Buchardt S400 Speaker Review

[Chromatischism]

@Maiky76 can you do an EQ for this one? Thanks!

 

[Kw6]

I never bought into hype as for a fairly new speaker company to build a top notch speaker it is not easy. I will stick with my Harbeths!

 

[Zvu]

These measure better than any Harbeth loudspeaker i'm aware of.

 

[Kw6]

Are you sure? Pull up chart on P3ESR please! All Buchard has is more bass.

 

[muad]

Are you sure? Pull up chart on P3ESR please! All Buchard has is more bass.

Courtesy of stereophile. Admittently some of the other Harbeths measure better than the the P3ESR. But in this case, the Buchardts are better.

 

[Zvu]

Are you sure? Pull up chart on P3ESR please! All Buchard has is more bass.

...and higher absolute spl, controled directivity, low diffraction, time alignment, better waterfall...

Stereophile frequency measurements are very low resolution and despite that, none of the measured Harbeth loudspeakers looks good. You could expect nothing short of a mayhem if one of those would be subjected to Klippel NFS.

They just aren't designed to be the the most neutral but to have a "house sound". If you like Harbeth's house sound then by all means, enjoy them. That's fine by me, but from technical point of view, S400 are superior.

 

[Kw6]

Yeah I do like the house sound of Harbeth. It's called music. I never heard Buchardt but nothing intrigues me here! I am perturbed about that spike at 518 hz. No thanks!

 

[LTig]

Yeah I do like the house sound of Harbeth. It's called music.

 

[Chromatischism]

Yeah I do like the house sound of Harbeth. It's called music. I never heard Buchardt but nothing intrigues me here! I am perturbed about that spike at 518 hz. No thanks!

I thought you didn't care about measurements?

Anyway, that spike was found to not be audible.

 

[direstraitsfan98]

Yeah I do like the house sound of Harbeth. It's called music. I never heard Buchardt but nothing intrigues me here! I am perturbed about that spike at 518 hz. No thanks!

There’s more spikes in Harbeth speaker. The 30.2 has spikes at literally every frequency between 200-300hz...

 

[Kw6]

 

[Kw6]

I thought you didn't care about measurements?

Anyway, that spike was found to not be audible.

Who told I don't care about measurements? Measurements go hand in hand to what we hear out of the speaker in the room. I have a musician friend who has listened to Harbeths saying they sound great and are quite accurate. I use them in my small system and it sounds superb! Aaron Neville sounds like himself not like some nasally sound out of some highly raved speakers. Piano sounds lifelike as well. Harbeth for that size is reference class. Everyone should own a pair to start out and go from there.

 

[mSpot]

I own both Buchardt S400 and Harbeth P3ESR, and love them both. I switch back and forth between them depending on the music I listen to. The Buchardt is more dynamic with much lower and stronger bass. The Harbeth midrange reproduces unamplified acoustic instruments and voice (e.g. classical) with a realism that the Buchardt does not match.

 

[Maiky76]

@Maiky76 can you do an EQ for this one? Thanks!

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ as asked by @Chromatischism

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 5.52
With Sub: 7.60

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Nasty resonance, still not sure when it is from
• Directivity is good but could be better given the size of the waveguide.
• in particular the XO is not that well executed
• On somewhat compromise
  

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location to get the axis closer to the LW on which the EQ is designed as seems to be the speaker...
Critical to proceed to some tests there.

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
• Not an awful lot can be done

Score EQ LW: 6.09
with sub: 8.04

Score EQ Score: 6.43
with sub: 8.38

Buchardt S400 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
March012021-134217

Preamp: -2.8 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 41.7 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.13
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 96.2 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 1.9
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 507 Hz Gain -1.35 dB Q 4.9
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 908 Hz Gain -1.08 dB Q 4.76
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1123 Hz Gain 1.01 dB Q 4.9
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2300 Hz Gain 2.67 dB Q 3.2
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5594 Hz Gain 1.6 dB Q 5.08
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 15258 Hz Gain 2.2 dB Q 1.83

Buchardt S400 APO EQ Score 1 96000Hz
March012021-133729

Preamp: -2.7 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 41.7 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.13
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 97.2 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 1.69
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 520 Hz Gain -2.2 dB Q 10.7
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 887 Hz Gain -1.02 dB Q 3.76
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1118.5 Hz Gain 0.69 dB Q 7.64
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2306 Hz Gain 2.67 dB Q 3.2
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5744 Hz Gain 1.31 dB Q 3.3
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 9512 Hz Gain -1.13 dB Q 0.88
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 15259 Hz Gain 2.2 dB Q 1.83

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Some improvements

The rest of the plots is attached.

 

[Chromatischism]

Some improvements

Thank you! It looks like the changes are modest.

I would be curious if boosting the crossover really brings audible benefits. Due to the directivity mismatch, it is usually not recommended. In fact, Audyssey implemented the Midrange Compensation to prevent their EQ from boosting that range, but they acknowledge it won't match every speaker profile so you are free to carve out your own.

Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location to get the axis closer to the LW on which the EQ is designed as seems to be the speaker...

