D3
After launching the second incarnation of the D series, the D2, in 2015, Bowers & Wilkins surprised everyone by introducing the D3 range with its “inverted” rear-side-front cabinet. At first, the new design took some getting used to but soon it made the old design look, well old.
While my experience with the aforementioned dipole panel speakers had made me aware of the coloration that was still present in the old 804’s, my first acquaintance with the new D3 series made it immediately clear that the radical new design also marked a huge sonic change, substituting the brand’s traditional warmth and fullness by an unprecedented level of neutrality and resolution.
Bowers & Wilkins loudspeakers have always offered superb value for money but all of a sudden, the new models now challenged established ultra-high-precision brands such as Magico and YG acoustics in important areas such as resolution, refinement, and lack of coloration. However, while the D3 series speakers were certainly ground-breakingly transparent and revealing, in all the demos that I attended, they also sounded a little too clean and analytical for my taste. For me, it was as though technical perfection had taken precedence over the emotional aspects of the music.
D4
The new 801 D4 is the successor to the 800D3 and with this one of the most iconic model names returns to the portfolio. The 801 D4 is the top model of the series and the new reference by which all other Bowers & Wilkins speakers are judged.
Above and below, Johan Katgert is showing us what the new Biomimetic Suspension looks like up close (By Werner Ero Fotografie)
Nico Bierhoff and Johan Katgert provide a great look at the top and bottom of the new aluminum top panels (By Werner Ero Fotografie)
The 801 D4 is equipped with all the new technology that the 800 Series Diamond has to offer such as the considerably heavier and more solid tweeter housing that is milled from a big bar of aluminum and the aluminum Turbine Head with the Continuum driver for the midrange.
The new Continuum driver is now equipped with Biomimetic Suspension (see photo above), which means that the traditional woven spider at the back of the cone has been replaced by a kind of plastic frame with the minimum amount of material to prevent backward reflections from interfering.
Above: Regular Woven Fabric Spider as used in a woofer; Below: new Biomimetic Suspension as used in the Continuum midrange driver.
In addition, there is now a milled aluminum top panel, crossovers that are mounted on a rigid aluminum heatsink on the rear of the speaker, and a greatly improved Matrix housing, equipped with aluminum-reinforced, interlocking panels. Importantly, wherever there are aluminum-wood intersections, the parts are glued as well as screwed in place.
After the D4 range was released, it didn’t take long for rave reports to come my way. The new model was said to be not only the best incarnation of the series but actually the best that Bowers & Wilkins has issued. Of course, this is more often said with the introduction of a new reference series, so I took the news with a few grains of salt. When good friend and fellow reviewer Werner Ero then told me that the D4 did indeed provide all the benefits of the D3 series, along with key aspects that made the D2 series so great, that’s when I really took note.
Next: arranging the review and system setup
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.