B&W 800D3 HiFi Speaker = Porsche GT3 Sport Car

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Hi guys! Do u check vin code beforehand? Which sites u use for it?

VIN for used cars? I use CARFAX for free. It allows you to enter any VIN and shows you the car's history.

 

[TLS Guy]

I am looking to upgrade my HiFi speakers, so been doing a few auditions /evaluations on Magico A5/S5/M2 , Focal Maestro Utopia, B&W 800D3 (while waiting to get a chance to hear 801D4).

It seems to me that the B&W 800D3 as Hi Fi Speakers is like Porsche GT3 as Sport Car.
It is not the most exotic, most expensive or wins specific technical measurement but seems to hit the sweet spot for performance, resale, spare parts, looks.

Example: The Z06 C6 have better measurement in term of HP, 0-100, static g-force traction limit but in real life road and track driving , 991 GT3 wins.

800D3 wins on the same real life listening to most enthusiast and pro so I think I may just get 800D3 or get on wait list for 801D4

I would be careful laying out cash like that for those speakers.

Here are the measurements obtained by the UK magazine Hi-Fi News. This is a highly reputable magazine and has been around for over 60 Years.

This is the FR.

I would not be happy at all from measurements like that for a design of mine. I would regard trying to obtain that sort of cash for a speaker with those measurements as unethical.

These are the measurements I obtained from my late friends 800 D3 speakers.

The blue line is the axis measurements the black line out to 90 degrees.

I have to say those 800 D3 speakers actually sound very good, as you would expect from those measurements. Based on Hi-Fi News measurements I would expect those 801 D4s to be a significant downgrade. So you have been warned. If those measurements are correct then those deficiencies will be easily audible. Certainly not something I could tolerate.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I would be careful laying out cash like that for those speakers.

Here are the measurements obtained by the UK magazine Hi-Fi News. This is a highly reputable magazine and has been around for over 60 Years.

This is the FR.

I would not be happy at all from measurements like that for a design of mine. I would regard trying to obtain that sort of cash for a speaker with those measurements as unethical.

These are the measurements I obtained from my late friends 800 D3 speakers.

The blue line is the axis measurements the black line out to 90 degrees.

I have to say those 800 D3 speakers actually sound very good, as you would expect from those measurements. Based on Hi-Fi News measurements I would expect those 801 D4s to be a significant downgrade. So you have been warned. If those measurements are correct then those deficiencies will be easily audible. Certainly not something I could tolerate.

Unlike measuring AVR/AVP/Amps, you need to compare speaker measurements from the same measurement source, not your or your friend's in-room vs other sources.

If the 800D3 were measured from the UK Hi-FI News source, it would probably look very similar to the 801D4.

The reason I say this is because it seems every generation of these B&W 800-802 (D1-D3) look very similar depending on the source of measurement.

Stereophile:

 

[TLS Guy]

Unlike measuring AVR/AVP/Amps, you need to compare speaker measurements from the same measurement source, not your or your friend's in-room vs other sources.

If the 800D3 were measured from the UK Hi-FI News source, it would probably look very similar to the 801D4.

The reason I say this is because it seems every generation of these B&W 800-802 (D1-D3) look very similar depending on the source of measurement.

Stereophile:

I stand by my measurements. They sounded very much better, than his previous B & W flagship speaker, in fact they are very good speakers indeed. I would have noticed any severe aberrations. If I listen to a speaker I can usually draw out its FR with great accuracy. I have done this on multiple occasions.

 

[everettT]

Unlike measuring AVR/AVP/Amps, you need to compare speaker measurements from the same measurement source, not your or your friend's in-room vs other sources.

If the 800D3 were measured from the UK Hi-FI News source, it would probably look very similar to the 801D4.

The reason I say this is because it seems every generation of these B&W 800-802 (D1-D3) look very similar depending on the source of measurement.

Stereophile:

Above the transition frequency and with competent measurement gear and method l, I don't see an issue with using others measurements.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Above the transition frequency and with competent measurement gear and method l, I don't see an issue with using others measurements.

