Buchardt S400 Speaker Review

[Chromatischism]

 

[VintageFlanker]

View attachment 159128

They moved the production from China to Indonesia?

 

[Chromatischism]

They moved the production from China to Indonesia?

Indeed. And they swapped the red/black posts which threw me off initially.

There are some cosmetic differences not noted elsewhere.

The speakers are black satin which is darker and a little more shiny than the black matte which was more dark gray and didn't reflect any light. You choose which is better.

The waveguide is a different texture and it reflects light differently. It feels like sandpaper whereas the previous version felt smooth, but textured. I'm not sure if there are any acoustic differences or if this is just a manufacturing change.

They are a bit deeper and so are slightly back-heavy.

 

[mssngpeces]

Any perceived differences on how they sound compared to the first version?

 

[fredoamigo]

10 years warranty ! it's not very common it would be nice if everyone did the same for the passive ones

 

[testp]

And the challenger is...

so... how do they performe against each other!?!?

 

[Chromatischism]

so... how do they performe against each other!?!?

I've been holding back on posting about it because I don't want to sound definitive, but I can give a short synopsis.

• The MKII generally sounds more open
• REW sweeps sound different with the paper vs ceramic/aluminum woofers
• The MKII bass may be slightly curtailed

That last point I am a bit hung up on. There seems to be some meatiness missing, but it could be my sub integration so I'm still playing. In the meantime, enjoy some pics...

Satin vs Matte

New waveguide texture

 

[voodooless]

Looks like a deeper waveguide and SB acoustics NBAC woofer. They are very clean for an aluminum driver (17 cm unto almost 5 kHz). The waveguide probably has a bit better loading down low.

One must ask: for this kind of money, why not a Satori? The price difference is only like 75 euro’s (consumer pricing, so probably a lot less if you buy in bulk).

 

[Chromatischism]

Looks like a deeper waveguide and SB acoustics NBAC woofer. They are very clean for an aluminum driver (17 cm unto almost 5 kHz). The waveguide probably has a bit better loading down low.

To be clear, the speaker on the left is the MKII. It uses the NRX2 woofer and a deeper cabinet.

I don't believe the waveguides are different in shape. It's an optical trick you're seeing because the new texture on the MKII reflects more light so it looks brighter in the picture. The crossover is much lower so the tweeter is doing more, which also means more of the spectrum is being shaped by the waveguide, which gives better directivity control. Which, was already very good with the original S400.

It sounds like an S400, yet it sounds a little...cleaned up. A little more open and detailed. I noticed when doing a quick A/B of some music I'm very familiar with, the level of detail is slightly but noticably different on the MKII. They're both very neutral but you're able to...hear more with the MKII. It doesn't really manifest as a different frequency response though - I'm pretty sure most of it is due to the crossover change but maybe the woofer is playing a role in that as well.

 

[Chromatischism]

One must ask: for this kind of money, why not a Satori? The price difference is only like 75 euro’s (consumer pricing, so probably a lot less if you buy in bulk).

I can't answer that however the price difference is more than that. If you're referring to the Papyrus woofer, they are $175-200 ea. And, who knows if it would be worth it. Maybe they didn't fit the application. Maybe the gains are minimal considering how flat and extended these speakers already are.

 

[voodooless]

I can't answer that however the price difference is more than that. If you're referring to the Papyrus woofer, they are $175-200 ea.

Nope, it's about 150 euro's vs around half of the NRX or BAC.

And, who knows if it would be worth it. Maybe they didn't fit the application. Maybe the gains are minimal considering how flat and extended these speakers already are.

Papyrus surely sounds better than paper But 75 euro's per speaker more margin surely sounds very nice as well...

 

[Chromatischism]

I was looking at Madisound when writing that post. They are $175-200 depending if it's the "midrange" or "woofer" version. And you need two.

I'm not the speaker designer but if they don't bring much to the table then I wouldn't want to pay extra for them. Of course "Egyptian Papyrus" does sound better

 

[testp]

To be clear, the speaker on the left is the MKII. It uses the NRX2 woofer and a deeper cabinet.

I don't believe the waveguides are different in shape. It's an optical trick you're seeing because the new texture on the MKII reflects more light so it looks brighter in the picture. The crossover is much lower so the tweeter is doing more, which also means more of the spectrum is being shaped by the waveguide, which gives better directivity control. Which, was already very good with the original S400.

