Review sample supplied by SoundUnited
Retail price in the NL (incl. 21% VAT): 35.000 euro (per pair)
Personal History
My first experience with Bowers & Wilkins goes back to when the initial Nautilus series was introduced 22 years ago. At that time, I was in the market for new speakers and got entirely infatuated with the curvaceous new Nautilus shape, especially the N802 with its intriguing snail shell-inspired midrange- and treble heads. Alas, the N802 was solidly out of my reach so, at that time, I did not dare aspire to it. But this did bring me to investigate the lower-tier Nautilus models.
When listening to the N805’s and the N804’s at Hobo Hifi in Amsterdam, the modest little N805 stand-mounters readily wowed me with their fluid, open, and remarkably spacious sound. Naturally, they had a limited bass response but that certainly did not go for the 804’s. The floorstanders had the same footprint as the 805’s and a super-slender appearance but with double woofers and much more internal space, they produced deep and powerful bass. In addition, the three-way’s yellow FST unit provided a more pronounced, cleaner, and better-textured midrange that came slightly closer to the 802’s in performance.
At that time, I was pretty much already sold. The 803 that was placed above the 804 was more than twice as expensive but was basically only a scaled-up version of the 804 but at a price level that rapidly approached the cost of a pair of 802’s which were not feasible anyway.
Now having obtained certainty, Hobo Hifi had a new customer and I owned a new set of N804’s. These speakers would not move away from their place for about 8 years of system updates. Although… there were two moments of doubt where I was tempted by other systems and I sold the N804s, even though in both instances, in no time, I bought the exact same model again. The last time, I had blindly decided to upgrade to the S-series version of the 804 and sold my own pair before the new pair was delivered. Alas, the 804S had a restrained kind of sweetness that I could not get used to and that prompted me to get my third pair of N804’s in a row.
10 years later, Bowers & Wilkins introduced the diamond series, dropping the N prefix and adding a D appendix to the model number. Oh boy, I still couldn’t really afford them, but just like before, the 802 model had me totally in awe. Hobo Hifi again kindly agreed to a home demo (thanks Hans-Peter Rietveld!) and this marked my first experience with the 802D. Oh, yes, this was something else! As good as the N804’s were, the 802D’s outperformed them in many aspects such as soundstage depth and layering, focus and precision, and mostly, treble refinement and air. While many people were imagining a diamond to sound hard and perhaps edgy, the 802D’s tweeter actually delivered smooth, refined, and liquid treble. Actually, the 802D’s treble performance was so remarkable that my good friend JW, a die-hard ribbon-lover, was impressed.
Feverishly, I was thinking of ways to scrape together the required sum. If I sold a couple of components and took a loan, then I could perhaps just make it. However, soon, it became clear that the 802D’s bass was far too prodigious for my space and the walls were also too thin, leading to neighbor’s complaints. Alas, this party had to be canceled!
Successive listening sessions in other systems later confirmed that in addition to possessing a particularly potent bass, the 802D also sounded warmer and richer than my N804’s. At a time when I was seeking a more and more neutral sound, this turned my attention to the new 800 range-topping model. Although the 800 is physically larger and more imposing than the 802, the reference model was said to sound leaner and more linear.
When the N800s had to make way for the new model and I listened to them at Staffhorst extensively, this confirmed everything I had heard about the flagship. Again, I was heavily tempted but no matter how beautifully neutral the N800 played, I couldn’t get the magical performance of the diamond tweeter of the 802D out of my head. No matter if I had lived with the N804’s aluminum tweeter for what seemed like an eternity and never had any complaints about its treble behavior, clearly, the goalposts had been moved.
In 2011, I was in the fortunate position to get my hands on a second-hand pair of 800Ds for a very good price, and so I took the plunge. This time, the acoustics of my newly moved-in house worked against me and the magisterial loudspeakers hardly came into their own. Unfortunately, this meant the premature end of my relationship with the brand, whereupon I took a completely different direction with Magnepan, Martin Logan, Quad, and Apogee speakers.
Next: D3 and D4 descriptions
Thank you for this very interesting review . I used to have 802n in my audio system and then 805 d2 while living abroad .
I did like a lot the B&W family sound .
Like you I have never liked the d3 series as I felt they were to hifi style sounding and did not involved me emotionally.
I had the opportunity a few days ago to listen to the new d4 more specifically the 803d4 and I like a lot what I heard . These speakers have a tremendous potential to deliver good and emotionally involving music .
One point which strike me is that they deliver a very natural midrange with a lot of « meat on the bone « as we said .
This makes reproduction of voices highly emotional.
I now have Martin Logan Montis and even though these speakers have a lot of qualities I have grown tired of the lack of body in the low medium as well as a lack of macro dynamic when compared to electro dynamic speakers .
Your very positive of the 801d4 helps me make the decision to move to the d4 . Thank’s
Hi Jean-Michel, how nice to hear that you are hearing it the same as I did! I also agree on your observations regarding the Martin Logans, although this varies from model to model, and was the least the case with the ESL15’s that I used much to my satisfaction until I got swayed away by Magico.
Hi. Christiaan,
Thank’s for your feedback . Before making the final purchasing decision for the 803d4 , I will have the opportunity to listen to the Stilla Audio Æquo in my system.
I had the opportunity to listen already one time to the Stilla in an unknown to me audio system . I was very pleased by what the Stilla did : extremely good soundstage ( deep , wide and precise ) , very nice top , very dynamic and quite nice bass reproduction for this size speaker .
There is one area where I have questions when compared to the 803 d4 is body in the low midrange . This criteria is for me very important to be emotionally involved .