Are you saying that the same speaker will have about the same/similar frequency response in every room (TLS Guy compared his in-room response to the published measurements) ?

Any change in microphone placement will change the results. Different types of microphones. Different room acoustics. Outdoor vs indoor. Different measurement technique.

I am sure @shadyJ can elaborate as he does speaker measurements all the time.

I've seen the same speaker having significantly different frequency response from one source vs another.

I think it was the NHT SuperZero. I think Home Theater Magazine had +/-0.9dB. I thought, "Wow!". And then I saw another Magazine had a response of +/-3dB or something like that. So huge difference.

 

[shadyJ]

Any change in microphone placement will change the results. Different types of microphones. Different room acoustics. Outdoor vs indoor. Different measurement technique.

I am sure @shadyJ can elaborate as he does speaker measurements all the time.

I've seen the same speaker having significantly different frequency response from one source vs another.

I think it was the NHT SuperZero. I think Home Theater Magazine had +/-0.9dB. I thought, "Wow!". And then I saw another Magazine had a response of +/-3dB or something like that. So huge difference.

The microphones should all have compensation files, so they should all be measuring the same result. Room acoustics should not be a factor since no one should be measuring in a room, or at least publishing results where the room reflections can not be windowed out.

But techniques matter a lot. Where is the mic with respect to the speaker? Near-field? Ground plane? Free air? 1 meter? 2 meters? Level with the tweeter? On a different reference axis? That will all change the result. Furthermore, some speakers aren't made to be used with the tweeter aiming at the listener directly, so then the tweeter would be the wrong reference point.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The microphones should all have compensation files, so they should all be measuring the same result. Room acoustics should not be a factor since no one should be measuring in a room, or at least publishing results where the room reflections can not be windowed out.

But techniques matter a lot. Where is the mic with respect to the speaker? Near-field? Ground plane? Free air? 1 meter? 2 meters? Level with the tweeter? On a different reference axis? That will all change the result. Furthermore, some speakers aren't made to be used with the tweeter aiming at the listener directly, so then the tweeter would be the wrong reference point.

Well, no one should be measuring in a room for PUBLISHED results, which is also my point.

TLS Guy compared his IN-ROOM measurement to the Hi-Fi News and Stereophile PUBLISHED measurements.

 

[TLS Guy]

Unlike measuring AVR/AVP/Amps, you need to compare speaker measurements from the same measurement source, not your or your friend's in-room vs other sources.

If the 800D3 were measured from the UK Hi-FI News source, it would probably look very similar to the 801D4.

The reason I say this is because it seems every generation of these B&W 800-802 (D1-D3) look very similar depending on the source of measurement.

Stereophile:

Above the transition frequency and with competent measurement gear and method l, I don't see an issue with using others measurements.

I would say that my measurements and the ones above agree very closely. Both show a tendency to rise around 10K. I doubt the differences in that region would be audible.

In the regions below 200 Hz you can not draw conclusions with in room quasi anechoic measurements. However again our measurements are more similar than different. I would say that from my listening opinion, the B & W 800 D3, is just very slightly "plummy" in the bass. But then I am used to TLs which avoid that problem pretty much universal with ported speakers.

I do think that the B & W tweeters are not worth the money and trouble. They always sound a little hot to me on the top end, and they do have excess failure problems. I certainly prefer the sound of my doped fabric SEAS EXCEL tweeters, which actually also measure better, and are an awful lot cheaper.

 

[TLS Guy]

The microphones should all have compensation files, so they should all be measuring the same result. Room acoustics should not be a factor since no one should be measuring in a room, or at least publishing results where the room reflections can not be windowed out.

But techniques matter a lot. Where is the mic with respect to the speaker? Near-field? Ground plane? Free air? 1 meter? 2 meters? Level with the tweeter? On a different reference axis? That will all change the result. Furthermore, some speakers aren't made to be used with the tweeter aiming at the listener directly, so then the tweeter would be the wrong reference point.