It sounds like an S400, yet it sounds a little...cleaned up. A little more open and detailed. I noticed when doing a quick A/B of some music I'm very familiar with, the level of detail is slightly but noticably different on the MKII. They're both very neutral but you're able to...hear more with the MKII. It doesn't really manifest as a different frequency response though - I'm pretty sure most of it is due to the crossover change but maybe the woofer is playing a role in that as well.

if you get the chance someday, would be interesting to know, does REW sweep look similarish?

 

[VintageFlanker]

How convenient...

 

[richard12511]

Originals were already really good for the price. Anyone had a chance to compare the new version directly with the original?

 

[Chromatischism]

Originals were already really good for the price. Anyone had a chance to compare the new version directly with the original?

I have. I'll watch the above video and see if there is any relation to what I've heard...

Ok so I agree with his description of the speakers. They are more refined than the original – the crossover did make a big difference. There is more detail in the treble around the crossover range (now 1800 Hz vs 2670 Hz on the original) as the tweeter is doing more work and more of the spectrum is going through the waveguide. The woofer, conversely, is doing less work. Surely the directivity plots will look better on the new model. The result is the 2 kHz region is brought out more. You are hearing into the tones of instruments more accurately now. This was very apparent in Tool – Jambi, one of my mainstays in the test stable, being recorded and mastered by Bob Ludwig. The tone of the opening bass riffs is different and more detailed on the MKII. Now, I have heard this song hundreds of times, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing – there is a slight drop to the tone of the last pluck in that repeating riff that I had never heard before. I always knew it to be successive plucks of the same note, but nope, that last one is different. Note this is not a listening bias due to trying to look for differences on the new speaker – I have an instant-switching scheme I use to go back and forth and when I play that through the MKI, I can't hear that! Nor have I heard it on past speakers or headphones.

Every track I listened to displayed more openness on the MKII. Because of that though, I do believe harsher recordings will be preferred on the MKI. The MKII is not harsh – it's just that the original had a way to smooth over recordings and make just about anything listenable. The MKII is more honest. This is borderline for me – I have a high ear sensitivity to sounds in this range and it is easy for me to get fatigue and be forced to play my system at a lower volume level. I do find myself listening at lower levels with the MKII not due to harshness but just due to the way my ears work. I have some misgivings about that. It makes a lot of sense if you look at an equal loudness contour, though. Still, these are not Klipsch speakers which I don't know how people tolerate for more than 1 song. These are very well-behaved speakers by any objective metric.

Now, the not so good. The meaty bass I loved that made these speakers sound like floorstanders is dialed back a bit. Yes, when played at the same level, the bass is smoother and less "badass" sounding. It is too well-behaved now. This is going to be the most controversial change for me. The original had something that my subs don't give me, sitting in the mid to upper bass, that I can't really see in measurements but is definitely there. There was more power to the sound. More tactile response. I am not getting that from the MKII. So, my impressions pretty well match Jay's.

I think if they took the MKII and brought back the bass from the MKI it would be an absolute giant-killer. The only reason you'd ever look at other speakers is if you needed more output.

I've tried bringing my subwoofer crossovers up to 80 Hz (and doing work to mitigate the ugliness I always hear in the octave above) to bring this "power" back to the music, but I did not succeed in doing so. Like with my MKI's, a 60 Hz crossover sounds the best and the most cohesive in my system.

It is true that you can improve just about any speaker's bass performance by taking advantage of the constructive effect of a wall, but there are usually downsides to doing so in terms of soundstage and imaging. I have not tried that with the MKII, however I did with the MKI in their original placement. The detail and imaging are unquestionably better pulled out from the wall, even though the bass gets wonky on all speakers due to SBIR. I wouldn't expect there to be much difference between these two speakers in that regard as the physics are the same, but Jay says there is, and he's picky like me, so who knows.

So, will I keep them? I am leaning toward yes despite my misgivings. I know these are technically the better performers. I will try additional placement options. And, I am expecting to have more advanced EQ tools available as we go forward and therefore I should be able to tailor that bass to my liking. I can do so with XT32 but I really don't prefer using the current curve editor. We'll see how I get on with the new MultEQ-X software. My thinking is that I will take the tweeter broadly down 1 dB, maintaining everything it's doing just slightly quieter, and play around with the bass region as well.

I expect to put up the S400's for sale but they are almost too good to let go, and I'm playing with using one as a center speaker. We'll see.

 

[Daverz]

It would be great to see a comparison of the MkII to the KEF R3, as they are about the same price. I have the first S400 and am a bit loath to buy "just" an improved version of the same speaker.

 

[Chromatischism]

It would be great to see a comparison of the MkII to the KEF R3, as they are about the same price. I have the first S400 and am a bit loath to buy "just" an improved version of the same speaker.

