KEF R3 vs. Philharmonic BMR Grudge Rematch to the Probably not Death Thread

[TimW]

When I said it only works well with controlled-directivity speakers, I meant using DRC on frequencies above the room-dominated threshold is unpredictable unless directivity is well-controlled (smooth). This is because you are adjusting direct sound, which is then reflected off nearby surfaces and mixed back into the sound field. Correcting speakers with directivity errors results in some frequencies being corrected more than others in the reflections, which leads to unpredictable results.

Can you explain this to me? How is Dirac only adjusting based on direct sound? Did you feed anechoic measurements to it? When I use Dirac I take measurements from around the listening position, which is of course affected by the room and is therefore not just direct sound.

 

[Steve Dallas]

I was just making a cheeky comment because I've never heard of someone using baking soda as a filler before (only sand and shot), so it was odd to me to have so much baking soda on hand. But that's because I've never owned a pool I guess

Excellent data, thank you for posting all of this.

Regarding Dirac, are you using the 2.0 version: is this the Studio version and not the Live version? I tried adjusting the curve when I had the RZ50 in the Live version and it didn't seem like I could add additional points, only move around the ones that existed.

Oh good! I thought that was one of the most absurd things I have read on the Internet, but didn't want to be rude!

Good question on the version. I purchased Dirac Live 3 Standalone back in Feb 2021 and have not updated it since. I am able to add and delete control points at will.

Software Changelogs - Dirac Live Support - Confluence

confluence.dirac.services

 

[Steve Dallas]

Can you explain this to me? How is Dirac only adjusting based on direct sound? Did you feed anechoic measurements to it? When I use Dirac I take measurements from around the listening position, which is of course affected by the room and is therefore not just direct sound.

Yeah, I still didn't explain that very well.

Dirac factors in weighted averaging when making its corrections, this is true, but it can only change the direct sound emanating from the speakers. It cannot account for the off-axis sound bouncing off the floor, ceiling, front wall, and side walls in its adjustment. That sound reaches your ears a few ms after the direct sound and makes up part of what your brain interprets. If the FR of the off-axis sound is uneven due to directivity errors, it will color what you hear in ways Dirac cannot predict.

Floyd Toole explains this better than I am:

Some comments from Floyd Toole about room curve targets, room EQ and more

Room curve targets Every so often it is good to review what we know about room curves, targets, etc. Almost 50 years of double-blind listening tests have shown persuasively that listeners like loudspeakers with flat, smooth, anechoic on-axis and listening-window frequency responses. Those with...

www.audiosciencereview.com

If you have spent time with PEQ in an average room, you may have noticed broadly pulling down a frequency centered at perhaps 2KHz by -2dB actually results in a -1dB or maybe a -4dB reduction. This is why. It takes a bit of trial and error to get it just right.

Here is an example of that:

Philharmonic BMR Monitor Semi-Objective Review - Road Show Stop 1

As someone who bought one of the last pairs of the original incarnation of the BMR, I literally scoured every corner of Google reading up on them. I'm fairly sure I've read almost every comment made about them from every major site and forum. And this is just an amazingly thorough review. This...

www.audiosciencereview.com

And another:

Philharmonic BMR Monitor Semi-Objective Review - Road Show Stop 1

Now hold it. I paid you $1 per word the last time. I'm out of cash. Eh. If that were true, this pair would have cost me -$630,774.59. Methinks I have been ripped off!!! ;)

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[TimW]

Yeah, I still didn't explain that very well.

Dirac factors in weighted averaging when making its corrections, this is true, but it can only change the direct sound emanating from the speakers. It cannot account for the off-axis sound bouncing off the floor, ceiling, front wall, and side walls in its adjustment. That sound reaches your ears a few ms after the direct sound and makes up part of what your brain interprets. If the FR of the off-axis sound is uneven due to directivity errors, it will color what you hear in ways Dirac cannot predict.

Floyd Toole explains this better than I am:

Some comments from Floyd Toole about room curve targets, room EQ and more

Room curve targets Every so often it is good to review what we know about room curves, targets, etc. Almost 50 years of double-blind listening tests have shown persuasively that listeners like loudspeakers with flat, smooth, anechoic on-axis and listening-window frequency responses. Those with...

www.audiosciencereview.com

If you have spent time with PEQ in an average room, you may have noticed broadly pulling down a frequency centered at perhaps 2KHz by -2dB actually results in a -1dB or maybe a -4dB reduction. This is why. It takes a bit of trial and error to get it just right.

Here is an example of that:

Philharmonic BMR Monitor Semi-Objective Review - Road Show Stop 1

As someone who bought one of the last pairs of the original incarnation of the BMR, I literally scoured every corner of Google reading up on them. I'm fairly sure I've read almost every comment made about them from every major site and forum. And this is just an amazingly thorough review. This...

www.audiosciencereview.com

And another:

Philharmonic BMR Monitor Semi-Objective Review - Road Show Stop 1

Now hold it. I paid you $1 per word the last time. I'm out of cash. Eh. If that were true, this pair would have cost me -$630,774.59. Methinks I have been ripped off!!! ;)

www.audiosciencereview.com

I really need to read Toole's book.

 

[Mnyb]

Got that about directivity. Hence why i’m Very interested in kef bmr and Dirac as part of my next hifi , when the current setup bites the dust .

