I don't think the FR data is as bad as it's being made to seem. Compare it to the Elac DBR62 which Amir seemed to really adore the sound of (and I quite like it as well):
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-debut-reference-dbr-62-speaker-review.12232/
vs Buchardt S400 (again so you don't have to flip between pages):
Objectively speaking, the Buchardt seems to perform better as a whole. Moreso if you look past the high-Q resonance ~520hz.
The crossover integration seems to be better than in the Elac as well. The Buchardt has a higher Q dip while the Elac has a broader Q dip over multiple octaves.
We know Amir likes his bass. I believe he's kind of admitted as much (that's fine; I do, too, but we have to understand our reference). I can't help but wonder if, at least a portion of, his discontentment with the Buchardt is due to the flat bass while the Elac has a lifted bass response like the Revel M16 he also likes:
You can also compare against the Revel M16 he mentioned and you'll see the Buchardt again seems to have better linearity. The M16 rolls off above 10khz (possibly a bit lower, as it looks like there's a slight resonance @ 10kHz). That helps the crossover region look better as well. You'll also note the M16 has a +2dB bump with a Q of about 6 - 7 which, I would expect, would be more noticeable than the 520hz Q = 15 +3.5dB bump of the Buchardt.
Again, not trying to be argumentative. Just offering a different perspective on the data at hand.
Also, looking at the DI the dip @ 600hz; could that have anything to do with the PR on the back of the enclosure? Is there some cancellation there?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-debut-reference-dbr-62-speaker-review.12232/
vs Buchardt S400 (again so you don't have to flip between pages):
Objectively speaking, the Buchardt seems to perform better as a whole. Moreso if you look past the high-Q resonance ~520hz.
The crossover integration seems to be better than in the Elac as well. The Buchardt has a higher Q dip while the Elac has a broader Q dip over multiple octaves.
We know Amir likes his bass. I believe he's kind of admitted as much (that's fine; I do, too, but we have to understand our reference). I can't help but wonder if, at least a portion of, his discontentment with the Buchardt is due to the flat bass while the Elac has a lifted bass response like the Revel M16 he also likes:
You can also compare against the Revel M16 he mentioned and you'll see the Buchardt again seems to have better linearity. The M16 rolls off above 10khz (possibly a bit lower, as it looks like there's a slight resonance @ 10kHz). That helps the crossover region look better as well. You'll also note the M16 has a +2dB bump with a Q of about 6 - 7 which, I would expect, would be more noticeable than the 520hz Q = 15 +3.5dB bump of the Buchardt.
Again, not trying to be argumentative. Just offering a different perspective on the data at hand.
Also, looking at the DI the dip @ 600hz; could that have anything to do with the PR on the back of the enclosure? Is there some cancellation there?
Last edited: