Philharmonic BMR Monitor Semi-Objective Review - Road Show Stop 1

[alexis]

I think it is a long time between the BMR V1 and BMR V2 reviews. Maybe I was expecting to hear a bit improvement that we made on the V2 vs the V1 (Of course I'm bias as I'm the co-creator for BMR and Tower). For example, the improved second order crossover to improve the sensitivity and the slightly better mid range performance comparing to the V1. The V2 in our opinion is closer to the BMR Tower than the V1. The "issue" with the Raal tweeter on V1, IMO, isn't really audible except testing. The improvement from the Raal tweeter while is easier to spot on paper doesn't impact as much as the crossover re-alignment and increased sensitivity.

The "high output" and "Home theater" thing have been discussed several times. For my real usage, I recently replaced all my BMR V1 in my theater to V2. The increased sensitivity "supposed" to help but it doesn't really make auditable difference after Audessey. I sit 14 feet from the screen. The screen is 152" in size. The room has a slightly vaulted ceiling and is fully light controlled. (The JVC NX7 is awesome for the 152" screen). I usually listen at 65-70 dB (Denon Audessey calibrated). I turned it up to 75 dB tonight but half way through the movie, I lowered it down to 68. This is an audiophile and kick-ass home theater...

 

[ROOSKIE]

I'd say 99.99% people do not listen at 85dB or above level. I tested one of the BMR harmonic distortion at 90 dB (OmniMic is accurate in dB reading) and I have to wear ear protection. In my Home theater, I usually listen at 65 dB with some scenes the volume would be higher. Before I actually use a dB measurement tool, I don't really know how loud I'm listening. When Dennis and I did the Capital Audio Show last November, he was demoing the Tower's super bass capability by turning the volume way up to shake the room. When we switch to regular track, we forgot to turn down to the normal volume, that instant, the Tower was driven by full power of the NC400 in the demo room. Every one was shocked because of the super loud volume and also the clean clarity of the sound. We immediately turn down the volume to "normal" to not shock everyone. That is to say for a very short instant (almost like a reflective thing), extremely loud volume can shock us to cause reflective action. The high output higher frequency is.....

65db is pretty meek. I think quite a few people listen well beyond that. I can even imagine such low volumes for my best times.

I regularly listen at SPL levels averaging in the High 80's, (even from time tome low 90's) and peaking at 100db or more.
Remember ( I know you know this but for others who are new) SPL is reduced with distance so at 4meters or so you need more capability in 1meter refence to provide high output.

I check my SPL regularly and am very familiar with my volume levels.

That said there is a difference between the SPL in a SWEEP and the cumulative SPL or room equilibrium state of pink noise. They are not the same thing at all. C, B, Z, A or whatever weighted averaged SPL is much lower than a RAW sweep.

That said I may be concerned about the compression as in louder sessions I seem to become far more sensitive/aware of subtle quality issues.

I believe the review mentioned 10% HD at 100hrz - that is not in the data, (I see 1%@86 & 2.5%@96 there which is good). I see much less. It hits 2nd order 10% at 70hrz and 3rd order at 10% at 60hrz all at 96db levels.

I am very familiar with the SB acoustics woofer measuring higher levels of HD when pushed hard- it is not really a beastly bass oriented woofer. I don't think that presents the issue that many would like to think and certainly it has been covered over and over again that this is not a well understock aspect of loudspeaker performance. Who knows. It is easy to measure so the testing is commonplace, I firmly believe that that is all we know - it is easy to measure. Toole covers this, Geddes did some testing and found that in waveguided tweeters very high HD levels were not an issue but edge diffraction and increasing turbulence there at higher SPL was. We don't see this tested because it is very hard to test. IMD is not tested often as it is very difficult to test.
-I'd much rather know how this affects the performance but it is hard to test well.

I have a pair of BMR's available to test now and have heard only a few tracks so far. Let's see what is what here over time.

As of now they are very wide as to be expected and the effect is very very nice. I can't see why anyone would absorb any of this beyond normal room furnishings typical of a comfortable space. This is a speaker purposely designed to fill the room with natural diffusion. I could see using diffusers as Floyd Toole recommends in his book and skipping any sort of absorption. That will only screw up the very well balanced wide directivity and resulting lush sense of room filling sonics.
If the directivity seems overly wide this may not be the right speaker for the intended buyer. If you like wide this is it. It is also clearly extremely sophisticated sounding - as in no question I am excited to hear more.

