extremely musical - beautiful highs, silky midrange and bass - stylish enclosure

none for the price

I have recently upgraded my CDM-SE7s to Nautilus 804s. I can say that I have not been disappointed. The CDM-SE7s are great speakers but they always sounded a touch boxed in. The 804s, in contrast, sing with clear highs, a silky midrange and a tight clean bass. I use them primarily for listening to chamber music (baroque in particular) and large orchestral recordings. They also serve as fronts in my home theater. I find them outstanding at reproducing the special timbre of oboe, bassoon, recorders, cello, clarinet, etc. To my ear they sound like a finely tuned instrument. They are also outstanding at reproducing the female voice - Diana Krall has never sounded better. The craftsmenship of their cabinetry is superb - I have the red-stained cherry version. They are also superb in the home theater environment - reproduction of male and female voices is superb.

system:

musical fidelity XP-100 preamp
musical fidelity X-AS100 dual mono amp
musical fidelity X-RAY CD player
center: HTM2
surrounds: CDM SE1
processor/amp for home theater use: Denon 5700
interconnects/cables: audioquest

Similar Products Used:

CDM-SE7

I've been listening to my 804s daily for about two months, having replaced my aging Apogee Duettas (dipolar ribbons) due to size and room placement issues.
For reference, the biwired 804s are being driven by a Rotel RCD-990 CD player, conrad-johnson PF-2L preamp, and a Krell KSA-100S amp, with Cardas and Kimber cabling. I listen to a wide variety of music, most often blues and jazz, but seldom country or chamber music, in a second-floor, wood-framed room approximately 2500 cubic feet in size. My observations have been:

1. Yes, the break-in effect seems very significant, especially in the high treble. The rest of my system is fully cooked, so I can only attribute the vast improvements in treble smoothness and openness to a break-in effect. Similar improvements in low- and mid-bass, on the other hand, may be attributable to the fact that...

2. Bass is highly dependent on room placement. I was surprised to find that this effect was nearly as pronounced as it was for my old Apogees, which (as dipoles) are notoriously finicky. I was extremely disappointed for the first week or so, having experimented with a variety of speaker positions in an apparently vain attempt to get real bass below 40Hz. All I got was bloat. However, persistence paid off, and they're now providing strong in-room (measured) bass response to nearly 30Hz, with significant bass to 25Hz. Good, tight bass. Much better than I expected from a speaker of this size. However, this is only true when volume exceeds background listening levels, and the Krell's above-average slam may be a contributing factor as well.

3. Toe-in and listening height are important for best results, and these speakers seem to work best with less toe-in than usual. Optimizing both changed the 804's treble from merely detailed to magical, with imaging and soundstaging rivalling those of my old Duettas. Wow.

4. Midrange was, as promised, outstanding. Female voices are scary-good.

5. Given their size, these speakers can produce serious, clean volume, with very little compression. Imagine B.B. King or Me'Shell playing in your listening room. Loudly. Realistically. Notice that you can still easily localize each individual instrument. Then remove the grillcloths and watch those little woofers in action!

Given the right supporting equipment, setup, and break-in, I think the 804s are great for those who want an attractive, smallish speaker with surprisingly tight, deep bass, impeccable midrange, and clean, extended treble to play at reasonably high volume levels. As such, it's a great monitor for small- to mid-size rooms. However, many people don't like this type of sound, and I guess the conflicting opinions I've seen simply prove that it's all a matter of individual taste...

Very smooth sound...excellent high's and midrange. Build quality is outstanding.

I am using the B&W's with a Jolida Tube Amp and a Sony CD changer.

Sound is amazing. This is my first "audiophile" type equipment and the difference between my old equipment is like night & day. I don't have too many specific to add, but these speakers are extremely musical. I primarily play accoustic jazz - Thelonios Monk, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker etc, mixed in with some british acid jazz. However, these speakers are at their best during vocals. I have a Dianne Reeves CD singing Sarah Vaughn tunes which is incredible...I can actually hear that Dianne's lips parting because they are a little dry when she starts singing on cut #2. Al Jarreau (older stuff like Take 5) has never sounded better.

Anyway, I "burned in" these speaker over 40 hours before I began my critical listening. I strongly reccommend these speakers...they are not cheap and that's why I will give only 4 Stars in the "value rating" but the workmanship of these speakers is simply outstanding and is only rivaled by the sound quality coming from the speakers.

