Bowers & Wilkins 603 Tower Speaker Review

[shadyJ]

The 600 series from Bowers & Wilkins has a relatively long history for a speaker product line. First introduced as an entry-level speaker line in 1991, it has gone through many versions for almost 30 years now. In 2018, B&W unveiled their sixth iteration of the 600 series. This latest iteration takes advantage of a slew of technologies developed for their flagship 800 D3 series. In for review today we have the 603, the tower speaker of the new 600 series. Even though this is an ostensibly entry-level speaker, it is still an somewhat expensive proposition for a speaker set at $1,800 a pair. For Bowers & Wilkins, ‘entry-level’ is not some pre-determined price point but the answer to the question of what kind of speaker can they design that meets certain minimum requirements as cost-effectively as possible. In other words, what is the least expensive speaker that can be made that sounds and looks great? When one is accustomed to the extraordinarily high-fidelity that B&W is known for, that significantly raises the bar of what is considered ‘minimum requirements,’ so the 603 should deliver that B&W listening experience for a relatively accessible cost. In this review, we will ask whether the 603s deliver on the promise of a high-end B&W listening experience without the high-end price tag.

​

READ: Bowers & Wilkins 603 Tower Speaker Review

 

[KEW]

Thanks for another thorough review, James.

I was wondering if you could not increase the size of the font on the FR and Phase/Impedance Charts for future reports - I don't generally need enlargement of the curve of the chart, but have to expand the chart to read the values along the axes (like to determine if the SPL is 5dB or 10dB increments, or something else) and the number are not that easy to read after expanding them!

 

[ryanosaur]

Nice. Again, thanks Shady! Its nice to see the data on this speaker. It puts some perspective on a lot of the discussions I've seen about owners having some difficulties with proper set up.
Cheers!

 

[D Murphy]

Great job as usual Shady. I did have a couple of questions. First, I had trouble interpreting the "port differences" plots. Are those groundplane measurements? If so, why doesn't the plot with the port open track the ground plane measurement in the graph immediately above these difference measurements? Late night posts like this are always treacherous, so I'm probably just missing something. My other question goes to your rating system. Comparing your 3.5 rating for the B&W's with the 4-star rating for the $140 Monoprice tower, I have to assume you're factoring in price as one of the rating determinants. I'm pretty sure I would rather own the B&W's than the Monoprice towers (which I have up and running in my listening room). Wouldn't it be better to maintain an absolute rating system that doesn't depend in any way on value, and just put things in perspective with the value rating?

 

[Beave]

Measurements of this speaker from the NRC:

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2020:nrc-measurements-bowers-wilkins-603-loudspeakers&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153

 

[shadyJ]

I was wondering if you could not increase the size of the font on the FR and Phase/Impedance Charts for future reports - I don't generally need enlargement of the curve of the chart, but have to expand the chart to read the values along the axes (like to determine if the SPL is 5dB or 10dB increments, or something else) and the number are not that easy to read after expanding them!

Those graphs are from REW, and I haven't found a way to make the axis text larger. I suppose I should just ask John Mulcahy if there is a way.

Great job as usual Shady. I did have a couple of questions. First, I had trouble interpreting the "port differences" plots. Are those groundplane measurements? If so, why doesn't the plot with the port open track the ground plane measurement in the graph immediately above these difference measurements? Late night posts like this are always treacherous, so I'm probably just missing something. My other question goes to your rating system. Comparing your 3.5 rating for the B&W's with the 4-star rating for the $140 Monoprice tower, I have to assume you're factoring in price as one of the rating determinants. I'm pretty sure I would rather own the B&W's than the Monoprice towers (which I have up and running in my listening room). Wouldn't it be better to maintain an absolute rating system that doesn't depend in any way on value, and just put things in perspective with the value rating?

Hey Dennis, I'm on the road right now so I don't have my notes or the measurements with me, but I am pretty sure that the plot with the port differences was a groundplane measurement taken with the mic facing the port at not a far distance, maybe 1m or possibly closer. The low frequency response is a groundplane measurement taken at 2m with the mic facing the woofers. Although these low frequencies are ostensibly omnipolar, they can and do change a lot depending on the orientation of the speaker. That is a good catch by you, and I suppose I should have made the measuring technique clear in that part of the article.

