Buchardt A500 subjective review

[Chromatischism]

Mads said that it would be better if the distance was more secured, with normal sound being heard from a distance of at least 1m. I listened at 1.2m and my acquaintances at 1.5m. The A500 is not a floor standing, but a small 6.5-inch bookshelf speaker. I think it's normal for good performance to come out at this distance. It is not at all close. Enough to drive a 2way speaker. Moreover, if the A500 produces the best sound at 2-3m, wouldn't the 80db volume limit come ironically?
The distortion of the A500 is a whopping 37% based on 80db at 28hz. No matter how difficult it is to experience the low-frequency THD, that is too much.

What 80 dB volume limit? They will play much louder than that by 10-15 dB.

ALL 2-way standmounts have high distortion in the low bass region. Look at Amir's Klippel measurements. That isn't something most of us worry that much about.

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

Thanks for sharing your experience with these speakers. I read through the entire KEF R3 measurement thread. R3 is literally the best measuring passive bookshelf speaker thus far, yet people couldn't agree on whether it sounds good or not and had an extended argument on whether the R3 is designed for no toe-in positioning. One member even made a list of reviewers who prefer various competing speakers over the R3.

I am just glad to see the R3 finally wins for once against the A500 in your setup.

 

[Chromatischism]

Yes, that was me. This site is all about correlating measurements with what we hear, so it is odd that many people weren't preferring the R3 despite the measurements.

It's not surprising that the R3 was preferred near-field though, being a coaxial.

 

[Instar]

What 80 dB volume limit? They will play much louder than that by 10-15 dB.

ALL 2-way standmounts have high distortion in the low bass region. Look at Amir's Klippel measurements. That isn't something most of us worry that much about.

yes.

They are capable of playing higher than 80db.
However, the low frequency THD adversely affects the overall sound quality.
Have you ever used a 10-inch or 12-inch subwoofer?
I think the difference in the low frequency band is big when compared to the 12 inch dual subwoofer.
It's not just a matter of hearing the bandwidth.
The A500 costs 3750 euros, but a dual subwoofer is available for 1000 euros.

 

[Chromatischism]

yes.

They are capable of playing higher than 80db.
However, the low frequency THD adversely affects the overall sound quality.
Have you ever used a 10-inch or 12-inch subwoofer?
I think the difference in the low frequency band is big when compared to the 12 inch dual subwoofer.
It's not just a matter of hearing the bandwidth.
The A500 costs 3750 euros, but a dual subwoofer is available for 1000 euros.

Of course. I use multiple subwoofers, and would for any speaker system, standmounts or towers.

But I don't think the audibility of distortion in the bass frequencies is nearly as high as it is in the higher frequencies. Still, you seem to be claiming that you can't play over 80 dB because sound quality starts to decrease. That certainly is not true. Sound quality for the majority of speakers, including these, is not subjectively worse at 90 dB than it is at 80 dB. Sound quality doesn't tend to decrease with speakers until you are nearing the woofer's limits of travel and you hear massive amounts of breakup or bottoming out. That isn't going to be until 95-100 dB on these.

 

[echopraxia]

The 8351B is a loudspeaker that satisfies in all respects without a single lack.

It is particularly detailed and sharp while having a heavy mid-range that is particularly dense.

In addition, the low frequency range gives a very dynamic feel.

The KEF R3 is also a relatively inexpensive 3-way coaxial speaker and sounds great, but it doesn't seem to be comparable to the 8351B.

Of course, this is my subjective taste.

Definitely not just you — I 100% agree with how you describe the 8351B (“satisfies in all respects without a single lack”).

Not to distract too much from Buchardt, but I am also curious if you have any additional thoughts as to why the R3 is not comparable. I also had an R3 for a week or so (though not at the same time as my Genelecs), and from memory I do agree with you. It’s just really interesting, because from the measurements it’s not clear why this would be.

 

[echopraxia]

Sound quality doesn't tend to decrease with speakers until you are nearing the woofer's limits of travel and you hear massive amounts of breakup or bottoming out. That isn't going to be until 95-100 dB on these.

I’m not sure how you can say that when the 80db measurements here show distortion products at 30hz to be almost as loud as the fundamental. That is already pretty bad sound quality, and especially so when it’s involving high order distortion products. Pushing it any harder should get much worse very fast.

 

[echopraxia]

When I measured my Neumann KH310s prior to selling them, I tested them to the limit where they achieved 105db at 40hz and 110db at 50hz. At this level of output, they still had less distortion than I am seeing here from the Buchardt A500 at merely 80db.