I felt that the 803d4 was excellent on this point I don’t remember or was especially impressed by the Stilla on this point .
I do hope that the home trial of the Stilla will help me make the right move . Stilla or 803 ?
The Stilla is very interesting, I’ve done a review on this site, have a look. I do think that the 801 D4 is more linear and coherent overall which is only logical given that it does not have any size constraints nor an active/passive setup. On the other hand, the Stilla can work remarkably well in bad rooms and even in asymmetrical setups or close to walls. I’ve not heard the 803 but going from what others say, it could have similar characteristics as the 801 D4, with some constraints in the low bass department, of course.
In fact i went to listen to the Stilla after I did read your thorough and very interesting review of them .
My listening room is our living room and it is 5mx7m , the speakers are 1.5 meter away from the back wall and 1.3 meter away from the side wall .The speakers are 2.4 meter apart and the distance from ear to speaker is about 2.9m . The speaker have enough room to breathe and I think my room is not a complicated room and has the right amount of damping ( carpet and Harwood floor ).
What I did like a lot about the 803D4 is that they really pulled me a lot in the music and took me away from critical listening .
I will see after I listen again to the Stilla in my home .
Thank’s for your helpful feedback and for the very good and informative reviews you are publishing .
You’re very welcome, Jean-Michel! Sounds like you do indeed have good room dimensions and if it is indeed not complicated then you can count yourself blessed:-). Do let us know the results of your Stilla home edition!
Hi Christiaan,
You mentioned the improvement going from wheels tot spikes. Insight and consensus is growing that spikes and cones are not the way to get the most out of loudspeakers as doing so, vibrations will reflect back into the cabinet out of phase with the music. Better results can de obtained by decoupling the loudspeaker from the floor, for instance using IsoAcoustics Gaia feet I use under my Thiel CS6 loudspeakers. I experience the results as nothing short of spectacular! My Focal standmounts in my study are placed on Aurios MIB feet which allow free movement horizontally. This also sounds far better than anything I’ve tried. The resonant frequency of the cabinet on the Aurios feet is only a few Hz, so will not be excited by the music. The idea that a loudspeaker should stand firm, is obsolete … .Perhaps you want to delve into this and test the IsoAcoustics Gaia feet?
Hi John, It’s always great to find a new and good-sounding solution and I like that the audio hobby is never static. But firm speaker coupling is obsolete? I beg to differ. Yes, spikes are not the only solution in existence, and yes, loose coupling can also work but it simply depends on the situation, as well as the emphasis of the individual. The basic principles behind all coupling/decoupling methods have been around for ages and at any point in time there will always be situations that are best resolved using this, that, or the other. I wouldn’t rush to call firm coupling obsolete and a new product the new standard. Not just yet, in any case:-)
I’ve used the IsoAcoustics Gaia feet but found that they reduced the PRaT and the impact and incisiveness in the bass. BTW true decoupling is impossible, you are always making a coupling of some sort. This is true of spikes as well as soft materials as well as ball-bearing horizontal movement coupling.
What I find is that a viscous coupling can work wonders for the midrange and treble (B&W pod coupling) but not for the bass, where spikes produce a more energetic sound, while adding dryness in the midrange and treble. That’s the thing with audio. It’s not black and white and an improvement in one area often goes at the expense of a reduction in another area. It’s the balance that counts. As always, YMMV. So many people, so many opinions.
Hi Christiaan,
I am somewhat disappointed en surprised that you didn’t like the IsoAcoustics Gaia feet , but, of course, it all depends on personal preference, system and so on. Fact is that this feet get rave reviews and prizes everywhere right now.
In my system, I didn’t experience reduction of PRAT with the IsoAcoustics Gaia feet at all. Quite the opposite: fastly played low strings in classical music -for instance, Bach, Brandenburg 3- sound extremley wel resolved and effortless, far better than with the spikes and metal feet I used before. Perhaps musical taste plays a role here and will the effects be perceived differently playing non-classical music.
On a theoretical level, I would say that it is not completely logical that a method of reducing harmful vibrations of a speaker cabinet would work fine for the mid and high frequenties and not so for the low frequenties. Harmfull vibrations are harmful vibrations, one could argue. Why would there be “a transitional frequency” below which the method doesn’t yield improvements?! Fact of the matter is that using spikes, vibrations are reflected back into the cabinet, while these are more or less absorbed by … well, stuff that absorbs.
Let’s conclude the discussion by agreeing that anyone should choose what they like, not bothered by theoretical considerations. My advice would be not to overlook the IsoAcoustics Gaia feet. In forty years, I have not found anything that works better for me.
Hi John, Quite right! I find that the kind of effect that I hear (and to which I am particularly sensitive) when using soft coupling materials is most audible with drums, bass synth, and electronic music in general. I fully agree that benefits can be had by using softer or more elegant materials when it concerns classical music. It’s considered heresy but I would say that there most definitely are systems more suited to electronic or classical music. Ideally, the system does both but usually not to the same degree. No matter how much manufacturers would like us to believe it, true absorption is not possible. It sure may sound that way in comparison to spikes but lossy material coupling also transitions energy, partially dissipated as heat, but mostly just transferred in a modified form. But, like you, I’m not a huge fan of theorizing this way, I rather just use my ears:-). Maybe I was coming on strong but it is not my intention to prescribe a “best method” in any way. All my reviews simply describe how I approach any given situation and of course everyone should make up their own minds. One of my mantras is that there is no such thing as perfection, or the “ideal” solution for everyone.