Buchardt S400 Speaker Review

[GelbeMusik]

I think it is also clear why the distortion measurements for the DXT-Mon below 100Hz are no longer shown

Why? The speaker gets out of reasonable use--temporarily or forever 100dB in deep bass from a 5 inch tweeter, really?

=> https://audioxpress.com/article/test-bench-seas-excel-graphene-w18ex003-6-5-midbass-driver

This is excellent top notch performance, but still the little humble homey driver is besides its far driven optimizations not capable of delivering 96dB of bass output--if You insist on some palatable mids at the same time.

So, please stay humble with levels when checking lego-sized humble home-audio shoe-boxes. There still is a difference to full sized systems, despite people happily follow the parole that THD wouldn't matter too much.

The Burchardt has its flaws, not only the peak at 500Hz. The bass/mid driver carries a price tag of about 80$, while the overall design leaves plenty of room for reconsiderations, I think. I hope You don't mind.

 

[QMuse]

You must have never lived in a tiny New York City apartment then .

No, not in NYC, but I lived in a tiny appartment when I started to work after I graduated.

You must have never lived in a tiny New York City apartment then .

It's well documented that some people prefer wider directivity in blind tests, not sure where you're going with that.

I understand your preference, and I share the same one, but it is a guesswork without having compared those 2 speakers directly.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Your (and every other) room heavilly modifies frequency response in the range below 400-450Hz. So auditioning a speaker without proper room correction is simply not making justice to a speaker.

As an example, this is frequency response of Revel performa3 F208 loudspeaker I measured at dealer premises. Not very smooth below 450Hz, right?

View attachment 60945

I audition speakers based on how they perform in my room. If a speaker has a big hump at, say, 100 Hz, why would I want to equalize that out? I realize you're talking about room effects and not inherent response, but how would I know which is which without doing nearfield measurements on each woofer and trying to set correction only for what appear to be room effects? I think everyone realizes that my comments are relevant to what I hear in my listening room, which happens to have excellent properties. In any event, what I didn't like about the S400 had nothing to do with bass response.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Thanks Dennis, I agree that the 2-3kHz deviation is more audible - but we already know where it comes from! This 5-600Hz wiggle is more mysterious and exciting for us loudspeaker freaks.

Well, I'm a loudspeaker freak and I have found the discussion interesting, but there are constant references to how well the S400 measures otherwise and how that raises questions about Amir's subjective judgments, and I wanted to chime in and emphasize the area where they don't measure so well, and by implication why his reaction seems perfectly plausible based on the directivity issue.

 

[QMuse]

I audition speakers based on how they perform in my room. If a speaker has a big hump at, say, 100 Hz, why would I want to equalize that out? I realize you're talking about room effects and not inherent response, but how would I know which is which without dosing nearfield measurements on each woofer and trying to set correction only for what appear to be room effects? I think everyone realizes that my comments are relevant to what I hear in my listening room, which happens to have excellent properties. In any event, what I didn't like about the S400 had nothing to do with bass response.

Well, I think it is safe to say that a quote where Toole is explaining that room response below 300-400Hz should be EQ-ed has been quoted at least hundred of times on this forum. I find it difficult to believe that you are not familiar with it, or very surprised that you, as a member with Technical Expert badge, are not accepting it.

Once you perform room EQ correctly for a particular position in your room every speaker you put there will start to show it's true nature. IMHO opinion that is the only proper way to evaluate and compare speakers via listening.

In addition to room EQ you would also want to try speaker's correction I proposed here. That, of course won't change directivity but it will linearize LW/ER/SP and hence PIR. It woud be interesting to hear if that would sound better to you.

 

[Mads Buchardt]

Buchardt comments on the design and data presented

To comment on the results showed by Amir, it is for a start important to know that every speaker design comes with a lot of compromises. The true art of designing a loudspeaker is to engineer ways so that the amount of compromises becomes as few as possible to meet the desired target. Therefore, let us start by describing the target of the Buchardt S400:
Design targets are:
⦁ Compact design with extended LF response
⦁ Avoid port designs for compression and noise reasons
⦁ Produce state-of-the-art stereo image
⦁ Produce as large a sweet-spot as possible
⦁ Good power handling (avoid bottom out at too low levels)

Given these design-targets, the choice of PR design is obvious, as it allows quite low tuning and few artefacts in a compact design.

