Buchardt Audio S400

[Ron Texas]

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 -

Well someone must have mistaken me for a piece of furniture and tested the LS50 on my head. I tried the LS50's on a 36" high wall unit and they sucked, so I agree with you there.

As for increasing the mass of your Q100 it might or might not be an improvement because it depends on how that mass stiffens the enclosure. The LS50 has the strongest/stiffest enclosure I have ever run across. If you rap you knuckles on it you get sore knuckles and nothing else. The front baffle is made out of cast something or other with cement or whatever in it. It is held together with four long bolts. The Q100 is a decent, reasonably priced speaker, but that's it.

 

[Roasty]

I just received the S400 speakers yesterday.

Backstory is I set up a small system in my bedroom.

Cambridge audio cxn v2
Benchmark dac3b
Benchmark hpa4 (for headphones and line out)
Audiolab 6000a power amp mode
B&W 606 bookshelves

So the b&w 606 were really bass light. Tight and precise but really lacking down low. But they were very clear up top without being excessively bright.

I was annoyed at the lack of bass and caved in and bought an REL T7i subwoofer, and that really completed the sound.

Stumbled across the Buchardt speakers on Facebook and watched some YouTube vids, read some reviews. Ordered for the 30day trial.

Out of the box they sound pretty damn good. With the subwoofer off, I'd say the bass/lows give somewhere around 80 to 90 percent of what my B&W + subwoofer gives (crossover around 70hz and lowish gain). I don't aim for boomy thump, rather just precise, fast, textured bass.

With the subwoofer on, definitely need to dial down the sub crossover much lower as at 70hz it is just too muddy and loose and thick. Once the sub was dialled in correctly, the sound is really quite enjoyable.

Granted, I've only had them for a day but am impressed already. Am looking forward to how they sound after a few more days. Then comes the dilemma if I should keep them or return them. I was perfectly happy with the 606 + rel and the S400 were just out of curiosity.

One thing I notice is the S400 really like being played at higher volume. Whereas the 606 sound really good even at low volumes.

 

[kaka89]

I just received the S400 speakers yesterday.

Backstory is I set up a small system in my bedroom.

Cambridge audio cxn v2
Benchmark dac3b
Benchmark hpa4 (for headphones and line out)
Audiolab 6000a power amp mode
B&W 606 bookshelves

So the b&w 606 were really bass light. Tight and precise but really lacking down low. But they were very clear up top without being excessively bright.

I was annoyed at the lack of bass and caved in and bought an REL T7i subwoofer, and that really completed the sound.

Stumbled across the Buchardt speakers on Facebook and watched some YouTube vids, read some reviews. Ordered for the 30day trial.

Out of the box they sound pretty damn good. With the subwoofer off, I'd say the bass/lows give somewhere around 80 to 90 percent of what my B&W + subwoofer gives (crossover around 70hz and lowish gain). I don't aim for boomy thump, rather just precise, fast, textured bass.

With the subwoofer on, definitely need to dial down the sub crossover much lower as at 70hz it is just too muddy and loose and thick. Once the sub was dialled in correctly, the sound is really quite enjoyable.

Granted, I've only had them for a day but am impressed already. Am looking forward to how they sound after a few more days. Then comes the dilemma if I should keep them or return them. I was perfectly happy with the 606 + rel and the S400 were just out of curiosity.

One thing I notice is the S400 really like being played at higher volume. Whereas the 606 sound really good even at low volumes.

I have heard the S400 in a long session. The bass is impressive but the mid and high aren't as good as my Harbeth, this is why I didn't pull the trigger. What do you think?

 

[Roasty]

I've had them for

I have heard the S400 in a long session. The bass is impressive but the mid and high aren't as good as my Harbeth, this is why I didn't pull the trigger. What do you think?

I can only make very early impressions as I've only had them a day. But at this time, the highs are definitely clearer and it is a more forward presentation with the B&W 606. I do very much enjoy the highs/treble with the B&W.

There is comparatively more meat on the mids with the S400. Not by a great amount, but noticeable.

I do like the form factor of the S400. Smaller than the 606. The sound output is really impressive. I'd go so far as to say that if I had the S400 first, I probably would be content and not considered the 606 + REL. But now that I've gone about it the other way round, I suppose I just have to wait and see if the sound becomes a whole lot better before the 30 day trial period is over..

 

[Daverz]

I just received the S400 speakers yesterday.
[snip]
One thing I notice is the S400 really like being played at higher volume. Whereas the 606 sound really good even at low volumes.

