Bowers & Wilkins used High End Vienna 2026 to make a serious statement with the new 801 Diamond D5. It’s the British speaker maker’s flagship floorstanding loudspeaker in the 800 Series Diamond line-up, now in its fifth generation. The company has not been seen at this particular show for several years, but they thought it would be the most appropriate venue to unveil their new top dog. And it certainly made an impression.

Our Bowers & Wilkins 801 D5 launch preview covered the core changes, including the updated Diamond Dome tweeter implementation, revised cabinet architecture, upgraded internal bracing, new crossover network, and the broader refinements B&W says are designed to lower resonance, lower distortion and improve resolution, dynamics, and imaging.

But how do all of these refinements actually sound? Pretty damn good.

We got to hear the Bowers & Wilkins 801 D5 in a proper demo room in Vienna, which matters because show-floor impressions are usually about as reliable as hotel Wi-Fi during press day. Listening in a controlled room to a handful of songs does not turn a trade show demo into a full review, but it does give us a much better sense of what the loudspeaker can do. And this is particularly relevant when the product in question costs $65,000 per pair and sits at the top of one of the most recognizable high-end loudspeaker families in the world.

The 801 has always carried more weight than just its physical footprint. You might say it’s the core of Bowers & Wilkin’s’ identity. The original 801 (known then as the Series 80 Model 801) arrived in 1979 — for just $2,850/pair in those ancient dollars. It quickly became closely associated with Bowers & Wilkins’ studio-monitoring reputation, including its long connection with Abbey Road Studios. The new 801 D5 continues that lineage with an improved Diamond Dome tweeter with newly designed mesh grill, first seen in the company’s even more expensive D4 “Signature” line. In fact, many of the advancements in the D5 series first debuted in the company’s Signature line-up.

Other notable design features include Bowers & Wilkins Continuum midrange driver, distinctive tweeter-on-top and turbine-head enclosure, and substantial low-frequency architecture. From the outside, the D5 series does not look like a radical reinvention. That is not really the point. Bowers & Wilkins is playing the long game here: refinement, mechanical control, lower cabinet noise, lower resonance, better integration, and a more polished version of a formula that had already worked quite well, thank you very much.

In our first listen at High End Vienna last week, the 801 D5 sounded like a flagship speaker should: large in scale, extended, yet controlled in the bass, precise yet delicate in the highs and supremely present in the midrange. Bowers & Wilkins best sonic trick — the ability to disappear entirely and let the singers and instruments be there with you in the listening room — is still apparent in the D5 series. At least it is in the flagship, but likely in the rest of the line as well, since they share so much in technology, parts and design.

The 801 D5 sounded clean, composed, and physically effortless, with the kind of low-end authority that reminds you why full-range loudspeakers still matter when they are engineered properly. No subwoofers here. You won’t need one.

The Bottom Line

While many of the revisions in the Diamond D5 Series are invisible to the eyes, they were audible to the ears. It takes the already excellent D4 version and makes everything just a little bit better: a little cleaner, a little tighter, a little more transparent. We certainly saw (and heard) many speakers at HIGH END 2026 that cost more than the 801 D5 (some more than 10X more), but few could come close to it in sonic transparency and realism. And that’s saying something.

Price & Availability

The most recent previous generations of the 800 Series may still be available while supplies last:

• 801 D4 (2021) – $46,000/pair in Gloss Black, Satin Rosenut, Satin Walnut, or White
• 801 D4 Signature (2023) – $60,000/pair in Midnight Blue Metallic or California Burl Gloss
• 801 Abbey Road Edition (2025) – $70,000/pair in Vintage Walnut (limited to 140 pairs)
• 801 D5 (2026) – $65,000/pair in Stealth Black, Light Walnut, Warm White, or Dark Walnut

For more information: bowerswilkins.com

Related Reading:

ai and ml

GPTZero claims only 5 of the report’s 45 citations matched their sources, raising questions about how the Big Four’s AI study was assembled

KPMG’s October 2025 report on the wonders of agentic AI has been accused of demonstrating one of the tech’s less desirable talents: making things up.

Research outfit GPTZero claims a forensic review of the Big Four firm’s October 2025 report, “Total Experience: Redefining Excellence in the Age of Agentic AI,” found that only five of its 45 citations correctly pointed to the cited source; the rest ranged from mangled and misleading to partially fabricated or too vague to verify.

