This topic interests me as well, since I’m also in the market for new speakers under $3k or so. And, like OP I think scientific measurements are often the best way to shop for speakers, since listening briefly to speakers in a foreign room is bound to be unreliable.
I think it would be a good idea to focus this thread a bit more narrowly. I see a lot of divergence into meta-discussion debating the science, and even recommendations for speakers based on
subjective impressions, which is exactly the opposite of what the OP asked for.
One thing I like about audiosciencereview is the focus on scientific measurements
instead of anecdotal subjective reviews — because you can find those literally everywhere else, in excess.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m by no means advocating radical faith in the current scientific theory as immutable eternal truth. Since scientific theory does evolve over time, it’s entirely possible that spinoramas are insufficient to tell you everything you need to know about how a speaker sounds, and that debate is indeed fascinating one. But, I don’t think this is the place for it.
Therefore, I propose we focus only on speakers with
published measurements, comparing those measurements, and ideally ruling out speakers that perform worse than others in this category according to measurements alone (ignoring subjective reviews).
To that end, I’d like to being to attention the spin measurements of the Buchardt S400 versus other speakers mentioned here, at least two of which appear to have objectively better measurements.
Buchardt S400:
View attachment 36930
View attachment 36931
Ascend Sierra 2EX:
View attachment 36933
KEF R3:
View attachment 36932
Revel M106:
View attachment 36934
Is it just me, or does the Buchardt S400 spinorama measurement show significantly inferior performance vs the KEF R3 and Ascend Sierra 2EX? There appears to be a relatively significant problem with the directivity index and sound power curve — an issue which does not exist in the other speakers (except perhaps to some extent in the M106).
Ironically, even the Revel M106 seems outclassed a bit by both KEF and Ascend, using Harman’s own spin measurements (certainly in terms of plot smoothness and flatness, though we can argue endless about which overall slope trend flavor is subjectively preferred). But that’s a good sign for the science, since it means the science isn’t just something Harman developed to make Harman speakers look good: it’s unbiased and revealing in ways maybe it’s own creators might not like.
Any other thoughts on interpreting these graphs? Either we rule out the Buchardt S400 (and possibly the Revel M106) as the lowest performer(s) of this group of four, or someone must explain exactly why their measurements are not inferior to the other two (KEF and Ascend).
Given that nobody seems to be talking about this, perhaps my interpretation of the spins may be mistaken? If so, it would be very important for someone to explain exactly how and why this is; not just for my benefit, but for everyone reading this thread. Because the S400’s measurements here do appear to be objectively outclassed by the KEF R3 and Ascend Sierra 2EX, which are priced similarly.
Meta note: Remember, this is a forum specifically oriented towards comparing scientific measurements of audio equipment. So please don’t bring subjective listening anecdotes into this (e.g. in the context of this thread, I do not care how many reviewers hyped up on the Buchardt S400 call it ‘the best speaker under $2k ever‘; we all know the biases humans are prone to). And please don’t bring brand loyalty into this: Don't worry, none of us are bashing your speakers. All the speakers listed here are fantastic products. We are intentionally (almost by definition) “splitting hairs” here.