Seems very flexible, if you also know something about the speakers anechoic behaviour ie if it has some abnormalities there to , you can probably weigh in that in your correction to ?

So as both the kef and bmr are well measured and well understood, it is very tempting to just sell what I have except the sub and join in .

I reached the conclusion that with eq , you migth not fixate to much on the speakers stock “sound” if it’s take very well to eq . Have good directivity as you say.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Measured In-Room Response vs. Klippel NFS Predicted In-Room Response

That's not exactly what I meant.

You can use any number of control points to adjust the target curve. You can also use curtains to control how much of the curve Dirac corrects.

For example, here is my R3 project with my target curve applied and correction limited to 1KHz:

View attachment 196724


Here is the same with the right curtain set to full range with the treble pulled down by the right-most control point:

View attachment 196725

Here is a more complex target curve for the BMRs limited to 1.5KHz:

View attachment 196726

(This one was part of early experimentation with Dirac and was not actually used other than to measure its effect.)

You can also save up to 8 presets in the processor and switch between them with a single mouse click to audition different profiles:

View attachment 196729

When I said it only works well with controlled-directivity speakers, I meant using DRC on frequencies above the room-dominated threshold is unpredictable unless directivity is well-controlled (smooth). This is because you are adjusting direct sound, which is then reflected off nearby surfaces and mixed back into the sound field. Correcting speakers with directivity errors results in some frequencies being corrected more than others in the reflections, which leads to unpredictable results.

Hi, Did you add delay into the right channel?

 

[USER]

@Steve Dallas: If you want to get extra spicy, here's the Harman target for Dirac.

 

[Steve Dallas]

@Steve Dallas: If you want to get extra spicy, here's the Harman target for Dirac.

I have that curve. It's fine, but I prefer to let the speakers do more of their natural thing and tune around the edges by ear. Here it is in the editor:

And what I drew for these speakers:

 

[ROOSKIE]

Can you explain this to me? How is Dirac only adjusting based on direct sound? Did you feed anechoic measurements to it? When I use Dirac I take measurements from around the listening position, which is of course affected by the room and is therefore not just direct sound.

I think there is some confusion on @Steve Dallas part.
Dirac is correcting the accumulated sound energy at the listening position.
It can not correct the direct sound at all.
Using Dirac or similar beyond the bass region was not recommended by Toole.
It does not matter whether your speakers have smooth directivity or not, anechoic correction is the only recommended correction to apply above bass/midbass. In fact if your speakers do have very good on axis response and smooth directivity messing with then via "room correction" is truly ill advised in Floyd Toole's book. He even goes so far as to say doing so is a "farce" and proponents of doing so are generally software engineers with little actual experience testing loudspeakers or audio - especially blind testing to validate their claims. They are not doing that research.

Many of the ripples in the in room response are due to natural room acoustics that the human mind will naturally filter out as they acclimate to the space. They are "acoustic events" as I believe he calls them due to sound waves naturally interacting in a typical way in the room and mainly should be left alone. His book is very clear on this being his view. Altering them to achieve a smooth looking graph has little do with good perceived sound and more to do with human nature wanting it to look a certain way.
Imagine what the Anechoic response of the speaker would be if the room correction PEQ's from a listening space were applied. Yikes.

He is clear that in his testing having a flat anechoic response is a huge factor in perceived sound quality, having smooth anechoic off axis is also huge. Dirac is changing both of those well engineered and well studied qualities in order to produce a line on a screen. That will not be what you hear. You do not hear that line. We hear constantly and appreciate sounds constantly coming from all directions bouncing all around and then sort it all out in our minds.

Toole's recommendation is room correction only for dealing with the bass issues presented by all typical small spaces. And thus using RC only up to and perhaps slightly above the transition region in the room where the speaker looses dominance and the room becomes the dominate factor in the bass response.

The bass is different and needs assistance because the room is small and the waves are huge. In a large space this would not be the same issue. The room dominates them, essentially over containing them and since they are so large they make huge nulls and peaks as they overfill the space unevenly. (Multiple subs/sources can help with this as well, evening out the ripples by energizing the room from multiple locations)

I believe Toole suggested 200-400hrz (and maybe a bit higher a really small room) as the max point for correcting in room resonances. Even then over correcting and trying to overly fine tune the response is to be avoided.

Anyway this is what I got from Toole's book and from my own experimentation thus far. (I over room corrected a few times and it took me a little while to realize that no, it did not sound better that way) Nobody has to agree, that said Toole seems to be very much a limited fan of Dirac and other similar software. He is a fan of using such wares and PEQ for the in typical room bass issues.

I do use PEQ up to about 300-400hrz in my space and I try keep it in check by not over doing it. I find it does sound better - less is more so to speak.

 

[Mnyb]

Yes be careful over the transition frequency. But I still thinks it’s valid to tilt the general curve as the speaker may sound brighter then predicted if you are close or duller in a far setting . Or depending on how lively or damped you room are.

And you may correct speaker anomaly’s over the transition frequency ( not room anomaly’s ).
Here comes the good thing about controlled directivity speakers. You can correct speaker anomaly’s with eq
Because the fr of direct and indirect sound tracks so well , your results are predictable and will usually fix the problem.

And for various reasons for example measurement precision it’s no use to obsess over small “wiggles” especially higher up in frequency, move your head or measure again and they may be different .

