Buchardt S400 Speaker Review

[Dennis Murphy]

I checked this concept with other speakers to look into my theory that Amir is positively reacting to the around 4 dB rise from 300 to roughly 100 hz in the Revels and JBLs, but didn't manage to off-set this graph to check it.

For the bass to stand out, you need to align the 1 khz and above more with the Buchardt. Then it becomes a question whether the Buchardt is bass-shy or too bright tonally, which is probably the same thing.

The last adjective I would use to describe the S400's sound is "bright." And I've never seen any owner or commercial reviews that complained about brightness. Speakers that sound bright often are committing sins further down the treble spectrum, specifically in the 2-4 kHz region where the S400's are laid back.

 

[napilopez]

The last adjective I would use to describe the S400's sound is "bright." And I've never seen any owner or commercial reviews that complained about brightness. Speakers that sound bright often are committing sins further down the treble spectrum, specifically in the 2-4 kHz region where the S400's are laid back.

I did not find the S400 to be particularly dark either, although I did think the vocals were a bit laid back probably for the reason you state.

There is a lot of hype over this speaker. It reminds me of the LS50 when it debuted. A speaker that is not hyped but seems to be the current passive bookshelf to beat is the KEF R3.

I'd say the R3 is at least as hyped as the S400 in my audio circles. It comes up in virtually every discussion of the S400 lol. The classic trio is S400 vs R3 vs Ascend 2EX.

 

[amirm]

On cabinet resonances, I put my ear to the S400 cabinet. I could clearly hear practically every note it was playing with some distortion. I then did the same with Revel M16. Here, most notes were quiet but the ones that stood out (in female vocals) were more distorted than S400.

 

[chandleryesfriends]

I may be in the minority in this forum, but I do think there is value to the subjective listening tests at Head-fi and the youtube bloggers-especially with respect to headphones and speakers which can sound pretty different from one another. Where I feel Audio Science Review is really good is narrowing out some stand-out products in the Dac/Amplifier fields, and then some speakers to try like the Elac DBR 6.2 and Kef R3.

From reading this forum, it's clear some of the great products are Topping D50s, Topping D90, RMI-Dac fs, JDS Labs Atom, THX 789, hypex core modules, and Denon X3600h for receivers. For headphones, many know that Sennheiser hd600 is a good starting point and maybe at the point of diminishing marginal return. But, I know that, and personally have an HD 800s anyway because I like the bigger soundstage and feeling that the music is outside my head.

For speakers, I still like my Kef Q100 (which did get a good review from wirecutter for clarity), especially at the $300 price point. And, given the hype of the Buchardt S400 (especially in the bass which Amir alluded to in his review), I'm sure that it's a speaker that many would enjoy. Especially for its form factor, if one can't or doesn't want add a subwoofer the Buchardt S400 is a good choice because of it's good bass extension. Also, if the Buchardt S400 is good at Soundstage (which is what many of the youtube bloggers say) that will be hard to test with just one speaker as Amir does in his review. I'm not sure there is a good way to test for soundstage besides simply listening which does matter to some people.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Dear Amir.

" What i'm afraid of, is that your review here completely end up being a tunnel vision hunt for issues and flaws, without giving a second thought to what the manufacturer was trying to achieve with the given design. "

"I can't stop to wonder when i read through the review why there seems to be an unnecessary focus to highlight only the negatives, there is really not much positive in here which is the complete opposite to what nearly all other have to say about the S400 around the world, so what happened? One thing is for sure, this surely will start, and have already started a big debate online, so it's surely a successful review considering the views and attention it gets. We have been so fortunate and lucky to have created a product that have been highly praised to the point of hyped. With hype comes extreme attention to them that goes against the stream. Has the s400 been over hyped? I don’t know, but my job is basically telling interested people to still have realistic expectations from this shoebox sized speaker can do. Luckily they have exceeded many people's expectations, otherwise it would never had become a hyped product in the first place right?. Even though this is not the first negative review, I think it would be the most popular as it's SO negative."

