Bowers & Wilkins P7

[vkvedam]

Any particular reason for reviewing this outdated model @amirm? Given the backlog you might have

 

[Fleuch]

Amir, thank you for yet again showing that an established and erstwhile highly regarded company such as Bower & Wilkins have either stayed still or gone backward in product quality and innovation, preferring to target "life style". Young upstarts like Fosi recognise products put on the market today are subject to careful scrutiny that older hands claim is "just not cricket" - that is the consumer is not playing by their rules when products are subjected to trial by measurement.

Is there a technical reason for so many headphones having such small cups? Having tested a number of middle and top end over ear headphones I have yet to find one that comfortably fits over my ear, so we share a problem. Some manufacturers provide a wealth of statistics but I have yet to find one that provides the HxWxD of the cup opening, which is surely fundamental to the user experience.

Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but recommendation for a comfortable pair of headphones, preferably wireless, where the W is close to 4.5cm and the H is close to 7.5cm would be much appreciated.

 

[AndreaT]

Horrible. For a company like B&W, to market something like this, high distortion in bass and midrange, poor frequency response, at this 2015 price, is close to a market scam. If I had purchased one, I would consider a class lawsuit…for damages to musical content and waste of my limited time to listen.

 

[CedarX]

Horrible. For a company like B&W, to market something like this, high distortion in bass and midrange, poor frequency response, at this 2015 price, is close to a market scam. If I had purchased one, I would consider a class lawsuit…for damages to musical content and waste of my limited time to listen.

Horrible? Certainly not for me! I actually love these headphones! Even if the measurements show some problems, I like how they sound and to this day, I still think they look beautiful.
As subjective as it can be!

 

[amirm]

Is there a technical reason for so many headphones having such small cups?

I think it is a design statement and something to also appeal to other sexes. In addition, it reduces weight. So I can see why they do it.

 

[amirm]

Any particular reason for reviewing this outdated model @amirm? Given the backlog you might have

Well, I am embarrassed to say but this headphone was sent 7 months ago! I usually check to see if a product is in production before accepting it. Either it was in production then, or as happened yesterday, the searches were going to X version which is wireless and i didn't notice. Member was also giving it away so I said yes.

 

[Somafunk]

I used to own the P3 on ear version about 15 years ago, nice warm bassy sound and looked good with decent build quality, not as clampy on the head as my sennheiser hd-25’s so I was happy enough to use them for a few years.

 

[kemmler3D]

Interestingly when I was working on headphones some years ago, the P7 wireless (related to these) were considered really good and we modeled our sound after them. I must admit we did everything by ear. But, I can recall that there was too much going on at 200hz which I corrected in our version. I think it's likely the wireless version used onboard PEQ to correct the response some.

The "biocellulose" cones of the drivers were considered an advantage but the advantage was a bit vague.

 

[CedarX]

The "biocellulose" cones of the drivers were considered an advantage but the advantage was a bit vague.

I believe these drivers are still popular in places like AliExpress for the DIY community. Whether they are a B&W original design, or B&W just selected them for their HPs I don’t know…

 

[Maiky76]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Bowers & Wilkins P7. It was kindly donated by a member. It is discontinued by was launched at $400 (on ebay for half now).
View attachment 475620
The feel and look are unique. The cups are small for my use and for measurements. On the latter, it was highly sensitive to positioning in lower and upper bass. Slightest change would make a massive difference.

Company has moved on to a wireless version of the P7.

Bowers and Wilkins (B&W) P7 Headphone Measurement
As usual, I measured the P7 using the GRAS 45CA fixture and my Audio Precision analyzer. Here is the headphone frequency response and comparison against our target:
View attachment 475621
I was quite surprised by the overload in bass. Where they going after Beats like everyone else was a decade back? There is also some bloating past midrange so perhaps that kind of balances it.

Gross EQ development should not be hard given the large deviation from target:
View attachment 475622
I would center a low Q one around 150 Hz and another by 1.3 kHz and call it done.

The small drivers seem to have serious problem with high SPL levels:
View attachment 475623
View attachment 475624

And unfortunately the distortion is where our hearing is most sensitive. Bass is not an issue since we would be lowering the levels there anyway.

The small cup is not allowing the sound to bounce around too much and hence the cleaner Group Delay:
View attachment 475625

Impedance is very low (hence, current is required to make it loud, not voltage):
View attachment 475626

Fortunately the P7 is very sensitive so just about any source should be able to drive it to reasonable loudness:
View attachment 475627

I didn't have time to listen to it. I explained how I would EQ it above and results would be very predictable (much improvement).

Conclusions
Assuming my assumption was that they were chasing Beats at the time, it makes sense why the P7 is tuned the way it is. You would think however that a higher end company wouldn't chase such mass market targets but they did. I can't recommend the P7 even without listening. There are so many other good choices of good headphones.