 

[ROOSKIE]

And you may correct speaker anomaly’s over the transition frequency ( not room anomaly’s ).
Here comes the good thing about controlled directivity speakers. You can correct speaker anomaly’s with eq
Because the fr of direct and indirect sound tracks so well , your results are predictable and will usually fix the problem.

Yes you can often adjust a speakers anomaly but only using the Anechoic data. Not room correction. A speakers anechoic anomaly and wiggles on an in room measurent are completely different things.

Beyond that it seems what I stated above did not make sense. I would read Toole's book if I was you. After that do what you will, and you may end up not agreeing with me.

 

[Mnyb]

Yes you can often adjust a speakers anomaly but only using the Anechoic data. Not room correction. A speakers anechoic anomaly and wiggles on an in room measurent are completely different things.

Beyond that it seems what I stated above did not make sense. I would read Toole's book if I was you. After that do what you will, and you may end up not agreeing with me.

I did agree with you , my first language is not English. Yes you have to get Anechoic data from some other source than your own room measurement.

Luckily both BMR and KEF R3 are well measured here at ASR . For example The KEF R3 slight rise in treble is documented.
Hence why I’m very curious regarding steve’s results.

I’m reading Tooles book rigth now , but it takes some time

In my current system there is only correction under 250hz as Meridian ( for the reasons stated ) does not deem it proper to do much else in their systems .

 

[TimW]

I am aware of many of Toole's opinions thanks to members here, I really need to read the book to get a better understanding though. When I create a target in Dirac I only allow it to correct the response below 300hz. I'm currently using JBL Studio 530 speakers which have quite good directivity and I correct their response using PEQ generated from Amir's Klippel data. I also have optimized crossovers to multiple subs for good in room bass response.

Here comes the good thing about controlled directivity speakers. You can correct speaker anomaly’s with eq
Because the fr of direct and indirect sound tracks so well , your results are predictable and will usually fix the problem.

Here is where I get confused. I have used typical 2-way speakers with a 6 1/2" woofer and 1" tweeter without waveguide. Some of these sound very good despite the directivity mismatch. Dennis Murphy himself, on this forum, has said:

"...there can be a trade-off between carefully controlled directivity and dispersion, particularly in 2-ways. I personally prefer the sound of a speaker that combines a linear on-axis and listening window response with broad horizontal dispersion, even if that means living with a directivity mismatch at the crossover point that causes a dip in the reflected sound profile."

Now I'm not sure that I agree with Dennis about the lesser importance of controlled directivity but as I said I do really like the sound of some speakers with that feature. More to the point, I like the sound of this type of speaker when it has been equalized to achieve a balanced sound, weather that be in a passive crossover or DSP. Now of course you can't EQ this type of speaker to have a perfectly flat on-axis response and expect to receive a straight line in-room response. But if you have ever played with EQ sims like in VituixCAD using Klippel data, you will see that every response curve is affected when you add a PEQ channel. You could theoretically EQ a speaker with poor directivity matching to create a straight line predicted in-room response. Now what I am interpreting from the people who say you can't or shouldn't EQ a speaker with poor directivity matching is that the in-room response will not end up the way you expect it to based on the sims, due to that directivity issue. I just don't really understand why that is. Is it because the room is affecting different frequencies in different ways and amounts? And if so why wouldn't that create unfixable issues with speakers that have excellent directivity?

 

[ROOSKIE]

I am aware of many of Toole's opinions thanks to members here, I really need to read the book to get a better understanding though. When I create a target in Dirac I only allow it to correct the response below 300hz. I'm currently using JBL Studio 530 speakers which have quite good directivity and I correct their response using PEQ generated from Amir's Klippel data. I also have optimized crossovers to multiple subs for good in room bass response.

Here is where I get confused. I have used typical 2-way speakers with a 6 1/2" woofer and 1" tweeter without waveguide. Some of these sound very good despite the directivity mismatch. Dennis Murphy himself, on this forum, has said:

"...there can be a trade-off between carefully controlled directivity and dispersion, particularly in 2-ways. I personally prefer the sound of a speaker that combines a linear on-axis and listening window response with broad horizontal dispersion, even if that means living with a directivity mismatch at the crossover point that causes a dip in the reflected sound profile."

Now I'm not sure that I agree with Dennis about the lesser importance of controlled directivity but as I said I do really like the sound of some speakers with that feature. More to the point, I like the sound of this type of speaker when it has been equalized to achieve a balanced sound, weather that be in a passive crossover or DSP. Now of course you can't EQ this type of speaker to have a perfectly flat on-axis response and expect to receive a straight line in-room response. But if you have ever played with EQ sims like in VituixCAD using Klippel data, you will see that every response curve is affected when you add a PEQ channel. You could theoretically EQ a speaker with poor directivity matching to create a straight line predicted in-room response. Now what I am interpreting from the people who say you can't or shouldn't EQ a speaker with poor directivity matching is that the in-room response will not end up the way you expect it to based on the sims, due to that directivity issue. I just don't really understand why that is. Is it because the room is affecting different frequencies in different ways and amounts? And if so why wouldn't that create unfixable issues with speakers that have excellent directivity?

It is because the in room measured response is not what you hear and this is true regardless of wether the speaker has directivity issues or not.
The measurement energy in your room at the listening position is a combination of direct sound and reflections and resonances all piled into one curve.
Think of eating a meal. You don't just eat pizza or salad you taste multiple layers of flavor combinations and individual ingredients.
The in room steady state capture or MMM capture is only able to be vaguely "pizza". What you hear is deep dish pizza & crust & cheese & sause &saltiness and oregano & 5 or 6 individual toppings and all of those things combined in various ways. Some good some not so great. All proccessed by your mind which knows what pizza is and how to eat it in a room.

