Is the Philharmonic BMR the equivalent to the Revel M16, M106, M126Be?

[BingaMoon]

I've seen a lot of people say it's underpriced but my only reference is Revel speakers. Which speaker from Revel would it be roughly equivalent to if someone wanted to a do a comparison? Has anyone listened to both brands?

 

[Laserjock]

If only one of the Revels were a 3 way?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Which speaker from Revel would it be roughly equivalent to if someone wanted to a do a comparison?

It's hard to do a direct comparison because Revel's three-way speakers are all floorstanders, while the BMR is a 3-way standmount.

In terms of bass and lower-midrange, it's comparable to Revel M106 as it uses a very similar (if not the same) woofer (and FYI, so does the Buchardt S400).

Apart from that, it's not really obvious which Revel speaker to compare it to. The three-way speakers in the Performa and Performa Be lines have slightly narrower directivity and lower distortion in the upper midrange and treble. The Performa series speakers are also slightly smoother in their on- and off-axis frequency responses, although overall both the Philharmonic and the Revels would appear to be not too dissimilar in terms of tonal balance.

@hardisj's measurements of the Performa 226Be and the BMR are quite illustrative in terms of comparing the BMR to a Revel Performa speaker:

• https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/revel_f226be/
• https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/philharmonic_bmr/

 

[richard12511]

It's hard to do a direct comparison because Revel's three-way speakers are all floorstanders, while the BMR is a 3-way standmount.

In terms of bass and lower-midrange, it's comparable to Revel M106 as it uses a very similar (if not the same) woofer (and FYI, so does the Buchardt S400).

Apart from that, it's not really obvious which Revel speaker to compare it to. The three-way speakers in the Performa and Performa Be lines have slightly narrower directivity and lower distortion in the upper midrange and treble. The Performa series speakers are also slightly smoother in their on- and off-axis frequency responses, although overall both the Philharmonic and the Revels would appear to be not too dissimilar in terms of tonal balance.

@hardisj's measurements of the Performa 226Be and the BMR are quite illustrative in terms of comparing the BMR to a Revel Performa speaker:

• https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/revel_f226be/
• https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/philharmonic_bmr/

From what I've heard, the new BMRs have slightly less treble than the ones Erin measured.

 

[Steve Dallas]

I recently tested the BMR head to head with the Revel F206. My thoughts are here:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...iew-road-show-stop-1.18828/page-4#post-622486

TLDR: I find it to be better than the M16 and M106, and more or less equivalent to the F206. Considering the price difference, I would choose the BMR over the F206. Cost no object, I would barely choose the F206 over the BMR.

I have no experience with the M126Be.

I purchased a pair of BMRs for my office and sold my M106s. My Dynaudio X18s will be for sale soon.

 

[aarons915]

I recently tested the BMR head to head with the Revel F206. My thoughts are here:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...iew-road-show-stop-1.18828/page-4#post-622486

TLDR: I find it to be better than the M16 and M106, and more or less equivalent to the F206. Considering the price difference, I would choose the BMR over the F206. Cost no object, I would barely choose the F206 over the BMR.

I have no experience with the M126Be.

I purchased a pair of BMRs for my office and sold my M106s. My Dynaudio X18s will be for sale soon.

I don't know about others but I don't consider this a ringing endorsement of the BMR considering the markup of Revels and their use of a basic 5" midrange and aluminum dome tweeter. Unless you were comparing them beyond the BMR's capabilities, the extra woofer on the F206 shouldn't really matter so the fact that you prefer the F206 to them is interesting. Having KEF's for a few years and also hearing how well integrated Revels are with their waveguides, I wonder if that is the main difference in preference between them.

 

[Steve Dallas]

I don't know about others but I don't consider this a ringing endorsement of the BMR considering the markup of Revels and their use of a basic 5" midrange and aluminum dome tweeter. Unless you were comparing them beyond the BMR's capabilities, the extra woofer on the F206 shouldn't really matter so the fact that you prefer the F206 to them is interesting. Having KEF's for a few years and also hearing how well integrated Revels are with their waveguides, I wonder if that is the main difference in preference between them.