The consulting industry has form here. Last year, Deloitte ended up refunding the Australian government after AI-generated content slipped into a taxpayer-funded report. 

GPTZero dubbed the phenomenon “vibe citing” – the citation equivalent of vibe coding – where generative AI appears to stitch together fragments of real sources, invent titles, or otherwise produce references that look convincing until someone actually clicks them.

GPTZero alleges that roughly half of the report’s factual claims were false, unsupported, or attributed to the wrong source. Several case studies highlighting supposedly cutting-edge deployments of agentic AI appear to have been particularly creative.

Among the examples highlighted by GPTZero were purported agentic AI deployments at UBS, Swiss Federal Railways, and Transport for London. According to GPTZero, the sources cited to support those case studies either did not substantiate the report’s claims or contained alterations and paraphrasing that undermined their reliability.

“These factual errors are not confined to the report’s footnoted passages,” GPTZero said. “On page 42, the authors claim that Emirates airline has adopted a mobile chatbot named Sara (false) that can converse directly with passengers (partially true) and change their flights (false). In fact, Sara is a robot assistant introduced by Emirates in 2023 (not a chatbot) that lacks the ability to alter flight bookings.”

Not all of the alleged problems involved external sources. GPTZero noted that the report appears to contradict KPMG’s own research, citing a figure of 55 percent of CEOs ranking AI as their top investment priority. KPMG’s 2025 CEO Outlook, released the same month, put the number at 71 percent.

KPMG has since removed the report from some of its websites while it investigates how the publication made it into the wild, according to the Financial Times.

A spokesperson at KPMG told The Register: 

“KPMG International takes the accuracy and integrity of its published content seriously. The report has been removed and we are reviewing the circumstances surrounding its publication. We expect all our people to follow our guidelines on the responsible use of AI, including human oversight to validate content and verify independent sources.”

Consulting firms have spent years warning clients about AI hallucinations. According to GPTZero, KPMG may have just provided a live demonstration. ®

Bullying. Isolation. Stress.

Everyone experiences these on the journey from adolescence to adulthood, but new data on the mental health of LGBTQ+ youth shows the additional pressures they face increases their risk of suicide compared to their peers.

The Trevor Project, a nonprofit focused on suicide prevention for LGBTQ+ youth, has released its most recent survey of 16,000 LGBTQ+ young people 13 to 24. Among the most concerning figures was one in 10 participants reporting that they had attempted suicide during the previous year. And more than one-third seriously considered suicide.

Experts also tell EdSurge that the strain of mental health issues and unwelcoming school settings directly harm students’ ability to thrive in, or even attend, their classes.

Despite the sobering results of the survey, the data also reveals solutions — including a role for schools.

“One of the most important findings is that when adults, institutions, and communities become more affirming, the suicide risk of LGBTQ+ young people goes down,” Ronita Nath, the Trevor Project’s vice president of research, says. “Schools play a life-saving support by creating environments where LGBTQ+ young people feel safe, accepted and supported.”

Feeling the Pressure

With 2026 on track to be another record-breaking year for anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced at the state and federal levels, a vast majority of survey respondents said they felt stressed, anxious or unsafe due to the policies and the debates surrounding them.

When those young people are caught in the crossfire of heated political debates, Nath says the negative rhetoric that trickles down has real consequences. Youth who reported experiencing victimization due to their gender identity or sexual orientation — like bullying, physical harm or exposure to conversion therapy — were three times as likely to attempt suicide as their peers.

Those risks dropped among survey participants who said their school affirmed their identity. Support can look like adopting curriculum that counters anti-LGBTQ+ bias and increasing access to mental health services.

Forty-four percent of survey participants said they couldn’t access the mental health services they needed. Some of the barriers to those services were tangible, like not being able to afford transportation to see a counselor. But many were not: they cited fear of their mental health problems not being taken seriously, not being understood by a mental healthcare provider, or past negative experiences that made young people hesitant to seek services again.

Nath encouraged schools to offer gender and sexuality alliances (GSAs), ensure anti-harassment policies were in place and provide professional development for educators to help ease students’ discomfort. “We know [that] not only improves mental health and well-being for LGBTQ+ youth, but for all their peers,” she says.