The finish on these is a work of art. The sound is very smooth but still very detailed.

Just a bit light on base. I use a good sub though.

After auditioning several products for a new music/home theatre system, I settled on the following:

Fronts: B&W 804
Center: B&W HTM-2
Rear: B&W SCM-1
Sub: Velodyne HGS12
Rec: Denon AVR-5800
DVD: Denon DCM-3700
TV: Pioneer Elite 58"

The components all work well together. For me, the most important part is ALWAYS music reproduction and the B&W's have made me very happy. They are very accurate sounding speakers but not overly bright like many high end competetors.

Similar Products Used:

Thiel

(Low Frequency sound a little weak...)

Brilliant Sound Quality , Woth every single penny that was spent . I will recommend the speaker to everyone .

Similar Products Used:

Bose LifeStyle 12 , BOSE 901 , JBL , ONKYO , JAMO

Lower bass

Just wondering how long does it take for these speaker to really break-in. Because I had mine for over a month and had approximately over 100 hours use and I have not seen any different at all. Beside that it is a great speaker very natural and precise midrange guitar is excellent.

Very open and honest speaker, tight bass and great depth

Not as low bass as you would want from a speaker this expensive

One of the greatest speakers I´ve ever heard, especially as I listen to a lot of Soundtrack Scores and Classical music.
You really need good recordings on the cds you´r planing to play with these speakers - they are extremely revealing, which is both good and bad.
It´s not only a great speaker it´s also a beautiful piece of furniture.

I fell in love with these speakers the first time I listened to them(about a year ago) and think this will be a long lasting relationship

Similar Products Used:

The old 804(series2)

Articulate open midrange, taut well defined bass, exceptional clean clear highs.

None

I recently made the change to the Nautilus 804’s from a pair of Martin Logan Aerius “I”s , it has been probably one of the most fundamentally large changes that my system has EVER experienced.
Don’t get me wrong.. the baby Logans’ had a certain magic, however given that I listen to a large range of music, it had become a “love/hate” relationship, so.. it had become clear that a change was necessary.
Enter the N804, they have a neutral tonal balance,one thing that has become very clear to me is how they excel on instrumental timbre, capturing the natural characteristics of instruments and there acoustic signatures.
There are several things that I find critical in determining what makes a “great” speaker, the first is the ability to reproduce the human voice. I used to think that the Aerius was a champ in this department.. and it is .. but I believe the N804 can capture smaller inflections and characteristics of particular voices with an almost eerie quality.. there is no chestiness, or other nasties, voices simply are clear and articulate.
The second is piano, probably one of the toughest of all, I think my old Mirage M3si’s were awesome with the piano, the N804 is perhaps more articulate, focused, and accurate, with just the right amount of weight from left hand keys.. Excellent.
The third thing is timing, or pace, the N804 is agile and adept in conveying the timing in the music. I am not just talking about the bass, but of the overall timing of a piece of music. I once heard that Ivor Tiefenbrun of LINN said that an audio system wasn’t doing it’s job if it didn’t get your “toe-tapping” in sympathy to the performance. Let’s just say, that my “groove factor” has gone WAY up with these speakers.
The fourth thing I value is lack of upper midrange glare.. this is a death warrant to me, I cannot stand a speaker that has that quality.. it’s not an issue here.
Some people have commented on the lack of bass in the N804, I believe that they have either not heard them in a sympathetic system, or, they should look elsewhere to meet their needs. I have heard the N804 in several different systems prior to purchasing them, and in each case they took on a substantially different character… Flaw ? no, I believe they are simply reflecting the system they were partnered with.
One thing that has been covered in the other Nautilus series reviews is the abilities of the Nautilus tweeter, simply put, I think this is one of the finest tweeters I have ever heard. It is right up there with the Dynaudio driver that people rave about. After living with the electrostats, I think that this was probably the only standard type tweeter that I could have lived with. The highs are airy sweet, and fabulously detailed.
By now I guess you can tell I like them, I do indeed. The midrange is open, informative, shows incredible depth, and emotion.
These speakers MUST be bi-wired, to listen to them otherwise is a crime.. it opens them up, and brings on a level of coherence that is second only to competently done electrostats.
One other thing that should be mentioned is that the "phase plug" or "woofer-dick" should be checked for tightness now and then, it can start to unscrew itself, which will give the sound a slightly forward quality. Keep it tight, and you will have a wonderfully lucid midrange.
Associated Components:
Sonic Frontiers SFT-1 transport
Aragon D2Amk2 D/A converter
Aragon Aurum (running balanced)
Krell KSA-200S
Cabling is all Transparent Super and Ultra
Digital link is MIT Digital Reference.

