Buchardt S400 Speaker Review

[hardisj]

The Buchardt measurements were referenced to 10 m distance with 1 V input. We need to add 29 dB to their numbers when comparing to Amir's.

Was just about to post this. Thanks for figuring out the math for us.

 

[amirm]

Beyond that, different mics and the 30dB difference surely must be contributors.

I don't think there is a 30 dB difference. It took me a long time to figure out the obscure way levels are computed in Klippel system. Likely that is at fault in their measurements. Noise would overwhelm their measurements if it were performed at 30 dB lower level than mine.

 

[amirm]

The Buchardt measurements were referenced to 10 m distance with 1 V input. We need to add 29 dB to their numbers when comparing to Amir's.

Ah, 10 meter is the default in the visualization module where similar on-axis data is presented. The CEA-2034 automatically computes the 2.83 volt/1 meter out of that. That also explains why the rest of the spin data is not in their graph.

 

[BYRTT]

Thanks Erin!

Since trying to excite it into happening did not produce anything audible, we really seem to be at a point of diminished returns. Still awaiting @BYRTT to report in, but otherwise, this may be headed to being an unsolved mystery.

Sorry i'm so terible behind today and official i'm at page thirdteen and it feels a little bit frustrating that for each time i eat one page five or more new pages gets in ...

Oops, missed this post.

Regarding model you posted earlier, did you simulate a passive radiator box or something else? Cannot explain why your model shows the same 500 Hz fluctuation as Amir's measurement...

Thanks!

Data i use is the nice zip-folder of anechoic spin responses Amir hang on per review into post one or thereabout so therefor area of 500Hz fluctiontions is there from that overmuch Klippel run, modeled baffle and diffraction per position of tweeter and woofer piston is from one of Jeff Bagby's free spreadsheets and modeled raw directivity index for 176mm spacing @2050Hz 4th order Linkwitx Riley crossover can be calculated in free VituixCAD using a homebrew tranducer model that have perfect directivity in all planes.

Its getting bit late here so soon will be offline but think its interesting acoustic stuff and thanks input on subject from you / @napilopez / @ctrl / @hardisj

Mostly it looks a scenario where we go from baffle loss to edge diffraction boost there is resonance in Amir's analyze even the smooth performer and high rating score number of 6,46 in KEF R3 has it as seen below yellow plus blue is tweeter/mid position and green is woofer position on R3:

Probably 500Hz area for S400 is a coctail of more than one variable in that area and therefore end up so amplified and ugly when Klippel NFS run its haircut, below is just speculation what noticed so far and remember i'm only at page thirdteen

One thing to the coctail could be the edge difraction boost another one port interference internal and also external plus that transducer series frame has a funny kind of underhung discontinuety about 140mm to 170mm diameter around the rubber surround as seen below, and also if we zoom into manufacture datasheet we see around 520Hz 0/30/60deg corolate.

Below visuals is stolen from @napilopez very good coverage of S400 thanks pages back and horizontals show same corolation as datasheet plus that port noise if its reel can probably wrap around external and make interference into the high Q coctail:

 

[Rick Sykora]

Thanks @BYRTT!

Lol. Shame on Amir for sharing his data and allowing it to be used in different tools to fool old guys like me!

Ok, folks. Now that my aging brain has finally figured out the correlation between Amir's measures and BYRTT's modeling, I am done.

Looking forward to Amir testing something else soon and giving us a new distraction. Hopefully in time, we will figure this one out, but my time for chasing an apparently inaudible anomaly has run out.

 

[xarkkon]

This thread is a textbook example of how to combine subjective, emotional evaluations of audio gear while integrating logical, verifiable technical and science-based information, and particularly how an intelligent ans astute company owner can deal with a bit of online controversy while maintaining composure and perhaps even enhancing his reputation a bit.

Personally, I am interested in the juxtaposition of objective measurements and subjective opinions, and then trying to understand the psychological factors involved in the frequent disparity between them. Conducting proper and statistically valifd Toole/Harman double-blind preference tests is complex, expense and involves logistical difficulties to assemble proper sample groups. However, I believe that existing results on record give us a lot of guidance in being able to understand listening preferences. We pretty much know what things/differences are likely to be audible and which are not, and unless ego and other psychological issues interfere, we can use that knowledge to help make good audio purchasing decisions without testing every component on the planet

As I approach doing a replacement of everything in my AV system except my computer-based source hardware and 40" LED monitor, I will post about and discuss my "feelings" and attempts at using logic and reason as I waffle about my decisions up to the last moment, and finally click my mouse on the "place order" button for each purchase. My decisions will all be very subjective and emotional, but tempered with objective data and hopefully, a fair bit of logic to challenge to my "feelings" and minimize the likelihood of making poor decisions that I might regret in the future.

