Bowers & Wilkins 805 D4 Signature loudspeaker

The "Bowers" in the name of British manufacturer Bowers & Wilkins (B&W) refers to founder John Bowers, whom I got to know fairly well before he passed in 1987. In recent years, I've reviewed two Bowers & Wilkins loudspeakers: the 705 Signature two-way standmount in the December 2020 issue and the Diamond Series 804 D4 three-way floorstander in the January 2022 issue. More recently, Tom Fine reviewed the three-way, floor-standing Signature Series 801 D4 in March 2024.

Currently there are two models in the Signature Series, which was launched in 2023 to pay tribute to the company's groundbreaking John Bowers Silver Signature from the early 1990s: the 801 D4 and the subject of this review, the two-way 805 D4 standmount, which B&W describes as its "highest performance standmount ever."

The Signature Series 805 D4
While the standard-quality Diamond 805 D4, which remains in production, costs $9500/pair, the Signature model costs $13,500/pair. (Matching FS-805 D4 stands cost $1600/pair.) Superficially, the two speakers look identical except for the finish—see below—but there are significant differences.

The drive units are the 1" Diamond Series tweeter, with its 40µm-thick, vapor-deposited diamond dome, housed in its own rear-vented, tapered aluminum tube on top of the elliptical-plan woofer enclosure, and a 6.5" woofer with a cone formed from B&W's silver-colored, woven-composite material, which it calls Continuum. Continuum is said to have very high self-damping, and the cone is terminated with a large-diameter rubber roll surround. The woofer enclosure's internal Matrix construction is reinforced with aluminum bracing. The woofer is reflex loaded with a large, flared, dimpled port on the curved front baffle. Its motor has an upgraded pole on the magnet and a larger vent hole. B&W says that these changes offer improved current distortion, a cleaner delivery through the midrange, and more extended low frequencies. The grille covering the tweeter has had its acoustical transparency optimized (while retaining stiffness) with Finite Element Analysis (FEA); another way of putting it is, the holes are bigger. The claimed benefit s enhanced resolution and spaciousness.

Electrical connection is made with two pairs of high-quality binding posts at the base of the vertically ribbed aluminum rear panel, just as with the standard 805. The crossover has been upgraded with new, doubled bypass capacitors, and the structure of the aluminum plate at the top of the woofer enclosure has been modified to reduce unwanted noise and vibration from the structure. Specifically, holes are carved out of the top plate at strategic points, which Andy Kerr, B&W's director of product marketing & communications, said "narrows the resonances in band and pushes them upwards in frequency," making them easier to damp. The top plate is covered with a bespoke Leather by Connolly trim.

Like the 801 D4 Signature, the 805 D4 Signature is available in two exclusive finishes. My review samples had the Midnight Blue Metallic finish, which features 11 machine-polished coats of paint and lacquer. The alternative finish is a California Burl Gloss wood veneer, sustainably sourced from Italian specialist ALPI and featuring 14 coats of lacquer.

I don't usually express an opinion on how a loudspeaker looks—just on how it sounds—but the Midnight Blue Metallic–finished 805 D4 Signature is drop-dead gorgeous!

Setting up
I used 24"-high, single-pillar Celestion stands with the 805 D4 Signatures. These placed the tweeters 40" from the floor, which is 4" above the height of my ears in my listening chair. (The custom B&W stands are approximately the same height.) I experimented with the positions to optimize the blend between the upper bass and lower midrange. The speakers ended up with their front baffles 70" from the wall behind the speakers and 142" from my listening chair. The low frequencies were somewhat lightweight, but I couldn't move the speakers closer to the front wall to get the benefit of boundary reinforcement due to the two stairs to the vestibule behind the right-hand speaker. My room is also somewhat asymmetrical, so the drive units of the left-hand speaker were 34" from the LPs that line the nearest sidewall, those of the right-hand speaker 55" from the books that line its sidewall. As always I started with the speakers aimed at my listening position, but I ended up toeing them in slightly more, so that their axes crossed a foot in front of me. This gave the optimal top-octave balance.

For my critical listening sessions, I used a pair of Parasound JCA100 Tribute monoblocks to drive the B&Ws, biwiring the speakers with AudioQuest Robin Hood Combo speaker cables. Source was the MBL N31 processor fed network data from my Roon Nucleus+ and connected directly to the Parasound amplifiers. For everyday listening on the hot July days that I had the 805 D4 Signatures in my system, I used my cool-running NAD M10 integrated amplifier, which has a class-D output stage. The M10 was also fed network data from the Nucleus+.