A couple other reviews have mentioned the S400 not doing well at low volume. I wonder if a speaker's sound at low volume is just a function of its in-room response approximating an equal loudness curve. Or rather, I don't think low-volume performance is some property of speakers independent of in-room response. You sometimes see the claim that more power efficient speakers do better at low volumes.

I found that the S400 sound more balanced when toed in. I usually prefer to sit at least a foot further back from the usual equilateral triangle arrangement with most speakers, otherwise they start to sound like giant headphones, but with the S400 I can move closer without getting this effect.

 

[Bamyasi]

I have heard the S400 in a long session. The bass is impressive but the mid and high aren't as good as my Harbeth, this is why I didn't pull the trigger. What do you think?

Harbeth's may be good but to my taste they produced the type of sound I was trying to get away from, since I've been listening mainly to various studio monitors over the past 15 years. Harsh, brittle and cutting through your head until your ears bleed.

I thought I would like something different and I firmly believe I have now found it. My pair of S400s has beautiful mids and absolutely astounding silky smooth and yet detailed highs. Not to mention very tight and well balanced bass which, I agree, extends so deep it does not require a subwoofer at least for 95 percent of the music I listen to.

I also cannot disagree more with the low volume playback criticism and do not understand where it is coming from. In fact, I consider Buchardt S400 the best speakers for low volume listening I have ever heard. When I dial down the volume on my DAC I always have this feeling that the S400s have some sort of built-in loudness control because I can still hear very clearly bass and treble parts all the way down. Note, I live in an apartment and rarely dare to listen at higher volumes at all, so for me it is a very important (and lovely) virtue of these speakers.

Oh, and my listening room is pretty small, so obviously they can sound very different in a larger space.

Just my $.02 for a change (pun intended).

 

[Roasty]

Harbeth's may be good but to my taste they produced the type of sound I was trying to get away from, since I've been listening mainly to various studio monitors over the past 15 years. Harsh, brittle and cutting through your head until your ears bleed.

I thought I would like something different and I firmly believe I have now found it. My pair of S400s has beautiful mids and absolutely astounding silky smooth and yet detailed highs. Not to mention very tight and well balanced bass which, I agree, extends so deep it does not require a subwoofer at least for 95 percent of the music I listen to.

I also cannot disagree more with the low volume playback criticism and do not understand where it is coming from. In fact, I consider Buchardt S400 the best speakers for low volume listening I have ever heard. When I dial down the volume on my DAC I always have this feeling that the S400s have some sort of built-in loudness control because I can still hear very clearly bass and treble parts all the way down. Note, I live in an apartment and rarely dare to listen at higher volumes at all, so for me it is a very important (and lovely) virtue of these speakers.

Oh, and my listening room is pretty small, so obviously they can sound very different in a larger space.

Just my $.02 for a change (pun intended).

My room is pretty small too and I also stay in an apartment. Most of my listening is at low volumes. Maybe my speakers will open up and improve after a few days.

As it is now, at lower volumes it feels a bit like there is a thin screen between me and the speakers. As I increase the gain, past a certain level it feels like screen is suddenly lifted and the speakers do indeed open up beautifully.

Whereas with the 606 it is a gradual and steady buildup as the gain is increased.

 

[maty]

The Q100 is a decent, reasonably priced speaker, but that's it.

It is a good/very good speakers that can be very good without spending a lot of money. Of course, mass and damping. And thanks to the fact that we have measurements, it is very easy to slightly retouch by software the frequency response in the near field with three simple actions from JRMC, which avoids rebuilding the filters (following the proposal made by Zvu in diyaudio, to whom I am very grateful)

BTW, new they sound horrible, strident, without bass!!!

- End off topic -

 

[Krunok]

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.

I actually said that dip in SP and peak in the DI doesn't really imply that waveguide is doing a good job. Although Revel F208 tweeter has shallower waveguide it doesn't have such peaks and dips in the Sp and DI graphs.

From the early reflections graph you posted it does seem that mostly floor bounce is responsible for that, although wall bounce doesn't look stellar too.

 

[kaka89]

It is a good/very good speakers that can be very good without spending a lot of money. Of course, mass and damping. And thanks to the fact that we have measurements, it is very easy to slightly retouch by software the frequency response in the near field with three simple actions from JRMC, which avoids rebuilding the filters (following the proposal made by Zvu in diyaudio, to whom I am very grateful)

BTW, new they sound horrible, strident, without bass!!!