One thing I will note is that my Revel M126be while smaller, seems to be more dynamic on peaks - it actually is able to startle me more than any bookshelf I can remeber. It is also a clearer- cleaner sounding speaker. It also doesn't quite fill the room as fully and dare i say "magically" as the BMR. That room filling quality seems to be the BMR's money hour and I can see why. We will see what comes with more listening and some testing with measurement gear.
I expect (unlike my R3 and M126be shootout where the R3 lost easily) that "choosing" a favorite over the M126be and BMR is going to be very hard and maybe not possible. I also have the JBL 4309 and L82 here and the M16.

Say @hardisj when you do the compression test what amp are you using there?

 

[ROOSKIE]

A question for the community:

To my ears, no speakers I've ever heard are able to reproduce the sound of percussion -- drum sticks hitting cymbals, or clapping hands, or snapping fingers -- with enough realism that you could close your eyes and really imagine you were hearing the live musician in your room. For vocals, guitar, strings, or horns, yes, speakers can transport me there. But hit two drum sticks against each other, and the illusion is gone.

I wonder: is it lost in the recording, or in the speakers, or somewhere else?

Does anyone own speakers that reproduce those sounds like a live performance, real enough that it really sounds like it's in your room? What recording, what speakers?

Why I ask: I wonder if the ribbon tweeters I've heard sound more realistic than domes for those percussive sounds, maybe because of the overtones. But I've never ABX tested, and I don't trust my listening memory.

I 1st thing that I heard when I fired up my M126be's was how real two drum sticks hitting each other sounded. Actually made the M16 sound like a "tin can."
Go try some thing from the BE line and see what you find.
My JBL 4309's sound pretty darn live. I think that even dispersion well into the treble helps and that waveguide and tweeter just crush dynamic highs. They also have SPL for days as long as you HP them at 60-90hrz.
I have the BMR to compare now and will over the next week.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Erin's original reviewed BMR used the same paper woofer as in past years. Only recently did Dennis change that. He didn't see the compression back then:

It's also not evident in the tweeter by 98 dB. The BMR was one of the higher output speakers he tested. Wonder what happened?

I believe the OG woofer was famous for being a bass beast that can also do an okay 2-way. Mainly a 3 way monster monitor speaker woofer. They stopped making that woofer though.

So yah what happened with the tweeter here - same tweeter right?
Makes no sense to me. (shipping damage, mic issue, anything else beyond a strange change?)

 

[Chromatischism]

Note the original reference:
The "old" was at 2.83v. Whatever base sensitivity the speaker was. Which appears to be about 84dB.

My "new" tests are normalized to 76dB. That means the reference output is 8dB from the start. Depending on how non-linear the speaker is at the low-to-mid volumes (76-86dB) that could very well explain these differences. IOW, you aren't comparing apples-to-apples. You can possibly compare 84dB to the higher output values but if I had to guess, I'd say that's where the main difference lies.

Do you think you would go back and normalize data from past reviews to bring them in line? I know that's work and time is limited, but limit the scope to just things that make the data comparable, like this. You don't have to go hog wild on everything. Maybe take a breather from the massive in-wall testing you did and use that time.

 

[Chromatischism]

There is so much more in between that I find interesting. As I said, the fact that I previously loved the v1 for its wide radiation but found myself to not care for it this round (in my home theater room) thanks to the seemingly lack of clarity it results in is an interesting finding. I didn't expect that. At all.

Then, throw in that my experience in my larger and open living room wasn't quite the same and I'm genuinely intrigued by that finding and am curious if - over time - I've started to get a better grip on radiation patterns that I prefer. For different rooms. I've had the opportunity to listen to a LOT of nice speakers in the two years since I listened to the BMR v1. And with that, I've tried to make sense of how the data relates to what I hear when I listen. I pass this info along. That's all I can do.

For some time I've had an intuition that speaker radiation patterns should be adjusted based on room size. That is mainly based on maintaining a certain % of reflections in the mix and not letting them become too dominant or too absent. Hence, a wider room can accommodate a wider speaker and a smaller room can easily become overwhelmed by one and would benefit more from controlled directivity. Of course I could be wrong but that just makes sense to me.

 

[Chromatischism]

I mentioned above making a more shallow version of the Mid-Range Compensation that Audyssey builds into their room correction. IIRC, it's a very narrow -3dB crater in the FR, but over a very narrow band.
I made mine about -1.5 dB at the deepest, and widened it into a gentle swale, probably about 2.5x the band of the Audyssey dip.

For me, at the time, it made a very significant difference.
I can't identify what caused that difference other than a very minor attenuation. If it was early reflections or all reflections, or whatever. I do not use it anymore: it was simply an experiment.
I will stand by the proposition, however, that 1-1.5 dB can be significant.

