Bowers & Wilkins 50th Anniversary and 800 D3 Speakers Unveiled

[ski2xblack]

That is not what I asked. I said Transparency. How can you see that on a graph?

First of all, a single graph or measurement is but one oblique slice of a much larger whole. I'll posit that 'transparency' is inversely proportional to speaker-induced coloration of any sort. Does that sound about right to you? If you'll accept such a definition, then a perhaps an exhaustive suite of measurements might come close to revealing a transparent speaker, but it would never be revealed by any single measurement or graph.

Second, you could simply be referring to a tonal response aberration. For example, a low, wide peak at 3-4 khz can really alter the 'forwardness' or 'presence' of the reproduction, which may even be (erroneously) identified as 'transparency'. Without measurements to confirm or rule that out, how do you really know if the speaker is more transparent, or if you simply have a preference for a subtle mid/treble peak?

It's best not to tread in subjective audiophile terms.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

That is not what I asked. I said Transparency. How can you see that on a graph?



Not all of course, but several. Same result. I actually still own two others that by most accounts fall into the the "transparent" category and the Diamonds outclass them both. The third set I had has already been sold off. I've also had speakers that had ruler flat response graphs that were nowhere near as transparent (or even accurate sounding) as the Diamonds. Go figure.



Of course.

All speakers are room dependent. Regardless, if you know what you are looking for a store audition can easily rule out speakers that do not satisfy your requirements. The Diamonds sound better to me at home than other speakers I currently own or have owned just as they do when I compare them to the same speakers at the retailer. Bottom line is that a thick sounding speaker won't suddenly sound clear when I bring it home, a boxy sounding speaker won't suddenly open up or vice-versa. Conversely, the speakers I do have don't completely change their overall presentation when I hear them in a retailers set-up.



Yes, you don't like the Diamonds. I love them. Let's leave it at that.

I just hope your disdain for them is not because of the graph and it's actually because you don't like the way they sound. I say that because you seem to dwell on graphs, specs and cost.



No it doesn't. I didn't think that this thread was about cost.

In my case I felt the 805D2's were worth every penny and I auditioned stand-mounts that were even more expensive. But again, my initial comments had nothing to do with cost - only that holding graphs and specs as gospel (when it comes to speakers) can be shortsighted. Especially when it comes to what I feel is a world class speaker like the Diamonds.

I owned the 802D2 for about a year before selling them. I didn't think they sounded much worse or better than the other good sounding speakers in any areas (transparency or whatever adjectives) regardless of cost.

My original technical question is 100% valid: B&W claims the 800D3 plays down to 15Hz. It would be interesting to see the level (SPL) and distortion (THD) associated with this frequency (15Hz).

 

[<eargiant]

First of all, a single graph or measurement is but one oblique slice of a much larger whole. I'll posit that 'transparency' is inversely proportional to speaker-induced coloration of any sort. Does that sound about right to you? If you'll accept such a definition, then a perhaps an exhaustive suite of measurements might come close to revealing a transparent speaker, but it would never be revealed by any single measurement or graph.

I really wasn't expecting an answer although I might rely more on speaker graphs if they could tell me what a speaker would ultimately sound like (I'm not talking about the ones with extreme peaks and such). If I could look at perfectly flat graphs and then be able to identify the speaker that would sound veiled, thick, lush, boxy, full of re-verb, etc. that would be great because I could exclude them from my auditions - but I can't so listening takes precedence. Another thing to consider is who did the measurements, in what room and with what equipment, etc. Even a guy like John Atkinson has bad days . Too many variables IMO. I trust my ears to tell me what transducers I like.

My point was that I don't think a graph plot-line tells the whole story when it comes to speakers. It would be a shame not to audition and possible enjoy a fantastic speaker line like the Diamonds just because a graph says they're not perfect or ideal.

I've listened to speakers with nearly identical graphs that sounded well... like different speakers. My point is that when it comes to speakers I put more stock into listening as opposed to reading graphs. I feel differently about graphs and specs when it comes to amplifiers but that's another story.

Second, you could simply be referring to a tonal response aberration. For example, a low, wide peak at 3-4 khz can really alter the 'forwardness' or 'presence' of the reproduction, which may even be (erroneously) identified as 'transparency'. Without measurements to confirm or rule that out, how do you really know if the speaker is more transparent, or if you simply have a preference for a subtle mid/treble peak?

It's best not to tread in subjective audiophile terms.