You need anechoic data to make best efforts toward fixing issues in the speaker.
Then room data to make best efforts fixing bass issues.
Flattening or forcing the in room energy capture to be uber smooth is not reccomended at least in Toole's book. It is like throwing your pizza in a blender and taking it out and reshaping into a pizza shape and calling that good.

Broadband correction such an increased tilt if say the speaker is to bright or maybe a low q shelf if again the speaker is bright (or the reverse if dull) are reccomended as speakers may vary a bit from room to room. He even mentions looking at the room "curve" in 1/3 octave or even 1 octave smoothing and not getting involved in micro "corrections" and high q adjustment (except in the bass region where high q correction are used)

Sorry if this reads weird. Only had a minute to reply.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Well, this thread certainly has gone off the rails!

I understand how DRC works; I am simply not good at explaining it and will cease trying. (I am one of those pesky software engineers, BTW.)

I have also read Toole's book and watched some of his presentations. I know he has listener preference data to prove that we are not terribly sensitive to errors between Schroeder and ~1KHz and he recommends not correcting above Schroeder as a result. I do not dispute his findings. I simply choose not to follow all of them.

(Schroeder is 231Hz in this room.)

If you have the tools, why stop at 231Hz considering the following measurement? That falls into a fairly deep null, which is why I often default to 2x Schroeder. 462Hz appears to be a better upper DRC limit based on my measurements of these speakers in this room. Then, why not round that up to 500Hz?

Further, why not make the area between 400Hz and 1000Hz LOOK as flat as possible by correcting up to 1000Hz?

Vs.

I know it does not sound any different, but it does no harm, and it dispenses with the little voice inside my head that keeps repeating, "It could be flatter! It could be flatter!"


Anyway, I just realized I did not paste my conclusions into this thread. Hopefully I saved that file. If not, I will have to rewrite them.

 

[Mnyb]

Well, this thread certainly has gone off the rails!

I understand how DRC works; I am simply not good at explaining it and will cease trying. (I am one of those pesky software engineers, BTW.)

I have also read Toole's book and watched some of his presentations. I know he has listener preference data to prove that we are not terribly sensitive to errors between Schroeder and ~1KHz and he recommends not correcting above Schroeder as a result. I do not dispute his findings. I simply choose not to follow all of them.

(Schroeder is 231Hz in this room.)

If you have the tools, why stop at 231Hz considering the following measurement? That falls into a fairly deep null, which is why I often default to 2x Schroeder. 462Hz appears to be a better upper DRC limit based on my measurements of these speakers in this room. Then, why not round that up to 500Hz?

View attachment 197416


Further, why not make the area between 400Hz and 1000Hz LOOK as flat as possible by correcting up to 1000Hz?

View attachment 197414
Vs.

View attachment 197415


I know it does not sound any different, but it does no harm, and it dispenses with the little voice inside my head that keeps repeating, "It could be flatter! It could be flatter!"


Anyway, I just realized I did not paste my conclusions into this thread. Hopefully I saved that file. If not, I will have to rewrite them.

I’m not reading this tread as an exact science . I just very curius about your implementation of these products

I think i can learn something from a real world use case . It s intresting to follow your trial error process and sometimes progress.

Afaik shröder freq is not a hard line ? rather a transient zone .

It migth not be 100% correct to do as you do , but who i’m to tell ? There is also a thing to called “eq to taste”

I migth not follow your exact example , if buy the MiniDSP and R3 myself . But I will,certainly have a look in this tread.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Subjective Comparison and Conclusion

TLDR

There is no clear winner here. Both speakers are excellent and do some things better than the other. I like them both very much, and after 13 months with the BMRs and 1 month with the R3s, I have not made a decision as to which speaker stays on the stands.

BMR has wider dispersion and casts and immensely wide soundstage

BMR has ~6Hz lower bass extension, going as low as 27Hz in my room at meaningful SPL

BMR has sparkling highs that sound less bright overall

R3 works better in live rooms, but casts a narrower soundstage

R3 soundstage is deeper

R3 is less sensitive to tweeter height placement, but sounds seem to emanate directly from the tweeter in some cases

R3 is brighter above 6KHz



Horizontal Directivity

I do not know that we have good spins of the BMR to show its directivity characteristics, but horizontal dispersion sounds very wide. Both the RAAL ribbon and BMR midrange react with the side walls to create a wide soundstage. I cannot treat the side walls in this room, and there have been times I wished I could.

We do have good spins of the R3 and know horizontal directivity is narrow-ish, but very well-controlled. The audible soundstage matches the measurement, and this can be a good thing in live rooms such as mine, as it never sounds confused. That is not to say the soundstage is narrow, however; it is plenty wide.

Both speakers are excellent at creating and maintaining a phantom center image.

Neither speaker shows a clear disadvantage in frequency response when measuring common toe-in angles in my room, as the delta is < 1dB between 0 and 2" toe-in, even at high frequencies.

Because directivity is room-dependent, we have a tie on this point, however the nod may go to the R3s in my room.



