- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,410
Ok, how about comparing S400 with KEF Q100?
The Q100 was measured at a much lower SPL than the S400. The measurements are absolutely not comparable.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Buchardt S400 Speaker Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
The Q100 was measured at a much lower SPL than the S400. The measurements are absolutely not comparable.
GelbeMusik
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2020
- Messages
- 445
- Likes
- 290
Ok, how about comparing S400 with KEF Q100?
I've got so many drivers pass (or not) my personal tests already, all with slightly differing results. But wonders were missing so far. There is 'Klippel' for spinorama, since originally he entered the market with a test facility addressing motor / suspension linearity. Not all are made equal, except for being quite limited.
That said, the THD, especially in the bass, is not the clue for evaluating a bass/mid-driver. In bass THD of pure tones is easily detected by the ear. Only that it doesn't hurt with music. Because every bass instrument sports purposely very strong overtones, harmonics (total harmonics) in itself. Otherwise it wouldn't been heard, because of the Fletcher/Munson curve. The base frequency of a double bass is found 20dB (!!) below the first overtone, in terms of distortion it would be 1000%. So, a few % more or less of a THD from the speaker do not count the slightest.
It is intermodulation. For instance the varying inductivity of the voice coil, when moving, wouldn't show down below. But is was identified by Klippel himself as the major contributor to squeaking, annoying sound of midrangers: intermodulation. More so with the general variation of motor strength over its way of travel. When producing low pitch content.
IM, the subharmonic part, is not masked by other content, as THD to some degree is. Additionally it doesn't fit into the serial harmonic context. And not the least, everybody, the layman would easily recognize an overloaded speaker, due to pandemic prevalence, spot on. It sticks to the most simple structure in popular music, the rhythm (bass).
Again, driving the Burchardt to 96dB (if it was eventually so) is way off its specs. It simply cannot be used in this regime. Same with the KEF, if the in/output was right, but I dunno.
Soundstage measures THD at 90dB at 2m. Would you say that would be more appropriate?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #445
Until recently, the vertical SPL level was wrong in those measurements.
The topic of how Amir measures THD has come up a few times before. I suggested measuring at 90dB and 96dB. This shows a trend; if nothing else. IMD is useful to have, namely for loudspeakers whose bass units are also playing in to the midrange and also playing near Fs. However, if the crossover point/slope >> Fs then IMD concerns are diminished appreciably, at which point you're left to simple power handling (thermal failure of the VC in most cases). HD is really only useful for identifying areas of concerns when building the loudspeaker; namely understanding at which point you're reaching the limits of the suspension or motor. Ideally the speaker is crossed above resonance. But some people don't use subwoofers for one reason or another and let the loudspeaker play full range which puts the importance of a distortion test (IMD and/or HD at the least) back in to play.
My $0.02.
That said, earlier tests conducted by Amir weren't standardized and though the SPL reading may indicate a particular value, they may not have been conducted at the same relative distance/output level. You cannot compare those tests. I won't wade through all the threads. But it's there if someone wants to verify what I am saying. I don't believe the standard approach was taken until more recent tests. I don't know where the breaking point is, however.
Edit: Amir beat me to the punch.
My $0.02.
That said, earlier tests conducted by Amir weren't standardized and though the SPL reading may indicate a particular value, they may not have been conducted at the same relative distance/output level. You cannot compare those tests. I won't wade through all the threads. But it's there if someone wants to verify what I am saying. I don't believe the standard approach was taken until more recent tests. I don't know where the breaking point is, however.
Edit: Amir beat me to the punch.
Ah ok, wasn't aware of that.
tecnogadget
Addicted to Fun and Learning
It it purely software related or as hardisj pointed out relative distance also changed in between old measurements and new ones ??
If it was just software related would you consider a gradual update over time of those first measurements/threads in order to get unified data?
This is becoming one of the best speaker data archives all over the net
It it purely software related or as hardisj pointed out relative distance also changed in between old measurements and new ones ??
If it was just software related would you consider a gradual update over time of those first measurements/threads in order to get unified data?
This is becoming one of the best speaker data archives all over the net
I can't answer for Amir but I believe it was different drive levels between tests. So you couldn't say "just increase this by xdB" to make them match.
For example, you have:
Test 1: HD measured with the microphone physically at 1 meter. Target SPL was 96dB.
Test 2: HD measured with the microphone physically at 2 meters. Target SPL was 102dB.
Test 3: HD measured with the microhpone physically at 1 meter. Target SPL was 102dB.