Listening to test tones
I started my critical listening with the diagnostic test tones on the Stereophile Editor's Choice CD (Stereophile STPH016-2; no longer available). The 1/3-octave warble tones extended cleanly and evenly from 200 to 125Hz, with then the 100Hz and 80Hz bands a little quieter. The 63Hz band was slightly higher in level than the 80Hz, and the 50Hz and 40Hz bands were successively quieter. Boosted by the lowest-frequency mode in my room, the 32Hz tone was louder, and the 25Hz and 20Hz tones were inaudible at my normal listening level. I heard no wind noise "chuffing" from the ports. The half-step–spaced tonebursts on Editor's Choice were reproduced evenly, and I didn't hear any high-level resonant modes when

I listened to the sidewalls with a stethoscope while I played these tones. I did hear some liveliness between 800Hz and 1kHz on the ribbed-metal back panel, but this will be inconsequential.

The dual-mono pink-noise track on Editor's Choice was reproduced as a narrow central image, with no splashing to the sides. My ears were only level with the tweeters if I sat up straight, but the sonic signature didn't change appreciably when I slumped to my usual position. When I stood up, the balance acquired a hollow character.

Listening to music
Enough test tones! To avoid the "Circle of Confusion"—the notion that the sound quality of an audio component can't be judged using a recording with unknown sound quality—the first music recording I played was from Molto Molto (24/96 WAV, Stereophile STPH-023; also available from Qobuz and Tidal), an album of three classical-themed works that Sasha Matson had composed for a jazz big band. I produced Molto Molto, the final album released on the Stereophile label, so I am intimately familiar with its sound quality.

Listening to the third movement of Sasha's Concerto for Piano & Jazz Orchestra—the album's title track—I was struck by how natural the recording sounded. Flutes, clarinets, saxophones, trumpets, and trombones were all reproduced with the correct tonalities, double bass had an excellent combination of articulation and midbass weight, and every instrument was stably and accurately placed in the soundstage. The piano, played by the incomparable Adam Birnbaum, had been close-miked by Ryan Streber, who placed it in the mix in front of the band. Because it was close-miked, the piano sounds more percussive than was strictly accurate. The B&W 805 D4 Signatures didn't exaggerate this characteristic, although when I listened again to this piece with the NAD M10 replacing the Parasound monoblocks, the sound hardened somewhat as I turned up the volume. (See the Measurements sidebar for the possible reason.)

COMPANY INFO
B&W Group Ltd.
Dale Rd.
Worthing
West Sussex BN11 2BH, United Kingdom
(800) 370-3740
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
supamark's picture

do you jack up the level on your tweeters so much? Is your target audience people with hearing loss? The quasi-anechoic looks like the graphic equalizer in my '76 Chevy Malibu Classic from high school... very smiley face.

On a positive note, the impedence doesn't drop below 4 Ohms, and the cabinet looks great and is quite inert.

supamark's picture

is because the tipped up treble made it easier to hear the high frequency phase issues that amp has. With the caveat that I haven't heard one of the GaNFET amps with a much higher switching frequency pushing the low pass filter up a couple octaves, that's a class D thing.

Also, John Curl is better at amp/circuit design than anyone working at NAD.

DaveinSM's picture

Well, looks like EPDR drops to a pretty low impedence under 3ohms in a variety of places and results in what they characterize as a current hungry speaker.

All in a design with a tipped up treble that evidently still needs a sub in addition to close proximity boundary reinforcement.

But I think that’s so a lot of people rave about the perceived detail and air when first auditioning these.

Not my cup o tea. But to each his own…

cognoscente's picture

You love it or you hate it. That goes for everything about this speaker, the look (as for this entire series) and the sound. I think these are beautiful speakers, in look! The sound is (still) a bit too "Britsh" for me. Understated. Neutral, someone else might say. But what is neutral? And isn't that subjective? Does neutral exist as a general denominator, as objective? Does “objectivity” exist? Does “the truth” exist? So does “neutrality” exist? Anyway, I prefer a bit more excitement. Strangely enough, I always end up with German speakers. Isn't that the other way around with cars? Or should I look at Italian ones for both next time? Anyway, beautiful speakers in look, in the row of beautiful speakers with the Goldmund Prana at the top. Isn't a predecessor of that one included in the MoMa collection? I remember something like that.

helomech's picture

why it is that B&W no longer strives for a linear frequency response. It’s not as though they lack the ability to design linear speakers, considering their older lines were much flatter.

My recent experience with their newer 800 series and similar high end speakers leads me to suspect they likely voice their speakers to account for the Munson/Equal Loudness curve. Possibly, they are “tailoring” the sound so that the speakers sound subjectively flatter at lower/moderate listening levels. Based on the 800 series and others, I’ve begun to hypothesize that overall distortion is a greater determinant of subjective quality than is linearity. It’s apparent from these graphs that the drivers of the 805s are of high quality and low distortion. I suspect the brain is far less tolerant of distortion (especially high order harmonics) than non-linearities. High end headphones are further evidence of this notion.

Certainly, the B&W 800 series sound more “forward” compared to other speakers, yet to my ears they are somehow less fatiguing than many of the flatter designs. And that’s despite the fact my ears are still relatively young and vigorous (can still hear to 18kHz).

