Buchardt Audio S400

[Krunok]

I agree the F208 shows better behavior, but they both exhibit peaks at the crossover point. I created an overlay of their two spinorama graphs. Adjusted to the same scale, they both show a peak in directivity index at the crossover point, with the F208 being a bit better behaved.

DI: S400 is black line, F208 is red line
View attachment 32695

F208 peak is more than twice lower than S400, not exactly what I would call "a bit". On the other hand, audible difference would probably be smaller, but it certainly looks as F208 is a better speaker.

 

[Thomas_A]

A question, how does sound power according to Harman measured in anechoic conditions correlate to large windowed response measured at listening position in a typical listening room? I don't have any waveguide, passive crossover at 3 kHz, and the crossover point is just barely detected.

 

[Krunok]

A question, how does sound power according to Harman measured in anechoic conditions correlate to large windowed response measured at listening position in a typical listening room? I don't have any waveguide, passive crossover at 3 kHz, and the crossover point is just barely detected.

View attachment 32701

The only thing you can (to some extent) compare from spinorama charts with your in-room measurement is on-axis response. Although XO point is not visible from your measurement it doesn't mean it wouldn't show up in spinorama charts when multiple horizontal and vertical off-axis measurements would be made.

Anyway, this measurement looks perfectly fine to me. Btw, I recommend 1/12 smoothing as our ears don't really detect these small variations shown with 1/48 smoothing.

 

[Thomas_A]

The only thing you can (to some extent) compare from spinorama charts with your in-room measurement is on-axis response. Although XO point is not visible from your measurement it doesn't mean it wouldn't show up in spinorama charts when multiple horizontal and vertical off-axis would be made.

Anyway, this measurement looks perfectly fine to me. Btw, I recommend 1/12 smoothing as our ears don't really detect these small variatons shown in 1/48 smoothing.

Yes crossover will show up in vertical measurements, which is expected for a standard speaker, but not horizontal what I can see. I was just thinking whether sound power measured in anechoic conditions can be difficult to interpret in relation to a normally reflective environment where gaps are filled in. Perhaps this is also related to how wide dispersion there is from the speakers and the relative contribution of side-wall reflexes in relation to floor and roof.

 

[Krunok]

Yes crossover will show up in vertical measurements, which is expected for a standard speaker, but not horizontal what I can see.

I don't think that is a universal rule which applies to all speakers.

I was just thinking whether sound power measured in anechoic conditions can be difficult to interpret in relation to a normally reflective environment where gaps are filled in. Perhaps this is also related to how wide dispersion there is from the speakers and the relative contribution of side-wall reflexes in relation to floor and roof.

As I said, I don't think spinorama charts have any relations with in-room measurements. You can get some similarities between spinorama on-axis response and your in-room measurement after you do room EQ but that's about as far as it goes.

For intepreting sound power and other spinorama charts you may want to look here.

 

[STUDIO51]

I actually said that dip in SP and peak in the DI doesn't really imply that waveguide is doing a good job. Although Revel F208 tweeter has shallower waveguide it doesn't have such peaks and dips in the Sp and DI graphs.

View attachment 32657

From the early reflections graph you posted it does seem that mostly floor bounce is responsible for that, although wall bounce doesn't look stellar too.

The range that Waveguide can control is only for frequencies with a shorter wavelength than the diameter of the Waveguide. Frequencies longer than the diameter of the waveguide are controlled by baffles and enclosures. In the case of the F208, the curved enclosure on the back would have helped with the linear DI and SP.

 

[Krunok]

The range that Waveguide can control is only for frequencies with a shorter wavelength than the diameter of the Waveguide. Frequencies longer than the diameter of the waveguide are controlled by baffles and enclosures. In the case of the F208, the curved enclosure on the back would have helped with the linear DI and SP.

I know that. But comparing diameter of waveguide to the woofer dirver (which is 6") it seems to be at least 7" to accomodate for woofer housing and that corresponds to 1930Hz, which is just below XO point hence my comment about waveguide. I'm also curious why vertical plane is much more affected than horizontal.

 

[Juhazi]

"I'm also curious why vertical plane is much more affected than horizontal."

It is because of path length difference between acoustic centers of sources. Typically spekers have drivers on top of each other, to get good horizontal dispersion. But the same layout leads to path length difference when mic is moved vertically, causing interference in crossover overlap range, this is called lobing. Coaxial mid-tweeter doesn't have this problem. Vertical lobing is not considered such a bad problem.

http://audiojudgement.com/speaker-lobing-polar-response/

 

[Thomas_A]

In another thread a forum member took issue with the idea that these speakers have well controlled directivity, due to the apparent jump in the directivity index right around the crossover frequency 2kHz.