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

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Here are some thoughts about the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

Notes about the EQ design:

• The average L/R is used to calculate the score.
• The resolution is 12 points per octave interpolated from the raw data (provided by @amirm)
• A Genetic Algorithm is used to optimize the EQ.
• The EQ Score is designed to MAXIMIZE the Score WHILE fitting the Harman target curve (and other constraints) with a fixed complexity.
  This will avoid weird results if one only optimizes for the Score, start your journey here or there.
  There is a presentation by S. Olive here.
  It will probably flatten the Error regression doing so, the tonal balance should be therefore more neutral.
• The EQs are starting point and may require tuning (certainly at LF and maybe at HF).
• The range around and above 10kHz is usually not EQed unless smooth enough to do so.
• I am using PEQ (PK) as from my experience the definition is more consistent across different DSP/platform implementations than shelves.
• With some HP/amp combo, the boosts and preamp gain (loss of Dynamic range) need to be carefully considered to avoid issues with, amongst other things, too low a Max SPL or damaging your device. You have beed warned.
• Not all units of the same product are made equal. The EQ is based on the measurements of a single unit. YMMV with regard to the very unit you are trying this EQ on.
• I sometimes use variations of the Harman curve for some reasons. See rational here and here
• NOTE: the score then calculated is not comparable to the scores derived from the default Harman target curve if not otherwise noted

Average L/R match.

I have generated one EQ, the APO config file is attached.

Score no EQ: 41.6
Score with EQ: 98.0

Bowers & Wilkins P7 EQ Flat 96000Hz
September122025-110950

Preamp: -6.7778 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 68.0 Hz Gain 3.98 dB Q 2.47
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 135.9 Hz Gain -8.36 dB Q 0.33
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 376.2 Hz Gain 5.40 dB Q 1.04
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2537.9 Hz Gain -5.29 dB Q 0.55
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2935.6 Hz Gain 8.98 dB Q 2.16
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 5634.7 Hz Gain 8.69 dB Q 3.20

 

[Billy Budapest]

Seems to have been developed as an overreaction to the earlier B&W P5 which was severely lacking in bass.

 

[Billy Budapest]

The P5’s (the original model) have a smooth sounding midrange, but are totally rolled off on the top and bottom. Their audio sins are those of omission. The response can be pretty easily fixed by implementing a simple “smiley face” EQ, leaving the midrange flat while boosting the bass and treble. You don’t even have to be that precise. Afterwards, you have a good-sounding headphone. That’s the way I’ve been listening to mine for many years. I’m not sure the P7 is as amenable to EQ.

 

[Chester]

Well, I am embarrassed to say but this headphone was sent 7 months ago! I usually check to see if a product is in production before accepting it. Either it was in production then, or as happened yesterday, the searches were going to X version which is wireless and i didn't notice. Member was also giving it away so I said yes.

Personally, I think reviewing older products is just as interesting as the latest and greatest.

When the odd gem springs up from the past, they are usually available on the used market still anyway.

I was pleased to see these reviewed, thanks.

 

[joostdh]

I got the B&W P9 in a trade. Beautiful in hand. Jast as others have said above about the P7, they used very nice materials.

They were unbearable for me as I experienced a similar bass hump as measured here. Mids and highs were pleasant enough but I had no qualms selling them asap.

 

[jayapple]

Nowadays, many are Bluetooth headphones, and the audience for this type of wired headphones is getting smaller and smaller.

Especially for Bluetooth headphones with noise-cancelling functions, can these headphones be measured? Many are noise-cancelling tests, and it seems that the audio quality is rarely measured.
Is it that Bluetooth audio cannot be measured? But the shipment volume of this type of headphones is really too large, dominating the headphone market.

 

[amirm]

Especially for Bluetooth headphones with noise-cancelling functions, can these headphones be measured? Many are noise-cancelling tests, and it seems that the audio quality is rarely measured.

I have reviewed a number of them. The process is more complicated and has a degree of error due to BT codec. Easiest ones to test are those that also have analog input.

 

[jayapple]

I have reviewed a number of them. The process is more complicated and has a degree of error due to BT codec. Easiest ones to test are those that also have analog input.

I saw that the measurement results of several Bluetooth headphones with noise cancellation functions were very poor. Of course, these headphones are not cheap. The noise cancellation function is good, but the audio quality is very bad.
Apple is still sticking to the old technology. Now Qualcomm has aptX and other lossless transmission technologies, and Sony has come up with something called LDAC or something. They all emphasize lossless Bluetooth transmission, but the headphones are made very poorly. Lossless transmission doesn't matter much anymore.

 

[Alex_Brouwer]

I had the px 7s2 and the px 7s2e both died within 6 months quality control doesn't seem to be o.k. at b&w

Currently in have the akg n9 with some eq it's the best in class by a large margin

Definitely stay away from Sony wh1000xm 5 speaking about small speakers utter trash for the cash

 

[AaronJ]

Like many others commenting I also had the P7 about 15 years ago. I very much enjoyed their "showroom" sound for low volume listening levels and also had their CM5 speakers. I only sold them because after trying open-back headphones I decided I could no longer listen to closed-back. Nowadays I gravitate toward speakers and headphones with flat response and EQ when needed because the B&W are incredibly fatiguing at higher volumes.

 

[Curupira]

This headphone, with the P5, was ubiquitous in airports and mainstream electronics stores before ANC headphones. I've always found it overpriced and clunky when compared to the competition.