"It's important to remember that there are real people behind these companies, people that have given their lives to creating something that people hopefully like. Many of us are smaller niche companies that rely on reviews and cross their fingers every time a review sample is shipped out the door. It's a huge responsibility to hand over and I think it's VERY important that a reviewer can be subjective in reviews, set aside personal taste in some areas. "

This.
I totally love this site I read it way to much AND like even a quality speaker, it has some real flaws. Buchardt, is deff pointing out three related things that have frustrated me a bit.
I say all this with a kind tone.
1. Lots of negative feedback. Critical review is not purely criticism. It is a deep exploration of the traits of something, in this case a speaker. Both negative AND positive.
2. I feel that often many folks are more excited here to take down a popular speaker (S400, LS50, ect) than to simply investigate what is and is not working. My hope is that group is a minority.
2 1/2. I am frustrated with people who seem to have little idea what goes into running a company and investments and costs. Such as blasting the S400 for only using $250 worth of drivers & taking the DIY parts express C-note that parts express (a large, existing company that sells thousands of products and likely could afford to make negative profit on the C-note) uses as a type of loss leader and denigrating the S400, stating it costs 19 times what the c-note, (a DIY speaker that actually can not be completed for $100 )costs.
3. The subjective part of the review is a real thorn for me. I don't have a solution but since this site is measurement based AND all users are human, the subjective part needs to be addressed. In its current form it is casting a long shadow and I think originally it was mean to be a afterthought just for fun. (thus the fun panther awards) But it really is not a fair system currently. IMHO that is.

Anyway, I unfortunately I don't really have time this afternoon to formulate this comment completely, time to jet. I hope I can que up some other folks to chime in.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Seriously, I can understand about profit margins or not doing over-engineering (instead of airplanes and aerospace industry does) since the components used already does the job.
But for god sake, couldn’t all the big player brands start using better than Benic just for the looks? I could walk down the street and buy them for cents (well actually now I can't since of COVID).

There should be an implicit consensus between all speakers $1k/$2K and above of using just a little bit better parts since they are all going to be torn apart for reviews & audio porn. I don’t think it could hurt them so much investing in manufacture/ownership pride and aesthetical proposes. However, I do not own any speaker brand so I'm sure I'm talking nonsense .

You could get Bennic poly caps for pennies? If so, I was ripped off when I used Bennic parts in my BMR crossover. I think you're referring to Bennic (and other brands of) electrolytic caps. I see only one of those on the S400 board--the 47 uF woofer cap. That's very common practice even in expensive speakers. Aside from the added cost, a high-value poly cap will be quite large and make compact pcb layouts more difficult.

 

[Absolute]

Im not applying that at all and hope it does not come across like that?. That Amir do not like them is what it is. I just hope that we can impress him more with the next mode

It didn't come across like that. I thought you wrote a fantastic reply and touched on things worth considering. However, the beauty of Amir's reviews is that he pulls no punches - which is the rarest of qualities in this business. While that might be perceived as harsh by many, especially manufacturers such as yourself with good quality speakers, it's also a chance to see things in a new perspective that otherwise might have gone by unnoticed if he just adhered to "political correctness".

One of those things could be the importance of vertical response. This is largely regarded as far less important than horizontal response, but perhaps we should pay more attention to it? It's not unlikely that the best single metric for subjective preference is the estimated in-room response.

Another thought; Kevin Voecks from Revel says that no Revel is ever released before it beats all the closest competitors in several blind-tests. If true, then the measurements of the M16 and the sibling JBL HDI 1600 is tuned to excel in short listening tests. They are voiced quite literally the same.

It's also possible that small speakers without real bass depth/oomph should compensate this by having more oomph in the mid/upper bass - a tuning the smallest speakers use to fool us into thinking they have actual bass.

Exploring different ideas when it comes to subjective testing is interesting, especially regarding whether or not short-term impressions translate into long-term impressions. For me they don't. Speakers that impress me right away will sooner or later grow tiresome due to some particular coloration that follows every track. It just takes time to notice it.

Since this is a science-based site, it should be noted that, according to Floyd Toole, any comparisons between speakers should be done with 3 or more different speakers. Otherwise any differences between two speakers will be exaggerated and will lead to greater subjective differences than what's actually the case.

