It would affect the directivity.So I'm confused. This affects the sound how?
Are those 18” subs? Where do you cross them with the towers?Loving the BMR towers after just one day with them!
View attachment 187864
They are 18" stereo integrity ht-18's and usually cross everything around 80hz.Are those 18” subs? Where do you cross them with the towers?
I bet that room thumps.They are 18" stereo integrity ht-18's and usually cross everything around 80hz.
Why get the V12 when an I4 will get you to work and back?I bet that room thumps.
I just got the BMR monitors and I have them crossed at 80hz with my 12” servo subs.
This might sound like a snarky question but I’m curious, why get the towers if you’re gonna high pass them with subs anyway?
I bet that room thumps.
I just got the BMR monitors and I have them crossed at 80hz with my 12” servo subs.
This might sound like a snarky question but I’m curious, why get the towers if you’re gonna high pass them with subs anyway?
Why get the V12 when an I4 will get you to work and back?
Love the vertical BMR center, @Jdunk54nl. You might want to explore tilting it back, considering ribbons have limited vertical dispersion. Very jealous of your setup. I am trying to figure out something similar for my media room that would allow me to run a vertical center in limited space.
I wonder if he'll consider doing an 'ASR Special' version of the BMR line. One where it is a 'passive DSP'/Semi-Active Speaker, by making the assumption they will be used with at least one subwoofer.
I like the dual BMR drivers of the tower (and the Mass-Loaded Transmission design), but it seems like a waste to try to punch all way down to 40hz. I'd rather see the monitors upgraded to have dual BMRs and a front port and aim for a +/-1DB to 60hz. Then you could mount it on the wall (using an arm to hold it just an inch or two out) and make up for the low end to taste using subwoofer separates.
Having skimmed the thread it looks like Phil thinks that the low end is pretty much entirely dominated by room modes anyways so trying to have fully controlled extension that low comes at extra costs in the design and/or is beyond the scope what a passive speaker can really be expected to do; So lets not leave it as a passive speaker. The Flex exists and is pretty affordable and lots of AVRs offer subwoofer management to some degree.
It would also neatly slot into the pricing range:
AA Monitors: $
DIY BMR Monitors: $.5
Square BMR: $$
Curved BMR: $$.5
Semi-Active BMR: $$$
Semi-Active curved BMR: $$$.5
Tower BMR: $$$$
Curved Tower BMR: $$$$.5
This would also let those of us who have sound containment issues push the volume up on the stuff that is easier to muffle and freely adjust the lowest end without compromising the upper range.
That's a very good pricing layout. We would need to at least double or triple the BMR sale volume to consider different varieties. Creating a model and running production is challenging. The price gap between BMR and BMR Tower doesn't have that much room.I wonder if he'll consider doing an 'ASR Special' version of the BMR line. One where it is a 'passive DSP'/Semi-Active Speaker, by making the assumption they will be used with at least one subwoofer.
I like the dual BMR drivers of the tower (and the Mass-Loaded Transmission design), but it seems like a waste to try to punch all way down to 40hz. I'd rather see the monitors upgraded to have dual BMRs and a front port and aim for a +/-1DB to 60hz. Then you could mount it on the wall (using an arm to hold it just an inch or two out) and make up for the low end to taste using subwoofer separates.
Having skimmed the thread it looks like Phil thinks that the low end is pretty much entirely dominated by room modes anyways so trying to have fully controlled extension that low comes at extra costs in the design and/or is beyond the scope what a passive speaker can really be expected to do; So lets not leave it as a passive speaker. The Flex exists and is pretty affordable and lots of AVRs offer subwoofer management to some degree.
It would also neatly slot into the pricing range:
AA Monitors: $
DIY BMR Monitors: $.5
Square BMR: $$
Curved BMR: $$.5
Semi-Active BMR: $$$
Semi-Active curved BMR: $$$.5
Tower BMR: $$$$
Curved Tower BMR: $$$$.5
This would also let those of us who have sound containment issues push the volume up on the stuff that is easier to muffle and freely adjust the lowest end without compromising the upper range.
Dual BMRs and a front port would make an already tall standmount speaker VERY tall--as tall as a small floorstander. It would not fit any commercially available stand. Wall mounting a deep speaker makes SBIR as bad as it can possibly be, so almost no one will want to do that[...]
OTOH, if cabinet volume were significantly reduced by making it as shallow as possible, SBIR is improved, and bass extension is reduced, so you could theoretically get your wish. The BMR's horizontal directivity pattern may make it a good candidate for wall mounting in a shallower configuration. Yet, as we have seen in pretty much every other attempt, it would still be a very compromised design.
That's a very good pricing layout. We would need to at least double or triple the BMR sale volume to consider different varieties. Creating a model and running production is challenging. The price gap between BMR and BMR Tower doesn't have that much room.
I bought a pair of the Towers to try out. This is the REW 1/6 smoothing after EQ.
View attachment 187918
I bought a pair of the Towers to try out. This is the REW 1/6 smoothing after EQ.
It looks like REW with full range auto EQ. The questions become: how many dB he has to lose in the preamp to get that response, how the response is away from the main listening position, and if the flattened response is the right mix of direct and reflected sound (which is hard to measure in REW).Thats an amazing result!. Is this a typical home scenario or a "padded" studio? Curious (maybe jealous) as to how it was achieved?
Looks like FIR filters in use to me. I'm betting something like Acourate or Audiolense or possibly Dirac.It looks like REW with full range auto EQ. The questions become: how many dB he has to lose in the preamp to get that response, how the response is away from the main listening position, and if the flattened response is the right mix of direct and reflected sound (which is hard to measure in REW).