• 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 Audio S400

Daverz

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
1,294
Likes
1,451
Hopefully the Fedex customs issues will be worked out.

I got my S400s yesterday and am breaking them in with internet radio (Soma FM indie pop station). I'm in the position of hoping that many hours of break-in really works because they still sound a bit "hard" and lacking in the midrange after an afternoon of playing, though they image better than all my other speakers, have a very airy presentation, and have the excellent bass that was promised.

I do wonder if the hardness may be related to the slight rise in the treble above 4kHz:

fig1.png
 

Daverz

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
1,294
Likes
1,451
If I see one more Youtube reviewer call these full range speakers I'm going to blow a gasket.

One bone I have to pick with Mads is the "in room" frequency response numbers on the website. Sure, it specifies "in room", but I bet many people that see that will forget the "in room" and only remember the 33 Hz. I much prefer the way that Revel gives -3, -6 and -10 dB figures. Of course, Buchardt does give you actual anechoic measurements.

Subjectively, it's enough bass for my 2nd floor condo. I might consider a sub later for those times when the neighbors are all at work and I can crank Shostakovich up. I was quite impressed with how satisfying the bass was with the recent Nelsons/Boston recording of the Shostakovich Symphony No. 7 (24/96 stream on Qobuz) played at a "realistic" volume.
 

Ilkless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
1,757
Likes
3,437
Location
Singapore
I do wonder if the hardness may be related to the slight rise in the treble above 4kHz:

fig1.png

I don't think so, because I think the rise is so small it'd still be an overall downward-sloping trend in the listening position.

That said, Charles Sprinkle (who was one of the team members on the JBL M2 and later founded Kali) argues that a smoothly downward-sloping power response (eg. Revel F228) may sound "more neutral" compared to the sort of kink one sees here, with a flat power response through the waveguide tweeter's passband. The "hardness" may well be you hearing the in-room effects of the kink to straightness on the indirect sound.
 

Daverz

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
1,294
Likes
1,451
Hopefully the Fedex customs issues will be worked out.

I got my S400s yesterday and am breaking them in with internet radio (Soma FM indie pop station). I'm in the position of hoping that many hours of break-in really works because they still sound a bit "hard" and lacking in the midrange after an afternoon of playing, though they image better than all my other speakers, have a very airy presentation, and have the excellent bass that was promised.

Well, after about 30 hours, the hardness has worked itself out and the midrange is starting to open up.
 

xarkkon

Active Member
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
228
Likes
338
some backpedalling from this youtube reviewer on his initial glowing review of the s400. Still thinks it's awesome.

glad that he touched on the reports of how poor it sounded at Axpona. Would have preferred more time discussing the right sort of amp to go with this. Good that he's setting the record straight.
 

Daverz

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
1,294
Likes
1,451
some backpedalling from this youtube reviewer on his initial glowing review of the s400. Still thinks it's awesome.

As subjective reviews go, I like this guy's down-to-earth style.

glad that he touched on the reports of how poor it sounded at Axpona. Would have preferred more time discussing the right sort of amp to go with this. Good that he's setting the record straight.

Looks like they were using PS Audio class D amps?

https://forum.psaudio.com/t/buchardt-audio-s-400-meets-ps-audio-equipment-again/6608

I can report excellent results with a Bryston 3B-SST (250 W @ 4 Ohm, balanced connection, 23 dB gain setting) and the Rogue M-180s (triode mode, 4 Ohm taps. I'm not sure of the power as I'm not using stock power tube types, but probably under 90 W in triode mode). I also tried it briefly with my Bryston B60 (100W @ 4 Ohm, I believe), and it seemed to have plenty of power.
 
Last edited:

Daverz

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
1,294
Likes
1,451
Perhaps the manufacturer could indicate what distances are advisable and the height of the speaker stand. If it is on the web, I have not seen it.

The listening height is in the manual that comes with the speakers: ears should be level with the midpoint between drivers, which is about 7.25 inches from the bottom of the speakers. On 28 inch stands, that's a little above 35 inches, about the average ear height of a seated listener.
 

xarkkon

Active Member
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
228
Likes
338
As subjective reviews go, I like this guy's down-to-earth style.



Looks like they were using PS Audio class D amps?

https://forum.psaudio.com/t/buchardt-audio-s-400-meets-ps-audio-equipment-again/6608

I can report excellent results with a Bryston 3B-SST (250 W @ 4 Ohm, balanced connection, 23 dB gain setting) and the Rogue M-180s (triode mode, 4 Ohm taps. I'm not sure of the power as I'm not using stock power tube types, but probably under 90 W in triode mode). I also tried it briefly with my Bryston B60 (100W @ 4 Ohm, I believe), and it seemed to have plenty of power.