(The Neumann KH310 appears to cost the same as the Buchardt A500, so I think this is a fair comparison.)

At 80db, the Neumann (and my Genelecs) generally have distortion components across the spectrum barely above my room’s noise floor. So while I hate to say it, I can’t think of any way to condone this level of distortion from the Buchardt A500 here.

Sure, more expensive woofers would have raised the cost. But it doesn’t matter, because the reality is for the same MSRP you can buy active speakers that perform far better.

 

[Instar]

Definitely not just you — I 100% agree with how you describe the 8351B (“satisfies in all respects without a single lack”).

Not to distract too much from Buchardt, but I am also curious if you have any additional thoughts as to why the R3 is not comparable. I also had an R3 for a week or so (though not at the same time as my Genelecs), and from memory I do agree with you. It’s just really interesting, because from the measurements it’s not clear why this would be.

First of all, this is my subjective taste.
R3 has less vocal density by my standards. The sound lines are too thin.
Also, when the subwoofer is not connected, the low frequency band of the R3 feels the lack of dynamics.
However, Genelec's mid range vocals and low-frequency dynamic hitting feel very suited to my taste.
Actually, this is not a blind test, so it is not reliable, but it is my personal opinion.

 

[TimVG]

Definitely not just you — I 100% agree with how you describe the 8351B (“satisfies in all respects without a single lack”).

I'd like to add to this that I've yet to encounter a Genelec speaker that, with some modal range EQ, didn't sound very good out of the box.
I corrected my Revel F206 based on the anechoic data, and have been going back and forth between those and the older Genelec 1032A - I'd say that while the former ironically enough points out certain flaws better in the recording, the Genelecs are a bit more fun to listen to.

 

[Mads Buchardt]

Hi everybody.

Just to shortly comment on the THD.

The numbers are high in the lower frequencies as we utilize the movement on the woofers on the standard tunings that would make them work for the 25hz. Especially since we use sealed cabinets, they need to work harder for that. If you look pased the measurements and just listen, you would not notice the THD, none of our customers had unless they start to measure them. But we have solutions to get much lower THD, it's just a matter of not pushing them as much. So it's a matter of installing the right mastertuning to them depending on what you want

 

[echopraxia]

I'd like to add to this that I've yet to encounter a Genelec speaker that, with some modal range EQ, didn't sound very good out of the box.
I corrected my Revel F206 based on the anechoic data, and have been going back and forth between those and the older Genelec 1032A - I'd say that while the former ironically enough points out certain flaws better in the recording, the Genelecs are a bit more fun to listen to.

I‘ve always found this bizarre notion that “studio monitors are meant to highlight flaws in recordings, not for music enjoyment“ to be deeply wrong and backwards. Accurate speakers are accurate speakers. Everything else is distortion, for better or (usually) for worse.

Anyway, yeah I am definitely a Genelec fan. Whatever science magic they put into these, it works I just am extremely curious why virtually everyone with the KEF R3 puts it in a league below what it’s measurements suggests. Myself included during the brief time I had it. But I digress as this is best left to another thread I suppose.

 

[js_k0914]

Hi everybody.

Just to shortly comment on the THD.

The numbers are high in the lower frequencies as we utilize the movement on the woofers on the standard tunings that would make them work for the 25hz. Especially since we use sealed cabinets, they need to work harder for that. If you look pased the measurements and just listen, you would not notice the THD, none of our customers had unless they start to measure them. But we have solutions to get much lower THD, it's just a matter of not pushing them as much. So it's a matter of installing the right mastertuning to them depending on what you want

It is just about speaker design, not about mastertuning. 3-way tuning also showed high level of THD. And, Yes, 3-way tuning is better than 25Hz tuning but not good enough too in 40-50Hz range.

 

[Chromatischism]

I’m not sure how you can say that when the 80db measurements here show distortion products at 30hz to be almost as loud as the fundamental. That is already pretty bad sound quality, and especially so when it’s involving high order distortion products. Pushing it any harder should get much worse very fast.

Granted, I haven't heard the woofer in the A500, but I do own the S400, and in my experience, the difference in sound quality between 30 Hz from the S400's and from my Rythmik subs is not significant other than quantity. There are small differences but it's much less than you'd think. Part of the reason could be that at that frequency we don't hear details in the same way as in the higher frequencies.

Saying that it's "bad sound quality" based on the THD posted is a stretch. I think we need to reserve judgment because there is more to this. Go have a look at the THD of other speakers measured here. It's almost always at what looks to be alarming levels in the bass yet it is less of a problem than it looks to be.