Similar Products Used:

too many... ! :)

Smooth, attractive, compact

Too "smooth", lacking in deep bass readily available at price

After a good year or so of being out, I finally got to check out this speaker from the Nautilus line. Being intimately familiar with the Matrix and 600 lines, I was curious to hear if the Nautilus were truly a departure from B&W's decidedly English sound (people kept telling me the equivalent of "it's not your father's B&W"). When I first started listening, I noticed no obvious flaws at all. The sound was more integrated and coherent with better imaging and detail than previous B&W efforts. And they lacked the harshness I've heard in other B&W Kevlar designs, at least at the soft volume I was listening. Very unfatiguing. So then I set up some JMlab 920s ($1500 more, but not the current version) and put on my Patricia Barber CD which is a cornucopia of variety, great instrumentation and sound. Big difference in tonality and perspective. The JMlabs were definitely brighter sounding with a lively, but not fatiguing treble and dramatically more upper midrange info. The lower midrange/upper bass was fuller on the B&Ws. Imaging was somewhat similar, except the JMlabs produced a wider soundstage. Bass was snappier and deeper with the 920s, but a tad peakier rather than the B&W's wider range bass bloom. Bottom line, depite the stark difference in tonality, neither seeming to be just 'right', the more I listened the JMlabs, the slower and less detailed the N804s sounded. But when I put on the drum solo from cut 7, it was all over, the JMlabs sounded absolutely realistic with percussion (I should know, I'm a drummer), while the B&Ws simply sounded like someone had thrown a drape over them. And the horns were obviously better, too. Not just brighter, but better and more real. The JMlabs had the "bite" without the "bark". Although the 920s are more expensive, the 915s are fundamentally identical sounding less a bit of bass heft for $3800 which would have been a slightly better comparison, but would have changed little about my comments. The answer between these two is simple. If you have a normal to well-damped and/or slightly larger room the JMlabs were dramatically better than the B&Ws. But, if you have a small or bright room, the B&Ws might make more sense. Perfect for the small English living room, but not nearly as good for American-sized rooms. If the JMlabs had a little bit fuller and warmer lower midrange, it wouldn't be close.
But I didn't stop there because the above comparison was too "yin and yang", almost too totally different to be of much value. The JMlabs had nearly the opposite emphasis and de-emphasis of the octaves - but the JMlab-Focal drivers were clearly superior in speed and resolution.
So, I compared the speakers to the very affordable NHT 2.5is. The 2.5is had deeper bass with more heft, but the B&Ws had an edge with a smoother (but somewhat soft) treble and better integration and marginally better detail and refinement in the midrange. But not as big a difference as I had expected. The B&Ws had a little better imaging as well. A mismatch to be sure, but the NHTs did very well for just over 1/3 the price. Especially when I decided to turn up the volume a bit. The NHTs kept their composure at higher volumes that made the B&Ws Kevlar midrange get bright and edgy and the bass drivers lose their focus. Not a big deal for normal listening volumes, but the B&Ws clearly couldn't 'rock' or do home theater like the smaller, more affordable NHTs.
So then I tried the NHT 2.9s. Now it was a tossup. The $2500 2.9s clearly sounded more accurate than the N804s with deeper bass and more accurate midrange. The B&Ws sounded more refined, but it seemed as much a 'faked' refinement with soft upper midrange and treble. Of course, the NHTs also sounded more accurate than the JMlabs which had a thinner midrange balance. Both the JMlabs and the B&Ws were more detailed and/or refined sounding in some areas and in their own ways and both had a bigger soundstage than the 2.9s. But it was like a goldilocks thing - when it came to tonality, the JMlabs were too 'hot', the B&Ws too 'cold' and the NHTs were juusssttt right. The 2.9s also had the advantage of being less expensive, having a truly perfectly matched center speaker available and deeper bass. A better value to be sure. As soon as you factor in the price and versatility, the 2.9s nose out the N804s overall.