You can compare Test 1 with Test 2 because of the doubling distance rule. Which is, each time you double distance you decrease the SPL by 6dB*. So, if you just cut Test 2 distance in half you would wind up with a distance of 1 meter and a target SPL of 96dB. At least, theoretically. And that's "good enough" to compare between tests if one person conducts his differently (though, other things may come in to play that I can't readily quantify).
You cannot compare Test 3 with any of the other because it has a completely different target distance/SPL.
*Line sources (tweeter arrays, ribbons, etc) drop by 3dB.
I appreciate what you have all created here , we have 20 plus pages of what imo is very good discussion.
This given these speakers are a bit of a audiophile darling is very encouraging.
Thanks !
This given these speakers are a bit of a audiophile darling is very encouraging.
Thanks !
To be honest, if I were the manufacturer, while there is a lot of discussion revolving around the result at ~500hz and what causes it, the fact that this is pretty much the only thing being discussed as negative about this speaker would make me quite happy. It's not ideal; not completely measuring flat and whatnot and I'm sure there are some design tradeoffs made on purpose. But as we've seen in other tests performed here and elsewhere, it could be a whole lot worse. Even at this price point and above. So, all in all, I still think this is a very well measuring speaker.
tuga
Major Contributor
Last edited:
Don't get used to it - we'll find other threads for squabbling and keeping you on your toes!
One more post like this and I will get worried. Are you running out of beer?
Last edited:
This is not supposed to be a surreptitious advertisement, but the only 6'' loudspeaker with a passive radiator that comes to my mind is the commercial DIY project DXT-Mon.
There HD measurements at different sound pressures are documented. Since Amir measured THD at 96dB for the Buchardt, we compare the measurement to the DXT-Mon HD measurements for 95dB and 100dB.
At 95dB, HD2@100Hz for the DXT-Mon is about 2% and HD3@100Hz is a small 0.1%. At 100Hz the sound pressure is more like 93dB.
At 100dB sound pressure for the DXT-Mon, where at 100Hz the sound pressure is more like 98dB, you can see what "nonlinear distortion" means.
Five dB more sound pressure increases HD2@100Hz@98dB to only about 3%, but HD3@100Hz@98dB skyrockets to over 2%.
In comparison, the Buchardt shows about 100dB sound pressure in Amir's distortion measurement at 100Hz.
The distortions show for HD2@100Hz@100dB about 3.7% and HD3@100Hz@100dB is still below 0.5%.
The Buchardt is not at all negative here, on the contrary, the distortions of the third order are even extraordinarily small.
I think it is also clear why the distortion measurements for the DXT-Mon below 100Hz are no longer shown (apart from the room influence)
UPDATE: Please keep in mind: Even though I have given the distortions to one digit after the decimal point, this of course makes little sense, since the deviations are especially noticeable when comparing measurements of harmonic distortions from different sources.
Last edited:
One important detail that's been ignored in this discussion so far, likely because it's not apparent from images online as they both just look like boxes, is that the R3 is huge compared to the Buchardt, especially in height and depth.
I remember unboxing and being surprised at how comparatively small it was, as I expected it to be about the same size as the R3 because they're both boxy speakers often compared to one another.
The buchardt measures: 365 x 180 x 240 mm = 15.8 L
The R3 is: 422.2 x 199.6 x 335.5 mm = 28.2 L
You could argue that was a bad design decision on Buchardt's part, but considering many people by bookshelf speakers for their smaller visual footprint, I think this is worth noting. In my old place, the R3s would've simply been too big to even fit in my setup.
The Buchardt also has wider directivity above 4K or so, which is something I care about.
The R3 is still probably the easiest to recommend in the price range for sound quality from a passive speaker, but I don't know that I personally enjoyed it more than the S400.
Last edited:
No I just wanted to bump my like count , Amirm is getting away from me.
On diet too so it's hard liquor for me now ...
Well, I wouldn't really call that difference huge.
Regarding directivity, R3 seems smoother overall, so I don't really think you can tell which one you would favor in controlled blind test.
Well, I wouldn't really call that difference huge.
Regarding directivity, R3 seems smoother overall, so I don't really think you can tell which one you would favor in controlled blind test.
You must have never lived in a tiny New York City apartment then
.It's well documented that some people prefer wider directivity in blind tests, not sure where you're going with that. In some cases people prefer somewhat uneven wide directivity to very even narrow directivity. The Buchardt isn't as even as the KEF, but it's not drastically uneven either.
Also worth noting that the horizontal directivity mismatch in Amir's data is exacerbated by the lack of normalization to the on axis, and (for whatever reason) it is also worse than the three other sets of data we have on the speaker.
Similar threads
- Poll
