Edifier MR5 Review

[daniboun]

Great review, thanks!

Edifier keeps on delivering, $300 for this kind of performance feels like a good deal. It even has Bluetooth!

And supports LDAC
BTW so you can imagine the internal long throw woofer

 

[daniboun]

Special thanks @Nuyes
You can check his site with plenty of other speakers measurements here

Audio-re – 스피커 측정 리뷰

audiore.kr

 

[heraldo_jones]

HI've had the MR4s for 2 years and in my ignorance I think they sound good, now I have them for sale and I'm going for some M-audio BX8 GRAPHITE, A 3-way Edifier with an 8-inch woofer would be perfect for me.View attachment 470184View attachment 470185

You have the Edifier R2850DB. I have heard them and sound reaaaally good for the price.

 

[heraldo_jones]

Really good review @Nuyes , although could have been great if you also have measured the response of the EQ section.

 

[Lunartuna]

How are the mids compared to the MR4? Does the bass drown it out?

Doesn't seem to at all. Really stands out with vocals on something like Arctic Monkeys -Star Treatment. Or even something with more bass like Arlo Parks - Too Good.

Synths also sounding very detailed in something like Anyone Else - Nicolaas, Supertaste.

LDAC Bluetooth and SMSL C200 balanced connections sound the same and seem uncoloured.

 

[heflys20]

You have the Edifier R2850DB. I have heard them and sound reaaaally good for the price.

I have them and they punch way above their weight. Very neutral sounding with good imaging.

The MR5 seem pretty good, especially for the price. Bluetooth and the ability to eq the speaker through the app are an added bonus.

 

[AudioSceptic]

View attachment 470037
This is the new MR5 from Edifier, the company behind the well-received MR4. I’m curious to see if it can become a new legend in the budget category.




View attachment 470038
It uses an active–passive configuration, where one active speaker receives all the input signals and sends them to the passive unit. I give high marks for supporting RCA, TRS, and XLR inputs. There are also shelving filters to adjust bass and treble levels.






View attachment 470039
What really sets this speaker apart in its price range is its unusual structure. The tweeter–midrange driver is exposed on the front panel, while a 5-inch woofer is hidden inside a side-mounted slot.

It’s impressive that they’ve managed to produce an active 3-way speaker at this price point — around KRW 120,000–130,000 as of August 15, 2025.




Frequency Response

View attachment 470040
Overall, the balance is quite flat, with bass extension reaching down to about 48.2 Hz (-6 dB). It did not disappoint.
Before moving on, I’d like to briefly revisit my measurement system and methodology.
I use the Merging Nearfield and Farfield Method to measure a loudspeaker’s response.


When the measurement environment and procedure are well-controlled, this approach offers high reliability in the mid- to high-frequency range. However, in the time domain, the lower measurement limit depends on the gap (time difference) between the direct sound and the first reflection when applying window gating. With my 5 ms window, the theoretical lower limit is about 200 Hz, and I typically merge the nearfield and farfield responses two to three octaves above that to be on the safe side.


For this product, however, the woofer-to-midrange crossover point lies below 200 Hz, which meant I couldn’t obtain a fully accurate merged response using my usual method.


Without going into every technical detail, in such cases I take multiple farfield measurements at varying time/position settings, progressively reducing error until I find the most reasonable merge region and matching level. This approach has allowed me to measure other 3-way loudspeakers—such as the KEF Blade Two Meta and Genelec 8331A—without significant issues.


This time, though, was different:
The woofer is hidden inside the cabinet, and its low-frequency output only emerges through side-facing slits.


Naturally, I still aimed to get as close to an accurate response as possible—and to verify that result.

The “secret weapon”: In-Situ Compensation​

This technique uses a reference loudspeaker with a known anechoic response.
While it’s extremely difficult to fully model how a room imposes dips, peaks, and other distortions on a loudspeaker’s output, we can treat it as a function of the relative positions of the room, speaker, and microphone.


The idea is:

1. Measure the reference speaker in the room.
2. Divide that measurement by its true anechoic response to isolate the room’s transfer function.
3. Measure the target speaker in the same position.
4. Divide that result by the room’s transfer function to (theoretically) recover the target’s anechoic response.

Of course, this is an idealization—this works perfectly only if the reference and target loudspeakers have identical radiation characteristics. In reality, differences in woofer and port size, position, and dispersion patterns will always cause some deviations.




View attachment 470041
As shown above, I used the anechoic response of my AsciLab C6B sample to derive the room’s transfer function in my measurement space. Placing the MR5 in the same position and applying that correction produced the orange trace above.


The narrow peaks you see are caused by small differences in driver layout, component positions, and directivity, but they’re still sufficient to confirm how closely the merged nearfield + farfield result tracks the In-Situ Compensated curve.


And indeed, the merged response followed the compensated response very well.





Nearfield Measurements
View attachment 470042
The port response is clean, just as I’d hoped given the large port and generous flaring for its size. That said, the woofer’s operating range is inherently limited by the 3-way crossover, which might be why port noise isn’t obvious.


The mid–tweeter crossover doesn’t overlap, and there’s a noticeable boost in the tweeter response around 4 kHz — possibly intentional, or perhaps to create a broad dip centered around 5–6 kHz.




CEA-2034
View attachment 470043
Aside from the unusual 4 kHz feature, the smooth tonal balance and DI are quite good. Woofer placement causes some directivity around 100 Hz.




Directivity
View attachment 470044View attachment 470045
In the highest frequencies, dispersion widens, but given the FR and listening window, this seems like an optimal compromise. Despite the shallow waveguide, the relatively high ~3 kHz crossover keeps any mid/tweeter directivity mismatch from becoming pronounced.