Strain on School Success

Research shows that well-being, engagement and a sense of belonging go hand-in-hand with students’ ability to thrive in school, according to Megan Pacheco, executive director of Challenge Success. The group is a nonprofit focused on increasing student well-being, engagement and belonging that’s based in Stanford’s Graduate School of Education.

The stress that gender-diverse students — including transgender, non-binary and gender-queer youth — experience can become an obstacle to their academic success. If they feel their identity is threatened or lack a sense of belonging, Pacheco says, they’re less likely to reach out for help.

“It’s going to affect their participation, how they show up in the classroom, and it’s going to affect their well-being,” she says.

Challenge Success’ large trove of survey data on the school experiences of middle and high school students reveals that students who identify as transgender, non-binary or gender diverse report more stress than their peers who identify as boys and girls, says Sarah Miles, director of research for Challenge Success.

“Instead of two or three sources of stress — family pressure, or peer relationships, or social media — it is just all the above,” Miles says. “In order to be able to function, use your working memory, be present, be engaged … if you have all those things on board that you’re worrying about, you’re just not able to attend to school in the same way.”

Among LGBTQ+ youth who are in school, about 85 percent said they had at least one adult at school who is affirming of their identity, according to the Trevor Project data. More than half of respondents said school was an affirming place, second to online spaces.

Matthew Rice, who chairs the science department at a New Jersey high school, tells EdSurge that students don’t judge safety by a school’s mission statement — they judge it by how adults respond to situations like harassing comments made in the hallway, classroom jokes, pronoun use and whether discipline is applied consistently among varying groups of students.

Rice has published research on the experiences of transgender and nonbinary educators, but the overall lessons gleaned from his work apply to students as well.

“Students notice who is allowed to exist authentically in schools,” Rice said via email. “Representation is not symbolic: It changes students’ perception of what futures are possible and who belongs in intellectual spaces. For many students, the first openly LGBTQ+ adult they meet is an adult at school.”

When it comes to supporting gender-diverse students, Miles of Challenge Success says she wants to dispel the belief that helping them thrive is a zero-sum game.

“I think there’s sometimes a misconception that if we give these students support, then other students aren’t getting support,” she says. “What’s really important is that, by giving students who identify as gender diverse support, everyone benefits, because all students then feel safe to show up — whatever their identities.”

Recently, my kindergartner climbed onto the scale and asked me what dinosaurs also weighed 50 pounds. Thanks to Claude, we quickly learned, to my son’s delight, that he is the size of a juvenile velociraptor.

Artificial intelligence helped me with a question I couldn’t have answered on my own. But it didn’t replace me as a parent or my son’s role as a learner. A few weeks later, I had forgotten the answer, but my son didn’t. He was the keeper of knowledge, and I was the conduit.

Something like this is happening in schools and colleges, too. Information is more easily accessible than ever before. Anyone anywhere can ask an AI tool a question and receive an answer that seems reasonable, at least on the surface. It’s not surprising, then, to see predictions of the demise of traditional schools and colleges.

But education has never been only about access to information. Students need much more to become capable members of society. They need the ability to assess the quality of information, recognize strong work, and connect ideas. Students also need to grapple with the reality that not everyone agrees, and that’s ok. This kind of learning requires human relationships that expose students to the friction of life that sycophantic AI models tend to obscure.

The big question is how to know when AI supports real learning and when it leads to the “cognitive surrender” of accepting AI-generated answers with minimal scrutiny. Recent research findings shed some light on that.

Learning by AI Type

First, learning varies significantly based on the type of AI used. The dangers of cognitive surrender are greater when students use the standard, free versions of LLMs. Those models are designed to be helpful and therefore simply provide answers to the questions they are asked. Brain activity and retained learning are lower when students are working with AI in this way.

In contrast, tools that scaffold learning and support in-person instruction can produce outcomes even more impressive than my son’s memory of the size of teenage dinosaurs. One study of an introductory undergraduate physics course found that students using a carefully designed AI tutor had twice the learning gains of those receiving active, in-person instruction.

Learning Process Matters

Second, the role that AI plays in the learning process matters, and it should be off-limits at times. The authors of the physics course study cautioned that structured AI tutoring may not be appropriate for tasks “requiring complex synthesis of multiple concepts and higher-order critical thinking.” In a larger-scale example, Estonia’s education minister—who is overseeing the country’s ambitious partnership with OpenAI to provide a custom AI platform in upper secondary schools—has described a blended model. Students use handwriting to form memories early in the learning process and, later, use digital tools for feedback and AI-assisted learning. Estonia is not introducing AI in earlier grades so that students can build foundational knowledge and skills first.