Vertical Directivity

The BMRs are interesting in this regard. I found you do not want to sit more than 10 degrees above or below the RAAL tweeter. Above sounds dry, and below creates an odd image, where the universal directivity of the BMR midrange competes with the diminishing output of the tweeter to create an unpleasant sound field in the upper mids. I solved this quite easily by purchasing the correct height stands for the speakers. Having said that, once the dangly things on my melon were in the correct orientation to the tweeter, the BMRs cast a satisfyingly tall soundstage in my room.

The R3s are mostly agnostic to vertical placement due to the coaxial driver. However, when the R3s were placed on the BMR's 24" stands, which placed the tweeters well below my ears, some material sounded low and collapsed in vertical soundstage. Once such recording is 10,000 Maniacs MTV Unplugged. I have no explanation for why this happened with some recordings and not others. After swapping the stands for 32" stands, which align the tweeters almost exactly with my ears as I sit in an office chair, the problem disappeared, and the affected recordings sounded normal.

Both speakers have their idiosyncrasies, and both are easily fixable. It's a tie.



Depth

This is one of those nebulous attributes around which I cannot wrap my mind. Some recordings sound deeper than others, and some speakers convey that depth better than others. The only possible explanation I can think of is the ability of a speaker to layer instruments more accurately(?). A good recording for testing this is The Corrs Unplugged.

The only thing I can really say is the BMRs are fine in this area, and the R3s are outstanding. This is something you have to hear for yourself, and it is nearly impossible to describe without resorting to word salad comprised of audiophile nonsense words.

R3s score a point here.



Frequency Response

OVERALL

The posted graphs demonstrate the R3s have a smoother in-room response throughout the > Schroeder range in my room. I have to listen very carefully to hear any differences between 1000Hz and 6000Hz, meaning the wiggles in the BMR response are likely inaudible to most people. Overall, the BMRs sound warmer. Both speakers sound mostly balanced, save for the delta above 6KHz.

BASS

One attribute people love about the BMR is its ability to play below 30Hz with authority. This makes subs unnecessary for many people.

The R3 reaches an admirable F3 in-room as well, however it is ~6Hz higher than the BMR. People often comment on low bass SPL when examining spins of KEF speakers, but I have not found them to behave any differently with typical placement in a typical room. The measurements in this thread back that up.

Beyond low frequency extension, both speakers produce usable SPL in the bass region.

Point to the BMRs.

MIDRANGE

Here, the speakers sound more similar than different. Both play clean and clear at the SPL I use in that room. Both exhibit smooth FR in the midrange region. Both sound great. There isn't much more to say.

Another tie.

TREBLE

For context, my own hearing tests indicate I can hear 23 to 14,800Hz through speakers in this room.

We have seen the BMR has some wiggles in the treble region as it rolls off in-room. The dip at 8KHz, for example, is audible with the right material playing, assuming I bother to concentrate and listen for it. Otherwise, treble generally follows the roll off of the Harman curve. The RAAL ribbons are special units with accurate tonality and some added sparkle (I guess). These are very nice tweeters.

In contrast, the R3's treble is smoother in FR, but is also elevated above 6KHz, and this is audible, and obviously so, with most of the tracks I have auditioned thus far that have content up there. This skews the R3's tonality toward bright. I have mixed feelings about this. I appreciate the help above 15KHz, but the region between 6KHz and 15KHz calls attention to itself, and I can see how some people would be torn between describing it as "detailed" and "fatiguing". To compensate for this extra HF energy, I made two Dirac presets: limited to 1KHz correction and full range. The first preset is the default. I hit the second one when an album sounds overly bright. Pointing the speakers straight ahead helps by between 0.5 and 1dB vs. 1.5" toe-in, therefore it is not a perfect solution. As for tonality, all I can say is treble sounds smooth without any noticeable flaws.

BMRs score another point.

Dynamics

This comparison is purely subjective on my part. The only way I can qualify dynamics is to report on whether one speaker or the other is obviously deficient, and neither speaker is. They are both fine according to what I can hear in compression and distortion. Loud passages sound loud.

All I can do is call it another tie.

Sensitivity

BMR sensitivity is listed at 86dB (2.83V/1M) with nominal impedance of 4 Ohms.

R3 sensitivity is listed at 87dB (2.83V/1M) with nominal impedance of 8 Ohms.

I found both speakers to want similar power from my amplifier. I cannot comment on lower power amps with these speakers other than to say my former Cambridge CXA60 drove the BMRs with no problems. My current amp was measured by Amir and pumps out enormous amounts of power (~450Wpc @ 4 Ohms reserve) for my application, so ability to drive any given speaker is not a concern for me.

The two speakers were within a decibel or two of each other with the same volume setting as measured in my room. Hitting volume up once or twice brought the R3 up to the same SPL as the BMR.

The BMR technically wins this one, but it is functionally a tie in my application.



Conclusion

As mentioned above, there is no clear winner. Each speaker has its pros and cons that may make it more desirable in a given environment.

Both feature high quality drivers, well-made inert cabinets, and effective crossovers.

For my part, I will keep the R3s on the stands for a while to see if they make the grade over the long term. I like the narrower directivity in this room. I also like the depth. I am not a fan of the hot treble so far. Time will tell.

The BMRs will be placed into foster care with a friend to see what he thinks of them, as he is considering BMR towers or something else from Salk Sound. Once I get them back, I may strip and refinish the cabinets to something that fits better with the decor of our home.