I think PS Audio was in 2018. This time around it was with Parasound NewClassic
https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2019...ilt-in-dac-and-phonostage-buchardt-stupefies/
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
4,596
Likes
3,160
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
The listening height is in the manual that comes with the speakers: ears should be level with the midpoint between drivers, which is about 7.25 inches from the bottom of the speakers. On 28 inch stands, that's a little above 35 inches, about the average ear height of a seated listener.

Minimum distance from the back wall?
 

xarkkon

Active Member
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
228
Likes
338
Minimum distance from the back wall?
Company says:

"No port = More forgiving of wall-boundary placement! Go ahead and place em' near a wall if that's what you have to do!"

My personal experience is slightly different. The passive radiator does move air towards the back. Yes, it's more forgiving than an outright port, but I'd say give it at least 3 feet. My placement is 1 feet due to constraints, and the wall is definitely there when I listen.
 

peanuts

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
336
Likes
709
ports have nothing to do with placement, unless you cram them into the wall. all bass and lower mids are omni directional. there is very little sound flowing out of the port. neither with the passive radiator.
this is a myth virtually all manufacturers claim in their dumb marketing material just to have something to say...

i suspect the harshness you experienced is a result of the woofer playing somewhat into breakup. typical for alu, magnesium cones etc. and yes some of it can improve with breakin if the spider is glued and hard when new.
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
4,596
Likes
3,160
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
ports have nothing to do with placement, unless you cram them into the wall...

You are wrong.

A speaker that has problems with the distances to the walls is the famous KEF LS50, which has rear bass-reflex. They need at least 90 cm distance to the three walls. Many of its users do not take it into account, hence many disappointments. This is what compulsive purchases have, buying without being properly informed, dedicating the necessary time and effort.

And then there is the bass boost when you bring the speakers closer to the back wall. And even more if they are sheared, as is well known.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,075
Likes
8,908
You are wrong.

A speaker that has problems with the distances to the walls is the famous KEF LS50, which has rear bass-reflex. They need at least 90 cm distance to the three walls. Many of its users do not take it into account, hence many disappointments. This is what compulsive purchases have, buying without being properly informed, dedicating the necessary time and effort.

And then there is the bass boost when you bring the speakers closer to the back wall. And even more if they are sheared, as is well known.

I don't know what the third wall is. By the way, KEF specifies 100 cm to the side wall and 50 cm to the front wall or else port bungs are needed. If using a sub with a high pass on the mains, there is additional flexibility.
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
4,596
Likes
3,160
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
Many, I fear, test the LS50 on a piece of furniture, that is, without independent supports and keeping the appropriate distances.

And yes, much better with sub: -79 Hz at -3 dB. Q100: -49 Hz at -3 dB (and front bass-reflex).

But the LS50 weigh 50% more, which helps a lot, as I have verified with my Q100 (which now weighs more than the LS50).

- En off topic -
 

xarkkon

Active Member
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
228
Likes
338
ports have nothing to do with placement, unless you cram them into the wall. all bass and lower mids are omni directional. there is very little sound flowing out of the port. neither with the passive radiator.
this is a myth virtually all manufacturers claim in their dumb marketing material just to have something to say...

i suspect the harshness you experienced is a result of the woofer playing somewhat into breakup. typical for alu, magnesium cones etc. and yes some of it can improve with breakin if the spider is glued and hard when new.
ah, unfortunately for me, i DO have to cram them into the wall o_O and the harshness goes away when i bring them forward to not so crammy distances. Heh.

thankfully, i have less constraints in my main listening set up. :)
 

jonfitch

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
479
Likes
532
Coaxial can be very good, that im well aware of. But they have one big drawback witch was the main reason we went with a waveguide. When doing a waveguide design with the highest resolution robot measurement scanner available. You notice how sensitive a tweeter actually is to just the smallest changes in the waveguides geometry. This is also the main reason 99% of waveguides are not constructed properly/optimal. It really requires equipment and know how to make an proper waveguide. And this equipment we used for the development was completely new technology that the engineer Kasper needed to rote his own software for in order to utilize so many measurements.

The drawback that he hated was that the contour response on a coaxial is constantly changing as the "waveguide" is moving around the tweeter. And some other things as well that i cant quite remember (im not an engineer). But it also has tons of benefits as well, so its not say that coaxial are bad at all! we would possible do a coaxial design in the future as well.

