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

[Dennis Murphy]

Can't divulge until the tabulations go public. I hope all of the results will be available. People voted for their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices, so the pattern of results is pretty informative.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

i guess if the area was too big, the preference will be something wide in directivity

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Were the tests done blind? If not, what use are they?

No. What use are they? Way better than no results. And the vast majority of people there had never heard of Philharmonic Audio, so I really don't think the BMR's were advantaged.

 

[Chromatischism]

i guess if the area was too big, the preference will be something wide in directivity

Not a very useful test IMO.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Not a very useful test IMO.

My problem with that kind of test, is I'm pretty sure everyone can would run random tests like that until his brand get the high score and then spamming only that rank. Or casually the conditions from the test will favor X speaker.

For example just because some youtubers and the guy from Rel spread the word '' musical '' everyone knows Rel's sub as the most musical subwoofer xD, that kind of marketing is a little confusing..

As you might expect, i don't know the scores , so i'm not biased about that particular ranks lol

 

[HarmonicTHD]

No. What use are they? Way better than no results. And the vast majority of people there had never heard of Philharmonic Audio, so I really don't think the BMR's were advantaged.

I disagree. It is the same as asking people on the internet of their opinion. Instead of one opinion based on a sighted test you get 100. So? It is just 100 times biased, that doesn’t make it more correct or statistically relevant.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I disagree. It is the same as asking people on the internet of their opinion. Instead of one opinion based on a sighted test you get 100. So? It is just 100 times biased, that doesn’t make it more correct or statistically relevant.

I can't help getting a chuckle out of some of you guys. Here you are dismissing the results of a major listening session without even knowing the pattern of results. No one is claiming it was perfect science. It never would have happened if that were the requirement. But I think most people will think it provides useful information.

 

[Chromatischism]

I disagree. It is the same as asking people on the internet of their opinion. Instead of one opinion based on a sighted test you get 100. So? It is just 100 times biased, that doesn’t make it more correct or statistically relevant.

I think in statistical sampling you would see patterns emerge.

However, for that to happen the testing needs to be valid.

I don't know about you, but I listen to my system in my recliners. It's not a really valid test to judge the sound quality of my system as you're wandering about the room or at the computer in the back. It's just not set up that way or sized for that.

So if the folks putting in their votes were all seated as you would normally be and the speakers were set up with that in mind, then I'm ok with that. I'd prefer to not have a sighted bias in play, especially given the large disparity in the beauty of speakers, but there's nothing we can do about that now.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

I think in statistical sampling you would see patterns emerge.

However, for that to happen the testing needs to be valid.

I don't know about you, but I listen to my system in my recliners. It's not a really valid test to judge the sound quality of my system as you're wandering about the room or at the computer in the back. It's just not set up that way or sized for that.

So if the folks putting in their votes were all seated as you would normally be and the speakers were set up with that in mind, then I'm ok with that. I'd prefer to not have a sighted bias in play, especially given the large disparity in the beauty of speakers, but there's nothing we can do about that now.

Seated or not. It is the sighted and uncontrolled part which invalidates those tests mainly. But let’s see what the test conditions really were before we jump to conclusions.

 

[Beave]

I have a question about the test methodology.

Specifically, I'd like to know how many free martinis Dennis handed out to listeners before they voted.

I think what we have here is definitive PROOF of voting fraud in Arizona.

On a more serious note, was there level matching involved? All listening at a fixed level? Or just play each speaker at various levels then switch to the next one? How was this all done?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I have a question about the test methodology.

Specifically, I'd like to know how many free martinis Dennis handed out to listeners before they voted.

I think what we have here is definitive PROOF of voting fraud in Arizona.

On a more serious note, was there level matching involved? All listening at a fixed level? Or just play each speaker at various levels then switch to the next one? How was this all done?

I checked the voting machines and could find no evidence of foreign tampering. As for level matching, there were dress rehearsals where the speakers were measured using pink noise (I think) and volume settings prescribed. I didn't hear any complaints about differing volume levels.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

I can't help getting a chuckle out of some of you guys. Here you are dismissing the results of a major listening session without even knowing the pattern of results. No one is claiming it was perfect science. It never would have happened if that were the requirement. But I think most people will think it provides useful information.

What useful information would it provide?

That the most expensive / prettiest speaker won?
That the voters are influenced by comments/body language of the organizer/other listeners?

Etc.