Anyways, these speakers are obviously very good according to measurements and needs no apologies. Well done!

 

[chandleryesfriends]

I agree with most of what Rooskie said, but think the subjective parts add some value given that Amir has listened to so many different speakers--which is more than most of us. The subjective part--especially whether or not he recommends something is pretty valuable.

With respect to speakers, maybe he needs to add a caveat that it is more subjective than usual and he might want to list positives for why someone would like the speaker if at all possible. Given that Buchardt has a good return policy and one can listen to popular speakers like the KEF ls50 at best buy (at least they could), one should be given the advice to listen to as many speakers as possible to see what you like. There is not one perfect speaker for everyone--like there might be a "best" amplifier or dac at different price points.

 

[MZKM]

No doubt your A500 should nail the preference ratings:

Not a whole lot better for the score ignoring the bass; it still has a noticeable dip ~2kHz.

 

[napilopez]

Not a whole lot better for the score ignoring the bass; it still has a noticeable dip ~2kHz.

A fair bit less sharp though, so maybe better in the NBD PIR?

Also keep in mind buchardt has said the A500 will come with configurable tuning, switching between cardioid and monopole for instance, and there might even be a nearfield configuration, though idk how much of that will be available at launch. Should be interesting.

 

[Bamyasi]

I think most that know, have heard or read anything about Buchardt Audio would find this review unnecessary harsh. I'm not stubborn, or completely ignorant to criticism, in fact I welcome it as it makes our future designs much better which are based very much on the feedback to what we could do better. This is what I love about being so close to the end user and the community. You have way more power than I have in this business, I hope you can take some of my "defence" as positive feedback as well And I hope you would take our next product in for review.

Dear Mads, first of all let me say thanks to you and other hardworking people at your company for creating what I consider so far the best compact bookshelf speaker of the century.

The only problem I am having with my pair of S400 is that they sound so unbelievably good it is really hard to get back to work from listening to them, especially now when, like many others, I have to work from home.

I actually did not find the Amir's review too harsh. In fact, if you check hardisj's earlier post you will clearly see that S400 measures the best across all passive speakers currently in Amir's database. Subjective comments I am usually not interested in and mostly would not read at all but I did this time after reading the heated reaction which followed. Well, I can hear a bit of a nagging in Amir's voice but nothing unusual I believe majority of the criticism from others in this thread came from people who tend to always criticize someone else's car which they'd never had, a book they never read, etc. Typical human reaction to any criticism is to join the mob, you know. Probably also currently exaggerated by claustrophobia fallout due to prolonged self-isolation.

I am still interested to know how much of the measurements discrepancies might by due to Klippel method itself versus various other sources of errors but I guess we will have to wait until more statistics is accumulated.

Thank you once again for the joy and entertainment my S400s giving me every day and please keep up your excellent work.

 

[MZKM]

I see that many question the break in importance of the S400. The S400 is a rare example on how important break in can be on some speakers. Now i know where you stand in this. But here I have to say that it really comes down to the woofers design especially. When we get samples from our supplier (SB Acoustics in this case) we get measurements with the samples units before and after break in (which they do on samples). For these woofers, there is significant changes in multiple parameters. So yes, for the S400 its important which i think all my customer base can agree on

SB also states that the T/S parameters in the public datasheet is for broken-in drivers (I’ve even seen some companies publish both). However, what is your response to those pointing out that 100hr to reach optimal performance is the same as your trial period if done at 3hr 20min of playback every single day, as well as those saying that such break-in should be done before shipping, thus allowing the customers to immediately enjoy optimal performance (do you simply not have much in stock because produced units are shipped off quite soon)?

Main difference I see, which would in-part explain @amirm’s non-stellar subjective impressions, is that your measurements show a bass boost ~100Hz. I wonder if Amir measured the same unit again, if we would see any improvement (it’s probably got 4-5hr of playback thus far).

Did you ever experiment with a lower crossover point? Because as seen in the horizontal off-axis plots (here and your own measurements), the woofer is starting to beam, there is very lower distortion at the crossover point so I wonder if the tweeter could be crossed a bit lower.

In any case, going by the Preference Rating score, it does very well.