But like its always in audio, benefits usually comes with drawbacks as well. There are no such thing as the perfect speaker design ;-)

But isn't the movement only an issue in a 2-way? If you go with a 3-way the mid shouldn't move much. At least Andrew Jones says if there's any doppler effect it's more or less non-existent in a 3-way coaxial. And a 3-way would fit the Buchardt cabinet just fine it looks like.
 

jonfitch

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
479
Likes
532
I have a question about Buchardt audio's view on how speaker directivity help in room. On Buchardt's website it claims that good off-axis response will help the speaker to perform better in room.

"Since most research suggests that what we hear in-room is estimated to be around 12% direct sound (from your speakers), 44% Early Reflections (from your room), and 44% Sound Power (how the sound loads your room), we strive to create solutions that'll deliver predictable, consistent, and excellent results both on and off axis – regardless of the living space!"​

View attachment 26196

My question is, this view is exactly opposite to what Dutch & Dutch's cardioid waveguide design. Here is what they D&D said on their website:

"8c’s adapt to the room they are in and can be placed (very) close to room boundaries without losing performance.
To achieve this (adapt to the room), 8c’s combine a proprietary waveguide tweeter with an acoustic cardioid midrange, boundary-coupled bass drivers and active room matching. The result: superb acoustical reproduction in any room,."

View attachment 26197

My understanding is less off-axis energy will reduce room reflection. May I know how Buchardt perceive about the different of two approach?

I don't see any difference other than Dutch & Dutch are using side/rear drivers like Kii and DSP to shape the dispersion pattern below the room transition frequency (200hz and below) because the frequencies start becoming omnidirectional.

View attachment 26247
This is what a conventional speaker looks like. This is the horizontal directivity sonogram of some cone/dome 2 way, I don't know which. The narrowing of response at 2.0khz is at the crossover, where you're transitioning from a narrow dispersing cone to a wide dispersing dome. In this case it looks like they're using a steep slope crossover, probably 24db/octave. When you transition two very different drivers with a steep slope, while still trying to keep the 0 degree response linear (red) this is what you get.

Think of a passive 2 way box speaker with a flat baffle. This is what they all basically look like. The narrowing at Fc is associated with reduced energy in the power response as well, meaning that at 2khz, the amount of that energy in the room is less compared to other frequencies.

The waveguide of the s400 and other similar speakers widens the lower part of the tweeter response so that it blends with the woofer at the crossover frequency. It also makes choosing a crossover frequency a bit easier in my experience; you can go a bit lower or higher depending on the characteristics of the drivers and how loud you want it to play.

Waveguides narrow the dispersion of a tweeter at the crossover range, not widen it. The purpose of a waveguide is mainly 1) get more volume by horn loading the driver, that's why Buchardt can use a cheap tweeter and get the dynamics of multiple expensive tweeters 2) narrow dispersion of a tweeter at the low frequencies to match directivity with the woofer.

The narrow response at 2K in the speaker you showed can be solved by lowering the crossover frequency of the tweeter. You can use an expensive high x-max tweeter like the SB Acoustics TW29BN like the one Buchardt almost used and cross that over well under 2K. Joseph Audio Pulsar for instance uses a 1700hz crossover point.

Or you can use a waveguide to boost the tweeter's output, but you still have to cross over well below where the directivity narrows to fix it. If you used Buchardt's (or a similar) waveguide on that speaker you'd still have to cross your tweeter over somewhere between 1500-1700hz to completely eliminate that directivity problem. Examples in retail of using waveguides to boost the tweeter and lower the x-o are the Revel M126Be (1700hz) or the Amphion Argon speakers (1600hz) in order to mate a tweeter with a 6.5" woofer without dispersion issues in the 2K range.
 
Last edited:

jonfitch

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
479
Likes
532
some backpedalling from this youtube reviewer on his initial glowing review of the s400. Still thinks it's awesome.

glad that he touched on the reports of how poor it sounded at Axpona. Would have preferred more time discussing the right sort of amp to go with this. Good that he's setting the record straight.

I like how he back-peddles on saying it was better than the JA Pulsar, by now stating that the Pulsar is a airier speaker with "traditional hifi presentation". This tells you immediately he either hasn't heard the Pulsar in a long time, or is just trying to satisfy his more traditional audiophile channel fans with babble to keep monetizing the channel, which makes the motives behind his statements questionable. Anyone familiar with the Seas T25 Millenium knows it's a standard soft dome that starts getting directional around 7-8k, whereas the S400's off-axis response and sound power are both far more linear in the highs.
 

Aprude51

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
68
Likes
94
Location
San Francisco
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.
Spinorama Plot.png
Reflections.png
Sound Field.png
 
Top Bottom