As you can see from my location, local auditioning and purchases are not an option. I am one of the oldest audiophiles here at ASR, and I have enjoyed a lifetime filled with music played on good audio systems since I assembled my first vacuum tube and vinyl Hi-Fi system in 1958 - the very year that stereo went commercial. I feel that after having success with both store and on-line purchases (and even mail order years ago), I have a decent ability to evaluate audio gear for my personal use. Today, with the internet, that process is easier and much more efficient than during the days of magazines like "High Fidelity" and snail-mail letters to the editor.

Although I like the appearance of the Buchhardt S400 speakers and know that a bit of DSP in a better room would make them work for me, I will not be considering the Buchardt's for "logical" reasons. Based on my budget and a very small room where my speakers have to be very close to the back wall, the front-ported Elac DBR62 Bookshelves and DCR52 Center speaker for videos would very likely work better. Much of the weight behind my decision is based on measurements and discussions here at ASR. I did, however, also consider the Wharfedale Evo series with its modern version of an AMT ribbon tweeter, and they have not yet been measured by Amir - but the rear-ported center speaker was a deal-breaker for me. My decision on an AV processor and power amps is another story. My process for choosing them is a bit different than for my speakers, but more about that in other threads and posts.

I would be interested in hearing from S400 owners about the process you went through to become interested in these speakers, and what influenced your purchasing decision - both objective, plus some insight into your "feelings" about the product during the time it took to decide to buy them.

Simply put, they did what I wanted them to do. I auditioned a bunch of stuff and shortlisted to Revel M16, Chario Nobile, and Buchardt S400. Loved all 3, would like to own all 3. At the end of the day, I needed bookshelves that could fill a decently large living and dining room, with enough bass which the Buchardt could do better than the rest to my ears. Helped that the S400 were cheaper then plus there was a pre-order discount too.

 

[wwenze]

The signature edition costs €3,075... does the raw nordic oak improve the strength of the cabinet to seaworthy standards and help to colonize America?

Jokes aside, seeing how S400 has been designed (Klippel and stuff), I wonder how their more-normal S300 would fare (like, behave more "standard") and if the design methodology would trickle down.

 

[Juhazi]

Yes, a 2-way reflex loudspeaker is a failure by concept. Being 2-way is a challenge for directivity and spl capacity. Reflex port/resonator is another problem because it leaks/resonates also midband sound, not only that tuning frequency around 50Hz. Better concepts are in-wall speakers and 3-way with sealed box for the midrange.

Here compilation of measurements of Buchardt S400 . You can see on-axis peak at 500Hz with high directivity, but at 600Hz it rings like a bell. That's why on-axis spl has a dip because energy is radiated omnispherically. It is most likely total result of in-box standing waves ballooning side walls and backside resonator, modified with small phase deviations making null at 160deg laterally. However, this is a rather midl and narrow problem, it is not a problem with listening, just a beauty mark!

For comparison, check how this 3-way with closed box midrange KEF R3 works, horizontal dispersion here. Doesn't it look better behaved? The critical midrange, smooth as can be! Genelec 8341A shows similar traits.

 

[headshake]

For comparison, check how this 3-way

You say 3-way, but do you mean coaxial? Isn't that why it is so smooth?

 

[tuga]

You say 3-way, but do you mean coaxial? Isn't that why it is so smooth?

I would say that it is because of both (3-way and coaxial).

 

[ctrl]

I would also like to draw a résumé here.

Up to now there has been no clear proof for the resonance around 500Hz - the near field measurements of @napilopez suggest that it is interference between the bass-midrange driver and the passive radiator, only the course of the summed frequency response measurements does not show this clearly (probably the phase position would have to be adjusted a bit).


In order to avoid that, due to the lack of unambiguous evidence, Buchardt owners assume that vibrating cabinet side walls are the cause after all and start to reinforce the loudspeaker cabinet with inner struts, another simulation shall provide the missing piece of the puzzle (That sounds like I think Buchardt owners are stupid, I don't, but I needed a dramatic hook ).

For this purpose, the simulation from Post#274 is simply extended by the passive radiator. This makes the Buchardt simulation look like this from the front and back:

Due to the time involved, I did not simulate the inside of the speaker, but simply let the passive radiator emit phase-inverted sound.
To simulate the resonances of the passive radiator, which are increased in sound pressure around 400-600Hz, the signal of the passive radiator was simply provided with a bandpass in this frequency range.

I think that's pretty close to what Amir measured.

It becomes even more convincing when we look at the normalized horizontal sonogram with +-180 degrees compared to Amir's (not normalized) measurement:

During Amir's measurements there were always loudspeakers that showed interference of the bass-midrange speaker with the BR ports.
With the Buchardt this is only slightly more pronounced since the passive radiator has 1.5 times the membrane area of the bass-midrange speaker.

So the case is closed and I have learned something again

 

[Gatordaddy]

Hmmm, this leaves me with two speakers I really want to see tested. The ELAC B6.2 as it relates very closely in design and driver/crossover compliment to the DBR-62 but cost approx 1/2 and the Revel M106. That Performa3 M106 speaker really needs to be observed here. Revels best monitor under 2k. How does that compare with the Burchardt and the KEF R3?
I am thinking about buying a pair of the ELAC B6.2's specifically to test here. (Right now the M106 is out of budget due to affected income for myself and my GF that may last quite awhile & the M106 only comes in glossy finishes which I think look cheap and somewhat outdated. If I am spending nearly 2k I do want them to look good to my tastes. I would take the silver color in the M126be though.)

I'm also very curious about the 6.2. Going back and forth between the DBR62 and the B6 it is clear the debut reference is a better speaker, but it seems like the 6.2 addresses most of the flaws with the original model in more or less the same manner.

 

[Juhazi]

You say 3-way, but do you mean coaxial? Isn't that why it is so smooth?

The coaxial mid-tweeter system helps to get smoother directivity at mid-tweeter crossover, but we are not discussing that issue now.

The KEF R3 has bass/mid xo at 400Hz (highish?) with some phase match probblems because it's passive and has backside reflex port.
Genelec's bass driver has slot ports on the frontside edges and a reflex port on the backside. Because it is 3-way bass/mid xo is around 300Hz and obviously with LR4 xo there is minimal midrange "leakage" from the twisted tube rearside port.

 

[RMW_NJ]

I would be interested in hearing from S400 owners about the process you went through to become interested in these speakers, and what influenced your purchasing decision - both objective, plus some insight into your "feelings" about the product during the time it took to decide to buy them.

I bought the S400 for a couple of reasons that I think are pretty common for people who purchased them.

1. I have a dedicated theater room, but wanted to add music to my living room for when I have guests over. I wanted something small that could do reasonably well filling a fairly large space.
2. I live in a 19th-century farmhouse with most of the original architecture remaining...like the hardwood floors, radiators, floor to ceiling windows, etc., and I refuse to cover any of this with acoustic treatments...so the room is fairly lively and I needed something laid back.

I bought (and sold) a lot of speakers including the Revel M16, KEF R300, and also built Linkwitz's LX-Mini...and I thought none of them sounded very good in that room. I tried the Buchardt's based on the reviews, the published measurements, and word of mouth on forums. I thought they did the best job of any that I auditioned. Perhaps the JBL HDI-1600 would work better, but they weren't available a year or so ago. I also got in at the demo price, which ended up being less than $1700 for the smoked oak.

I will say reading through the initial comments of this thread, I was a little surprised. The measurements seemed pretty good and matched what Buchardt themselves published, mostly. I don't really see a whole lot different compared to many of the others Amir has measure (take a look at the Revel F35, for example). I think a lot of it has to do with the hype that, realistically, it wasn't going to be able to live up to. I'm glad to see the posts have been tempered in recent pages.

 

[hardisj]

I will say reading through the initial comments of this thread, I was a little surprised. The measurements seemed pretty good and matched what Buchardt themselves published, mostly.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about the difference in what Buchardt published for their specs and what has been posted here is:
Warkwyn ran the tests. They are the US distributor for Klippel. They offer a pay-for test and analysis service. I really, truly mean no offense to Amir but if someone were to tell me the two are different without any reasoning or explanation I would default to the assumption that Warkwyn's is the accurate data set, which I think most would do as well. However, people seem to be assuming that Amir's measured data is 'more correct'. I'm not sure about that. Speaking personally, I've been new to testing before. I've read and studied and then performed tests and found out later that things I did were wrong (either from feedback or self-analysis). I'm hesitant to doubt the measurements in lieu of Amir's. At least until we have some rationale behind it.

Is there something in the setup that is being done differently? (I don't think a calibration file for the mic is the answer, but that is one example that I know Amir has mentioned not using in the past). Is there a different set of post-processing procedures that should be done differently? Is it simply differences in the DUTs themselves?

We don't know at this point. So, for now, I'm simply viewing the two sets of data as different and gleaning what I can from both. But I can't honestly say I believe Amir's over Warkwyn's at this very moment. I prefer to wait until some further reasoning is provided before I take a side; if that even happens. And I think (hope) you all would understand that sentiment.

/$0.02.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Yes, a 2-way reflex loudspeaker is a failure by concept. Being 2-way is a challenge for directivity and spl capacity. Reflex port/resonator is another problem because it leaks/resonates also midband sound, not only that tuning frequency around 50Hz. Better concepts are in-wall speakers and 3-way with sealed box for the midrange.

Here compilation of measurements of Buchardt S400 . You can see on-axis peak at 500Hz with high directivity, but at 600Hz it rings like a bell. That's why on-axis spl has a dip because energy is radiated omnispherically. It is most likely total result of in-box standing waves ballooning side walls and backside resonator, modified with small phase deviations making null at 160deg laterally. However, this is a rather midl and narrow problem, it is not a problem with listening, just a beauty mark!
View attachment 60643

For comparison, check how this 3-way with closed box midrange KEF R3 works, horizontal dispersion here. Doesn't it look better behaved? The critical midrange, smooth as can be! Genelec 8341A shows similar traits.

Since it fits the data, seems like the most plausible explanation so far.

As an acoustic event, my takeaway is that it would be significantly dependent on by listening position and/or speaker position. After all, these measurements are done in relatively open space (with a microphone at a close fixed position) and most speakers are placed much closer to walls (with listening done at much greater distances) - not to mention in stereo and with 2 ears.

Agree there is some clear evidence (notably @hardisj measurement) that the passive radiator has more output from 400 up to 2K Hz) than may be desirable. The wide range of what is a likely a set of resonances, explains why it does not show prominently on the impedance graph either. I will toss in that all this is happening in the range where baffle step is transitioning too.

While this has (maybe continues?) to be an interesting learning exercise, I think it is worthwhile to point out that other highly regarded designs have significant midrange output from the backside (open back midranges, open baffle and other dipoles). They may have sets of beauty marks in that respect!

This anomaly is just one of many compromises (some way more audible) that can be found in many speakers. The casual reader should not take the analysis in this thread to be a condemnation of the S400. As at least 2 contributors points out, they liked it better than other more expensive speakers.

 

[dorirod]

I think the thing that bothers me the most about the difference in what Buchardt published for their specs and what has been posted here is:
Warkwyn ran the tests. They are the US distributor for Klippel. They offer a pay-for test and analysis service. I really, truly mean no offense to Amir but if someone were to tell me the two are different without any reasoning or explanation I would default to the assumption that Warkwyn's is the accurate data set, which I think most would do as well.

Do you mean in addition to the potential reasons and differences Amir mentioned in posts #338, #342, #343?

 

[xarkkon]

I bought the S400 for a couple of reasons that I think are pretty common for people who purchased them.

1. I have a dedicated theater room, but wanted to add music to my living room for when I have guests over. I wanted something small that could do reasonably well filling a fairly large space.
2. I live in a 19th-century farmhouse with most of the original architecture remaining...like the hardwood floors, radiators, floor to ceiling windows, etc., and I refuse to cover any of this with acoustic treatments...so the room is fairly lively and I needed something laid back.

I bought (and sold) a lot of speakers including the Revel M16, KEF R300, and also built Linkwitz's LX-Mini...and I thought none of them sounded very good in that room. I tried the Buchardt's based on the reviews, the published measurements, and word of mouth on forums. I thought they did the best job of any that I auditioned. Perhaps the JBL HDI-1600 would work better, but they weren't available a year or so ago. I also got in at the demo price, which ended up being less than $1700 for the smoked oak.

I will say reading through the initial comments of this thread, I was a little surprised. The measurements seemed pretty good and matched what Buchardt themselves published, mostly. I don't really see a whole lot different compared to many of the others Amir has measure (take a look at the Revel F35, for example). I think a lot of it has to do with the hype that, realistically, it wasn't going to be able to live up to. I'm glad to see the posts have been tempered in recent pages.

Welcome to the forums! And indeed, at the end of the day, measurements are one thing, your needs are another. Glad you're happy with your purchase. Enjoy!

 

[hardisj]

Do you mean in addition to the potential reasons and differences Amir mentioned in posts #338, #342, #343?

I didn't imply Amir hadn't. I'm saying, if you had no background knowledge of the situation and were to choose which would likely be more correct based on the fact that one is a user and the other is an engineering company, most would logically choose the latter.

Edit: I just checked those posts. 342 & 343 have no bearing. 338 might but that is simply a function of the singular measurements. So, even if you misunderstood my comment those posts still don't provide any rationale for the differences being discussed.

 

[NTK]

@hardisj I am surprised you haven't pulled out the Keyence Panasonic/Sunx(?) laser displacement sensor that you bought with your Klippel kit and used it to measure the cabinet flexing modes