I would not blame you for feeling that way.

I haven't heard the R3 but in all the comparisons I've seen, people preferred the S400.

It's hard to say how a matchup with the MKII would go. On one hand, the bass may sound cleaner, closer to the R3. In that regard the speakers would be more alike than in the original matchup. Not saying the bass it the same, but it moves in that direction.

 

[richard12511]

I have. I'll watch the above video and see if there is any relation to what I've heard...

Ok so I agree with his description of the speakers. They are more refined than the original – the crossover did make a big difference. There is more detail in the treble around the crossover range (now 1800 Hz vs 2670 Hz on the original) as the tweeter is doing more work and more of the spectrum is going through the waveguide. The woofer, conversely, is doing less work. Surely the directivity plots will look better on the new model. The result is the 2 kHz region is brought out more. You are hearing into the tones of instruments more accurately now. This was very apparent in Tool – Jambi, one of my mainstays in the test stable, being recorded and mastered by Bob Ludwig. The tone of the opening bass riffs is different and more detailed on the MKII. Now, I have heard this song hundreds of times, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing – there is a slight drop to the tone of the last pluck in that repeating riff that I had never heard before. I always knew it to be successive plucks of the same note, but nope, that last one is different. Note this is not a listening bias due to trying to look for differences on the new speaker – I have an instant-switching scheme I use to go back and forth and when I play that through the MKI, I can't hear that! Nor have I heard it on past speakers or headphones.

Every track I listened to displayed more openness on the MKII. Because of that though, I do believe harsher recordings will be preferred on the MKI. The MKII is not harsh – it's just that the original had a way to smooth over recordings and make just about anything listenable. The MKII is more honest. This is borderline for me – I have a high ear sensitivity to sounds in this range and it is easy for me to get fatigue and be forced to play my system at a lower volume level. I do find myself listening at lower levels with the MKII not due to harshness but just due to the way my ears work. I have some misgivings about that. It makes a lot of sense if you look at an equal loudness contour, though. Still, these are not Klipsch speakers which I don't know how people tolerate for more than 1 song. These are very well-behaved speakers by any objective metric.

Now, the not so good. The meaty bass I loved that made these speakers sound like floorstanders is dialed back a bit. Yes, when played at the same level, the bass is smoother and less "badass" sounding. It is too well-behaved now. This is going to be the most controversial change for me. The original had something that my subs don't give me, sitting in the mid to upper bass, that I can't really see in measurements but is definitely there. There was more power to the sound. More tactile response. I am not getting that from the MKII. So, my impressions pretty well match Jay's.

I think if they took the MKII and brought back the bass from the MKI it would be an absolute giant-killer. The only reason you'd ever look at other speakers is if you needed more output.

I've tried bringing my subwoofer crossovers up to 80 Hz (and doing work to mitigate the ugliness I always hear in the octave above) to bring this "power" back to the music, but I did not succeed in doing so. Like with my MKI's, a 60 Hz crossover sounds the best and the most cohesive in my system.

It is true that you can improve just about any speaker's bass performance by taking advantage of the constructive effect of a wall, but there are usually downsides to doing so in terms of soundstage and imaging. I have not tried that with the MKII, however I did with the MKI in their original placement. The detail and imaging are unquestionably better pulled out from the wall, even though the bass gets wonky on all speakers due to SBIR. I wouldn't expect there to be much difference between these two speakers in that regard as the physics are the same, but Jay says there is, and he's picky like me, so who knows.

So, will I keep them? I am leaning toward yes despite my misgivings. I know these are technically the better performers. I will try additional placement options. And, I am expecting to have more advanced EQ tools available as we go forward and therefore I should be able to tailor that bass to my liking. I can do so with XT32 but I really don't prefer using the current curve editor. We'll see how I get on with the new MultEQ-X software. My thinking is that I will take the tweeter broadly down 1 dB, maintaining everything it's doing just slightly quieter, and play around with the bass region as well.

I expect to put up the S400's for sale but they are almost too good to let go, and I'm playing with using one as a center speaker. We'll see.

Thanks for the detailed response! Sorry I missed your comparison above. The new waveguide looks a little deeper, or is that just a lighting thing?

 

[Chromatischism]

Thanks for the detailed response! Sorry I missed your comparison above. The new waveguide looks a little deeper, or is that just a lighting thing?

It is deceiving because there is a new texture to the waveguide that reflects a lot of light. It feels very rough and it makes it look "flatter" in pictures but I don't think the shape is different.