Support for Educators Needed

Third, because the outcomes are so far apart between good and bad AI use in learning, educators need support to add AI to their teaching toolkit responsibly. In one study from Sierra Leone, secondary school educators completed a one-day training before adding AI tools in the learning process and only then saw math learning gains equivalent to more than a year of additional schooling.

Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic all offer learning modes and other supports built on these ideas. Still, those features are typically opt-in and getting harder to find for non-enterprise users. OpenAI, for example, launched “study mode” in July 2025 but quietly removed it from the standard ChatGPT interface this spring. The feature remains available to schools and systems with enterprise contracts. These contracts are expensive but drive demand for the types of AI that educators actually want, especially when leaders collaborate across systems and make similar asks of tech companies in procurement.

Schools, colleges, and educators should not be alone in navigating these waters. Philanthropy can help, for example, by supporting training that respects teachers’ expertise, conducting independent research on what works, and advancing advocacy work that counterbalances the size of tech firms. They can also help make enterprise contracts more affordable and support the development of procurement standards that protect learning, student data, and educational institutions’ sovereignty over their own systems.

This fits with philanthropy’s history of helping the benefits of new learning approaches reach everyone. For example, as compulsory schooling laws were passed at the turn of the 20th century, communities benefited from Andrew Carnegie’s 2,509 libraries (many of which served as classrooms) and Julius Rosenwald’s 5,000 schools that educated a third of Black children in the rural South.

Looking even further back in time gives me confidence that humans can weather tech-driven transitions and come out in a better place. German apprenticeship programs are strong today in part because, during the Industrial Revolution, German guilds adapted their models to fit an evolving economy rather than resisting change outright.

Today’s overflowing supply of information began with the printing press, which expanded access to texts and eventually reshaped who could claim expertise. I can capture and share these thoughts with you in part because, very long ago, writing transformed curriculum, credentialing, and information exchange.

Humans may not be as cool as velociraptors, but we have incredible agency and potential to evolve to meet the moment. All of us—including tech providers, educators, and philanthropy—can play an active role in shaping what’s next for students.

Baidu’s robotaxis are heading to the Alps. AmiGo, a venture between the Chinese giant’s Apollo Go robotaxi unit and Swiss Post’s PostBus, has won a special permit from Switzerland’s Federal Roads Office for Level 4 autonomous driving, Baidu said.

Level 4 means the vehicle drives itself within a defined area. Open-road trials began on 1 June across about 80 square kilometres of eastern Switzerland, in the cantons of St Gallen and the two Appenzells. For now, a safety operator still rides in each car.

What AmiGo is

AmiGo pairs Chinese self-driving technology with a Swiss public-transport operator. PostBus runs the country’s distinctive yellow postal buses; Apollo Go supplies the autonomous driving system. Riders book trips through the AmiGo app.

The cars are Apollo Go’s RT6: fully electric pods that carry up to three passengers and pack more than 30 sensors. The steering wheel is built to be removed once the service goes fully driverless. “With AmiGo, we are making automated mobility in public transport tangible,” said PostBus chief executive Stefan Regli.

Why the Apollo Go robotaxi permit matters

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

Europe has almost no robotaxis, and the few efforts are early. Riders still cannot hail one across most of the continent. Uber is only now starting a programme in Munich, and most pilots remain just that.

A Chinese operator winning a European Level 4 permit is a notable first. It also extends Apollo Go’s reach beyond China, where it ran into trouble in Wuhan when a fleet froze in traffic.

The numbers behind the push

Apollo Go is scaling fast. Baidu says the service delivered 3.2 million fully driverless rides in the first quarter of 2026, peaking above 350,000 in a single week in March. Cumulative rides passed 22 million by April, across 27 cities.

That scale is the pitch to European regulators and partners alike. But the Swiss permit is narrow and the trial zone small. The partners are clear about the path: a closed user trial, then rides with no safety operator, then regular service from 2027, in what they call the largest planned automated public-transport operation of its kind in Europe. Chinese rivals are expanding too, and Europe’s patchwork of national rules still makes every market a fresh fight. The question is whether a careful Swiss pilot becomes a template, or stays a postcard.