 

[hardisj]

Here are my informal thoughts which I tried to compare against the Elac (a speaker I really like for the price):
I like the midrange a lot. Definitely more favorable (to me) than that of the Elac because with the Elac I can hear something in the 600-800hz region I don't like.
I like the bass. Though, I felt at times I was hitting its max before I would have liked.
These two could be one in the same (the neutral midbass-to-midrange transition).

I haven't noticed anything shrill or likewise that stands out. But, I don't claim to be an audiophile with golden ears. My subjective evaluations take time, with various music, to really nitpick things. If this speaker were flat out bad I would know it with one or two songs and some pink noise. But when you're talking about a speaker like this that is +/-2dB from 100-10kHz, well, that's a different story. My "official" review will contain more details and notes.

 

[Tks]

Shame. I was hoping passive radiators would be coming in clutch at least with respect to things like distortion perhaps.

So here's my whole thing with this company. While 10 years is a nice warranty, it's really not that serious considering the price they're charging for this speaker (seeing as how it's not manufactured here). I think their asking price is above what they're able to maintain in terms of brand credence.

So, bossman. When's the Vanatoo coming to the bench? Super curious to see how another passive radiator design fairs now. I heard you got this speaker in ages ago and was wondering if it's coming anytime soon >_>

 

[Rick Sykora]

You're throwing two phenomena together here.

First, we have the baffle step "6 dB loss" at the transition from 2pi room (sound is reflected by the baffle) to 4pi room (wavelength of the sound is so large that the baffle is negligible in comparison). This is a more or less smooth transition in the frequency response. The baffle step does not cause resonance.
Without other disturbing effects this can be shown with a spherical enclosure.
https://trueaudio.com/st_diff1.htm
View attachment 60327

Then there is an effect of the secondary sound sources created by the edges of the cabinet, which interferes with the original signal.
https://heissmann-acoustics.de/kantendiffraktion-sekundaerschallquellen-treiberanordnun/
View attachment 60329
Here, the path from the sound source center (chassis center) to the edge of the cabinet and the distance to the listener play a role. This interference leads to an rippled frequency response.
View attachment 60330View attachment 60333

What is the effect of combining both effects for the Buchardt bass driver? This results in the curve shown in Post#68 (here only for the woofer):

View attachment 60336

The lateral edge reflections are too high in the frequency range for the 550 Hz resonance of the Buchardt. Only the upper edge would theoretically be a possible cause but it hardly contributes in the simulation and the Q of the resonance would be much lower.

Edge diffraction has only a minor influence overall and cannot lead to such a pronounced high Q resonance@550Hz shown in Amirs measurement of the Buchardt.

I know that could have been said in just one sentence

Ok, nice explanation, but yes I do know the difference baffle step and the edge diffraction (I thought I saw). But after looking at @BYRTT model again, I misinterpreted it.

Trying not to gauge the Q so much as scales can be deceiving, but I have seen grill diffraction cause ripples in frequency response of comparable magnitude though.

So, if not edge diffraction, what is your explanation for the the 500 Hz resonance? It has to be something @BYRTT model predicts as it very comparable to Amir’s measurement...

 

[Mads Buchardt]

SB also states that the T/S parameters in the public datasheet is for broken-in drivers (I’ve even seen some companies publish both). However, what is your response to those pointing out that 100hr to reach optimal performance is the same as your trial period if done at 3hr 20min of playback every single day, as well as those saying that such break-in should be done before shipping, thus allowing the customers to immediately enjoy optimal performance (do you simply not have much in stock because produced units are shipped off quite soon)?

Main difference I see, which would in-part explain @amirm’s non-stellar subjective impressions, is that your measurements show a bass boost ~100Hz. I wonder if Amir measured the same unit again, if we would see any improvement (it’s probably got 4-5hr of playback thus far).

Did you ever experiment with a lower crossover point? Because as seen in the horizontal off-axis plots (here and your own measurements), the woofer is starting to beam, there is very lower distortion at the crossover point so I wonder if the tweeter could be crossed a bit lower.

In any case, going by the Preference Rating score, it does very well.