State-of-the-art stereo image requires especially horizontal dispersion to be well controlled. Objectively seen, this is done by optimizing both sound power and on-axis/listening window responses at the same time. The only way to optimize all at the same time is to assure system DI is smooth and even. In practice this means at x-over frequency, we must match DI from woofer with DI from tweeter. A waveguide design has been made, that does the job of increasing tweeter DI at x-over frequency to match with that from the midwoofer.

The large sweet spot is assured by designing dispersion to be as even as possible over a wide frequency range.

The power-handling is assured by making sure to drivers can handle high power with no risk of bottoming out. If bottoming happens, suspension is designed in a way that make sure soft parts are catching the driver to avoid any damage to the mechanical parts.

A Klippel NFS system is used for evaluating each step of the design-process, to assure targets are held.


Correction to the use of Klippel fitting error as a marker for determining correct acoustic axis

In our opinion it is NOT the right use of the NFS fitting-system, to judge where the correct acoustic axis for the product is. According to NFS measurement manual – in order to get the best possible fitting for the system, you should choose the driver playing the highest frequencies as your starting point for the spherical harmonics fitting. This will in most cases be the tweeter. So - from our perspective this result will always be the case – and you will always get bad result when a different point is chosen. This just says something about how the Klippel fitting function is implemented, nothing about the actual speaker. To judge the acoustical listening axis, the vertical contour plot will give you the answer, if reference axis is chosen properly in Klippel hardware setup.

We know the S400 has a slight downwards beaming, which is why we recommend quite tall stands for the speakers, and why the front-baffle is slightly tilted backwards. In our presented measurements, we have compensated for this – and shows results on the optimum acoustic axis.



518Hz peak-and-dip
The rootcause of this is the PR on rearside interfering with the front woofer at this frequency because of acoustic leakage from PR cone on back. This leakage frequency falling together with the distance between front- and rear drivers causes this peak-dip.

BUT – we cannot reproduce this to the extent shown in above CEA2034 plot presented by Amir. Please see our ON-axis response below at 2m distance. We have talked to Klippel directly about this – and they cannot rule out that this may in fact be caused by their calculation algorithm, that the effect is much worse in the plot presented by Amir. We have double checked several speakers about this – and did not find the problem to the extend presented.

Internal damping is not causing this – our internal damping has been accurately adjusted to optimize the acoustics of the speaker. No more – and no less.

We see mentioned as a root-cause that there is no bracing in this enclosure. This is an intended act for two reasons:

1 The internal bracing would take up internal volume (In a very compact speaker it matters), which we could use to extend our LF instead. Because we cannot close the bracing near rear wall, we were forced to use more material than in a normal bracing.

2 The benefit of the internal bracing in terms of damping acoustic vibrations from the cabinet is below what can be measured. We checked this initially with an accelerometer on the cabinet sides, to be sure we made the right compromise – and the effect of the bracing was non-existing.

2.4kHz DI peak

This peak is caused by the vertical loping at the x-over frequency (SP dip). This will always happen with cone/dome speakers when they are separated with a distance between them. Our distance in this case is however slightly larger than normal due to the large waveguide diameter. This is a compromise done well considered because we believe the cost is not significant compared to the reward. Benefit is our waveguide can help us get the smoothest possible horizontal directivity (leading to superb stereo image) and large sweet spot. It also helps us a lot vertically, except for the loping at x-over frequency. Please let us show measurements done at 2m distance for vertical contour plot:

We find Amir’s contour plots performed at 66cm in nearfield not very useful.

Crossover frequency change.