I'm not sure a ringing endorsement is my intent. I am simply presenting honest observations and opinions.

Focusing only on the BMR vs. the F206...

• The F206 is ~2dB more efficient
• The F206 casts a taller soundstage
• The F206 has a smoother response above 1KHz in my room
• The F206 is more forgiving with high frequencies in the vertical plane
• The BMR extends lower - into the mid 20Hz range in my room
• The BMR's horizontal directivity sounds similar to the F206

This is close your eyes and listen as hard as you can stuff.

Where the F206 shines is in its waveguide integration in the vertical plane above the tweeter height. It sounds taller than it physically is, and it is more forgiving with regard to seating height, standing up, etc. This appears to be a limitation of ribbon tweeters in general. Below the tweeter, things are more even, thanks to the BMR's err... BMR midrange, which is a uniform directivity driver. Both speakers integrate well there.

It is true that the F206 has a smoother response as measured with that placement in that room, however both speakers are well above average in that regard, and I find it to be a matter of taste. Absent significant directivity errors and resonances, both are simple to adjust with EQ if desired.

The BMR extends down to 26Hz in that room, vs. 32Hz for the F206, which is audible, and it does it with quality bass. This is one of the reasons I purchased a pair for my home office; I do not have room for subs in that room, and the BMR does not really need help in the bottom octave. (Ignoring arguments about lower distortion, etc.) With a little boost from Dirac, the BMR goes convincingly lower, it turns out.

In short, the BMR does almost everything Revel excels at doing, does a few things better, and purchasing them over Revels supports a small business rather than a multinational conglomerate.

I do not have much to add to the cost discussion, other than you seem to be trying to compare Revel's BOM cost or wholesale price to Philharmonic's retail price, and what you get for that outlay. That seems like a non sequitur to me, unless I am not understanding your point.

I said it in the other thread, and I will say it again here: If I had experienced the BMRs before I purchased the F206s, I would have skipped the F206s and purchased 2 pairs of BMRs instead.

 

[richard12511]

I'm not sure a ringing endorsement is my intent. I am simply presenting honest observations and opinions.

Focusing only on the BMR vs. the F206...

• The F206 is ~2dB more efficient
• The F206 casts a taller soundstage
• The F206 has a smoother response above 1KHz in my room
• The F206 is more forgiving with high frequencies in the vertical plane
• The BMR extends lower - into the mid 20Hz range in my room
• The BMR's horizontal directivity sounds similar to the F206

This is close your eyes and listen as hard as you can stuff.

Where the F206 shines is in its waveguide integration in the vertical plane above the tweeter height. It sounds taller than it physically is, and it is more forgiving with regard to seating height, standing up, etc. This appears to be a limitation of ribbon tweeters in general. Below the tweeter, things are more even, thanks to the BMR's err... BMR midrange, which is a uniform directivity driver. Both speakers integrate well there.

It is true that the F206 has a smoother response as measured with that placement in that room, however both speakers are well above average in that regard, and I find it to be a matter of taste. Absent significant directivity errors and resonances, both are simple to adjust with EQ if desired.

The BMR extends down to 26Hz in that room, vs. 32Hz for the F206, which is audible, and it does it with quality bass. This is one of the reasons I purchased a pair for my home office; I do not have room for subs in that room, and the BMR does not really need help in the bottom octave. (Ignoring arguments about lower distortion, etc.) With a little boost from Dirac, the BMR goes convincingly lower, it turns out.

In short, the BMR does almost everything Revel excels at doing, does a few things better, and purchasing them over Revels supports a small business rather than a multinational conglomerate.

I do not have much to add to the cost discussion, other than you seem to be trying to compare Revel's BOM cost or wholesale price to Philharmonic's retail price, and what you get for that outlay. That seems like a non sequitur to me, unless I am not understanding your point.

I said it in the other thread, and I will say it again here: If I had experienced the BMRs before I purchased the F206s, I would have skipped the F206s and purchased 2 pairs of BMRs instead.

