Article: Moving To The B&W 802 D4

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi @MHWilliford, thanks so much for the guest write-up of your new B&W 802 D4! I'll always have a soft spot for these speakers, as they were my second pair of real high end speakers. I had the Nautilus 802 and loved them. When I moved into a smaller place a couple years after college I had to sell them, in favor of a headphone system. That was a sad day. 

 

I'm happy to read the 802s are an even better speaker today than when I had them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, MHWilliford said:

Hi Gavin - this is a great question, and I went into this upgrade process open-minded and with several contenders - some that I will go so far to say I'd sold myself on in advance before listening, and yet the Bowers & Wilkins 802 D4's came out on top for my taste.  First were the Wilson Audio Sabrina X.  I was ready to make the switch based on reputation, build quality, and so many references to Wilson in other's reference systems. I found that they had a very nice, balanced sound, but were not a big jump in bass performance over the 804D2's and were quite a bit brighter.  Bear in mind, I have hyper-acousis in my left ear, so I am very sensitive to sibilance, even at lower listening levels.  It should also be noted that I am a critical low-level listener.  Rarely do my listening levels exceed 75 dB.  When I listened to the Sabrina X, I also listened to Wilson-Benesch, which I liked quite a bit though I found the value proposition steep for my wallet, and the sound maybe a little lean, but very much a speaker that impressed me and would suit certain ears well.

 

Then there was a brief lay-off in the process due to life's other priorities, but the next demo session was even better in several ways.  Number one, I was pitting 802D3's (the D4's had not yet been announced) against Magico A3's and also Sonus-Faber Olympica-Nova III's.  Again, I was fully-prepared to be won-over and walk out of the store that day with a pair of any of these contenders.  Number two, my son, who is a musician (guitar and viola) and possessing much better hearing than me came along for the trip (we visited some guitar shops as well :) ).  This gave me a neutral reference (he has not yet fallen victim to any serious brand loyalties) to check myself against, and we'd prepared a pretty comprehensive track list of things we'd been listening to on a regular basis that were intended to test upper registers, lower registers, and different genres.  Oh - the third and fourth things about this audition that made it very relevant was the amplification that was used (McIntosh C2700 and MC462) is identical to what I have, and even the listening room was very similar in size and finish - smallish at about 12ft x 12ft, and furnished like a TV room, which is the same as our home listening space.

 

The short story is the 802D3's bested the A3's and the Olympica-Nova III's in bass performance with ease.  My son and I looked at each other with reality-check expressions a couple of times as if to ask each other how there could be such a gap at similar price points, but there clearly was.  The A3 bass was a bit more rounded and would occasionally seem boomy by comparison, which makes no sense given that it is a sealed cabinet design, but this was clearly heard by both my son and me.  The Nova III bass performance was closer to the 802's but ultimately I felt less agile but still a worthy contender.   With regard to highs the Magicos were very nice, maybe just a touch less resolving, but certain to sound better to some sets of ears. The Nova III highs were quite a bit more subtle and just too far back in the sound for me, but again, might be just right to some.  

What a fun process. Making the selection of new speakers enjoyable and sharing it with your son, is fantastic. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

One of my favorite speakers of all time. 
 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, botrytis said:

 

I don't believe in speaker break in. It takes minutes to 1-2 hours. I do believe your ears get used to speakers, Just me and my opinion. If speakers sound bad out of the box, no amount of any break in will fix it.

Do you know if there has been any objective testing of speaker break-in? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

There has been. There is also quite a bit of data about people getting used to sounds, after a certain period also.

 

Speaker break-in data | Home Theater Forum and Systems (hometheatershack.com)

 

And a huge thread on everyone's favorite place ASR.

That link is probably the opposite of objective. Did you see all the room changes he did?

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, mfsoa said:

Let's hope that B&W has a healthy long-term future, as they are now owned by a medical device company.

 

I think that will take a lot of hoping...

I think they are owned by Sound United. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEI_Holdings

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Wow, I missed that one. I'm a day late and a dollar short. 

 

B&W has had multiple ownership changes over the years and the products have held up pretty well. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Great article, along with your informative followup comments. Another big fan of B&W here.

 

Regarding Wilson-Benesch — that's one brand I always seek out at audio shows, because they are so alluring to me. I think they image amazingly well, but perhaps at the expense of meat and bones density. 

 

Thanks for your findings.

Gonna need to go to Munich Rajiv :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

What about the microphone used to record? 
 

You guys kill me when assessing quality of  audio components via YouTube. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

19 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Probably as bad as assessing analog recordings without having a turntable.

Yes. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

.

Better microphone is all. 

Given how much microphones change the sound of the audio being recorded, I don't think it matters :~)

 

My Neumann I use for podcasting makes me sound different. Plus, that "different" sound is different + or different - depending on a few centimeters right or left or back of the capsule. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, PYP said:

Yet one online reviewer has built quite a business doing just that.

 

I'm totally fine with whatever entertains people, and I'm happy whoever has made it a business, is providing a service people want. I just wouldn't fool myself, or people spending their precious time, with such folly. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Here we go, a clip of the actual song,

 

 

Very instructive to listen to the expansiveness, the "bigness" of what's in the recording; and compare that to the level of 'squashing' of that spaciousness, in the playback capture. Yes, in the intimate parts of the track the system does well, but the often heard inability to properly handle the Big Moments is clear.

You don’t even know which master of the song was playing, mp3 or high resolution etc…

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm, the one tagged in the comments of that clip, by YouTube, possibly?

Not even close. The tagged song is only because it’s recognized by the algorithm for paying the rights holders. Good luck finding an algorithm on YouTube that identifies the source material any more than artist and track name. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

In other words, upload a 128 kbps mp3, lossless FLAC, and DSD version, then upload all the different masters. See what the algorithm identifies. It won’t identify much. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Because that's the actual track in the video of the B&Ws playing, and I commented on how the system specifically handled part of that track. Music is music ... and this type of track is very good for, er, sorting the men from the boys. On a system well below standard, this will be a raucous mess; with competent replay it becomes a superb, immersive sound experience ... which is why the goal is to achieve a setup at the latter end . The recording is used to judge the system - not, the system is used to judge the recording ...

 

The mastering, unless it was used to deliberately trash the recording, to suit the peculiar ideas of the person at the controls - I'm thinking of Iggy Pop here  - will still sound like something real. I don't think sound engineers are completely brain dead, although I sometimes wonder , which means that the contents of recordings are still in pretty good shape - given a system good enough to reveal the details properly.

You’re killing me Frank. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

Pics, or it didn't happen ...

Ha! I love that you’re a good sport about it. Thank you for that.