Further, it has been noticed, that the SP dip indicates acoustic x-over frequency is slightly higher than the initial posted 2kHz. We did a minor change to the x-over after our first batch, because we found the 19mm dome in some extreme cases could be thermally damaged. After the change we do not recall a single tweeter has been replaced in field. The change was done silently because we evaluated the performance change very well and found it insignificant. We did not see a reason to disturb market with this update, as it was way below what could justify a MKII update. However, we did see some comments on why we do not use the waveguide fully down to its optimum frequency range. This is the reason. BUT – we also need to comment on the contour plots shown by Amir in the review, as they do not justify the acoustic design. We can see that these plots are evaluated at 66cm distance. This means practically nearfield evaluation. If the evaluation for horizontal contour plot is done at 2m distance, the performance is still very smooth.

 

[napilopez]

It is a guesswork as you haven't compared those 2 speakers directly.

Of course it is, but you are doing as much guesswork as I am. We have the same data and are just interpreting them a bit differently. I do also have the added benefit of having spent months with each of these speakers, with many listening notes from before I made measurements.

And again, in my own data, the S400 doesn't have the horizontal directivity mismatch shown here (which I don't expect anyone to trust over Amir's but I do because I know exactly what went into it). It also shows a significantly better tonal balance within the horizontal listening window, IMO.

All I'm saying is that while the R3 has slightly smoother directivity, I am not 100 percent convinced it'll be preferred for it given the slightly narrower directivity and the fact most people have been shown to prefer wider directivity.

My biggest problem with the S400 continues to be the finnicky vertical listening window.

 

[QMuse]

Of course it is, but you are doing as much guesswork as I am.

Sorry, but I am not. I would be doing the same guesswork if I have said that R3 would sound better than S400, but I didn't - I said that such statement cannot be made without direct comparison.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Well, I think it is safe to say that a quote where Toole is explaining that room response below 300-400Hz should be EQ-ed has been quoted at least hundred of times on this forum. I find it difficult to believe that you are not familiar with it, or very surprised that you, as a member with Technical Expert badge, are not accepting it.

Once you perform room EQ correctly for a particular position in your room every speaker you put there will start to show it's true nature. IMHO opinion that is the only proper way to evaluate and compare speakers via listening.

In addition to room EQ you would also want to try speaker's correction I proposed here. That, of course won't change directivity but it will linearize LW/ER/SP and hence PIR. It woud be interesting to hear if that would sound better to you.

I think this is getting off topic. You're much more into equalization than most buyers of the S400 will be. I'm sure equalization will become more widespread in use, and at that point I might want to try comparing speakers that way in addition to how they actually perform in a room. Dr. Toole is an excellent source of information and my experience tracks his in most areas. This just doesn't happen to be one of them. In the future, I will, however, state explicitly in any evaluations I make that I did not invoke room correction.

 

[amirm]

Ah ok, wasn't aware of that.

From memory, the SPL was exaggerated by 9 or 10 dB. So you could use this to compute the real amount. Unfortunately the change requires re-running the test with the speaker so I can't do it.

 

[hardisj]

Of course it is, but you are doing as much guesswork as I am. We have the same data and are just interpreting them a bit differently. I do also have the added benefit of having spent months with each of these speakers, with many listening notes from before I made measurements.

And again, in my own data, the S400 doesn't have the horizontal directivity mismatch shown here (which I don't expect anyone to trust over Amir's but I do because I know exactly what went into it). It also shows a significantly better tonal balance within the horizontal listening window, IMO.

View attachment 61010


View attachment 61011

All I'm saying is that while the R3 has slightly smoother directivity, I am not 100 percent convinced it'll be preferred for it given the slightly narrower directivity and the fact most people have been shown to prefer wider directivity.

My biggest problem with the S400 continues to be the finnicky vertical listening window.