I still don't think a "tonal aberration", if measured, would sound the same on two different speakers. Anyway, what I'm describing is not forwardness or presence, it's actually the lack of sound if that makes sense. The air and space that these speakers provide really do remove that "pane of glass". You can actually "look" deep into a recording. If that's an "aberration...I want more of it.

As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[ski2xblack]

Speaking of eye of the beholder, those B&W's make me feel like I'm under the gaze of a pair of sinister cyclops robots from a Dr. Who episode.

 

[shadyJ]

I really wasn't expecting an answer although I might rely more on speaker graphs if they could tell me what a speaker would ultimately sound like (I'm not talking about the ones with extreme peaks and such). If I could look at perfectly flat graphs and then be able to identify the speaker that would sound veiled, thick, lush, boxy, full of re-verb, etc. that would be great because I could exclude them from my auditions - but I can't so listening takes precedence. Another thing to consider is who did the measurements, in what room and with what equipment, etc. Even a guy like John Atkinson has bad days . Too many variables IMO. I trust my ears to tell me what transducers I like.

My point was that I don't think a graph plot-line tells the whole story when it comes to speakers. It would be a shame not to audition and possible enjoy a fantastic speaker line like the Diamonds just because a graph says they're not perfect or ideal.

I've listened to speakers with nearly identical graphs that sounded well... like different speakers. My point is that when it comes to speakers I put more stock into listening as opposed to reading graphs. I feel differently about graphs and specs when it comes to amplifiers but that's another story.



I still don't think a "tonal aberration", if measured, would sound the same on two different speakers. Anyway, what I'm describing is not forwardness or presence, it's actually the lack of sound if that makes sense. The air and space that these speakers provide really do remove that "pane of glass". You can actually "look" deep into a recording. If that's an "aberration...I want more of it.

As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

A single on-axis graph doesn't say much. You need to look at the off-axis stuff too, it is very important.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I feel differently about graphs and specs when it comes to amplifiers but that's another story.

Really? So you think amp measurements tell you more than speaker measurements?

 

[Irvrobinson]

Really? So you think amp measurements tell you more than speaker measurements?

Of course they do. Amplifier measurements are purely electrical. Speaker measurements are mostly acoustic, and have many more dimensions. Although they aren't a perfect indicator, IMO, don't you think amplifier measurements tell you more about how a given product sounds than speaker measurements do for speakers?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

don't you think amplifier measurements tell you more about how a given product will sounds than speaker measurements do for speakers?

No, I unequivocally do not.

I have never heard an amp that has a sound of it's own before. They just amplify the sound. And almost all of the differences in amp specs I've seen are inaudible.

SNR 90dB vs 130dB, THD 0.1% vs 0.0001%, Crosstalk 70dB vs 120dB, FR 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.0dB vs +/- 0.5dB, etc.

Now if an amp is clipping and distorting, that's a different story.

 

[KenM10759]

No, I unequivocally do not.

I have never heard an amp that has a sound of it's own before. They just amplify the sound.

You would get a good laugh out of the Dynaudio speaker owners' thread over on the AVS forum. These folks are so dead serious about the warm, neutral, sterile, etc characteristics of their Naim, Bryston, Hegel, Rotel, Parasound and various other amps of both solid state and vacuum tube design that I would never make a comment about it. I innocently joked about cables and that got a response from a fellow using the very Nordost products that I was mentioning. I knew better than to take the bait.

Amps, pre-amps, DAC's, and cables are all (to me) in the same high investment/low return camp. Speakers, their placement, the listener's placement, room conditions and source material are far and away the factors which have the most profound effect on the sound quality. Everything else is such a miniscule factor that you must resign yourself to spending money on it as an exercise in in ego boosting.

 

[ski2xblack]

eargiant, you're still trying to fit a global and highly subjective judgement onto individual measurements, which are far more limited in scope. It just doesn't work that way, unless we chuck reason out the door. I would agree with you that even a comprehensive list of measurements won't tell the whole story. That's not their function. Even the engineers use their ears to evaluate the final product, but along the way there is a lot of applied science to get that point. Think of the efforts that B&W puts toward non-resonant cabs. That's one area they've addressed to the extreme, and it serves to reduce enclosure related speaker coloration, and thus improve transparency. Would a single measurement of cab resonance indicate a transparent speaker? Not by itself.

