amp performs during the test and then compensates for it.

 

[alexb997]

Stating the obvious here, but just because you like a speaker doesn't mean it's accurate with regards to the signal. Having said that, tons of people prefer inaccurate speakers, absolutely nothing wrong with that, but this whole site is aimed at finding (with measurements) what is accuate and what is not...

So? Isn’t buying an audio equipment is for ME to enjoy it? This is such a straw man argument. While I think amplifier and amp measurements are much easier to do accurately and to be consistent, unless Amir has a perfect acoustic chamber speaker measurements would be all over the place.

End of the day, speaker buying MUST be based on listening to the speakers with YOUR equipment in YOUR ROOM.

Do any of you think your ears have a FLAT response to sound? There’s a reason the same speakers sound great to one but not to another.

 

[alexb997]

The Klippel doesn’t care what amp is used, a second pair of speaker cables is run back to the machine and it analyzes how the amp performs during the test and then compensates for it.

thanks but then I’m not sure how it relates to real life then. Perfect test for speaker, bring your amp and LISTEN how it sounds to YOU! Speakers are for the owner to enjoy not to brag about performance on paper. I think amp and DAC measurements are much more reliable indicators here than speaker measurements in this manner.

 

[Steve Dallas]

So? Isn’t buying an audio equipment is for ME to enjoy it? This is such a straw man argument. While I think amplifier and amp measurements are much easier to do accurately and to be consistent, unless Amir has a perfect acoustic chamber speaker measurements would be all over the place.

End of the day, speaker buying MUST be based on listening to the speakers with YOUR equipment in YOUR ROOM.

The point of the Klippel NFS is that it does not need a perfect acoustic chamber. It compensates for the room and the amplification to calculate a near perfect anechoic frequency response plot. It is actually better than a lot of anechoic chambers.

 

[alexb997]

The point of the Klippel NFS is that it does not need a perfect acoustic chamber. It compensates for the room and the amplification to calculate a near perfect anechoic frequency response plot. It is actually better than a lot of anechoic chambers.

Ok still it’s meaningless for a speaker as YOUR EARS do not receive sound in a flat response.

 

[alexb997]

Again. I’m not against measurements at all. Buying a Denon receiver now because of the reviews here but speaker is so personal and dependent on how YOU perceive sound and how YOUR ears are flawed it’s a pointless thing.

B&W 805, FOR ME, sounded the best by a country mile, than ANY other bookshelf I listened to. It wasn’t even close. That’s the only way. People MUST buy speakers that sound good to them.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Again. I’m not against measurements at all. Buying a Denon receiver now because of the reviews here but speaker is so personal and dependent on how YOU perceive sound and how YOUR ears are flawed it’s a pointless thing.

B&W 805, FOR ME, sounded the best by a country mile, than ANY other bookshelf I listened to. It wasn’t even close. That’s the only way. People MUST buy speakers that sound good to them.

Your ears hear everything they hear with the same "flaws", and have done since you were a child (notwithstanding some age-related deterioration over time).

So the speaker that reproduces the most natural sound to me AND to you will tend to be the speaker that reproduces natural sound, i.e. a neutral speaker.

The constant in everything you hear, whether reproduced by a speaker or not, is your own hearing.

If you start trying to compensate for that with a speaker, you will just make the sound coming out of the speaker sound different to everything else.

 

[alexb997]

Your ears hear everything they hear with the same "flaws", and have done since you were a child (notwithstanding some age-related deterioration over time).

So the speaker that reproduces the most natural sound to me AND to you will tend to be the speaker that reproduces natural sound, i.e. a neutral speaker.

The constant in everything you hear, whether reproduced by a speaker or not, is your own hearing.

If you start trying to compensate for that with a speaker, you will just make the sound coming out of the speaker sound different to everything else.

lol. Really? So our ears are exactly the same across 7B people on earth, eh? This is probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

Dude, even my wife and I, sitting in the same room hear things differently. While it’s too loud for her, it’s not loud enough for me, while it’s too bright for me, it’s not for her, etc.

This is probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

 

[andreasmaaan]

lol. Really? So our ears are exactly the same across 7B people on earth, eh?

No, I don’t think you read my post correctly. I said more or less the opposite.

Our ears are different from everyone else’s but exactly the same as our own ears whether we listen to live or reproduced audio.