From those two plots, the R3 actually appears to have worse directivity; notably above 3kHz. I don't know where the crossover is but if it's there, then the S400 has better characteristics, at least horizontally, like you said. And my (non-finalized) data tends to back this up as well:

 

[QMuse]

I think this is getting off topic. You're much more into equalization than most buyers of the S400 will be. I'm sure equalization will become more widespread in use, and at that point I might want to try comparing speakers that way in addition to how they actually perform in a room. Dr. Toole is an excellent source of information and my experience tracks his in most areas. This just doesn't happen to be one of them. In the future, I will, however, state explicitly in any evaluations I make that I did not invoke room correction.

Room EQ has nothing to do with S400 in particular. I simply believe that room and speaker are a single acoustic instrument and that without room EQ speaker canot reach it's full potential. IMHO, supported not only by Toole but also by many other acoustic experts, that is valid for any room and any speaker.

 

[QMuse]

Buchardt comments on the design and data presented

To comment on the results showed by Amir, it is for a start important to know that every speaker design comes with a lot of compromises. The true art of designing a loudspeaker is to engineer ways so that the amount of compromises becomes as few as possible to meet the desired target. Therefore, let us start by describing the target of the Buchardt S400:
Design targets are:
⦁ Compact design with extended LF response
⦁ Avoid port designs for compression and noise reasons
⦁ Produce state-of-the-art stereo image
⦁ Produce as large a sweet-spot as possible
⦁ Good power handling (avoid bottom out at too low levels)

Given these design-targets, the choice of PR design is obvious, as it allows quite low tuning and few artefacts in a compact design.

State-of-the-art stereo image requires especially horizontal dispersion to be well controlled. Objectively seen, this is done by optimizing both sound power and on-axis/listening window responses at the same time. The only way to optimize all at the same time is to assure system DI is smooth and even. In practice this means at x-over frequency, we must match DI from woofer with DI from tweeter. A waveguide design has been made, that does the job of increasing tweeter DI at x-over frequency to match with that from the midwoofer.

The large sweet spot is assured by designing dispersion to be as even as possible over a wide frequency range.

The power-handling is assured by making sure to drivers can handle high power with no risk of bottoming out. If bottoming happens, suspension is designed in a way that make sure soft parts are catching the driver to avoid any damage to the mechanical parts.

A Klippel NFS system is used for evaluating each step of the design-process, to assure targets are held.


Correction to the use of Klippel fitting error as a marker for determining correct acoustic axis

View attachment 61004

In our opinion it is NOT the right use of the NFS fitting-system, to judge where the correct acoustic axis for the product is. According to NFS measurement manual – in order to get the best possible fitting for the system, you should choose the driver playing the highest frequencies as your starting point for the spherical harmonics fitting. This will in most cases be the tweeter. So - from our perspective this result will always be the case – and you will always get bad result when a different point is chosen. This just says something about how the Klippel fitting function is implemented, nothing about the actual speaker. To judge the acoustical listening axis, the vertical contour plot will give you the answer, if reference axis is chosen properly in Klippel hardware setup.

We know the S400 has a slight downwards beaming, which is why we recommend quite tall stands for the speakers, and why the front-baffle is slightly tilted backwards. In our presented measurements, we have compensated for this – and shows results on the optimum acoustic axis.



518Hz peak-and-dip
The rootcause of this is the PR on rearside interfering with the front woofer at this frequency because of acoustic leakage from PR cone on back. This leakage frequency falling together with the distance between front- and rear drivers causes this peak-dip.

BUT – we cannot reproduce this to the extent shown in above CEA2034 plot presented by Amir. Please see our ON-axis response below at 2m distance. We have talked to Klippel directly about this – and they cannot rule out that this may in fact be caused by their calculation algorithm, that the effect is much worse in the plot presented by Amir. We have double checked several speakers about this – and did not find the problem to the extend presented.

View attachment 61005
Internal damping is not causing this – our internal damping has been accurately adjusted to optimize the acoustics of the speaker. No more – and no less.

We see mentioned as a root-cause that there is no bracing in this enclosure. This is an intended act for two reasons:

1 The internal bracing would take up internal volume (In a very compact speaker it matters), which we could use to extend our LF instead. Because we cannot close the bracing near rear wall, we were forced to use more material than in a normal bracing.