- End off topic -

KEF Q100 was my first speaker, not so impressive, but I was on a very limited budget tho.

I would save for S400 if that is within budget.

 

[maty]

Of course, like LS50, they need a good support, filled with sand. And at least 200 hours. My hypothesis is that the suspension of the coaxial speaker is very rigid and needs time to soften. That is why the first hours of its use sounds so bad -> they were a disaster for sale for years.

I bought some used Norstone Stylum 2 and cut them.

OLD picture: http://maty.galeon.com/WP-imagenes/...EF-Q100-ATL-Hi-Fi-DC-Ripple-Blocker-x4-ME.jpg

OLD picture with grills, cleared up but there is too much black, and bad quality camera. Front bass-reflex opened.

BTW: with Kimber Kable 8PR. I bought them, new in a Barcelona professional shop, 7-8 € by meter! a bargain.

 

[sfdoddsy]

Hi Maty.

Please don't take this the wrong way.

Your enjoyment of the Q100 and the tweaks you have made is admirable.

I have owned them too, and they are very good for the price.

But there is no need to repeatedly post the same information and graphs over multiple threads and multiple forums.

Could you tone it down a bit?

 

[maty]

That is why I have only put links. And the image improved in small.

Other info is interesting too, like where the NS stands are cheaper in EU (hummm, time ago only € 79, now € 99 + shipping), and the cables (with measurements), interesting to the Buchardt too, I think.

 

[xarkkon]

Harbeth's may be good but to my taste they produced the type of sound I was trying to get away from, since I've been listening mainly to various studio monitors over the past 15 years. Harsh, brittle and cutting through your head until your ears bleed.

I thought I would like something different and I firmly believe I have now found it. My pair of S400s has beautiful mids and absolutely astounding silky smooth and yet detailed highs. Not to mention very tight and well balanced bass which, I agree, extends so deep it does not require a subwoofer at least for 95 percent of the music I listen to.

I also cannot disagree more with the low volume playback criticism and do not understand where it is coming from. In fact, I consider Buchardt S400 the best speakers for low volume listening I have ever heard. When I dial down the volume on my DAC I always have this feeling that the S400s have some sort of built-in loudness control because I can still hear very clearly bass and treble parts all the way down. Note, I live in an apartment and rarely dare to listen at higher volumes at all, so for me it is a very important (and lovely) virtue of these speakers.

Oh, and my listening room is pretty small, so obviously they can sound very different in a larger space.

Just my $.02 for a change (pun intended).

i do find that the passive radiator at the back kicks in nicely past a certain volume. at low levels the bass isn't as obvious. room's a little on the big side so it could be that too.

 

[Cortes]

Is there any feature in the response frequency of speakers that indicate whether they are good or not at low volumes?.

I hearded on a youtube video that dynaudio has tuned the new core monitors to perform well at low levels. How is that done?.

 

[Julf]

Is there any feature in the response frequency of speakers that indicate whether they are good or not at low volumes?.

I hearded on a youtube video that dynaudio has tuned the new core monitors to perform well at low levels. How is that done?.

I guess that would mean an emphasis on lower frequencies, and a slightly milder lift of highs, to conform to fletcher-munson equal-loudness contours.

 

[Cortes]

I guess that would mean an emphasis on lower frequencies, and a slightly milder lift of highs, to conform to fletcher-munson equal-loudness contours.

View attachment 32691

smile response, typical audiophile speaker ...

 

[sfdoddsy]

Which means that if you play them loud they will sound bloated down low, and screechy up high.

 

[Ron Texas]

I had my LS50's on steel stands which each have 6 kg of reclaimed lead shot in them. They are spiked through carpet to a wood subfloor. Between the stands and speakers are some sticky thingies. Nothing moves around.

 

[Aprude51]

I actually said that dip in SP and peak in the DI doesn't really imply that waveguide is doing a good job. Although Revel F208 tweeter has shallower waveguide it doesn't have such peaks and dips in the Sp and DI graphs.

From the early reflections graph you posted it does seem that mostly floor bounce is responsible for that, although wall bounce doesn't look stellar too.

I agree the F208 shows better behavior, but they both exhibit peaks at the crossover point. I created an overlay of their two spinorama graphs. Adjusted to the same scale, they both show a peak in directivity index at the crossover point, with the F208 better behaved.

DI: S400 is black line, F208 is red line