[Is what I am calling depth, and Erin called 'layering' in his review the reason I at least believed I missed these speakers? If so, is that something that shows up in measurements? Or is this a subjective angle that perhaps should be considered in speaker selection?]

 

[ryanosaur]

Afaik shröder freq is not a hard line ? rather a transient zone .

Correct. Every room is a little different.

 

[ryanosaur]

Subjective Comparison and Conclusion

TLDR

There is no clear winner here. Both speakers are excellent and do some things better than the other. I like them both very much, and after 13 months with the BMRs and 1 month with the R3s, I have not made a decision as to which speaker stays on the stands.

BMR has wider dispersion and casts and immensely wide soundstage

BMR has ~6Hz lower bass extension, going as low as 27Hz in my room at meaningful SPL

BMR has sparkling highs that sound less bright overall

R3 works better in live rooms, but casts a narrower soundstage

R3 soundstage is deeper

R3 is less sensitive to tweeter height placement, but sounds seem to emanate directly from the tweeter in some cases

R3 is brighter above 6KHz



Horizontal Directivity

I do not know that we have good spins of the BMR to show its directivity characteristics, but horizontal dispersion sounds wide. Both the RAAL ribbon and BMR midrange react with the side walls to create a wide soundstage. I cannot treat the side walls in this room, and there have been times I wished I could.

We do have good spins of the R3 and know horizontal directivity is narrow-ish, but very well controlled. The audible soundstage matches the measurement, and this can be a good thing live rooms such as mine, as it never sounds confused. That is not to say the soundstage is narrow, however; it is plenty wide.

Both speakers are excellent at creating and maintaining a phantom center image.

Neither speaker shows a clear disadvantage in frequency response when measuring common toe-in angles in my room, as the delta is < 1dB between 0 and 2" toe-in, even at high frequencies.

Because directivity is room-dependent, we have a tie on this point, however the nod may go to the R3s in my room.



Vertical Directivity

The BMRs are interesting in this regard. I found you do not want to sit more than 10 degrees above or below the RAAL tweeter. Above sounds dry, and below creates an odd image, where the universal directivity of the BMR midrange competes with the diminishing output of the tweeter to create an unpleasant sound field in the upper mids. I solved this quite easily by purchasing the correct height stands for the speakers. Having said that, once the dangly things on my melon were in the correct orientation to the tweeter, the BMRs cast a satisfyingly tall soundstage in my room.

The R3s are mostly agnostic to vertical placement due to the coaxial driver. However, when the R3s were placed on he BMR's 24" stands, which placed the tweeters well below my ears, some material sounded low and having a collapsed vertical soundstage. Once such recording is 10,000 Maniacs MTV Unplugged. I have no explanation for why this happened with some recordings and not others. After swapping the stands for 32" stands, which align the tweeters almost exactly with my ears as I sit in an office chair, the problem disappeared, and the affected recordings sounded normal.

Both speakers have their idiosyncrasies, and both are fixable. It's a tie.



Depth

This is one of those nebulous attributes around which I cannot wrap my mind. Some recordings sound deeper than others, and some speakers convey that depth better than others. The only possible explanation I can think of is the ability of a speaker to layer instruments more accurately(?). A good recording for testing this is The Corrs unplugged.

The only thing I can really say is the BMRs are fine in this area, and the R3s are outstanding. This is something you have to hear for yourself, and it is nearly impossible to describe without resorting to word salad comprised of audiophile nonsense words.

R3s score a point here.



Frequency Response

OVERALL

The posted graphs demonstrate the R3s have a smoother in-room response throughout the > Schroeder range in my room. I have to listen very carefully to hear any differences between 1000Hz and 6000Hz, meaning the wiggles in the BMR response are likely inaudible to most people. Overall, the BMRs sound warmer. Both speakers sound mostly balanced, save for the delta above 6KHz.

BASS

One attribute people love about the BMR is its ability to play below 30Hz with authority. This makes subs unnecessary for many people.

The R3 reaches an admirable F3 in-room as well, however it is ~6Hz higher than the BMR.

Beyond low frequency extension, both speakers produce usable SPL.

Point to the BMRs.

MIDRANGE

Here, the speakers sound more similar than different. Both play clean and clear at the SPL I use in that room. Both exhibit smooth FR in the midrange region. Both sound great. There isn't much more to say.

Another tie.

TREBLE

For context, my own hearing tests indicate I can hear 23 to 14,800Hz through speakers in this room.

We have seen the BMR has some wiggles in the treble region as it rolls off in-room. The dip at 8KHz, for example, is audible with the right material playing, assuming I bother to concentrate and listen for it. Otherwise, treble generally follows the roll off of the Harman curve. The RAAL ribbons are special units with accurate tonality and some added sparkle (I guess). These are very nice tweeters.

In contrast, the R3's treble is smoother, but is also elevated above 6KHz, and this is audible, and obviously so, with most of the tracks I have auditioned thus far that have content up there. This skews the R3's tonality toward bright. I have mixed feelings about this. I appreciate the help above 15KHz, but the region between 6KHz and 15KHz calls attention to itself, and I can see how some people would be torn between describing it as "detailed" and "fatiguing". To compensate for this extra HF energy, I made two Dirac presets: limited to 1KHz correction and full range. The first preset is the default. I hit the second one when an album sounds overly bright. Pointing the speakers straight ahead helps by between 0.5 and 1dB vs. 1.5" toe-in, therefore it is not a perfect solution. As for tonality, all I can say is treble sounds smooth without any noticeable flaws.