View attachment 470046
View attachment 470047

A narrower gap between tweeter and midrange might have been preferable with such a high crossover, but there are many design trade-offs to consider.




Line Chart
View attachment 470049
Most horizontal angles show smooth attenuation — except around 4 kHz, which remains an oddity.






View attachment 470050View attachment 470051
As seen in the contour plot, the crossover region is smoother below the axis than above. This is worth keeping in mind when setting listening height.




Beamwidth
View attachment 470052View attachment 470053




Polar Plot
View attachment 470054
Apart from the unusually wide 5 kHz band, off-axis decay is smooth.




View attachment 470055
The seemingly perfect vertical polar is just an illusion — the ~3 kHz crossover point doesn’t appear in my polar plots.




THD
View attachment 470056View attachment 470057View attachment 470058View attachment 470059
The woofer’s performance in the bass range isn’t outstanding. While 3-way designs have the potential to optimize each driver’s strengths, I don’t see much evidence of that here.


Odd-order distortion is less of a concern, but even-order components in the woofer range are higher than in the MR4’s 4-inch woofer. Since the woofer fires downward, gravity and suspension asymmetry could cause even-order distortion to change over time. Let’s hope the suspension is strong enough to resist mechanical aging.






View attachment 470060View attachment 470062View attachment 470063




Multitone Test
View attachment 470064View attachment 470065
Here’s where the 3-way advantage shows. Some users might find this alone convincing.




80Hz~
View attachment 470066






View attachment 470067View attachment 470068

There’s a noise component around 400–500 Hz at low output, but otherwise it holds up well.




Compression Test
View attachment 470069
If you don’t expect outstanding dynamics, the results are perfectly acceptable for the price.





Deviation between 2 samples
View attachment 470070
You can’t expect tight matching of three drivers and crossover parts at this price. The 4 kHz quirk seen earlier may be unique to the sample I measured, pointing to unit variation.




Final thoughts
I was curious about this speaker from the moment it was announced. A 3-way active speaker at this price was enough to catch my attention — especially from Edifier, the maker of the MR4.

Overall, I think it’s an impressive achievement, and simply bringing it to market without glaring faults deserves praise. But the more I examined its performance, the more the price made sense: from driver selection to design choices, it doesn’t feel like a product conceived from the ground up as a 3-way system.

Looks good for the money (£224 on Amazon UK).

I'm curious about the internals, though. If all the electronics are inside, and not in an external plate on, one speaker, how does the speaker design account for the different internal space?

 

[Mike_Trueman]

Yeah 250€ seems like a very good deal for this speaker.

 

[Waxx]

It's not SOTA, but for it's pricepoint it's very impressive I hink. Like most i heared from the brand actually. You see they tried to get the max out of their budget with engineering. It's not just some parts thrown together like so many cheap speakers...

 

[Lunartuna]

Looks good for the money (£224 on Amazon UK).

I'm curious about the internals, though. If all the electronics are inside, and not in an external plate on, one speaker, how does the speaker design account for the different internal space?

Internals start at 21min. The mid driver has its own compartment separated from the bass driver.

 

[polmuaddib]

Interesting review, and with an artwork again - this time a meditating alien

Or Gandalf, if you rotate -90 degrees.

 

[polmuaddib]

Internals start at 21min. The mid driver has its own compartment separated from the bass driver.

I love that he is measuring radiation levels. I immediately ordered handheld Geiger meter. Why I didn't think to buy this before....

 

[boxerfan88]

Wow!!! Fantastic teardown video!!!

 

[dfuller]

I should note, these are what's known as "powered" speakers, not "active".

Active has the crossovers before the amps and by definition requires multi-amping. These do not have that and instead use passive filter networks with a stereo amp, with each channel driving one speaker.

Update: no, they just have all the stuff in one box. Not sure why you'd do that, but these are true actives.

 

[yeyeyey.ipa]

I should note, these are what's known as "powered" speakers, not "active".

Active has the crossovers before the amps and by definition requires multi-amping. These do not have that and instead use passive filter networks with a stereo amp, with each channel driving one speaker.

Nope, they have a DSP and active crossovers and tri-amping. Check the video above

 

[yeyeyey.ipa]

Also i should note that my "slave" unit had air leakage from the plug. So i disassembled it and saw that the gasket that seals it had been installed inappropriately. But the problem is fixed now.
I am talking about gasket that seats between board and plastic part

 

[dfuller]

Nope, they have a DSP and active crossovers and tri-amping. Check the video above

Why on earth would you give yourself the engineering headache of two radically different internal volumes doing that? Seems like an odd choice for not a particularly huge cost savings considering you now need two separate toolings for backplates.

 

[heflys20]

Why on earth would you give yourself the engineering headache of two radically different internal volumes doing that? Seems like an odd choice for not a particularly huge cost savings.

Only thing I don't like about my r2850db

 

[NotInYourHead]

But the more I examined its performance, the more the price made sense: from driver selection to design choices, it doesn’t feel like a product conceived from the ground up as a 3-way system.

That's probably because it isn't. I could imagine Edifier engineers making this speaker, reusing parts from the MR3 like the tweeter, woofer and waveguide, as a low-cost response to studio monitors with 5-6.5 inch bass drivers.
"Our MR3 is alright with improved bass response compared to MR4, but 65Hz @ -6dB is still insufficient. And people don't want to buy/have a large unwieldy subwoofer. How bout we enlarge the enclosure and jam a 5-inch woofer inside" sorta thing

 

[VientoB]

Does it sound bright?