2 The benefit of the internal bracing in terms of damping acoustic vibrations from the cabinet is below what can be measured. We checked this initially with an accelerometer on the cabinet sides, to be sure we made the right compromise – and the effect of the bracing was non-existing.

2.4kHz DI peak

This peak is caused by the vertical loping at the x-over frequency (SP dip). This will always happen with cone/dome speakers when they are separated with a distance between them. Our distance in this case is however slightly larger than normal due to the large waveguide diameter. This is a compromise done well considered because we believe the cost is not significant compared to the reward. Benefit is our waveguide can help us get the smoothest possible horizontal directivity (leading to superb stereo image) and large sweet spot. It also helps us a lot vertically, except for the loping at x-over frequency. Please let us show measurements done at 2m distance for vertical contour plot:

View attachment 61006

We find Amir’s contour plots performed at 66cm in nearfield not very useful.

View attachment 61007


Crossover frequency change.

Further, it has been noticed, that the SP dip indicates acoustic x-over frequency is slightly higher than the initial posted 2kHz. We did a minor change to the x-over after our first batch, because we found the 19mm dome in some extreme cases could be thermally damaged. After the change we do not recall a single tweeter has been replaced in field. The change was done silently because we evaluated the performance change very well and found it insignificant. We did not see a reason to disturb market with this update, as it was way below what could justify a MKII update. However, we did see some comments on why we do not use the waveguide fully down to its optimum frequency range. This is the reason. BUT – we also need to comment on the contour plots shown by Amir in the review, as they do not justify the acoustic design. We can see that these plots are evaluated at 66cm distance. This means practically nearfield evaluation. If the evaluation for horizontal contour plot is done at 2m distance, the performance is still very smooth.

View attachment 61008
View attachment 61009

Thank you for your thoughts and information you provided. Any comment on relatively high THD at around 90Hz?

 

[hardisj]

The Burchardt has its flaws, not only the peak at 500Hz. The bass/mid driver carries a price tag of about 80$, while the overall design leaves plenty of room for reconsiderations, I think. I hope You don't mind.

As a DIYr, these kind of statements befuddle me. Look, we all know if you have the time and the skill you can easily build nearly any manfucaturered product for cheaper than retial cost. It doesn't matter if it's a speaker, a garbage can or a car. If you have the tools, knowledge and time you can do it cheaper.

But not everyone has those luxuries. And some who do simply may not want to exhaust their resources. I have built a few speakers myself. And I was proud of them. But I don't foresee me doing any more DIY designs in the near future. And those were active speakers which, IMHO, are easier to firm up than a passive speaker. The time it takes to get a really good passive crossover design is time I don't really have.

The bottom line is if someone is going to take the "I could build it cheaper myself" then they will. They won't consider other options to purchase if they are seriously considering a DIY route.

 

[napilopez]

Sorry, but I am not. I would be doing the same guesswork if I have said that R3 would sound better than S400, but I didn't - I said that such statement cannot be made without direct comparison.

Hmm fair enough, You said: "Regarding directivity, R3 seems smoother overall, so I don't really think you can tell which one you would favor in controlled blind test. "

I misunderstood your implication then; I agree with this statement. I do not know which one I would prefer in a blind test. We do not disagree on this

I was simply pointing out that given research suggests most people prefer wide directivity, it's possible the slightly uneven directivity of the S400 (which as shown by Mads' comments above may not actually be totally real) would be balanced out by the wider directivity from 4K to 10K.

Buchardt comments on the design and data presented

To comment on the results showed by Amir, it is for a start important to know that every speaker design comes with a lot of compromises. The true art of designing a loudspeaker is to engineer ways so that the amount of compromises becomes as few as possible to meet the desired target. Therefore, let us start by describing the target of the Buchardt S400:
Design targets are:
⦁ Compact design with extended LF response
⦁ Avoid port designs for compression and noise reasons
⦁ Produce state-of-the-art stereo image
⦁ Produce as large a sweet-spot as possible
⦁ Good power handling (avoid bottom out at too low levels)

Given these design-targets, the choice of PR design is obvious, as it allows quite low tuning and few artefacts in a compact design.