BMRs score another point.

Dynamics

This comparison is purely subjective on my part. The only way I can qualify dynamics is to report on whether one speaker or the other is obviously deficient, and neither speaker is. They are both fine according to what I can hear in compression and distortion. Loud passages sound loud.

All I can do is call it another tie.

Sensitivity

BMR sensitivity is listed at 86dB (2.83V/1M) with nominal impedance of 4 Ohms.

R3 sensitivity is listed at 87dB (2.83V/1M) with nominal impedance of 8 Ohms.

I found both speakers to want similar power from my amplifier. I cannot comment on lower power amps with these speakers other than to say my former Cambridge CXA60 drove the BMRs with no problems. My current amp was measured by Amir and pumps out enormous amounts of power (~450Wpc @ 4 Ohms reserve) for my application, so ability to drive any given speaker is not a concern for me.

The two speakers were within a decibel or two of each other with the same volume setting as measured in my room. Hitting volume up once or twice brought the R3 up to the same SPL as the BMR.

The BMR technically wins this one, but it is functionally a tie in my application.



Conclusion

As mentioned above, there is no clear winner. Each speaker has its pros and cons that may make it more desirable in a given environment.

Both feature high quality drivers, well-made inert cabinets, and effective crossovers.

For my part, I will keep the R3s on the stands for a while to see if they make the grade over the long term. I like the narrower directivity in this room. I also like the depth. I am not a fan of the hot treble so far. Time will tell.

The BMRs will be placed into foster care with a friend to see what he thinks of them, as he is considering BMR towers or something else from Salk Sound. Once I get them back, I may strip and refinish the cabinets to something that fits better with the decor of our home.

[Is what I am calling depth, and Erin called 'layering' in his review the reason I at least believed I missed these speakers? If so, is that something that shows up in measurements? Or is this a subjective angle that perhaps should be considered in speaker selection?]

Again, I enjoyed reading your thoughts.
I had a suspicion you might lean toward the R3 this time, even though it seems you favored the BMR slightly across your checklist.

I definitely agree that you want to be withing +5/-10º on the vertical axis with the Raal. It is a little better below, but the directivity on that driver is shallow to be certain.

Thanks again for your write up and exploration!

 

[amper42]

Subjective Comparison and Conclusion

TLDR

There is no clear winner here. Both speakers are excellent and do some things better than the other. I like them both very much, and after 13 months with the BMRs and 1 month with the R3s, I have not made a decision as to which speaker stays on the stands.

BMR has wider dispersion and casts and immensely wide soundstage

BMR has ~6Hz lower bass extension, going as low as 27Hz in my room at meaningful SPL

BMR has sparkling highs that sound less bright overall

R3 works better in live rooms, but casts a narrower soundstage

R3 soundstage is deeper

R3 is less sensitive to tweeter height placement, but sounds seem to emanate directly from the tweeter in some cases

R3 is brighter above 6KHz



Horizontal Directivity

I do not know that we have good spins of the BMR to show its directivity characteristics, but horizontal dispersion sounds wide. Both the RAAL ribbon and BMR midrange react with the side walls to create a wide soundstage. I cannot treat the side walls in this room, and there have been times I wished I could.

We do have good spins of the R3 and know horizontal directivity is narrow-ish, but very well controlled. The audible soundstage matches the measurement, and this can be a good thing live rooms such as mine, as it never sounds confused. That is not to say the soundstage is narrow, however; it is plenty wide.

Both speakers are excellent at creating and maintaining a phantom center image.

Neither speaker shows a clear disadvantage in frequency response when measuring common toe-in angles in my room, as the delta is < 1dB between 0 and 2" toe-in, even at high frequencies.

Because directivity is room-dependent, we have a tie on this point, however the nod may go to the R3s in my room.



Vertical Directivity

The BMRs are interesting in this regard. I found you do not want to sit more than 10 degrees above or below the RAAL tweeter. Above sounds dry, and below creates an odd image, where the universal directivity of the BMR midrange competes with the diminishing output of the tweeter to create an unpleasant sound field in the upper mids. I solved this quite easily by purchasing the correct height stands for the speakers. Having said that, once the dangly things on my melon were in the correct orientation to the tweeter, the BMRs cast a satisfyingly tall soundstage in my room.

The R3s are mostly agnostic to vertical placement due to the coaxial driver. However, when the R3s were placed on he BMR's 24" stands, which placed the tweeters well below my ears, some material sounded low and having a collapsed vertical soundstage. Once such recording is 10,000 Maniacs MTV Unplugged. I have no explanation for why this happened with some recordings and not others. After swapping the stands for 32" stands, which align the tweeters almost exactly with my ears as I sit in an office chair, the problem disappeared, and the affected recordings sounded normal.

Both speakers have their idiosyncrasies, and both are fixable. It's a tie.



Depth

This is one of those nebulous attributes around which I cannot wrap my mind. Some recordings sound deeper than others, and some speakers convey that depth better than others. The only possible explanation I can think of is the ability of a speaker to layer instruments more accurately(?). A good recording for testing this is The Corrs unplugged.

The only thing I can really say is the BMRs are fine in this area, and the R3s are outstanding. This is something you have to hear for yourself, and it is nearly impossible to describe without resorting to word salad comprised of audiophile nonsense words.