Looking at some of their other measurements, it seems that the jump is at least partially due to vertical, rather than horizontal dispersion issues, but I was curious to hear everyone's thoughts.
View attachment 32641View attachment 32642View attachment 32643

The dip around 2 kHz ”may” be heard as hardness since the relation between 1-2 kHz and 2-5 kHz is not ideal if you include to compensate for the stereo system flaws in the deisgn. If anything it is preferred to have a slight boost at 1.8 kHz compared to 2-5 kHz to compensate for the timbral change of the stereo system. These flaws are summarized in Tooles book.

 

[Krunok]

"I'm also curious why vertical plane is much more affected than horizontal."

It is because of path length difference between acoustic centers of sources. Typically spekers have drivers on top of each other, to get good horizontal dispersion. But the same layout leads to path length difference when mic is moved vertically, causing interference in crossover overlap range, this is called lobing. Coaxial mid-tweeter doesn't have this problem. Vertical lobing is not considered such a bad problem.

http://audiojudgement.com/speaker-lobing-polar-response/

Sure, but I actually wanted to ask why S400 suffers more from that effect than say Revel F208?

 

[Juhazi]

The lobing depends on pathlength distance, crossover type (steepness, phase match) and xo frequency. I wouln't say tha either of these suffers from lobing, they are very good but a bit different.

Real problems in power response happen when both horizontal off-axis dip and vertical lobing happen in same frequency range. This can be seen eg. in many B&W speakers, using 6" midrange and high xo point.

When looking at grahic directivity presentations, we must check scales and if responses are normalized or not!

https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/Directivity.html

A bad case https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/Directivity/Spendor Audio Systems SA1/index.html
A good case https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/Directivity/Genelec 8030A/index.html

Close to perfect coaxial https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/Directivity/Tannoy Definition DC6i/index.html better than LS50 (without normalization)

 

[Roasty]

I'm somewhere around 40 hrs of music through the S400.

I just did a quick A-B with the B&W 606.

The clear and airy highs of the 606 and the addition of the subwoofer make it a much more engaging and enjoyable sound.

The S400 seem a bit more laid back. The less clear highs added to the meaty mids and lows (further accentuated with a sub) make it somewhat dull-ish.

I did the A-B test with my wife and she also prefers the 606+sub over the S400 alone and S400+sub.

For those with these speakers, were there any significant changes to the highs over time?

 

[maty]

I'm somewhere around 40 hrs of music through the S400.

I just did a quick A-B with the B&W 606.

The clear and airy highs of the 606 and the addition of the subwoofer make it a much more engaging and enjoyable sound.

The S400 seem a bit more laid back. The less clear highs added to the meaty mids and lows (further accentuated with a sub) make it somewhat dull-ish.

I did the A-B test with my wife and she also prefers the 606+sub over the S400 alone and S400+sub.

For those with these speakers, were there any significant changes to the highs over time?

https://www.avhub.com.au/product-reviews/hi-fi/bw-606-loudspeakers-review-test-517755

In other forum someone comments about the cheap tweeter of the S400. I do not know which tweeter.

 

[Aprude51]

I'm somewhere around 40 hrs of music through the S400.

I just did a quick A-B with the B&W 606.

The clear and airy highs of the 606 and the addition of the subwoofer make it a much more engaging and enjoyable sound.

The S400 seem a bit more laid back. The less clear highs added to the meaty mids and lows (further accentuated with a sub) make it somewhat dull-ish.

I did the A-B test with my wife and she also prefers the 606+sub over the S400 alone and S400+sub.

For those with these speakers, were there any significant changes to the highs over time?

It may be due to familiarization, but I perceived a substantial improvement in audio quality as I passed ~75 hours of playback on the speakers (Buchardt recommends 100 hours of break-in). Unfortunately I forgot to hold onto the REW measurements I took when they were new, so I’m not sure to what extent that subjective experience is reflected in changes to frequency response.

 

[Daverz]

Finally got around to making a REW measurement of my S400s. 1/12 octave smoothing is used here.

I don't think I'm achieving Buchardt's 33 Hz @ -3 dB in-room spec. My room is in no way rectangular, so it's hard to get reinforcement by putting them close to a wall, as there is no continuous length of wall long enough to get both speakers close to. I have them at least a meter from any wall.