I concur as I've done the same with headphones. A broad 1-1.5 dB bowl can take the edge off and make them very enjoyable if other major flaws are absent.

 

[pjug]

Do you think you would go back and normalize data from past reviews to bring them in line? I know that's work and time is limited, but limit the scope to just things that make the data comparable, like this. You don't have to go hog wild on everything. Maybe take a breather from the massive in-wall testing you did and use that time.

Hopefully @pierre (sorry if I have the wrong Pierre) will have the data soon to make for easier comparisons.

A collection of loudspeakers measurements

 

[al2002]

I listen mainly to classical music recorded in natural venues. To me, very a broad dispersion speaker like the BMR best recreates what I've been hearing at concerts and in the violin and viola sections of orchestras for over 60 years.

Agree 100%. Don’t have BMRs, but have Revels which have wide dispersion and present a very ’spacious’ soundstage.

Would seriously consider the BMR floor standers if I ever put together a second system.

 

[hardisj]

I believe the review mentioned 10% HD at 100hrz

I never said that.

When I was talking about 10% THD I was talking about how manufacturers rate Xmax vs how the IEC standard (which is what KLIPPEL uses) rates excursion.


Here is an example.
SB rates this woofer at 5.5mm one way.
IEC 62458 shows that to be 2.8mm one way limited by motor force variation.

SB Acoustics SB17CAC35-4 6 Inch Ceramic Midwoofer Review

SB Acoustics SB17CAC35-4 6 Inch Ceramic Midwoofer Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

 

[hardisj]

Do you think you would go back and normalize data from past reviews to bring them in line?

In short, no. Because I don't have the 76dB reference for any of those.

 

[Steve Dallas]

For some time I've had an intuition that speaker radiation patterns should be adjusted based on room size. That is mainly based on maintaining a certain % of reflections in the mix and not letting them become too dominant or too absent. Hence, a wider room can accommodate a wider speaker and a smaller room can easily become overwhelmed by one and would benefit more from controlled directivity. Of course I could be wrong but that just makes sense to me.

This has been my experience. I allude to it in several posts in this thread:

KEF R3 vs. Philharmonic BMR Grudge Rematch to the Probably not Death Thread

When I said it only works well with controlled-directivity speakers, I meant using DRC on frequencies above the room-dominated threshold is unpredictable unless directivity is well-controlled (smooth). This is because you are adjusting direct sound, which is then reflected off nearby surfaces...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I have small listening rooms in my house, and they are basically cubes, which means very challenging for a speaker in terms of room modes and reflections. I am coming around to the idea that speakers with smooth, narrow dispersion work better in these rooms--at least to my ears. Too wide, and the horizontal soundstage smears when listening to some material.

I am planning to keep the R3s on the stands for a few months, then swap back to my BMRs. I will update that thread with any impressions after switching back.

Switching topics... Interestingly, I did not note the 2 to 2.3KHz peak in that other thread. I only hear it in some music with strong content there. It is not enough of an issue for me to be a show stopper. I would occasionally pull it down with EQ or Dirac when listening to certain music--mainly classic rock, but I left it alone 90% of the time.

 

[pjug]

@hardisj I read on another site that you also looked at your in room response using RTA. When you did that, what was the magnitude of the 2-3KHz bump? I see a bump in my room too, pretty much consistent with the predicted in-room, a dB or two. But I am wondering if it was different in your room.

 

[hardisj]

@hardisj I read on another site that you also looked at your in room response using RTA. When you did that, what was the magnitude of the 2-3KHz bump? I see a bump in my room too, pretty much consistent with the predicted in-room, a dB or two. But I am wondering if it was different in your room.

I meant that I was playing music at the time and watching the RTA to find what notes I was having issues with.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I never said that.

When I was talking about 10% THD I was talking about how manufacturers rate Xmax vs how the IEC standard (which is what KLIPPEL uses) rates excursion.


Here is an example.
SB rates this woofer at 5.5mm one way.
IEC 62458 shows that to be 2.8mm one way limited by motor force variation.

SB Acoustics SB17CAC35-4 6 Inch Ceramic Midwoofer Review

SB Acoustics SB17CAC35-4 6 Inch Ceramic Midwoofer Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

Sorry about that, I did listen to part of your review while doing another task.
Listened again and you quote 3% at 100hrz which is correct.

