• 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 S400 *MKII* Spinorama and measurements

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,638
Likes
3,599
Location
Sweden, Västerås
I know the differences. I'm saying there's no more improvements to be made to the crossover for the SE.
Thanks , so just getting a MKII if one is interested is good , as all the actual changes are in that version and you get the MKII SE for the looks and novelty of limited ed ?

Wait there is this HDF instead of MDF cabinet ? maybe that to has limited value in a very small speaker ? Anyway that's a "real" difference that could potentially do something ?
Silver wiring is just b*llocks :) A little sad to see Buchardt go this way :( they used to have a clean product line with speakers designed with evidence base science ?

Now one have to sort thier offerings in two bins...
 

Freeway

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Messages
325
Likes
379
I know the differences. I'm saying there's no more improvements to be made to the crossover for the SE.

I was originally responding to VintageFlanker's comment at bottom of his post on the cheaper price of the MKII SE. Why it might be so.
 

VintageFlanker

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,940
Likes
19,691
Location
Paris
1000013674.png

 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
4,596
Likes
3,160
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
Multitest bookshelf loudspeakers – 2500 Euro – part 1

Buchardt S400 MKII

To English:
Buchardt-S400-MK2-Response-30ms-1m-straight.png
 

tbokris

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2023
Messages
14
Likes
3
I'm curious as to why I keep reading that the s400s are not suitable to near-field. Is it because of the upside down woofer/tweeter? Are they any less suitable for near-field than any other 2 way bookshelf speaker? I don't understand.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,703
I'm curious as to why I keep reading that the s400s are not suitable to near-field. Is it because of the upside down woofer/tweeter? Are they any less suitable for near-field than any other 2 way bookshelf speaker? I don't understand.
Larger driver spacings mean coherence isn't achieved until a little further away.
 

tbokris

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2023
Messages
14
Likes
3
Larger driver spacings mean coherence isn't achieved until a little further away.
I see. The driver spacing is the same on the a500s, but that one can be used for near-field because the DSP compensates or something for this? I'm just trying to work out why those would be any different
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,703
I see. The driver spacing is the same on the a500s, but that one can be used for near-field because the DSP compensates or something for this? I'm just trying to work out why those would be any different
The crossover point plays a role.

With the S400 MKII crossed at 1800 Hz, I don't think there is going to be a difference between the two in that regard. Actually I would expect the lower XO points to be better vs higher because you end up widening both the woofer and tweeter dispersion.
 

tbokris

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2023
Messages
14
Likes
3
The crossover point plays a role.

With the S400 MKII crossed at 1800 Hz, I don't think there is going to be a difference between the two in that regard. Actually I would expect the lower XO points to be better vs higher because you end up widening both the woofer and tweeter dispersion.
Interesting. It's funny because most of the reviews of the s400s say they're not suitable for near-field, but then the a500 I've read the opposite, also perhaps because it has a specific 'near field' mastertuning?
 

VintageFlanker

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,940
Likes
19,691
Location
Paris
It's funny because most of the reviews of the s400s say they're not suitable for near-field, but then the a500 I've read the opposite
Did you notice that tweeter and woofer are upside down with S400s, but not with A500s ? That's a major difference.

BTW, A500s are not particularly great for nearfield either...
 

Freeway

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
Messages
325
Likes
379
I'm curious as to why I keep reading that the s400s are not suitable to near-field. Is it because of the upside down woofer/tweeter? Are they any less suitable for near-field than any other 2 way bookshelf speaker? I don't understand.

I have been using the s400 MKII near field for about a year now. Actually very near field and horizontal.
The MKII can be used 'upside down'. I believe it is in their literature.
I had a discussion with one of the gents at Buchardt about my use of them and the near field thing.
Other speakers I used in this situation - Revel M105, ATC SCM7, Technics SB C700
All very fine.
No Problem.
 
Last edited:

tbokris

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2023
Messages
14
Likes
3
Did you notice that tweeter and woofer are upside down with S400s, but not with A500s ? That's a major difference.

BTW, A500s are not particularly great for nearfield either...
Yes I noticed the flipped drivers. How that would effect near-field, other than paying more attention up/down positioning? Didn't Buchardt say they flipped the drivers for the s400 because they said it gave better time alignment? I don't see why they did that in one speaker and not in another if they are essentially the same speaker in terms of the spacing and size of drivers.

Would they be any different to each other in the suitability of near-field listening?

Would KEF R3s for example, be better at near field ? I'm just trying to work out what makes a good near field speaker.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,739
Likes
16,170
View attachment 270314Looks like Buchardt finally posted their measurements.
That is quite a not nice directivity step, in my experience such constant directivity attempts don't work well at such high crossover frequencies and possibly the reason I liked the S300 more than the S400 (both MK I models though).
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,703
That is quite a not nice directivity step, in my experience such constant directivity attempts don't work well at such high crossover frequencies and possibly the reason I liked the S300 more than the S400 (both MK I models though).
That is the S400 MKII which is different at the crossover. It is at 1800 Hz, which is quite low.

It sounds linear to me. More so than the MKI. The MKI crossover is 2670 Hz.

New MKII measurements:

s400mkii-mesurements2-1667895321812.jpg


Speculation: the directivity change occurs around/before an important transition area for our hearing, which may be why it's not offensive.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,765
Likes
3,703
Yes I noticed the flipped drivers. How that would effect near-field, other than paying more attention up/down positioning? Didn't Buchardt say they flipped the drivers for the s400 because they said it gave better time alignment? I don't see why they did that in one speaker and not in another if they are essentially the same speaker in terms of the spacing and size of drivers.

Would they be any different to each other in the suitability of near-field listening?

Would KEF R3s for example, be better at near field ? I'm just trying to work out what makes a good near field speaker.
The flipped drivers have little effect on this.

It's mostly about directivity, which is affected by the crossover.

S400 MKI: 2670 Hz
S400 MKII: 1800 Hz
A500: tunable within that range

Yes, concentric speakers are better nearfield.
 
Top Bottom