But again. Let’s wait for publication to really see what the test conditions were.

 

[amper42]

it's funny how some jump to the conclusion the Fountain Hills, AZ listening tests were worthless without knowing any of the preparation details or the results.

The speaker preference results of 100 attendees at the Fountain Hills AV Club show will be interesting. There is nothing magical about the physical outward appearance of the BMR Monitor vs the R3. They are both simply rectangular boxes with the BMR three inches taller. I don't see the physical difference between these two as a factor driving attendee preference.

R3 - 16.6" H x 7.9" W x 13" D - weight 29.8 lbs. - $2199.99 pair - Freq. Response 58Hz-28kHz (±3dB) per manufacturer
BMR - 20" H x 8" W x 12-1/2" D - weight 32 lbs. - $1700.00 pair - Freq. Response 36 Hz - 20kHz (+ / - 2db) per manufacturer

On the other hand, I could easily see how the deep bass response of the BMR monitor might entice listener votes along with the RAAL tweeter. At approx. $500 less the BMR offers a nice entry point and a wonderful sound.

 

[tw 2022]

The club president said they would be in a newsletter "next week." You can also check the club site in a few days: https://azavclub.com/ I have a feeling they will also appear on my philharmonicaudio.com site in a timely fashion.

it wasn't a "secret" to those that were paying attention to the gossip at the show.. everyone was talking about the bmr's and how good they were .. the tigerfox immerse 360 was talked about a lot as well...

 

[tw 2022]

No. What use are they? Way better than no results. And the vast majority of people there had never heard of Philharmonic Audio, so I really don't think the BMR's were advantaged.

there were many very surprised people who loved the bmr's .. i saw one guy leaving the room and shaking his head ( I'll paraphrase here ) saying "yeah they are really good"... i had the impression he heard the gossip and came to the room to hear the bmr ...

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

it's funny how some jump to the conclusion the Fountain Hills, AZ listening tests were worthless without knowing any of the preparation details or the results.

The speaker preference results of 100 attendees at the Fountain Hills AV Club show will be interesting. There is nothing magical about the physical outward appearance of the BMR Monitor vs the R3. They are both simply rectangular boxes with the BMR three inches taller. I don't see the physical difference between these two as a factor driving attendee preference.

R3 - 16.6" H x 7.9" W x 13" D - weight 29.8 lbs. - $2199.99 pair - Freq. Response 58Hz-28kHz (±3dB) per manufacturer
BMR - 20" H x 8" W x 12-1/2" D - weight 32 lbs. - $1700.00 pair - Freq. Response 36 Hz - 20kHz (+ / - 2db) per manufacturer

On the other hand, I could easily see how the deep bass response of the BMR monitor might entice listener votes along with the RAAL tweeter. At approx. $500 less the BMR offers a nice entry point and a wonderful sound.

is $1700 the kit price? I see the listed on Salk Audio as being about a grand more.

 

[MaxBuck]

Not a very useful test IMO.

Disagree. But in any event a panel of listeners, listening blind or sighted, will tell me little about my preference.

It kind of depends what use you intend to make of the results. For me, if most of the listeners prefer a specific speaker in a "test" like this, it would encourage me to go listen to that speaker for myself. Beyond that not much, regardless of whether or not the panel knows what speaker they're listening to. I will say that if dB levels weren't rigorously equal, then the results would be entirely useless.

ETA: I've already seen enough objective data on the BMRs that I want to listen to them. And I'm not even in the market for speakers.

 

[tw 2022]

is $1700 the kit price? I see the listed on Salk Audio as being about a grand more.

no ,full finished product...philharmonic audio...

 

[tw 2022]

Disagree. But in any event a panel of listeners, listening blind or sighted, will tell me little about my preference.

It kind of depends what use you intend to make of the results. For me, if most of the listeners prefer a specific speaker in a "test" like this, it would encourage me to go listen to that speaker for myself. Beyond that not much, regardless of whether or not the panel knows what speaker they're listening to. I will say that if dB levels weren't rigorously equal, then the results would be entirely useless.

agreed.. i didn't know for sure i'd like the bmr's based on my b1 mods .. but i had a pretty good idea..

 

[ryanosaur]

is $1700 the kit price? I see the listed on Salk Audio as being about a grand more.

Kit price is much less… meniscus audio:

Philharmonic Audio BMR Speaker Kit | Meniscus Audio

1 Pair BMR's

meniscusaudio.com