Bowers & Wilkins 805S Bookshelf Speaker Review

[Geert]

To read Toole's opinion?

Read Toole's research. Or do you have better study material?

 

[tuga]

Read Toole's research. Or do you have better study material?

Toole used single-speaker mono listening for his research on preference.
I disagree with this decision (no one listens single-speaker at home and it penalises narrow-directivity speakers) and thus will not accept the validity of the ensuing conclusions (in stereo the Quad is rated as highly as the other speakers).

 

[Geert]

It's not that Toole completely missed that aspect. On the contrary, it was a topic of its own in his research. Discussed in length in https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nophonic-vs-stereophonic-timbre-change.15829/.

 

[tuga]

It's not that Toole completely missed that aspect. On the contrary, it was a topic of its own in his research. Discussed in length in https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nophonic-vs-stereophonic-timbre-change.15829/.

Single-speaker listening has its merits when evaluating aspects of loudspeaker performance but not for preference polls (no point in tasting a single speaker if you are going to listen to a pair).

 

[Steve Dallas]

I wonder how my 805Ns from 1999 would measure on Amir's Klippel for comparison to this S revision? Its Stereophile measurements look pretty good. I liked them so much back then, I bought a pair of 804Ns the next year for the home theater. I still have and sometimes enjoy both pairs. Neither of them sounds like Amir's measurements of the 805S. It is a shame B&W has adopted more and more of a Batman response over the years. They were reasonably flat when I bought mine.

Stereophile measurements of the 805N:

My thoughts about why people like 805s so much is, they initially sound huge, due to elevated midbass, and detailed, due to elevated treble. The mids are strong enough to not sound recessed. And, they may be the 1st truly low distortion speaker they have ever heard. The equipment used is often top notch, and that may be a first exposure as well. Those things add up to make a powerful impression. In some cases, it is a lasting impression.

 

[tmtomh]

Because one might like it.
For example the wider soundstage and more enveloping spaciousness of wide-directivity speakers in untreated rooms, or the time-delayed signal-correlated distortions from vinyl playback, good old analogue "warmth" or even tape hiss, the more distant perspective of a BBC dip, the "darker" and more forgiving sound of a treble roll-off, etc.
Anything that may produce a presentation which increases the enjoyment of one's listening experience. This is of course a matter of personal taste and in some cases it may have to do with listening habits (older audiophiles having grown up listening to a particular type of presentation which they still prefer).

Well of course one might like it, but that's axiomatic. One might like to feel enveloped by the reproduction of a single-miked chamber music concert too - the "documentary" style recording you noted above. The type of music is irrelevant. The entire premise of this site - and for example Floyd Toole's "circle of confusion" concept - is that sound reproduction should be about fidelity to the source.

And if you've always had colored equipment, and you've never pursued maximum fidelity/neutrality, you don't know what the source is supposed to sound like, so how do you even know what coloration, if any, you actually prefer?

 

[tuga]

Well of course one might like it, but that's axiomatic. One might like to feel enveloped by the reproduction of a single-miked chamber music concert too - the "documentary" style recording you noted above. The type of music is irrelevant. The entire premise of this site - and for example Floyd Toole's "circle of confusion" concept - is that sound reproduction should be about fidelity to the source.

And if you've always had colored equipment, and you've never pursued maximum fidelity/neutrality, you don't know what the source is supposed to sound like, so how do you even know what coloration, if any, you actually prefer?

All good questions. But some people still choose coloured equipment.

 

[tmtomh]

All good questions. But some people still choose coloured equipment.

You started this increasingly pointless exchange with, "seeking neutral reproduction for rock/pop seems a bit futile..." There's nothing about any particular genre that makes seeking neutrality futile, any more than there's anything about any particular genre that makes seeking coloration (if that's what one desires) futile.

 

[richard12511]

Have you guys EVER been to an audio show? or you're sitting behind your computer babbling? Have you ever been to a dealer with a friend? Literally EVERYONE has a different opinion about what sounds GOOD to THEM! It's 100% subjective when it comes to speakers. Same room, same equipment, same speakers, one hates it, one loves it!