R3s score a point here.



Frequency Response

OVERALL

The posted graphs demonstrate the R3s have a smoother in-room response throughout the > Schroeder range in my room. I have to listen very carefully to hear any differences between 1000Hz and 6000Hz, meaning the wiggles in the BMR response are likely inaudible to most people. Overall, the BMRs sound warmer. Both speakers sound mostly balanced, save for the delta above 6KHz.

BASS

One attribute people love about the BMR is its ability to play below 30Hz with authority. This makes subs unnecessary for many people.

The R3 reaches an admirable F3 in-room as well, however it is ~6Hz higher than the BMR.

Beyond low frequency extension, both speakers produce usable SPL.

Point to the BMRs.

MIDRANGE

Here, the speakers sound more similar than different. Both play clean and clear at the SPL I use in that room. Both exhibit smooth FR in the midrange region. Both sound great. There isn't much more to say.

Another tie.

TREBLE

For context, my own hearing tests indicate I can hear 23 to 14,800Hz through speakers in this room.

We have seen the BMR has some wiggles in the treble region as it rolls off in-room. The dip at 8KHz, for example, is audible with the right material playing, assuming I bother to concentrate and listen for it. Otherwise, treble generally follows the roll off of the Harman curve. The RAAL ribbons are special units with accurate tonality and some added sparkle (I guess). These are very nice tweeters.

In contrast, the R3's treble is smoother, but is also elevated above 6KHz, and this is audible, and obviously so, with most of the tracks I have auditioned thus far that have content up there. This skews the R3's tonality toward bright. I have mixed feelings about this. I appreciate the help above 15KHz, but the region between 6KHz and 15KHz calls attention to itself, and I can see how some people would be torn between describing it as "detailed" and "fatiguing". To compensate for this extra HF energy, I made two Dirac presets: limited to 1KHz correction and full range. The first preset is the default. I hit the second one when an album sounds overly bright. Pointing the speakers straight ahead helps by between 0.5 and 1dB vs. 1.5" toe-in, therefore it is not a perfect solution. As for tonality, all I can say is treble sounds smooth without any noticeable flaws.

BMRs score another point.

Dynamics

This comparison is purely subjective on my part. The only way I can qualify dynamics is to report on whether one speaker or the other is obviously deficient, and neither speaker is. They are both fine according to what I can hear in compression and distortion. Loud passages sound loud.

All I can do is call it another tie.

Sensitivity

BMR sensitivity is listed at 86dB (2.83V/1M) with nominal impedance of 4 Ohms.

R3 sensitivity is listed at 87dB (2.83V/1M) with nominal impedance of 8 Ohms.

I found both speakers to want similar power from my amplifier. I cannot comment on lower power amps with these speakers other than to say my former Cambridge CXA60 drove the BMRs with no problems. My current amp was measured by Amir and pumps out enormous amounts of power (~450Wpc @ 4 Ohms reserve) for my application, so ability to drive any given speaker is not a concern for me.

The two speakers were within a decibel or two of each other with the same volume setting as measured in my room. Hitting volume up once or twice brought the R3 up to the same SPL as the BMR.

The BMR technically wins this one, but it is functionally a tie in my application.



Conclusion

As mentioned above, there is no clear winner. Each speaker has its pros and cons that may make it more desirable in a given environment.

Both feature high quality drivers, well-made inert cabinets, and effective crossovers.

For my part, I will keep the R3s on the stands for a while to see if they make the grade over the long term. I like the narrower directivity in this room. I also like the depth. I am not a fan of the hot treble so far. Time will tell.

The BMRs will be placed into foster care with a friend to see what he thinks of them, as he is considering BMR towers or something else from Salk Sound. Once I get them back, I may strip and refinish the cabinets to something that fits better with the decor of our home.

[Is what I am calling depth, and Erin called 'layering' in his review the reason I at least believed I missed these speakers? If so, is that something that shows up in measurements? Or is this a subjective angle that perhaps should be considered in speaker selection?]

I prefer the BMR Monitor over the R3. I'm not a fan of the elevated treble built into the R3 and I don't want to play with EQ in the treble range. In contrast, the BMR monitors offer a clarity of sound that's unsurpassed in my 12' x 13' office. However, if I move them to my 24' x 28' Home theatre they don't have the same powerful sound. It's a totally different sonic experience to my ears.

I bought the BMR Towers thinking they would bring a bigger "BMR Monitor" sound to the larger room. To my surprise, the BMR Towers don't sound much like the BMR Monitor at all. They have a totally different sound. The ScanSpeak Revelator 8" in the BMR Tower supports a lower extension to 25Hz but it's not as punchy to my ear compared to the SB Acoustics 6" Ceramic woofer in the Monitor. The dual Tectonic Balanced Mode Radiator 2.5" midrange flows through the room. I can't detect where it's coming from. The combination of drivers in the BMR Tower excels at replicating Orchestral music with a Concert Hall effect. The speaker boxes absolutely disappear and all you hear is the music coming from everywhere. The BMR Towers are way less directional than my BMR Monitors in my office.

What I'm trying to say is loaning BMR Monitors to a friend to see if he might want the BMR Towers might be a bit counter productive. If he likes the BMR Monitor, that's what he should buy. Don't expect the BMR Tower to sound just like the BMR Monitor