I do understand that is common place for manufacturer rated Xmax to deviate from any standard since there is no standard that manufacturers all use. Some use 20%, some 10% some just calculate theoretical xmax or other simple means. Almost always Voice Coil Magazine published testing shows Klipple tested and standardized xmax of a given driven to be less then spec. (like the recent Purifi 4", rated at 8.8mm found to be compliance limited at 4.9mm and presenting high levels of mechanical noise when pressed beyond, or really most any driver they have tested with a few notable exceptions. Those notable exceptions are usually drivers designed with the aid of the Klipple equipment such a PE's new 5.25" E150he Epique drivers, or a recent MISCO 6.5")
Generally it seems SB acoustics is using a 20% distortion level for Xmax, as this is obviously usually being reached in the bass region it is likely a good choice for maximum linear output. 10% is conservative though laudable. I have no problem with a manufacturer using 20% as long as it actual from testing and not some calculated BS.
It also need to be noted what percentage of the drivers actual distortion is 2nd harmonic vs higher orders. 10% of 2nd order distortion is surely less of an issue vs 10% of 3rd.
That never seems to be valued in the Xmax figure.

If you had 10% distortion at 60hrz and the driver presented that on a peak in loud playback, would the slight character or extra energy added at 120hrz really be audible ? In what ways could we test this? I know Tom Nousain (and others)tested this publicly a bit blind back in day but the Info seems lost after his passing.
I know this is sort of off topic so I will stop for now on that.

After the 2nd listen what really caught my attention is your 2" absorption. I am wondering if you know what the absorption characteristics are for the material and how does it change the frequency response of the reflections. Toole in his book seems pretty adamant that absorptive material be given a long conservative pause before being implemented as the material near universally absorbs in a very non linear fashion and therefore takes some real effort to get right and more often is done wrong even by very smart folks.
It sure seems that a wide dispersion design is calling for near zero absorption beyond typical comfortable room furnishings and rather some light but smart diffraction to help energy dissipate and not overbuild. But to do so in a way that preserves the wide dispersion character, scale and size. And in the case of a speaker with great off axis linearity, preserves that well earned linearity.

Finally I love your reviews, I really do and like how you nit pick the designs so I hope you can dig my nitpicking.

 

[Chromatischism]

I'm sure Erin did his homework on the absorption, but I was very surprised to hear 2" wasn't enough to tame the treble reflections which are rather short in wavelength.

 

[hardisj]

After the 2nd listen what really caught my attention is your 2" absorption. I am wondering if you know what the absorption characteristics are for the material and how does it change the frequency response of the reflections.

I'm sure Erin did his homework on the absorption, but I was very surprised to hear 2" wasn't enough to tame the treble reflections which are rather short in wavelength.

It isn’t about HF absorption. It’s about broadband absorption. Remember, I talked specifically about this speaker being very wide in horizontal radiation and this occurs not just in HF but also at midband frequencies. Thus, the suggestion for trying 4-inch absorption. And this suggestion is for small rooms to help balance out the “diffuse” imaging within soundstage *if you are interested in trying it*.

And finally, these are suggestions. Not musts. Not guarantees. Just suggestions based on the data and my experience.

 

[Chromatischism]

It isn’t about HF absorption. It’s about broadband absorption.

I guess I shouldn't use the term treble. What I meant was most of the frequencies played by the Accuton midrange and the ribbon tweeter.

 

[NoSnakeOil2]

This is a head scratcher for me. There are differences between V1 and V2 but surely the radiation pattern is very similar. It seems odd that one would be loved for its dispersion and the other would be disappointing for the same characteristics. Don't get me wrong, I can imagine myself doing the same thing because I know I like the sound of my system better some days than other days. It has to be difficult to be consistent in the subjective part of reviewing.

Erin, I was so certain this would be my "end game" speaker..... Maybe my old ears won't pick up on the things you did, because I just want to want them. I love those cabinets. Regardless, thanks for your work on this stuff.

 

[ryanosaur]

Erin, I was so certain this would be my "end game" speaker..... Maybe my old ears won't pick up on the things you did, because I just want to want them. I love those cabinets. Regardless, thanks for your work on this stuff.

There are many very happy owners of Dennis' Speakers. I am one of them. While I respect Erin, I would not base a decision on his opinion for something that simply is not that egregious of a fault. That slight rise in the mids, can easily be tamed with a little EQ if you are troubled by it. That said, there have been many owners of the V2 Speaker stand up saying they aren't troubled by it. Some, on the other hand, do experience it.
FWIW, I consider my Phil3s and BMRs (ca. 2018) to be end game Speakers. I will not likely be able to afford anything better considering how far above their price point these are capable of competing.

More to the point, you should consider if you like a very wide dispersion Speaker (I do). It sounds very natural at reproducing instruments I have played. Part of that is due to the dispersion which is a major goal of Dennis' work (himself a trained performing musician).

Anyway, I'm not here to try to sell you on the Speaker, rather to encourage you to decide for yourself and not put undo weight to a single opinion.