Same goes with headphones! Some love headphone X, some HATE IT, some love headphone Y... while electronics gear is more consistent across the board.

Actually, while there is certainly room for subjective preferences, we have good research that shows the vast majority of people prefer the same sound under blind conditions, and that is the sound of a speaker with neutral on and off axis measurements.

Also, research shows that the room doesn’t matter that much either. The speakers that measure the best are the most preferred in all rooms.

Of course, B&W speakers are some of the most visually appealing speakers(IMO), and have a good brand value, so I would expect them to do better in sighted tests than they do in blind tests.

 

[tmtomh]

Actually, while there is certainly room for subjective preferences, we have good research that shows the vast majority of people prefer the same sound under blind conditions, and that is the sound of a speaker with neutral on and off axis measurements.

Also, research shows that the room doesn’t matter that much either. The speakers that measure the best are the most preferred in all rooms.

Of course, B&W speakers are some of the most visually appealing speakers(IMO), and have a good brand value, so I would expect them to do better in sighted tests than they do in blind tests.

Well said!

BTW, just as an FYI for @alexb997 and anyone else who's interested, my main speakers are B&Ws too (early-2000s 705s I got used for about $700 several years ago). I love them, but I also have to EQ them to flatten them out in approximately the 3-8kHz range. With that done, though, they sound great, I assume because of their good-quality drivers and (likely based on other B&W measurements) low distortion. They image quite nicely, and I can get imperfect but still pretty darned nice and powerful bass extension out of them down to 35-40Hz in-room (plus some usable energy further down to 30Hz).

My next pair of speakers probably won't be B&Ws after what I've learned at places like this - but on the other hand I'm in no rush to upgrade as I'm quite happy with what I have.

Aside from the obvious minus of the expense of new speakers, and the obvious plus of the joy they will provide, I think the most interesting thing for me will be to see if an objectively better pair of speakers produces subjective improvements that I am guessing/hoping for. In other words, the 705s have a couple of minor flaws that, while not an annoyance or problem, are detectable, and I would be quite pleased if money spent on a new pair down the road would address those.

Finally, I should note that my listening habits are such that I rarely listen at SPL peak levels above about 85-88dB. While the 705s can go way above that without breaking a sweat, my opinion is that life with any speaker tends to be easier at moderate volume - consider for example the distortion differences at 86dB vs 96dB for a lot of the speakers Amir measures.

 

[tyreman]

I had this set of speakers and they left me scratching my head literally
At first seemed to be half decent but then as time progressed I noticed an accentuated treble to me.
Sounded pretty "hot" to in the treble after I had them for awhile playing more and more music
Never could figure it out ...........got really aggravating

 

[Deleted member 20765]

I have these speakers. I've had to tweak an analog graphic eq to get voices to come forward enough to sound proper. Sounds great now.
With respect to the crossover at 4KHz....I've found the circuit diagram for the crossover on this speaker. It is all passive first order L-R and R-C circuits. Based on the values supplied by B&W, I've calculated the -3dB for the low freq driver to be 943Hz (1.35 mH and 8 ohms). The R-C circuit -3dB is accurate for 4KHz xover. The data you've published is not consistent with an f3 of 943 Hz and that is not consistent with B&W's published xover of 4KHz. Your published data is consistent with a 1KHz or so filter although it is a bit difficult to be sure since the driver's FR is not flat. Since I must trust your data, I'm left with the conclusion that there is either some design flaw or there is something going on with the response of the low freq driver that forced B&W to change the value of the inductor to 1.35mH.
I'm considering getting a spare xover and modifying it. I can then measure fr and phase with REW as a function of different inductor values. Of course, I'll need to change the cap on the HF driver as well. This might be a bit of work. I've not opened these speakers up yet.
Thoughts?