I have tried this and the only benefit I got from it was a more centered image for someone sitting to my left or right. Time/intensity trading really works. But I lost soundstage width and it was a bit less enveloping so I didn't prefer it for me sitting in the captain's chair. Most people tend to find they prefer these toed in slightly but to still see the inside face of the speakers (speakers crossing behind you). If you're at 15-30 degrees you'll get the flattest response per the spinorama. The direct sound is pretty flat with the sound power showing the output to the sides of the speaker dipping at the crossover. That is why I would be very hesitant to boost the crossover region based on the in-room response – you'd be boosting the direct sound above neutral.

 

[Maiky76]

Thank you! It looks like the changes are modest.

I would be curious if boosting the crossover really brings audible benefits. Due to the directivity mismatch, it is usually not recommended. In fact, Audyssey implemented the Midrange Compensation to prevent their EQ from boosting that range, but they acknowledge it won't match every speaker profile so you are free to carve out your own.

I have tried this and the only benefit I got from it was a more centered image for someone sitting to my left or right. Time/intensity trading really works. But I lost soundstage width and it was a bit less enveloping so I didn't prefer it for me sitting in the captain's chair. Most people tend to find they prefer these toed in slightly but to still see the inside face of the speakers (speakers crossing behind you). If you're at 15-30 degrees you'll get the flattest response per the spinorama. The direct sound is pretty flat with the sound power showing the output to the sides of the speaker dipping at the crossover. That is why I would be very hesitant to boost the crossover region based on the in-room response – you'd be boosting the direct sound above neutral.

View attachment 115591

Yes you are right modest gains

The trough around the XO point is present on all the Spinorama curves and therefore can be EQed.
The DI not being flat is what makes the amount of boost difficult to determine at that frequency:
it becomes a trade-off between the different attributes of the speaker, mostly smoothness of the PIR and "flatness"of the ON.
The boost on these EQ is just about right for the LW/PIR (safe bet as both have high correlation with preference) and about 1dB too hot for the ON. That's why I recommend playing around with toe in.

If you can, just give these EQs a try and report any tweaks you may make.
That will better *for you* than any general algorithm.

 

[Kw6]

I can't find Direstraightsfan reply. Where did you go to school and what instruments do you play? Please put up two charts side by side and let's analyze it. Harbeth's cabinets are lively for a reason lol. You think Buchardt can design a small cabinet with big bass and get away with it!

 

[Rick Sykora]

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).
View attachment 60676

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:
View attachment 60673 View attachment 60674

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.

View attachment 60677 View attachment 60678

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:
View attachment 60684 View attachment 60683

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

A year later and with some time with this passive radiator and the Purifi 6.5 woofer, I see now that you were spot on with this analysis. I regret that I doubted you previously! It does suggest that the S400 might benefit from some additional damping material, but with nearfield SPLs being so dependent on mic position, seen too much variability to be sure without having one to measure.

In any case, there is clearly some very strong correlation between the PR output and the on-axis frequency response measurements by both Amir and Erin. It had always bothered me that there did not seem to be root cause for the blip in the response. Given the broader Q of the PR nearfield resonance, am leaning toward this being more audible than I previously thought as well. Since the Directiva use shows comparable PR measurements, have something in house to actually try.

 

[ezra_s]

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ as asked by @Chromatischism

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 5.52
With Sub: 7.60

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Nasty resonance, still not sure when it is from
• Directivity is good but could be better given the size of the waveguide.
• in particular the XO is not that well executed
• On somewhat compromiseView attachment 115570

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location to get the axis closer to the LW on which the EQ is designed as seems to be the speaker...
Critical to proceed to some tests there.

View attachment 115572
View attachment 115576
EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
• Not an awful lot can be done

Score EQ LW: 6.09
with sub: 8.04

Score EQ Score: 6.43
with sub: 8.38

Buchardt S400 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
March012021-134217

Preamp: -2.8 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 41.7 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.13
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 96.2 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 1.9
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 507 Hz Gain -1.35 dB Q 4.9
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 908 Hz Gain -1.08 dB Q 4.76
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1123 Hz Gain 1.01 dB Q 4.9
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2300 Hz Gain 2.67 dB Q 3.2
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5594 Hz Gain 1.6 dB Q 5.08
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 15258 Hz Gain 2.2 dB Q 1.83

Buchardt S400 APO EQ Score 1 96000Hz
March012021-133729

Preamp: -2.7 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 41.7 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.13
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 97.2 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 1.69
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 520 Hz Gain -2.2 dB Q 10.7
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 887 Hz Gain -1.02 dB Q 3.76
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1118.5 Hz Gain 0.69 dB Q 7.64
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2306 Hz Gain 2.67 dB Q 3.2
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5744 Hz Gain 1.31 dB Q 3.3
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 9512 Hz Gain -1.13 dB Q 0.88
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 15259 Hz Gain 2.2 dB Q 1.83

View attachment 115565
Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 115569

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 115568

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 115567

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 115566

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Some improvements
View attachment 115564

The rest of the plots is attached.

Amazing post, specially for clueless people like me who really don't know what they do.

I have a few questions though if you don't mind:

"* in particular the XO is not that well executed"

- What is XO?

"Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 41.7 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.13" What is HPQ??

I want to try your filters but I have a subwoofer plugged to the same output, should I not use some of those filters in the case?

Thank you very much for sharing your findings and EQ.

edit:
FWIW this is what I'm using with Roon in nearfield and a sub also setting distance to speaker at about 101cm (and liking it):

 

[goldenears]

XO means crossover