I think a buyer would deserve a better looking speaker than this
G1Giya, for 65 grand. Doesn't it remind you of the opera diva from
The Fifth Element movie?
I kind of agree with you....but let's at least say that they are original shape....and they are supposed to be functional too from what I understand. Of course Nautilus is probably the most original and functional design I have ever seen...but I am assuming he could not copy that one anymore...
Devialet is the digital amp?? I think they only make one model...(I will check)
I have listened to G3 with Cat (convergent) amplifiers...sound was pretty good....but I think the amplification can be done better..
Fwiw, I heard a pair of Wilson Alexia's recently and was very impressed.
Driven by a pair of JC1's they had power, finesse, and dynamics to die for.
They were way better than an Vivid's I've yet heard, and way better than any other Wilson's I've heard for that matter.
Driven by a pair of JC1's they had power, finesse, and dynamics to die for.
They were way better than an Vivid's I've yet heard, and way better than any other Wilson's I've heard for that matter.
In Stereophile magazine and web page
B&W Nautilus 805 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
think he meant measurements for this speaker
https://www.google.ca/search?q=b+&+...R8fstfHPM:&usg=__FApIYbjj0aB4RPfLlN-DL--aNnU=
Art I have listened to the Alexia's with Dan D'agostino electronics and full DCS stack and I was personally not impressed. Sound wasn't cohesive among ranges...but maybe it works better with different electronics.
Contrary to your experience the Vivid totally outperformed the Wilson, but again I listened to those through CAT electronics, while if I am not wrong you did through Devialet (digital amp)
I am sure he was referring to the big Nautilus and not to the 800 series 😀
Which again I can't explain why such a debatable frequency response could produce such an apparent neutral reproduction that has also been chosen by studio recordings for its accuracy. This really mind boggles me because the response is actually really ugly!!!
^Off-axis response variations equalize the ragged on-axis response quite well, making power response actually quite smooth. I would not call that good engineering but more like one of mother nature's miracles!
Spherical shape of mid ad tweeter "boxes" is actually not optimal acoustically!
Read John Atkinson's comments in the end of report! B&W 800 Diamond loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
Spherical shape of mid ad tweeter "boxes" is actually not optimal acoustically!
Read John Atkinson's comments in the end of report! B&W 800 Diamond loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
tbh, I frequent a lot pro forum, and I hear constantly that the 805 bookshelve is not good at all for studio work. something about the bass that is simply not accurate enough.
The big 800 are being used in various studio but in conjunction with a good nearfield.
Last edited:
ahahah yes this statement is kind of hilarious:
"Overall, the B&W 800 Diamond's measured performance suggests that its balance has been optimized by listening; the various small departures from neutrality tend to balance one another"
I don't think if I would call that luck to generate such a neutral sounding speaker...I think they went beyond simple measurements and paid extra time to listening session, which surprises me for a fairly big company like B&W.
I certainly can state that sound from 800 is very neutral at least to my ear and this is very surprising again when comparing the plots.
I gave up trying to understand why it sounds good I just listen to it.
"Overall, the B&W 800 Diamond's measured performance suggests that its balance has been optimized by listening; the various small departures from neutrality tend to balance one another"
I don't think if I would call that luck to generate such a neutral sounding speaker...I think they went beyond simple measurements and paid extra time to listening session, which surprises me for a fairly big company like B&W.
I certainly can state that sound from 800 is very neutral at least to my ear and this is very surprising again when comparing the plots.
I gave up trying to understand why it sounds good I just listen to it.
Yes, it was the Devialet mono amps and I did suspect at the time that they were the limiting factor. Obviously, I need to hear them in a good room and with good electronics. I'm sure they're highly capable speakers.
I don't think if I would call that luck to generate such a neutral sounding speaker...I think they went beyond simple measurements and paid extra time to listening session, which surprises me for a fairly big company like B&W.
