Buchardt A500 Measurements and Spinorama

[ctrl]

Mind you their IMD measurements for example of a tiny 2 way loudspeaker don't look much worse, which makes me wonder about their meaningfulness:

A speaker that has a less deep bass response is at an advantage because the excursion of the chassis is smaller.
More deep bass response, higher IMD - this is exactly the decision the loudspeaker designer has to make.

The B&W is convincing in terms of IMD in the bass range (less so in the midrange). A Canton A 45 BS doesn't do badly either. But in the midrange, they can't hold a candle to the A700 and most likely the A500.

 

[ctrl]

This could explain why the A700, despite its size and number of woofers, displays quite poor IMD in the bass compared to the rest of the spectrum.

That in combination with the CB concept should be pretty close to the truth.
Whereby I expressly support the decision to use a CB concept. However, since such a concept requires greater excursions of the chassis (compared to BR), an appropriate chassis must be used, as you said.

 

[thewas]

A speaker that has a less deep bass response is at an advantage because the excursion of the chassis is smaller.
More deep bass response, higher IMD - this is exactly the decision the loudspeaker designer has to make.

Yes, as I had written in above post:
Ok, the tested B&W 607 has no real bass output below 50 Hz which gives them an advantage there, but nevertheless weirly impressive imho.

The B&W is convincing in terms of IMD in the bass range (less so in the midrange). A Canton A 45 BS doesn't do badly either. But in the midrange, they can't hold a candle to the A700 and most likely the A500.

Of course, the advantage of 3-way designs.

 

[ctrl]

Yes, as I had written in above post:

My personal

 

[sharock]

I decided to play around with REW and measure my A500s, which are set up in a nearfield arrangement on my computer desk. I'm not sure how to interpret the results. This is the average of six measurements taken around my listening area. Is there really a 20dB difference between 25Hz and the dip at 6-7kHz?

 

[VintageFlanker]

Is there really a 20dB difference between 25Hz and the dip at 6-7kHz?

Since this is average from LP (Axis?, Distance?): Yes.

Also, the scale (100dB amplitude) is way too high IMHO.

What is the MasterTunning used?

 

[sharock]

Since this is average from LP (Axis?, Distance?): Yes.

Also, the scale (100dB amplitude) is way too high IMHO.

What is the MasterTunning used?

I'm currently using the updated 2.5-way with forward mids and the bass is corrected via the app. I have previously used the 2.5-way nearfield but haven't measured that. The speakers are on stands but otherwise there is no acoustic treatment and they are toed-in to the listening position which is roughly level with the mid-point between the waveguide and woofer. I guess it may not be perfectly on-axis.

 

[VintageFlanker]

I see.

This ≈7Khz dip doesn't exist in measurements of A500s. If you take your captures On-Axis with one speaker, it should be less apparent. There is however some dips at 2-3Khz which appears in all A500 graphs. I see nothing really wrong with your FR considering this is from LP and from both speakers.

Personally, I don't like the Updated Tuning with Forward Midrange at all. Sounds harsh and unnatural to me... as the A500 already sounds On-Axis and nearfield anyway. I don't even get how reviewers preferred it above others...

I personally listen to A500 with no toe-in and find it to sound just right that way: pleasant and balanced, with a huge soundstage. About the "More Forward Midrange", I took few In-Room, nearfield captures On-Axis and I got this (200Hz-20Khz):

As I experienced by my own listening, it should has been called "More Forward Treble" instead. The Stock Updated with -1dB Treble is the most neutral of the three, but it seems to lack precision, image and soundstage, especially when slightly Off-Axis (No toe-in).

My favorite is still the regular 2.5 Stock Updated (98DAD13372) for months. I always went back to it after trying all other Tunings for a while.

 

[sharock]

I see.

This ≈7Khz dip doesn't exist in measurements of A500s. If you take your captures On-Axis with one speaker, it should be less apparent. There is however some dips at 2-3Khz which appears in all A500 graphs. I see nothing really wrong with your FR considering this is from LP and from both speakers.