Most of this digression is minutia that only interests speaker designers or DIYers anyway. Pick your speakers in the best way you see fit; your ears are the ultimate arbiter, and you should trust them.

 

[Irvrobinson]

No, I unequivocally do not.

I have never heard an amp that has a sound of it's own before. They just amplify the sound. And almost all of the differences in amp specs I've seen are inaudible.

SNR 90dB vs 130dB, THD 0.1% vs 0.0001%, Crosstalk 70dB vs 120dB, FR 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.0dB vs +/- 0.5dB, etc.

Now if an amp is clipping and distorting, that's a different story.

Amp measurements certainly do tell us more about how an amp sounds than speaker measurements do. Amp measurements just tell us that amps sound almost identical.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[shadyJ]

Everything else is such a miniscule factor that you must resign yourself to spending money on it as an exercise in in ego boosting.

Ken, this is a great sentence, very quote-worthy!

 

[<eargiant]

Really? So you think amp measurements tell you more than speaker measurements?

Yes, they are more reliable and help you confirm if an amp is adding coloration by not being true to the signal it is being fed. This is especially useful if you're like me and prefer the "straight wire with gain" approach.

An amp I'm currently interested in is the Benchmark AHB2. I haven't heard it yet but I already have a pretty good idea of what to expect.

https://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-ahb2-power-amplifier

How an amp "looks" on an O-scope (and other test equipment) can tell you many things, O-scopes don't lie. Have you ever seen the waves on some Audio Research amplifiers? That's what I call built-in tone controls. I'd rather let my speakers do that, especially since there's no way around it...they all do to some extent.

No, I unequivocally do not.


I have never heard an amp that has a sound of it's own before. They just amplify the sound. And almost all of the differences in amp specs I've seen are inaudible.


SNR 90dB vs 130dB, THD 0.1% vs 0.0001%, Crosstalk 70dB vs 120dB, FR 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.0dB vs +/- 0.5dB, etc.


Now if an amp is clipping and distorting, that's a different story.

I disagree. I have heard differences that I cannot attribute only to the pre-amp.

Of course they do. Amplifier measurements are purely electrical. Speaker measurements are mostly acoustic, and have many more dimensions. Although they aren't a perfect indicator, IMO, don't you think amplifier measurements tell you more about how a given product sounds than speaker measurements do for speakers?

Exactly!

eargiant, you're still trying to fit a global and highly subjective judgement onto individual measurements, which are far more limited in scope. It just doesn't work that way, unless we chuck reason out the door. I would agree with you that even a comprehensive list of measurements won't tell the whole story. That's not their function. Even the engineers use their ears to evaluate the final product, but along the way there is a lot of applied science to get that point. Think of the efforts that B&W puts toward non-resonant cabs. That's one area they've addressed to the extreme, and it serves to reduce enclosure related speaker coloration, and thus improve transparency. Would a single measurement of cab resonance indicate a transparent speaker? Not by itself.

Most of this digression is minutia that only interests speaker designers or DIYers anyway. Pick your speakers in the best way you see fit; your ears are the ultimate arbiter, and you should trust them.

Maybe I didn't express myself well, I'm actually saying it does not and cannot fit. It seems like we agree on several fronts.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Amp measurements just tell us that amps sound almost identical.

Agreed.

 

[Defcon]

I'm pretty sure the target B&W customer doesn't care for any of this and doesn't visit forums like this They will buy based on looks, status and the recommendation of their local dealer.

I heard some B&W at Magnolia, I know its not my living room but I wasn't too impressed. I;d much rather buy a speaker with published specs and good on/off axis response which has been scientifically proven to be the key metric that distinguishes good sound for most listeners.

 

[<eargiant]

I'm pretty sure the target B&W customer doesn't care for any of this and doesn't visit forums like this They will buy based on looks, status and the recommendation of their local dealer.

I heard some B&W at Magnolia, I know its not my living room but I wasn't too impressed. I;d much rather buy a speaker with published specs and good on/off axis response which has been scientifically proven to be the key metric that distinguishes good sound for most listeners.

Many informed professionals praise and rely on the the 800 series. Major recording studios such as Abbey Road, Sterling Sound, even places like the BSO DGG studio mentioned in the article Gene posted. What about Dr. Mark Waldrep of AIX Studios? He's all about high resolution sound and is a no BS kinda guy. Here's what he thought:

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5353

"Fritz and I both looked at each other and reveled in the reproductive ability of the new speaker design."