Also worth pointing out that the F206 did have a slight positional advantage in that comparison, which you pointed out in your review. Not sure how much difference that really made, as wide dispersion speakers like those aren't super picky with placement(one of their strengths), but figured it was worth a mention.

 

[Ericglo]

I don't know about others but I don't consider this a ringing endorsement of the BMR considering the markup of Revels and their use of a basic 5" midrange and aluminum dome tweeter. Unless you were comparing them beyond the BMR's capabilities, the extra woofer on the F206 shouldn't really matter so the fact that you prefer the F206 to them is interesting. Having KEF's for a few years and also hearing how well integrated Revels are with their waveguides, I wonder if that is the main difference in preference between them.

I do not have much to add to the cost discussion, other than you seem to be trying to compare Revel's BOM cost or wholesale price to Philharmonic's retail price, and what you get for that outlay. That seems like a non sequitur to me, unless I am not understanding your point.

I said it in the other thread, and I will say it again here: If I had experienced the BMRs before I purchased the F206s, I would have skipped the F206s and purchased 2 pairs of BMRs instead.

I don't understand the cost difference either. The retail on the BMR is half the price of the Revels. Trying to compare them otherwise seems strange.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I don't know about others but I don't consider this a ringing endorsement of the BMR considering the markup of Revels and their use of a basic 5" midrange and aluminum dome tweeter.

The midrange and tweeter on the Performa range are superb examples, irrespective of diaphragm material (which, per se, is of little importance anyway).

 

[Steve Dallas]

I don't understand the cost difference either. The retail on the BMR is half the price of the Revels. Trying to compare them otherwise seems strange.

I think he might be trying to say the F206 uses rather pedestrian (inexpensive) drivers, so the BMR should easily beat it with its more exotic drivers, therefore it is disappointing that I rate them to be more or less equivalent. If that is his point, I find it to be a rather narrow argument. There is a lot of R&D behind Revel's drivers, waveguides, and cabinets that must be factored in.

 

[Ericglo]

I think he might be trying to say the F206 uses rather pedestrian (inexpensive) drivers, so the BMR should easily beat it with its more exotic drivers, therefore it is disappointing that I rate them to be more or less equivalent. If that is his point, I find it to be a rather narrow argument. There is a lot of R&D behind Revel's drivers, waveguides, and cabinets that must be factored in.

What is more pedestrian than a $15 BMR?

Seriously the only major difference between the two is the tweeter. Both Dennis and Rick Craig have said many times why they prefer ribbon tweeters over domes.

 

[aarons915]

I think he might be trying to say the F206 uses rather pedestrian (inexpensive) drivers, so the BMR should easily beat it with its more exotic drivers, therefore it is disappointing that I rate them to be more or less equivalent. If that is his point, I find it to be a rather narrow argument. There is a lot of R&D behind Revel's drivers, waveguides, and cabinets that must be factored in.

Yes kind of, it just seems there are many people on these forums who assume that because Speaker A has a RAAL ribbon or a Be dome that it is going to automatically beat Speaker B that has an "old fashioned" Dome tweeter and I haven't really found that to be the case in my various comparisons over the years. I can appreciate that some people may prefer the widest dispersion possible in the RAAL 64-10 and in this case the BMR midrange but I haven't seen any evidence that these things are more important than driver integration, which is the 1 thing the Revel excels at. I do think it's fair to compare these to the F206 at the "street prices" you would get them for because it's well known that Dennis makes very little profit off his speakers, at MSRP your points are totally valid. I also totally get wanting to support the little guy and that the BMR are a great choice if you don't use subs.

But ultimately I'm curious about the design philosophies since you seem to have 1 camp that believes that exotic parts are mostly what matters in a speaker and companies like Revel who are obviously building to a price point but have a lot more money into engineering the waveguide and driver integration. I auditioned the original BMR and had similar thoughts to yours so I wasn't questioning your review or anything.

 

[Ericglo]

Ok, I get that.

 

[Ricardojoa]

To me the raal tweeter really shines on certain types of material played like orchestral and cymbals instruments and just tend to sound a bit cleaner. Not sure to the Be tweeter though.