I'm a bit iffy on the impulse response, as I generated the sweep file a few REW updates ago.

 

[Roasty]

*deleted and posted in rew for dummies thread

 

[HammerSandwich]

I agree the F208 shows better behavior, but they both exhibit peaks at the crossover point. I created an overlay of their two spinorama graphs. Adjusted to the same scale, they both show a peak in directivity index at the crossover point, with the F208 better behaved.

As mentioned by others, the S400's power-response dip is a crossover effect. Best place I immediately recall seeing this clearly is in Grimm's LS1 at 1.5kHz. (The What Were We Thinking paper has a highly accessible intro to baffle & XO effects. Recommended.)

What I didn't see mentioned is that this 1st effect causes the peak in DI. Because DI is the ratio of on-axis SPL to sound power, DI increases wherever the axial response rises relative to the power. And vice versa, obviously. Take a speaker with a normal dome tweeter. It beams, right? The DI keeps climbing with frequency, as the off-axis response drops off. Use a good waveguide - as in the S400 or Dutch 8C - and you can make the DI nice & flat thru the HF.

The S400's off-axis dip is exacerbated by the slight axial bump around 2k, so its DI really stands out there. I think this axial bump is probably a baffle effect, but I haven't verified that. If that's correct, a wider S500 would put the baffle boost & XO dip at different frequencies, flattening the DI.

Why does the F208 do better here? It's a much larger speaker, meaning it's baffle effects are about an octave lower. Either that, or Harman's R&D still dwarfs the little guys'.

 

[ethanhallbeyer]

All,
I have KEF LS50 paired with NAD C268 (80wpc class D) amp and an external DAC that uses dual Burr Brown DACs. The LS50 are very detailed, can be listened to at lower volumes just fine, image well and seem to have a deeper image from front to back. Vocals and instrumentals are its strengths. They are good for near field listening. I don't really find them too bright with my particular amp and DAC.

That said, I feel the sound can be a bit small, even in my 11'x11' room. If it matters, I should note that I don't have them up on stands 2-3 feet away from rear walls. I put them on an IKEA shelving system, 5" from rear wall, 4.5' apart, on each side of my computer monitor. I just sometimes don't feel like the music fills the entire room and I don't feel enveloped by it when I turn it up.

How would the Buchardt s400 compare? I read that the highs are rolled off, not as airy, that it's more like sitting in the middle section of a concert, whereas the LS50 is more like sitting further up front than that. I hear there is more bass from the s400 and they sound bigger than almost any other bookshelf speaker. What can I expect as an LS50 owner?

 

[Roasty]

All,
I have KEF LS50 paired with NAD C268 (80wpc class D) amp and an external DAC that uses dual Burr Brown DACs. The LS50 are very detailed, can be listened to at lower volumes just fine, image well and seem to have a deeper image from front to back. Vocals and instrumentals are its strengths. They are good for near field listening. I don't really find them too bright with my particular amp and DAC.

That said, I feel the sound can be a bit small, even in my 11'x11' room. If it matters, I should note that I don't have them up on stands 2-3 feet away from rear walls. I put them on an IKEA shelving system, 5" from rear wall, 4.5' apart, on each side of my computer monitor. I just sometimes don't feel like the music fills the entire room and I don't feel enveloped by it when I turn it up.

How would the Buchardt s400 compare? I read that the highs are rolled off, not as airy, that it's more like sitting in the middle section of a concert, whereas the LS50 is more like sitting further up front than that. I hear there is more bass from the s400 and they sound bigger than almost any other bookshelf speaker. What can I expect as an LS50 owner?

I just returned the S400 (within the 30 day trial). They are as what u described. The highs are somewhat lacklustre. I preferred the presentation and upper register clarity of my B&W 606, and paired with a Rel subwoofer, gave me a better balanced sound. S400+sub made the lack of upper register clarity/sparkle even more apparent. Having said that, the S400 mids and bass are quite amazing for a speaker of that size.

 

[Daverz]

I put them on an IKEA shelving system, 5" from rear wall, 4.5' apart, on each side of my computer monitor. I just sometimes don't feel like the music fills the entire room and I don't feel enveloped by it when I turn it up.

Maybe someone can recommend speakers that will give you what you want in that arrangement, but most passive box speakers won't do it, they need to be several feet away from walls and furniture. I'd also say they need to be further apart, and you need to sit further away, to get a room-filling sound.