Or, the woofer in the A500 could just be terrible. But I doubt it.

 

[aarons915]

Thanks for sharing your experience with these speakers. I read through the entire KEF R3 measurement thread. R3 is literally the best measuring passive bookshelf speaker thus far, yet people couldn't agree on whether it sounds good or not and had an extended argument on whether the R3 is designed for no toe-in positioning. One member even made a list of reviewers who prefer various competing speakers over the R3.

I am just glad to see the R3 finally wins for once against the A500 in your setup.

I know this isn't the R3 thread but being the best measuring passive is debatable, that is only based on Olive's algorithm which Harman doesn't even use anymore and many people here have noted some very odd scores, both high and low. I'm not saying they are bad speakers but there are a few flaws, most notably the low Q dip from 1-3k, also the 2700Hz peak that develops off-axis. I've been messing with EQ'ing these for the past month or so and have made them sound really good now but when I compare the EQ on vs off it shows that they have a lot of room for improvement over the stock form. If someone has the ability to use some parametric EQ, these are definitely some of the best speakers you can buy though, it's tough to beat a solidly engineered and built 3-way coaxial in my opinion.

 

[Mads Buchardt]

It is just about speaker design, not about mastertuning. 3-way tuning also showed high level of THD. And, Yes, 3-way tuning is better than 25Hz tuning but not good enough too in 40-50Hz range.

The mastertunings is the speakers design, it's a big part of it as this is where the magic happens. The speakers themself are to be seen as a platform that we can do a ton of things with, depending on what the customer needs and want. As low THD is clearly important to some, we did a completely new tuning that would have low THD as a priority.

Better woofers would not solve the THD problem. A little bit on if we go with something like the purify woofer which we also have tested. But it still have high THD when it moves alot. So the THD you are seeing is a result of woofers moving a lot when you push 82db at 25hz, not a result of poor woofers. One solution would be to simply pair the A500 with subs. The 8351B works a lot less than the A500 as its both bigger, have bigger woofers don't dig as deep and have bass reflex ports instead of a sealed design, and that it's over twice the price. Should be a more fair comparison with our A700

 

[napilopez]

I've seen Mads say that these (S400/A500) work best at 2-3 meters because of the waveguide and driver distance. It's possible the sound just isn't converging for you sitting that close.

The lower crossover could theoretically significantly improve this. The trade-off might be more distortion in the midrange but I highly doubt it would be audible in a nearfield context.

Thanks for sharing your experience with these speakers. I read through the entire KEF R3 measurement thread. R3 is literally the best measuring passive bookshelf speaker thus far, yet people couldn't agree on whether it sounds good or not and had an extended argument on whether the R3 is designed for no toe-in positioning. One member even made a list of reviewers who prefer various competing speakers over the R3.

I am just glad to see the R3 finally wins for once against the A500 in your setup.

As you surely read on the thread, one possible explanation is simply some sort of sample variation with the R3. Evidence suggests that what people were hearing was not exactly what Amir measured. The medium Q 1kHz dip, for example, that doesn't show up in Amir's measurement but does in almost all the others -- at least seven of them, including my own.

More importantly, to me it sounded exactly like what you would expect from a recessed midrange on the on-axis and PIR -- either slightly laid back or slightly forward in the presence region, depending on your set and hearing.

In my own measurements the R3 is still very good but not exemplary the way it is in Amirs. For example, here are my horizontal measurements:

There is an on-axis recession in the listening window midrange. Wide shallow deviations don't look as bad, but tend to be more audible than narrow ones.

There is further a bit of a directivity mismatch at the tweeter crossover from 3k to 4Khz.

When I created a predicted in-room response for the R3, it matched the actual in-room response of another member here almost perfectly, and in it the problem becomes evident.

This is how I heard the speaker.

Alternatively, you could anchor the target slope lower and get an elevated presence region, as some others heard it.

With my measurements, the R3 scores a 6.3/7.8. So still very good! But not quite as good.

To me the speaker sounded exactly like it measured. A very good speaker with one or two noticeable flaws. I don't know that anyone really thought the R3 was bad, it was more that people didn't understand why it maybe wasnt as good as Amir's measurements showed. I think if you look at my measurements above, it's easy to see why.