My measurements were 2 meters, point at the center of the head. The blue is axis, and then 15, 30 ,45 and 90 degrees off axis.

The B & W 200 D3 you certainly can not call a bad speaker by any stretch, by listening or measurement. Actually they are the best B & W speakers I have heard to date. More often than not, I come away with a negative impression of B & W speakers.

 

[everettT]

Are you saying that the same speaker will have about the same/similar frequency response in every room (TLS Guy compared his in-room response to the published measurements) ?

Any change in microphone placement will change the results. Different types of microphones. Different room acoustics. Outdoor vs indoor. Different measurement technique.

I am sure @shadyJ can elaborate as he does speaker measurements all the time.

I've seen the same speaker having significantly different frequency response from one source vs another.

I think it was the NHT SuperZero. I think Home Theater Magazine had +/-0.9dB. I thought, "Wow!". And then I saw another Magazine had a response of +/-3dB or something like that. So huge difference.

I'm saying that the room will not have more influence.

Edit: my comment on methodology as well... If that is followed, the room issues will show up clearly and be understood.

 

[TLS Guy]

I'm saying that the room will not have more influence.

You are absolutely correct, if you have a trusted known reliable set up. However you can not rely on measurements in the last three and a bit octaves, (200Hz or so) with quasi anechoic measurements.

This is one of my main speakers in the Benedict Lake room.

Same speaker in the room at Eagan.

So the Benedict room produced those 160 and 50 Hz peaks.

The gradual downward slope at 40 Hz is now how the fill crossover is set, to improve the in room response, not only at the MLP but also to make the sound more uniform throughout the room. You can set the speaker flat to 20 Hz. The Eagan room does sound better, and I continue to be astonished at the strong sense you are actually there. The bass realism is absolutely astonishing, no bloat or overhang at all, and yet powerful.

This is the FR at the MLP. and you can see there is room gain below 40 Hz. That is also a total system FR.

The room gain below 30 Hz is only slightly discernible in the rear row, but I would not say it is to the point of being unpleasant.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I'm saying that the room will not have more influence.

You are absolutely correct, if you have a trusted known reliable set up.

Might be another can of worms, but does that mean “most typical“ room acoustics “usually“ don’t influence FR measurements THAT significantly above 200-400Hz (one room vs another room) assuming the system setup is good ?

Does that mean Room Correction/EQ is usually unnecessary?

 

[everettT]

Might be another can of worms, but does that mean “most typical“ room acoustics “usually“ don’t influence FR measurements THAT significantly above 200-400Hz (one room vs another room) assuming the system setup is good ?

Does that mean Room Correction/EQ is usually unnecessary?

As the drivers start to get narrower, the room isn't as much an issue, if any a factor at all. It would take a really bad room and/or poor measurement technique for it to be questionable.

 

[TLS Guy]

Might be another can of worms, but does that mean “most typical“ room acoustics “usually“ don’t influence FR measurements THAT significantly above 200-400Hz (one room vs another room) assuming the system setup is good ?

Does that mean Room Correction/EQ is usually unnecessary?

The straight answer is no, that is not correct. These measuring system use pulsed tones and have complex software to eliminate room effects. That is why they are named Quasi anechoic measurements, which is a fancy way of saying "fudged" anechoic measurements. However, certainly above 300 Hz the good systems correlate very well. As you descend below that, they become increasingly problematic. However my experience is they are long short of better then nothing, and certainly provide useful information.

As I have said before, room correction remains very much speaker correction. An it is that old problem of in the higher octaves of off axis response not matching axis response, that is a much more potent cause of problems than room problems specifically. The problem is that this is NOT a problem correctable by auto Eq programs, or any Eq program for that matter. In the last octaves there is a place for room correction, especially in bad cases.

But I can tell you this after years of experience, that the better the speaker the less room effects will spoil the sound. Really good speakers tend to become highly room agnostic, short of playing them in public lavatory.

 

[shadyJ]

Well, no one should be measuring in a room for PUBLISHED results, which is also my point.