Garfield's picture

I have tremendous respect for B&W's heritage and engineering, but the sound of their modern products is not my cup of tea. For the same kind of money there is the Magico A1 if you aim for pure neutrality or Dynaudio Confidence 20 if you just want to enjoy your music.

Glotz's picture

Definitely the speaker I thought to compete with this B&W model. But, a Big fan of this speaker- AXPONA demos were super insightful and my favorite for a stand-mounted mini-monitor. I couldn't criticize it if I tried- well, scale, but that's not fair. Musical af.

avanti1960's picture

in room response curve which looks much more linear than the quasi-anechoic measurements. Looks like the measured response should go a long way towards avoiding the midrange scoop out that we can occasionally hear when listening to other B&W D series models.
One thing that would have been helpful in the measurements section would have been to plot the response using the port plugging options. This is really useful for understanding the sealed response as it relates to potential subwoofer integration, especially the F3 frequency and slope of the roll off.
Sadly for me I have never had a satisfactory subwoofer integration with ported speakers and believe that a sealed speaker has the potential to integrate much better- on paper at least.
Please consider including sealed port options measurements in the future. Thank you.

DaveinSM's picture

Over the years I’ve been reading, it seems that Stereophile has usually included fr measurements with plugged ports as well as open. In fact, in the cases of two or more ports, they’ve often experimented with various combinations of plugged/open, and indicated the measured changes in fr, respectively. Plugging ports seems to invariably lead to a sealed frequency response that starts to roll off even higher in fr spectrum than open port (bass reflex).

I suspect they didn’t do it with this speaker because it would make the subjective bass response even more lightweight. And with such a tipped up tweeter, I’d imagine that the resulting sound would be just too bright. It might make it easier to integrate with a sub. But I’d predict that it would also make it in dire need of a subwoofer.

David Harper's picture

IMO (and thats all it is) B&W speakers are designed to sound impressive upon first hearing. I brought home a pair about ten or fifteen years ago. They were stand-mounted bookshelf. Don't remember which model they were. But upon extended listening they were loud,harsh,bright, foreward and unlistenable. I took them back to best buy and told the salesman I didn't like the way they sounded. I was used to Polk speakers (RTI-A5) which are very smooth laid back speakers so maybe that's why I didn't like the B&W's.

Cara M's picture

"Midnight Blue Metallic–finished 805 D4 Signature is drop-dead gorgeous!" YES! I totally agree, OMG! Though Bowers & Wilkins 805 D4 Signature loudspeaker would really look good on my timber flooring.

hb72's picture

some here in the comment section (to some extent understandably) complain about (B&W-signature) tilted treble (non-echoic chamber, on-axis test, mind you), some call it a bit too "British" and on the boring side of neutral, while the in-room response shows a moderate 3dB lift between 4-10kHz. Smooth (digital) frontend provided (here Ayre, IIRC) and it is probably not outright "analytical" but just a bit more light on the sound stage and into the music. I guess I could really like these (but then I like my Triangle Thetas).
And yes, music is more if not mostly about musical expression and rhythmic abilities, IMO, all of which are not so easy to read from measurements, right?

hollowman's picture

The sister site and your (JA’s) alma mater, HFN, has a cool VINTAGE section.
Certainly, JA has reviewed plenty of loudspeakers and other gear in the past 60 years.
In his talks, JA has noted his well-kept longitudinal speaker database.
Many of us consider modern, well-measuring gear to sound a bit lifeless.
Much gets lost as modern designs aim for beautiful metrics and mathematical purity.

I would encourage JA and other notable audio journalists to actively compare new vs. vintage.

Nota bene: Thumbs up for that Mozart piano concerto CD!

remlab's picture

B&W's with top mounted tweeters always drop off like a rock below around 5khz. They try to remedy this by not padding it down as much as they should. If they did bring down the upper treble frequencies, there would be a large hole in the response in the 3 to 4khz range. This is the price you pay for a top mounted tweeter.

hollowman's picture

Over 40 years ago now, I used a RS/Realistic "super tweeter" that was effective. One simply placed it above he speaker and experimented with position. It was crossed over quite high, so there was quite a bit of experiment space.
About the B&W approach ... the mounting and cabinet "design" factors might be as much for visual style and and pleasing aesthetics than optimal sonic engineering.
Recall the ugly speakers from late 60s to 70s ... especially when you removed the grille. Nevertheless, AR's paper cone tweeter and Advent's "fried egg" tweeter STILL sound good and musical.

JRT's picture

This loudspeaker received a top grade, "A (RESTRICTED EXTREME LF)" in Stereophile's 2024 Recommended Components listing. That grade is described as being,
"Best attainable sound for a component of its kind, almost without practical considerations; the least musical compromise. A Class A system is one for which you don't have to make a leap of faith to believe that you're hearing the real thing."

There is no better grade than A in their loudspeaker recommendations.

Harrumph.

X