Personally, I don't like the Updated Tuning with Forward Midrange at all. Sounds harsh and unnatural to me... as the A500 already sounds On-Axis and nearfield anyway. I don't even get how reviewers preferred it above others...

I personally listen to A500 with no toe-in and find it to sound just right that way: pleasant and balanced, with a huge soundstage. About the "More Forward Midrange", I take few In-Room, nearfield captures On-Axis and I got this (200Hz-20Khz):

View attachment 118492

As I experienced by my own listening, it should has been called "More Forward Treble" instead. The Stock Updated with -1dB Treble is the most neutral of the three, but it seems to lack precision, image and soundstage, especially when slightly Off-Axis (No toe-in).

My favorite is still the regular 2.5 Stock Updated (98DAD13372) for months. I always went back to it after trying all other Tunings for a while.

Thanks for the informative reply. I'm still relatively inexperienced at "listening" as opposed to just hearing. I find that by the time I've changed master tuning, I'm not sure if I can remember what it sounded like previously. With Dirac in my living room setup, I can at least quickly A/B different target curves to notice the differences.

I will try out no toe-in and some of the other tunings. I just assumed in the nearfield (about 1m) I'd want a triangular, on-axis arrangement to minimise reflections, especially without any room or desk treatments.

 

[Instar]

I see.

This ≈7Khz dip doesn't exist in measurements of A500s. If you take your captures On-Axis with one speaker, it should be less apparent. There is however some dips at 2-3Khz which appears in all A500 graphs. I see nothing really wrong with your FR considering this is from LP and from both speakers.

Personally, I don't like the Updated Tuning with Forward Midrange at all. Sounds harsh and unnatural to me... as the A500 already sounds On-Axis and nearfield anyway. I don't even get how reviewers preferred it above others...

I personally listen to A500 with no toe-in and find it to sound just right that way: pleasant and balanced, with a huge soundstage. About the "More Forward Midrange", I took few In-Room, nearfield captures On-Axis and I got this (200Hz-20Khz):

View attachment 118492

As I experienced by my own listening, it should has been called "More Forward Treble" instead. The Stock Updated with -1dB Treble is the most neutral of the three, but it seems to lack precision, image and soundstage, especially when slightly Off-Axis (No toe-in).

My favorite is still the regular 2.5 Stock Updated (98DAD13372) for months. I always went back to it after trying all other Tunings for a while.

Hello. Can I get the master tuning file?

When downloading from the Buchardt homepage, it will appear as an empty compressed file.

I'd like to try the master tuning.

 

[VintageFlanker]

When downloading from the Buchardt homepage, it will appear as an empty compressed file.

Very weird. This is a .bin file available on their Drive account.

There you go: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WDfaVlG29Xb76Nc8hfF_PbjpB0uzwPhL/view?usp=drivesdk

 

[sharock]

Hello. Can I get the master tuning file?

When downloading from the Buchardt homepage, it will appear as an empty compressed file.

I'd like to try the master tuning.

I thought you returned the A500s after they lost to the 8351B?

 

[brandall10]

Just bumping this thread as a new A500 owner... imagine there are quite a few new ones considering the recent large shipment of preorders has been hitting door steps.

I only skimmed the once highly active s400 thread - is it the case that this brand has become somewhat controversial here that the A500s don't hold as much interest? I see the only other thread on the A500s ended up locked.

FWIW, there were a few moments where I nearly pulled the trigger on the Genelec 8351b... but them realized I would likely get subs and they would be north of $10k for a complete system, if I were to do that might as well do the D&D 8Cs.

Basically, I came up empty handed for a good all-in-one system at a similar price point (actives w/ streaming, solid measured performance w/ good low end extension, room correction).

Have nothing else to add except that they sound really good. The low end is impressive, perhaps not as sharp/punchy as using outboard subs, but satisfying for sure. Some niggles with the electronics, but the experience is leagues better than what it was like being an early'ish adopter of the LS50W.