TLS Guy compared his IN-ROOM measurement to the Hi-Fi News and Stereophile PUBLISHED measurements.

Remember that Stereophile does in-room too, but they window out the room reflections in low frequencies, and they use near-field for low-frequencies. TLS Guy could use that approach if he wanted. I don't know how Hi-Fi News do their measurements.

 

[TLS Guy]

Remember that Stereophile does in-room too, but they window out the room reflections in low frequencies, and they use near-field for low-frequencies. TLS Guy could use that approach if he wanted. I don't know how Hi-Fi News do their measurements.

Yes, I could, but in my case I'm not designing a speaker to market. I am doing a holistic design, in which the speaker room interactions are part of the total design.

In my youth and later, I have had a lot of contact with organ builders. This concept is just intuitive to them and a concept that they have accepted for hundreds of years.
When an organ is relocated they voice it to the new space, just as they would if it was new organ. Just as I re-voiced my speakers for the new room. Basically this does only involve the bass decades. So at those frequencies adjusting the feeds to the bass drivers especially BSC is crucial. So the most important aspect for assessing the bass decades is the bass curves at the seated locations. In the Benedict location I was not in a position to optimize the room dimensions, although they were close in that reconfigured space. At Eagan I was able to optimize the dimensions, with some improvement in the end result. Significant alterations were made to BSC signal especially, and the feeds to the bass drivers.
It should be obvious that the FRs that count in the bass decade are the ones at the seats in the room, and trying to optimize the experience for all nine seats. It is not a good idea to make one seat perfect at the expense of the others. However it is obviously not possible to time align a multichannel system to more that one seat. So the time alignment to MLP is the one that is totally coincident. However there is no bad seat. These alignments are achieved by not only measurements but careful listening tests. You can not avoid taking listening tests into consideration when voicing a speaker system to a room.

This is where the skillful DIY designer has an enormous advantage over the commercial speaker designer. The option of holistic design is not available to the commercial designer, designing speakers to be sold over the Internet, or via B & M stores. The home designer, if he is skillful enjoys and shares the privileges enjoyed by the custom pipe organ builder. This is not a trivial advantage. Eq systems may help to close the gap here, as long as they do not introduce other aberrations. However I doubt they will best a well done total design approach.

 

[fmw]

I am looking to upgrade my HiFi speakers, so been doing a few auditions /evaluations on Magico A5/S5/M2 , Focal Maestro Utopia, B&W 800D3 (while waiting to get a chance to hear 801D4).

It seems to me that the B&W 800D3 as Hi Fi Speakers is like Porsche GT3 as Sport Car.
It is not the most exotic, most expensive or wins specific technical measurement but seems to hit the sweet spot for performance, resale, spare parts, looks.

Example: The Z06 C6 have better measurement in term of HP, 0-100, static g-force traction limit but in real life road and track driving , 991 GT3 wins.

800D3 wins on the same real life listening to most enthusiast and pro so I think I may just get 800D3 or get on wait list for 801D4

There is some anti B&W sentiment on this forum but think it is probably aimed at the 700 series. My audio dealer friend used 800's and I owned and used a pair of 802's. Same sound with a little less bass. The enclosures are very very stiff and quiet thanks to the interior honeycomb. These are about as transparent as a speaker can be. Good choice.

 

[Verdinut]

The anti B & W sentiment exists on all their currently produced loudspeakers, because you can get many more affordable products having a more accurate frequency response. Another reason why more expensive doesn't necessarily mean better SQ.

 

[lovinthehd]

There is some anti B&W sentiment on this forum but think it is probably aimed at the 700 series. My audio dealer friend used 800's and I owned and used a pair of 802's. Same sound with a little less bass. The enclosures are very very stiff and quiet thanks to the interior honeycomb. These are about as transparent as a speaker can be. Good choice.

I didn't like the 6 series examples myself, didn't get to try the 700/800 stuff. Many don't seem to care for the B&W "sound", tho.