 

[preload]

I have these speakers. I've had to tweak an analog graphic eq to get voices to come forward enough to sound proper. Sounds great now.
With respect to the crossover at 4KHz....I've found the circuit diagram for the crossover on this speaker. It is all passive first order L-R and R-C circuits. Based on the values supplied by B&W, I've calculated the -3dB for the low freq driver to be 943Hz (1.35 mH and 8 ohms). The R-C circuit -3dB is accurate for 4KHz xover. The data you've published is not consistent with an f3 of 943 Hz and that is not consistent with B&W's published xover of 4KHz. Your published data is consistent with a 1KHz or so filter although it is a bit difficult to be sure since the driver's FR is not flat. Since I must trust your data, I'm left with the conclusion that there is either some design flaw or there is something going on with the response of the low freq driver that forced B&W to change the value of the inductor to 1.35mH.
I'm considering getting a spare xover and modifying it. I can then measure fr and phase with REW as a function of different inductor values. Of course, I'll need to change the cap on the HF driver as well. This might be a bit of work. I've not opened these speakers up yet.
Thoughts?

Or the BBC dip could be by design...
Not sure why people like to assume that everything that isn't a straight line is a "design flaw."

 

[Deleted member 20765]

Could be. Looks like the more recent 805 D3 and D4 have the same dip. I'm more concerned about the discrepancy between the stated crossover values and what's been measured here. I can fix the dip easily enough. Seems that one should be looking for a speaker that doesn't have coloration. If they deliberately did this, then they are appealing to only one kind of ears.

 

[preload]

Seems that one should be looking for a speaker that doesn't have coloration.

No such thing thanks to the circle of confusion.

But if these speakers don't appeal to you when listening to your music, my suggestion is to sell them and get something that has measurements that you like to look at. B&Ws have decent resale value.

 

[Deleted member 20765]

Good advice. I'm a tinkerer, so it is in my nature to figure things out and attempt fixes. I like learning this way.
I like the sound well enough. In fact, I was happy until a friend said they were too "Laid back". So I played with .EQ-ing the 1-5 KHz band. Getting the fr flatter really improved the sound for me and for my golden ear friend. I do like the new sound. I have had other speakers in the system and hated them almost instantly. Always come back to these.

 

[MediumRare]

Good advice. I'm a tinkerer, so it is in my nature to figure things out and attempt fixes. I like learning this way.
I like the sound well enough. In fact, I was happy until a friend said they were too "Laid back". So I played with .EQ-ing the 1-5 KHz band. Getting the fr flatter really improved the sound for me and for my golden ear friend. I do like the new sound. I have had other speakers in the system and hated them almost instantly. Always come back to these.

I have the 804N and have worked on the EQ with REW quite a bit. If they are too flat you lose the realistic atmosphere or "you are there" sensation that I think is the magic the B&W curve gives.

 

[itz_all_about_the_music]

As Mr Dallas wrote (...I wonder how my 805Ns from 1999 would measure on Amir's Klippel...), similarly, as a very long time owner of the B&W 801 S2 (w/S3 x-over mod), I've searched for spinorama data for the 801 S2 and/or S3 but have found nothing. Has anyone found or generated any such data since the Stereophile review of the 801-II in Dec 3, 1995?

Fig.4 B&W Matrix 801, anechoic response on tweeter axis at 50", averaged across 30 degrees horizontal window and corrected for microphone response, with the nearfield woofer and port responses plotted below 1kHz and 600Hz, respectively.

It seems there are many references to the B&W of old and such a venerable design for it's time, yet no one has acquired a full(er) data set on this grail (holy or otherwise)?

 

[tyreman]

In regards to 801's I have only heard the 801 s80 and 801 s2

 

[tecnogadget]

As Mr Dallas wrote (...I wonder how my 805Ns from 1999 would measure on Amir's Klippel...), similarly, as a very long time owner of the B&W 801 S2 (w/S3 x-over mod), I've searched for spinorama data for the 801 S2 and/or S3 but have found nothing. Has anyone found or generated any such data since the Stereophile review of the 801-II in Dec 3, 1995?

Fig.4 B&W Matrix 801, anechoic response on tweeter axis at 50", averaged across 30 degrees horizontal window and corrected for microphone response, with the nearfield woofer and port responses plotted below 1kHz and 600Hz, respectively.

It seems there are many references to the B&W of old and such a venerable design for it's time, yet no one has acquired a full(er) data set on this grail (holy or otherwise)?

That graph you’ve uploaded is a clear proof of a good performing speaker. It’s a shame they stepped away from there.