 

[Sancus]

I only skimmed the once highly active s400 thread - is it the case that this brand has become somewhat controversial here that the A500s don't hold as much interest? I see the only other thread on the A500s ended up locked.

No lol that thread was locked for an extended, completely off-topic fight. As happens from time to time when we don't ban trolls.

Buchardt is well regarded on ASR and their founder posts here from time to time.

 

[Daverz]

Have nothing else to add except that they sound really good. The low end is impressive, perhaps not as sharp/punchy as using outboard subs, but satisfying for sure. Some niggles with the electronics, but the experience is leagues better than what it was like being an early'ish adopter of the LS50W.

Thanks for the report on the A500. As I recall it, the main controversy was Amir's "meh" response to the S400, and his spins not looking like the Buchardt spins.

 

[brandall10]

No lol that thread was locked for an extended, completely off-topic fight. As happens from time to time when we don't ban trolls.

Buchardt is well regarded on ASR and their founder posts here from time to time.

Thanks for the report on the A500. As I recall it, the main controversy was Amir's "meh" response to the S400, and his spins not looking like the Buchardt spins.

Awesome. Yeah, I couldn't conclusively tell much from about an hour of looking at those.

I guess my main question is, where is the recent discussion on this forum? Considering how much that 'notch' was a heated topic in the 400 thread, and how it doesn't exist w/ these, and how pro-actives/EQ/Room correction this forum is, how pro measurements it is... it seems these would be popular. But there is hardly any discussion on them.

 

[sharock]

I guess my main question is, where is the recent discussion on this forum? Considering how much that 'notch' was a heated topic in the 400 thread, and how it doesn't exist w/ these, and how pro-actives/EQ/Room correction this forum is, how pro measurements it is... it seems these would be popular. But there is hardly any discussion on them.

I think unless Amir gets sent one to measure there won't be much more discussion on these. They seem to be suffering slightly from perception as either a poor man's Kii or D&D 8c (unfair since the A700 is a more direct comparison) or an expensive solution compared to separates and dual subs.

EDIT: Also the high levels of bass THD are a negative.

 

[brandall10]

They seem to be suffering slightly from perception as either a poor man's Kii or D&D 8c (unfair since the A700 is a more direct comparison) or an expensive solution compared to separates and dual subs.

For this basic point it seems they would be even more popular... there really isn't any product in this category at their price point, and separates are going to be annoying if you're looking for packaging and UX simplicity, and think things like DSP are the future (hence, why the Kii and D&D are attractive).

To hit this price point with separates and dual subs some of the components are going to be economical choices - given like for like functionality. I was thinking about that path w/ Revel M106 + an SHD, but both the amp and the subs would have to be on the cheaper end (ie. 2 RSL Speedwoofer 10s @ $800 + some hypex thing ~$500). Most likely would be an excellent sounding system though, but would take up more space on my console/floor and would lack the 'just press play' factor having to turn the amp on and off. And I would be fighting off the itch to upgrade the things I cheaped out on.

 

[muslhead]

Awesome. Yeah, I couldn't conclusively tell much from about an hour of looking at those.

I guess my main question is, where is the recent discussion on this forum? Considering how much that 'notch' was a heated topic in the 400 thread, and how it doesn't exist w/ these, and how pro-actives/EQ/Room correction this forum is, how pro measurements it is... it seems these would be popular. But there is hardly any discussion on them.

I got mine and wondering how you perceive the auto low volume boost. I find it non-existent so i am wondering if its me or something i need to select when setting up.

 

[brandall10]

I got mine and wondering how you perceive the auto low volume boost. I find it non-existent so i am wondering if its me or something i need to select when setting up.

Are you saying you don't find much bass at lower volume? The sub-bass is clearly audible on mine at very low levels (lower than normal conversation levels).

It's not supposed to be an obvious tilt, it's meant to contour to our perception of bass, so it should seem more 'even' regardless of volume.