I certainly can state that sound from 800 is very neutral at least to my ear and this is very surprising again when comparing the plots.
I gave up trying to understand why it sounds good I just listen to it.
The potential problem with this method is that you're potentially tuning the speaker to suit the preference of a few select listeners, whose music genre's of preference are unknown. As much as the method should be commended, listening sessions should always be secondary to measured performance as a tool for optimization.
I can only agree with your quote 😀
Devialet was for sure a big limiting factor!
Anyway....my dream speaker if I had to pick one would be the Nautilus if it could be single amplified with a big mama amplifier instead of having active crossover and 4 amplifiers. Too bad B&W doesn't revive that speaker and make a version for passive amplification.
What's wrong with it's internal amplification? For sure the amplifiers were chosen to match the drivers and the job they have to do, that is much more advantageous than whacking some single unspecified amp onto a passive design.
I wouldn't necessarily jump to conclusions about the devialet being any kind of limit either. They review and measure very well.
According to the North American sales rep, the Nautilus is not on the list of projects for further development. B&W is of the view that the performance of the TOTL 800 series is superior to it now anyway, so it will probably die a natural death in the not too distant future.
Re Devialet, accurate or not they are clearly a very different beast to a Pass XA. There's nothing subtle about the way they project inner-detail. For me it was just too much of a good thing when paired with the Vivids, to the point of sounding artificial.
The Nautilus is a 4-way speaker that's designed to be driven by gain matched amps via a supplied active crossover. IOW, it's not exactly audiophile friendly.
OTOH, it's very DIY friendly. I wouldn't mind the challenge of building some dedicated amps and a higher quality active or DSP crossover.
Unfortunately, they are quite rare on the second hand market.
It's a real shame that the audiophile world do not embrace active a little more, even if with semi active designs. IE B&W make the 800 series active between the bass and mids, but then require a separate amplifier to drive the mid and tweeter.
In fact didn't they do this at one point with the 600 series flagship?
Last edited:
Having listened to the original ("snail") Nautilus as well as to several iterations of the "Nautilus" 800 series (including the 801, 802, 802D, and 800D), I'd have to strongly disagree with this "view". The "snail" Nautilus is far and away superior in all meaningful ways. Not even close.
OTOH, I'm sure the 800 series is more marketable, more "audio-phool" friendly, etc etc. So, little wonder if B&W's marketing team wants to push this series rather than the active 4-way dinosaur...
Marco
measurements on amplifiers most of the time don't correlate to sound I can tell you that much as I build amplifiers...Pass can certainly confirm that as well.
I suspect the same for speakers that's why I have been adverse to the obsession with frequency response...but being said....obviously I am not keen with the peaks on frequency response either, just same as trying to justify why an amp with a non-linear frequency response should sound more accurate than another that has linear response...but in the reality it simply won't! Not being experience in speaker design makes me shay away from technical considerations and I leave it to the most experience here.
Active amplification,active crossover introduce complexity on the signal path which we all know has more influence and more sensitive to changes than power path.
In the other end, driving a speaker with XO requires more serious amplification and an amplifier can easily sit down when it comes to drive complex designs.
In my opinion the best solution,but this is me, is a very high quality and powerful power amplifier (no compromise) that drives a no compromise speaker with no compromise passive XO.
If everything is well designed there is nothing left to the imagination or to desire.
About B&W calling the Nautilus obsolete is pure fantasy...they would have called Nautilus series surpassed by the diamond,but that was far from the truth...something tells me they are fooling themselves and future customers with the new series as well.
For one thing, the Nautilus is conceptually completely atypical speaker, has been designed with real no compromise from scratch. It has been designed by their most proficient and competent designer they ever had and tuned with passion. Shape of cabinet, materials, drivers are still to die for.
The new designs looks kind of ugly and still uses the stupid diamond tweeter probably with the same XO...how can it sound any better?
I am curious to audition it with a proper setup and room.