As for your other question, you are correct that price heavily factors into the star rating, thus the differences that you have noted. As for an absolute rating that is not affected by price, that may be a good idea, but I am just using the system that was in place before I started writing reviews for Audioholics. To be honest, everything in the rating categories is so context dependent that its better for readers to read the article to get the real scoop on what the speaker is like and how good it is at doing what is it trying to do.

 

[Swerd]

Yesterday, I heard the Monoprice MP-T65RT tower that Dennis has. Just a single tower in mono. This morning I read your review of them. First of all, it was an excellent review. In my opinion, you made the unusually good off-axis behavior of these speakers quite clear in your detailed graphs & explanation.

This morning, I also just read the review of the new B&W 603s. Again, kudos on your nice job. I haven't heard these speakers, but as I read your more of your reviews, I am getting a better feel of how to interpret your measurements and judgements about how speakers sound. Overall, I think I readily agree with your conclusions. Your graphs & explanations go a long way to communicate what your hear in the speakers you review.

By the way, I agree with KEW when he says:

I was wondering if you could not increase the size of the font on the FR and Phase/Impedance Charts for future reports - I don't generally need enlargement of the curve of the chart, but have to expand the chart to read the values along the axes (like to determine if the SPL is 5dB or 10dB increments, or something else) and the number are not that easy to read after expanding them!

I believe I read your response that you may not be able to alter the font sizes of the numbers along the axes in REW. But if you can transfer the raw data, such as SPL or impedance vs. frequency, in a spreadsheet format, you can make graphs in Excel where you have full control over the appearance of the graph. It takes some learning to get good at it, but the results are worth it.

There are other scientific graphing applications available that are easier to use, but you'd have to purchase them. Most people who have a PC or a Mac have Excel.

 

[Danzilla31]

Great review Shady! I bet you guys wish you hadn't published those articles on how to read speaker graph charts now eh? Now everybody is busting your chops over your graphs! Lol
Oh and Shady could you please find a way to spread the color spectrum analyzer graph out in + or - 5db increments? I need to better analyze the midrange harmonics 3rd order roll off into the bass dynamics

Just kidding everybody.....

 

[Danzilla31]

Great job as usual Shady. I did have a couple of questions. First, I had trouble interpreting the "port differences" plots. Are those groundplane measurements? If so, why doesn't the plot with the port open track the ground plane measurement in the graph immediately above these difference measurements? Late night posts like this are always treacherous, so I'm probably just missing something. My other question goes to your rating system. Comparing your 3.5 rating for the B&W's with the 4-star rating for the $140 Monoprice tower, I have to assume you're factoring in price as one of the rating determinants. I'm pretty sure I would rather own the B&W's than the Monoprice towers (which I have up and running in my listening room). Wouldn't it be better to maintain an absolute rating system that doesn't depend in any way on value, and just put things in perspective with the value rating?

Hey I'm just curious didn't you say in another thread your thinking of tinkering around on those Monoprice Towers a bit to see what you come up with? I think a lot of us would be very curious to hear about whatever you would do with those

 

[shadyJ]

By the way, I agree with KEW when he says:
I believe I read your response that you may not be able to alter the font sizes of the numbers along the axes in REW. But if you can transfer the raw data, such as SPL or impedance vs. frequency, in a spreadsheet format, you can make graphs in Excel where you have full control over the appearance of the graph. It takes some learning to get good at it, but the results are worth it.

There are other scientific graphing applications available that are easier to use, but you'd have to purchase them. Most people who have a PC or a Mac have Excel.

I will look into that. I know the font in the REW graphs was pretty small, but I thought they were still readable. I can certainly change the font size of the axis labels in any spreadsheet program after exporting the data from REW into a CSV file.

 

[TLS Guy]

A good thorough review.

I have never really liked the 600 series and I highly doubt I would like those under review. In addition that impedance curve shows it is likely an amp buster. There is going be a lot of retained energy and a good chance of getting heating and blowing up of output devices that you would not guess from the impedance curve alone.
Since these speakers are aimed at the more modest end of the market, this is probably a significant downside. I know I would have made some different design choices. Lets just put it that way,

 

[Swerd]

A good thorough review.

I have never really liked the 600 series and I highly doubt I would like those under review. In addition that impedance curve shows it is likely an amp buster. There is going be a lot of retained energy and a good chance of getting heating and blowing up of output devices that you would not guess from the impedance curve alone.
Since these speakers are aimed at the more modest end of the market, this is probably a significant downside. I know I would have made some different design choices. Lets just put it that way,

That's the 600 series we know & love all too well. I'm impressed by the non-Kevlar mid range driver, but as you pointed out the speaker's bass alignment still needs work.