One last comparison, just for grins. I put the B&Ws up against NHT's new $6300 VT-3 - a high-end "home theater" speaker. Would the B&Ws make the latest, most expensive NHT speaker sound like a 'boom & sizzle' speaker? Not even close. Although the NHTs are $2800 more than the B&W N804s, I would suspect most B&W fans would dismiss them as a 'lower class' product simply incapable of matching the aristocratic sound of the B&Ws. What a surprise. IMHO, the VT-3s were top-to-bottom better than the B&Ws, so much so that I'm wondering what will happen if I can get them side-by-side with the N801s. The NHT's treble was slightly brighter but more accurate sounding than the mellow sounding B&Ws, but just as refined and more realistic with cymbals and much more "airy" sounding as well. Upper midrange was simply more "there", like the NHT 2.9s but dramatically more detailed without being slightly bright like the 920s. Lower midrange was easily the equal of the B&Ws (which I would consider to be very good, if warm due to soft upper midrange). But because of the tight, quick and neutral balance, the overall midrange was clearly better than the N804s. In the bass, it was no contest. The VT-3s were a full octave deeper with none of the out-of-phase ported sound ruining the low bass. Deep, fast, integrated. The JMlab 920s still had better, more detailed upper midrange and treble and will be preferred by many jazz listeners to the NHT VT-3, especially at low to medium volumes.
So, I was surprised to hear the supposedly state-of-the=art Nautilus speakers not being able to match the accuracy and detail and soundstaging of a "home theater" speaker, despite the price differential. And the NHTs clearly sounded better on classical and new age when you turned on the bipole drivers. Although B&W made its reputation as a classical studio monitor, they fell flat on classical music compared to the NHTs. Not enough dynamics, bass, soundstaging, upper midrange/treble presence and detail to sound real. Pleasant, yes, smooth, yes, uninvolving, very much yes. And when the volume got going, the VT-3s simply played louder without any hint of strain. The 804s got congested and confused in the bass and bright and harsh in the midrange. I blame the small 6.5" ported woofers for the bass and the soft, very flexible Kevlar material for the bright midrange at high volumes. It's odd for me to hear a speaker go from warm and fuzzy to bright and fatiguing with a slight twist of a volume control. Definitely not home theater or large scale classical music compatible.
So, while I wouldn't generalize about the entire Nautilus line, I was actually disappointed by this product. A good product in many ways, but nowhere near the level of the hype involved. I think B&W has mastered the art of spin and marketing in the high-end in the same way Bose has mastered it in the mass-market. Which is not to say that the 804 doesn't have its attributes. Although I would rule it out for many uses, it would be a fine speaker in a smaller, livelier room for soft to medium volumes. I suspect many people/rooms fall into that category. I wouldn't subject it to home theater or classical music because 'homey don't play that'. And I suspect many people will love the warm, buttery smooth, somewhat colored sound at soft volumes. It is innocuously pleasant, like Kenny G or Yanni. And they're very small and attractive with beautiful finishes. Very wife acceptable, even desirable. I can imagine a wife saying "you can have any speaker you like as long as they're these - IN CHERRYWOOD!" [sound of foot hitting floor]. And they have the 'added' value of being somehow prestigious to own - like an Audi owner that has his butt handed to him by a Honda S2000, most B&W owners simply won't care or even believe anything else might sound as good or better. A little cognitive dissonance goes a long way.....

For music: 1) NHT VT-3 2) JMlab E920 3) B&W N804 4) NHT 2.9 5) NHT 2.5i

For movies/5.1 music 1) NHT VT-3 2) NHT 2.9 3) JMlab E920 4) NHT 2.5i 5) B&W N804

An thusly, I rate them 3 on performance and 3 on value. If you audition these, make sure you bring home other speakers and listen side-by-side. It is easy to get sucked in by the warmth and smoothness and hype. They're good, but not THAT good (I'm not sure what speaker can live up to that level of hype, honestly). I have "listened" but I didn't "see".

Similar Products Used:

NHT 2.5i, NHT 2.9, NHT VT-3, JMlab 920

Made for listeners more intelligent than the one below

Bashed by listeners such as the one below

These speakers are not for heavy metal or rap and perform best if associated with real amps, not a receiver from Panasonic. For heavy metal or rap I'd go with other very well respected audiophile high-end brands such as Cerwin Vega.
It's a shame to see posts like the one below. Now looking forward to reading "reviews" written by "audiophiles" bashing more 3.5-10k speakers paired with cheap receivers for not delivering the goods, why not?

Similar Products Used:

too many