State-of-the-art stereo image requires especially horizontal dispersion to be well controlled. Objectively seen, this is done by optimizing both sound power and on-axis/listening window responses at the same time. The only way to optimize all at the same time is to assure system DI is smooth and even. In practice this means at x-over frequency, we must match DI from woofer with DI from tweeter. A waveguide design has been made, that does the job of increasing tweeter DI at x-over frequency to match with that from the midwoofer.

The large sweet spot is assured by designing dispersion to be as even as possible over a wide frequency range.

The power-handling is assured by making sure to drivers can handle high power with no risk of bottoming out. If bottoming happens, suspension is designed in a way that make sure soft parts are catching the driver to avoid any damage to the mechanical parts.

A Klippel NFS system is used for evaluating each step of the design-process, to assure targets are held.


Correction to the use of Klippel fitting error as a marker for determining correct acoustic axis

View attachment 61004

In our opinion it is NOT the right use of the NFS fitting-system, to judge where the correct acoustic axis for the product is. According to NFS measurement manual – in order to get the best possible fitting for the system, you should choose the driver playing the highest frequencies as your starting point for the spherical harmonics fitting. This will in most cases be the tweeter. So - from our perspective this result will always be the case – and you will always get bad result when a different point is chosen. This just says something about how the Klippel fitting function is implemented, nothing about the actual speaker. To judge the acoustical listening axis, the vertical contour plot will give you the answer, if reference axis is chosen properly in Klippel hardware setup.

We know the S400 has a slight downwards beaming, which is why we recommend quite tall stands for the speakers, and why the front-baffle is slightly tilted backwards. In our presented measurements, we have compensated for this – and shows results on the optimum acoustic axis.



518Hz peak-and-dip
The rootcause of this is the PR on rearside interfering with the front woofer at this frequency because of acoustic leakage from PR cone on back. This leakage frequency falling together with the distance between front- and rear drivers causes this peak-dip.

BUT – we cannot reproduce this to the extent shown in above CEA2034 plot presented by Amir. Please see our ON-axis response below at 2m distance. We have talked to Klippel directly about this – and they cannot rule out that this may in fact be caused by their calculation algorithm, that the effect is much worse in the plot presented by Amir. We have double checked several speakers about this – and did not find the problem to the extend presented.

View attachment 61005
Internal damping is not causing this – our internal damping has been accurately adjusted to optimize the acoustics of the speaker. No more – and no less.

We see mentioned as a root-cause that there is no bracing in this enclosure. This is an intended act for two reasons:

1 The internal bracing would take up internal volume (In a very compact speaker it matters), which we could use to extend our LF instead. Because we cannot close the bracing near rear wall, we were forced to use more material than in a normal bracing.

2 The benefit of the internal bracing in terms of damping acoustic vibrations from the cabinet is below what can be measured. We checked this initially with an accelerometer on the cabinet sides, to be sure we made the right compromise – and the effect of the bracing was non-existing.

2.4kHz DI peak

This peak is caused by the vertical loping at the x-over frequency (SP dip). This will always happen with cone/dome speakers when they are separated with a distance between them. Our distance in this case is however slightly larger than normal due to the large waveguide diameter. This is a compromise done well considered because we believe the cost is not significant compared to the reward. Benefit is our waveguide can help us get the smoothest possible horizontal directivity (leading to superb stereo image) and large sweet spot. It also helps us a lot vertically, except for the loping at x-over frequency. Please let us show measurements done at 2m distance for vertical contour plot:

View attachment 61006

We find Amir’s contour plots performed at 66cm in nearfield not very useful.

View attachment 61007


Crossover frequency change.

