801 D4 performance
In my introduction, I talked about the originally rich and warm Bowers & Wilkins sound that offered great value for money. With the D3 series, these aspects were equalized, that is, the prices had risen considerably, but at the same time, the speakers now sounded amazingly neutral while huge leaps had also been made in terms of the overall performance. After my aforementioned dipole adventures, I ended up at Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy 8 and finally Magico S1 MkII. The S1’s are small and have a limited bass response, but in general, they provide much of what I am looking for in music reproduction. As a side note, the S1’s, as well as other Magicos, share more than a few facets of sound with what I have come to know as the D3 performance. But as mentioned, none of the D3 models managed to move me emotionally. Oh, how different this turned out with the 801 D4’s!
Let me tell you, what I was hearing now with the 801 D4s is an achievement that might actually have some exotic brands worried. What Bowers & Wilkins is now offering is not only a performance that borders on technical perfection but also at a price that is significantly lower than with comparably performing exotics. The Magico S1 MkII was the brand’s smallest model in a range that was, at the introduction, their entry-level. They may only be a small two-way system with a limited bass response and they are not truly an exotic product, but still, they do cost 23.000 euros, which is only 12.000 euros short of the price for the Bowers & Wilkins reference model! I’ll let that sink in.
But besides that, the 801 D4 does literally everything that the S1’s do, either in equal measure, or better, while improving on them in several other key aspects.
First of all, there is this amazing neutrality and linearity from top to bottom with absolutely no cabinet-induced-, or other kinds of coloration to be heard anywhere. Then, there is this amazing coherence between the bass drivers and the midrange. Where the transition between these two areas was sometimes audible in previous models as well as in many other multi-driver speakers, it is now as if I am listening to a two-way speaker but, mind you, one that has a frequency extension right down to the limit of our hearing range!
Some people like a loudness kind of bass and so did I when I was younger. But as I grow older, I prefer the frequency response to be as linear as possible. But as experience has shown, building a truly linear speaker is extremely hard, not least because linearizing almost always comes with penalties in other areas, such as timing or expression. In essence, every loudspeaker is a compromise, but with the 801 D4, I simply cannot hear any evidence of this. These speakers just sound so neutral and yet so beautifully balanced, I can’t help but be hugely impressed.
What all the Turbine-head models always had in common was a sound that effortlessly floated around the speakers and I’m glad to find that the 801 D4 continues this tradition. At the same time, the sound is highly focused, more so than before, and with great imaging and soundstage layering.
The 801 D4 has no musical preference, it does not add any character of its own, but importantly, it also never sounds tonally gray or deprived of musical soul. This is a very important point to note! Irrespective of its neutrality and precision, the 801 D4 also sounds natural and it certainly does not restrict the emotional aspect of the performances. The speaker simply lets the music speak for itself, in all its harmonic richness or pure simplicity, wholly depending on how it is registered in the recording.
As a final test, we connected the Marantz PM-10 and although this review is long enough already and I don’t want to dive too deeply into the Marantz’ contribution, it was very interesting to note how supremely refined the relatively affordable amplifier performed. It was arguably just as detailed but silkier and even more delicate, as it substituted the rock-solid image with a more free-flowing soundstage. Understandably, it did not have the robust bass and the overall authority of the big Classé Delta Monos, but it drove the 801 D4’s with enough power and confidence. For those who desire their sonic delivery slightly more rose-tinted, the Marantz is definitely a worthy alternative.
Conclusion
Considering that the 801 D4 combines all the refinement, fluidity, and airiness of the D2 series but none of the thickness or excessive warmth, with the neutrality and explicit detailing of the D3 series minus this series’ overly analytical stance, I can’t help but fully agree with the company’s statement that the 801 D4 is indeed the best incarnation in the series. What Bowers & Wilkins offers here is not only a lot of value for money but something that actually borders on the “state of the art”.
More Bowers & Wilkins
Company Profile and Signature 801 D4 Review
External Links
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.