"The B&Ws delivered everything that it is in the track. I listened at low volume and then turned things up. The sound was smooth, clear, expansive…especially noticeable in the low end…and provided the ideal support to my recordings."

"...800D Diamond series for some of my demonstrations, which elevated the fidelity of my recordings beyond what I have in my own studio. In fact, the diamond tweeters qualify the 800 series to meet the JAS requirements for “Hi-Res Audio”. They can reproduce up to 38 kHz."

There's a reason they use the 800 series and I highly doubt it's "based on looks, status and the recommendation of their local dealer".

 

[fuzz092888]

I'm pretty sure the target B&W customer doesn't care for any of this and doesn't visit forums like this They will buy based on looks, status and the recommendation of their local dealer.

I heard some B&W at Magnolia, I know its not my living room but I wasn't too impressed. I;d much rather buy a speaker with published specs and good on/off axis response which has been scientifically proven to be the key metric that distinguishes good sound for most listeners.

I definitely don't think Magnolia is the best place to listen, especially with all the noise usually coming from the sales floor in the rest of BB, at least at my local Magnolia, but I haven't been impressed with the B&W offerings I've heard there either. I did hear a pair of some high end B&W Diamonds at a Hi-Fi store and they were ok, but overall I've never been blown away by them. I'd really like to hear a pair under better listening conditions though.

 

[Defcon]

Many informed professionals praise and rely on the the 800 series. Major recording studios such as Abbey Road, Sterling Sound, even places like the BSO DGG studio mentioned in the article Gene posted. What about Dr. Mark Waldrep of AIX Studios? He's all about high resolution sound and is a no BS kinda guy. Here's what he thought:

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5353

"Fritz and I both looked at each other and reveled in the reproductive ability of the new speaker design."

"The B&Ws delivered everything that it is in the track. I listened at low volume and then turned things up. The sound was smooth, clear, expansive…especially noticeable in the low end…and provided the ideal support to my recordings."

"...800D Diamond series for some of my demonstrations, which elevated the fidelity of my recordings beyond what I have in my own studio. In fact, the diamond tweeters qualify the 800 series to meet the JAS requirements for “Hi-Res Audio”. They can reproduce up to 38 kHz."

There's a reason they use the 800 series and I highly doubt it's "based on looks, status and the recommendation of their local dealer".

I'm far from an expert or critical listener, I'm just saying with high end brands (not just B&W) that have speakers designed to look like art, as with many expensive purchases, looks/status always plays a part. If I remember the FR for B&W in the reviews I read wasn't very flattering, but they probably have their own 'house' sound which is unique.

I'd love to listen to them in a properly setup room. But I'd never be able to afford them

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Many informed professionals praise and rely on the the 800 series. Major recording studios such as Abbey Road, Sterling Sound, even places like the BSO DGG studio mentioned in the article Gene posted. What about Dr. Mark Waldrep of AIX Studios? He's all about high resolution sound and is a no BS kinda guy. Here's what he thought:

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5353

"Fritz and I both looked at each other and reveled in the reproductive ability of the new speaker design."

"The B&Ws delivered everything that it is in the track. I listened at low volume and then turned things up. The sound was smooth, clear, expansive…especially noticeable in the low end…and provided the ideal support to my recordings."

"...800D Diamond series for some of my demonstrations, which elevated the fidelity of my recordings beyond what I have in my own studio. In fact, the diamond tweeters qualify the 800 series to meet the JAS requirements for “Hi-Res Audio”. They can reproduce up to 38 kHz."

There's a reason they use the 800 series and I highly doubt it's "based on looks, status and the recommendation of their local dealer".

That doesn't mean anything. We all have been in this hobby for a very long time and have listened to a lot of speakers over the years. Our ears are just as GOOD as anybody else. Some of us have better hearing than some of those music people who have subjected their ears to extreme loud detrimental sound.

As we ALL know, it is highly subjective. A few people or studios endorsing some speakers only means they personally subjectively like the speakers, nothing more than that.

I would not debate personal preference or what people like to do with their money. It's all good.

I guess some of us are interested to see if these $30,000 speakers can finally have on-axis and off-axis FR that are better than $300 Infinity P363 that cost 100 times less.

 

[KenM10759]

I guess some of us are interested to see if these $30,000 speakers can finally have on-axis and off-axis FR that are better than $300 Infinity P363 that cost 100 times less.

LOL...I'm pretty sure the KEF Blades at $32,000 do.