 

[D Murphy]

Hey I'm just curious didn't you say in another thread your thinking of tinkering around on those Monoprice Towers a bit to see what you come up with? I think a lot of us would be very curious to hear about whatever you would do with those

I have a pair of the towers here and around 3.00 am last night (morning) I was able to flatten out the response with good phase integration. Unfortunately, it took a lot of components in the tweeter circuit to bump up the response at the low end enough to avoid a big treble hole. (The stock "crossover" runs the woof free, and its break up modes fill in what would otherwise be a depression). I'll have to see whether I can simplify things a bit. The stock tower sounds surprisingly good, at least at first. After awhile, the woofer peaks start to grate.

 

[TLS Guy]

That's the 600 series we know & love all too well. I'm impressed by the non-Kevlar mid range driver, but as you pointed out the speaker's bass alignment still needs work.

I don't think that is all that needs work. I think pianos would have a hard edge and violins over steely among other vices. That actually is just the type of FR I can not abide.

I have said this often, that I'm so glad I have never had to shop for speakers. It is a shot in the dark and you are far more likely to come home with or be sent duds than not.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So the on-axis response is like +/-7dB?

I think the Stereophile measurements of all the 800/802D1/D2/D3 on-axis are like +/- 3dB.

Off-axis of all B&W (post Matrix) have never been that smooth.

Shady’s speaker measurements are now the gold standard.

Could you also do Amps, Pre-pro, and AVR measurements (when Gene is not doing the reviews)?

 

[KEW]

I have said this often, that I'm so glad I have never had to shop for speakers. It is a shot in the dark and you are far more likely to come home with or be sent duds than not.

I get what you are saying, but things are not quite so desperate as that!
I listened to a pair of 600 series bookshelf B&W speakers when I was ready to buy a new system and getting back into the hobby in 2009 and left the audio shop thoroughly unimpressed with them. I suspect you would be quicker to recognize the issues than I was - I had no idea of what was wrong, just that they were not right!
It is difficult to discriminate between good and great speakers when you cannot get them in the same room for direct comparison, but mediocre speakers generally do not overcome the foibles of audio memory and room influence (excepting bass),IME.

 

[gene]

Shady’s speaker measurements are now the gold standard.

Could you also do Amps, Pre-pro, and AVR measurements?

Is there something wrong with the way I've been measuring electronics?

 

[gene]

I have a pair of the towers here and around 3.00 am last night (morning) I was able to flatten out the response with good phase integration. Unfortunately, it took a lot of components in the tweeter circuit to bump up the response at the low end enough to avoid a big treble hole. (The stock "crossover" runs the woof free, and its break up modes fill in what would otherwise be a depression). I'll have to see whether I can simplify things a bit. The stock tower sounds surprisingly good, at least at first. After awhile, the woofer peaks start to grate.

It's a bit mind boggling that a company like B&W with all of their resources and PHD designers produced a speaker with a not so optimal XOVER. I suspected the tweeter lacked enough low end sensitivity hence why they crossed that mid over so high. They could have at least integrated a shallow horn to increase low end output if they didn't want to use a bigger back chamber and motor structure. Did you measure Fs of the tweeter?

 

[shadyJ]

Is there something wrong with the way I've been measuring electronics?

Your graphs don't have enough pretty colors in them, Gene!

It's a bit mind boggling that a company like B&W with all of their resources and PHD designers produced a speaker with a not so optimal XOVER. I suspected the tweeter lacked enough low end sensitivity hence why they crossed that mid over so high. They could have at least integrated a shallow horn to increase low end output if they didn't want to use a bigger back chamber and motor structure. Did you measure Fs of the tweeter?

I'm guessing the high crossover to the tweeter is not because of inability of the tweeter rather than a desire to use the mid for as much bandwidth as possible. I think that was a design goal.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Is there something wrong with the way I've been measuring electronics?

Oh no, of course, not!

If it were up to us, you would be doing measurements on everything. But you just don’t have the time.

So some reviews (like Denon X8500, Marantz SR7012, ATI 4002 vs 522) don’t have any measurements. Thus, my casual statement was referring to those reviews that don’t have any measurements.

BTW, love your YT unboxing review of the new Yamaha MX-A5200. Can’t wait for your measurements of this amp.