Further, it has been noticed, that the SP dip indicates acoustic x-over frequency is slightly higher than the initial posted 2kHz. We did a minor change to the x-over after our first batch, because we found the 19mm dome in some extreme cases could be thermally damaged. After the change we do not recall a single tweeter has been replaced in field. The change was done silently because we evaluated the performance change very well and found it insignificant. We did not see a reason to disturb market with this update, as it was way below what could justify a MKII update. However, we did see some comments on why we do not use the waveguide fully down to its optimum frequency range. This is the reason. BUT – we also need to comment on the contour plots shown by Amir in the review, as they do not justify the acoustic design. We can see that these plots are evaluated at 66cm distance. This means practically nearfield evaluation. If the evaluation for horizontal contour plot is done at 2m distance, the performance is still very smooth.

View attachment 61008
View attachment 61009

@Mads Buchardt Thank you for this. Whatever the ultimate takeaway from readers of this thread, it's great to see a manufacturer so active in presenting its design choices and measurements. We all benefit from it as a community, and other manufacturers could learn to be more open about their designs.

 

[hardisj]

What I heard seems to correlate much more closely with the directivity mismatch in the critical region between 2k and 3k, which is very evident when you compare directivity plots of the S400 with those of the Revel and KEF speakers. I'm pretty sure that's what is robbing the S400 of an open and detailed sound. Of course, the only way I could convince all of you would be to transport everyone into my listening room (wearing masks, of course) and let you hear the S400's along with speakers that have more even directivity in this frequency band.

I think this speaker may be a good example of how objectively good aspects can still require tradeoffs that some do and some do not prefer. For example, I am OK with the performance of this speaker thus far. And I haven't really noticed an issue in the 2-3kHz region. My data doesn't really seem to show a significant mismatch there, either. I am actually quite impressed with the rather wide directivity. Both objectively and subjectively. My HT employs very high directivity JBL Pro Audio horns; starting at about 500hz. It sounds really good with movies and whatnot but on music, I like to have a wide directivity because it, at least to me, feels more immersive and seems to present a wider soundstage. I am not saying the S400 is perfect. Just that I don't see the data telling a terrible story, either.

Edit: I really gotta shore up my terminology... "wide directivity"... I guess that should be "low directivity" to be more accurate of what a DI curve would look like.

 

[QMuse]

I was simply pointing out that given research suggests most people prefer wide directivity, it's possible the slightly uneven directivity of the S400 (which as shown by Mads' comments above may not actually be totally real) would be balanced out by the wider directivity from 4K to 10K.

We agree on that, too - listening comparison test between R3 and S400 would be a tough one.

 

[QMuse]

I think this speaker may be a good example of how objectively good aspects can still require tradeoffs that some do and some do not prefer. For example, I am OK with the performance of this speaker thus far. And I haven't really noticed an issue in the 2-3kHz region. My data doesn't really seem to show a significant mismatch there, either. I am actually quite impressed with the rather wide directivity. Both objectively and subjectively.

Are you able to try how the speaker would sound with the filters I made based on Amir's measurement with Klippel?

 

[napilopez]

From those two plots, the R3 actually appears to have worse directivity; notably above 3kHz. I don't know where the crossover is but if it's there, then the S400 has better characteristics, at least horizontally, like you said. And my (non-finalized) data tends to back this up as well:

View attachment 61012View attachment 61013

@hardisj yep, the crossover for the mid to tweeter on the R3 is 2.9kHz, right around where the off axis shelving happens.

 

[hardisj]

Are you able to try how the speaker would sound with the fitlers I made based on Amir's measurement with Klippel?

Not readily at the moment. I have been focusing nearly all of my efforts on my measurement rig and method for FR alone. I haven't even touched how I'm going to test max SPL, distortion, etc yet. I miss the days of testing raw drivers. Life is so much easier when you don't have a loudspeaker system to worry about. With drivers you just measure on/off-axis, measure nearfield, merge where you need to merge and you're done. Having spent the last month in my spare time doing all these various tests now make me question everyone else's methods. I tell you one thing, this thread has been a great exercise thanks to Mads chiming in and providing some insight in to theirs and Amir's measurements. It's actually reassuring to me that my measurements are really quite accurate for not using the NFS or likewise.