As i recall the pair Amir has, was broken in before he recived them which is ushally the case for review units we ship out. It was mainly a question i saw being asked by others which was why I included it

 

[Thomas savage]

Please don't take this the wrong way, it's more of a general theme towards many reviewers out there. I personally think that as a reviewer, you do have responsibilities. Reviewers are key in especially the audio business. They can have more power than what a million dollars in advertisement can have so it's an important task, trust me, i would piss my pants sitting an evaluating people's work everyday It's important to remember that there are real people behind these companies, people that have given their lives to creating something that people hopefully like. Many of us are smaller niche companies that rely on reviews and cross their fingers every time a review sample is shipped out the door. It's a huge responsibility to hand over and I think it's VERY important that a reviewer can be subjective in reviews, set aside personal taste in some areas

I think this is where the lines a hard walk , it's this precise reason why most audio review platforms end up being nothing more than cheerleaders for the industry . Hifi is a small world and the personal relationships between companies (especially the smaller ones ) and the various reviewers have created a unhealthy situation imo .

I'd say as well it rests squarely on the manufacturer to adapt to the modern age of these forums and learn to present themselves in the best way . After all it's free exposure, even if the results aren't as one might hope the response of the company can swing things in their favour.

I think elsewhere the control is exercised over the reviewer by various mechanisms not all cynical, here that control should be focused on the response to the review rather than influencing the review itself.

This is a change of ways , it's great to see @Mads Buchardt embracing it and being so gracious, you will win friends and customers this way imo.

These are very good speakers , maybe they are too transparent for Amirm, he's a bit frat boy in his taste ha ha .

 

[Jon AA]

Wow, I'm quite surprised at some peoples' reactions in this thread. I didn't think the review was all that negative. Amir wasn't doing backflips over the speaker as most reviewers do, but objectively he shouldn't have been. It's not like he said it was awful or something.

I think expectations can color peoples' interpretation of results. Like how the market can be happy with a lousy earnings report for a company if it exceeds expectations, or unhappy with a good report if it falls short of expectations. I think there's no doubt that the price along with the hype surrounding this speaker set the bar fairly high for it. So if it falls a bit short in some areas, people can be more disappointed than they might otherwise be.

Measurement-wise, as others have said, overall it did decently well. Though even here I think when people see a giant waveguide that directivity mismatch at the crossover is more unexpected and disappointing than it might otherwise be.

And for those thinking the listening tests are worthless, be careful not to make the "anti-audio science" people right by thinking the Spin contains all the information needed. It doesn't. Amir (as well as many other people) does care how loudly a speaker can play and sound good. The Spin doesn't tell you that.

Here again, expectations are at play. Nobody will be surprised when a $200 speaker starts sounding bad if turned up very loud so it probably won't be judged as harshly as a $2000 speaker. Nothing happens in a vacuum--after just testing the HDI 1600, which can apparently play very loudly with good bass response, if this speaker starts bottoming the woofer at a lower level, is that something Amir should be happy about or ignore completely?

And that's just one aspect of performance looking at the preference score in isolation will miss. Remember two different speakers can be significantly different and still end up with the same preference score. The reasons why can be found by looking deeper into the measurements, which is why all the measurements are given.

I think expecting Amir's subjective reaction to be exactly the same for any speaker that ends up with a similar score as another, is unrealistic.

 

[Thomas savage]

I am frustrated with people who seem to have little idea what goes into running a company and investments and costs

Me too , the whole ' I can make it for less ' gets real old and is kinda insulting. By all means bash silly expensive kit that's ultimately mutton sold as lamb but keep it to those products.

One thing I'd say is , there's no way Amirm can know the design choices and calculated compromises that have been made by the designer. For that we need them to sign up and explain. This is not a flaw , it's on manufacturers to come and explain the whys and wherefores. The resulting dialogue is what will lift us all up and hopefully be mutually beneficial. This is the healthy way of promoting the industry, all out in the open.

 

[Mads Buchardt]

Hi Mads,
Could the very “too” flat bass response in Amir’s measurements relative to everything published before have anything to do with the break in period you mentioned?

No i would not think so. You can say that the bass performance looks way better in these mesurements compared to our own hah