 

[q3cpma]

lol. Really? So our ears are exactly the same across 7B people on earth, eh? This is probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

No, but some parts of the brain are the same. In this case, the part that postprocesses what the ears send to correct for their physical flaws is. How about you lurk more, newfriend?

So? Isn’t buying an audio equipment is for ME to enjoy it?

That's the classical hedonistic argument in these parts, but it's not an absolute truth. Some people prefer to hear the music instead of the speakers, even when the music sounds bad.

 

[tmtomh]

So? Isn’t buying an audio equipment is for ME to enjoy it? This is such a straw man argument. While I think amplifier and amp measurements are much easier to do accurately and to be consistent, unless Amir has a perfect acoustic chamber speaker measurements would be all over the place.

End of the day, speaker buying MUST be based on listening to the speakers with YOUR equipment in YOUR ROOM.

Do any of you think your ears have a FLAT response to sound? There’s a reason the same speakers sound great to one but not to another.

You make a very reasonable point: We all have our preferences, and we should go with the equipment we prefer, regardless of the measurements.

But that's also exactly what @PyramidElectric said above, in response to your initial comment about this.

So I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you about this fact that individual listening preference is important. Where the disagreement comes in, is when it comes to what individual preference means for other people, and for the validity or utility of measurements.

The problem with individual listening preferences is precisely what you say: we don't all hear exactly the same way; we don't all have the same exact preferences; we don't all weight the various trade-off factors the same; and we don't all listen in the same space. (Although it must be noted that extensive research has been done on subjective listening impressions, and some strong human preferences, internationally, have emerged about some aspects of speaker sound reproduction.)

What the existence of differing preferences means, though, is that your experience is valid for you, but literally meaningless for anyone else.

So if we believe in the value of basic human communication, and of information, then we need to ask if there is any objective information we can get about speakers (and other audio equipment) - and by "objective" is meant "something that can be communicated between us despite the fact that we're different people with different rooms and ears/brains."

The answer is Yes: measurements. And when we talk about measurements in audio, the obvious standard is fidelity: Low distortion, flat frequency response, and so on.

Now, you don't have to take such measurements as a simple guide to purchases, especially with speakers. But, for example, if Amir measures two different speakers and one has a lot more bass, you can be confident that the one that measures bassier is likely to sound more bassy. Regardless of which speaker measures flatter/more accurate, we can all come to a comparative conclusion that one has more bass. If one speaker has wider dispersion, that tells us that speaker will sound more consistent at different listening locations. Now, if you generally listen by yourself in a dedicated listening room, and you don't tend to get up and wander around much during your listening sessions, then the dispersion issue might not matter as much to you. So you don't have to get the wider-dispersion speaker just because of that measurement. But it gives you information that you - and, crucially, everyone else - can make some rational use of.

Finally, measurements can actually be even more useful when you combine them with your subjective listening experience. Back to those two hypothetical speakers: If you've actually heard one of them yourself, then Amir's measurements of the other speaker can give you a good idea about whether or not to include it on your audition list. If you heard Speaker A and found it lacking in bass, and Amir measures Speaker B to have more bass than Speaker A, then you might want to check out Speaker B - even if Speaker A measured flatter/better from a fidelity point of view.

As for Amir not having an anechoic chamber, and as for amplification, on those issues you are simply mistaken, as the Klippel measurement system takes room effects and amplification differences out of the equation. That's not an insult towards you - it's just a piece of information about how Amir's measurement system works.

 

[tuga]

So the speaker that reproduces the most natural sound to me AND to you will tend to be the speaker that reproduces natural sound, i.e. a neutral speaker.

I understand the quest for neutrality for those who listen to documental-style classical music recordings.
But many, perhaps most, studio mixes are close-mic'ed in mono often with non-neutral mics, pan-potted and EQ'ed and distorted with all manner of effects; seeking neutral reproduction for rock/pop seems a bit futile...

 

[andreasmaaan]

I understand the quest for neutrality for those who listen to documental-style classical music recordings.
But many, perhaps most, studio mixes are close-mic'ed in mono often with non-neutral mics, pan-potted and EQ'ed and distorted with all manner of effects; seeking neutral reproduction for rock/pop seems a bit futile...

Yeh, totally agree with that Don’t see it as contradictory to my point though.

Someone might prefer non-neutral reproduction, but it won’t be because it corrects the “flawed” transfer function through which their ears filter everything they hear (both live and reproduced).