I know this isn't the R3 thread but being the best measuring passive is debatable, that is only based on Olive's algorithm which Harman doesn't even use anymore and many people here have noted some very odd scores, both high and low. I'm not saying they are bad speakers but there are a few flaws, most notably the low Q dip from 1-3k, also the 2700Hz peak that develops off-axis. I've been messing with EQ'ing these for the past month or so and have made them sound really good now but when I compare the EQ on vs off it shows that they have a lot of room for improvement over the stock form. If someone has the ability to use some parametric EQ, these are definitely some of the best speakers you can buy though, it's tough to beat a solidly engineered and built 3-way coaxial in my opinion.

How did you end up EQing the R3, out of curiousity?

Granted, I haven't heard the woofer in the A500, but I do own the S400, and in my experience, the difference in sound quality between 30 Hz from the S400's and from my Rythmik subs is not significant other than quantity. There are small differences but it's much less than you'd think. Part of the reason could be that at that frequency we don't hear details in the same way as in the higher frequencies.

Saying that it's "bad sound quality" based on the THD posted is a stretch. I think we need to reserve judgment because there is more to this. Go have a look at the THD of other speakers measured here. It's almost always at what looks to be alarming levels in the bass yet it is less of a problem than it looks to be.

Or, the woofer in the A500 could just be terrible. But I doubt it.

Yeah, this is why I personally am not interested in starting to discuss distortion measurements in my reviews. I think it's easy to overestimate their importance and audibility. These days some people in this forum seem to be taking distortion measurements almost as importantly as FR and directivity measurements, which is a shame in my book, but we all have our perspectives..

Which is not at all to say that @Instar didn't hear these things - the A500 obviously cannot compete with a pair of subwoofers, and I don't think anyone should expect that. What matters is what your personal threshold is. I think the A500 have more than enough bass output for my needs at a 10ft/3m listening distance. I do not miss my dual subs. Clear Instar feels different and that's okay.

All that being said, the 8351B is twice the price and slightly larger, so I'm not sure it's really a fair comparison either

 

[aarons915]

To me the speaker sounded exactly like it measured. A very good speaker with one or two noticeable flaws. I don't know that anyone really thought the R3 was bad, it was more that people didn't understand why it maybe wasnt as good as Amir's measurements showed. I think if you look at my measurements above, it's easy to see why.

How did you end up EQing the R3, out of curiousity?

I think the problem is the Olive score because I also agree the speaker does sound very much like it's measurements, people seem to have a problem that it was the highest scoring speaker that Amir didn't love but it's far from perfect as you noted.

The biggest challenge with EQ for the R3 is that 2700Hz peak that forms off-axis, because of that I can have a flat listening window with the peak in the ER curve or a dip in the LW and smooth ER curve, after much tweaking and listening comparisons I went with the dip in the LW because it sounds better to me, the 2700Hz peak sounds a bit harsh if left untouched. The early reflections should also perceptually fill in the dip in the LW so it's not really that bad. This before and after is a bit older but is the same idea, basically just make the LW neutral with a smooth ER curve per the Toole research:

 

[TimDH]

To add my 2 cents, as I recently received the A500s and have been playing them very happily for about 2 weeks. Why I decided to try them:

- I believe in the virtues of an active system, all other things equal
- I liked the size and design for my living room where my dear spouse needs to be happy too. In fact, she really likes the looks.
- I liked the use of DSP to try different tunings
- I got the WISA hub and this lets me experiment with putting the speakers in different places easily. E.g., doing TV duty or moving to a better listening position when it's just me. The WISA hub functions like a digital preamp.
- works with Roon (although not certified, but Roon found it right away and plays flawlessly)
- I liked the Bucharest vibe and the fact that they measure. Sure, they're trying to make money but nothing wrong with that
-the iPhone app does low frequency room correction painlessly and, again, if I move the speakers, I can re-do it in a minute's time
- I bet I would prefer the KiiThree or D&D but I have a wife and family to think of and for ~$3.5k I got a wireless streamer, room correction and very good speakers. If any of these companies goes out of business, my investment won't kill me.

For my listening SPL of ~75 db (unweighted) I don't notice any strain. This is at a Roon setting of 50/100 so they would be unbearably loud to me at anything like 100%. I find plenty of low bass impact. The speakers are devoid of boxiness, one of the big things I'm sensitive to in a lot of speakers. I would be keen to hear a system with the Purifi woofers but for now I don't feel like I'm missing much.

I'm attaching a few pics of the hub, the room correction app and the rear panel of the A500s. I live in Rhode Island so if anyone in southern New England is interested in a listen, feel free to contact me

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

I doubt it is a driver issue. If you plug the Genelec port, I think the level matched harmonic distortion will be a lot closer.

It's more of a design trade off. They want it to be compact, extend to 25hz, and market cardioid tuning to the memers.