New Philharmonic BMR HT Towers

[Penelinfi]

They will be using that pic now XD

 

[Mort]

I'm searching for the directivity beamwidth of the Philharmonic Audio HT's. Have they been measured?

 

[anotherhobby]

I'm searching for the directivity beamwidth of the Philharmonic Audio HT's. Have they been measured?

I think these are the only measurements out there?

Philharmonic BMR HT Tower Speaker Review

We reviewed the Philharmonic Audio’s BMR HT Tower to verify if it bring their extreme high-fidelity sound to a wider dynamic range that is more appropriate for heavy-duty home theater applications.

www.audioholics.com

 

[cavedriver]

I'm searching for the directivity beamwidth of the Philharmonic Audio HT's. Have they been measured?

Fwiw, I would add that given the measurements of the regular towers and the monitors, and choice of drivers, I would expect they would measure as quite wide. That is definitely their designer's intent - to produce a fairly wide and smooth beam width.

 

[Mort]

Fwiw, I would add that given the measurements of the regular towers and the monitors, and choice of drivers, I would expect they would measure as quite wide. That is definitely their designer's intent - to produce a fairly wide and smooth beam width.

Yes agreed. But like 90 wide or 70 wide is my question?

 

[amper42]

Fwiw, I would add that given the measurements of the regular towers and the monitors, and choice of drivers, I would expect they would measure as quite wide. That is definitely their designer's intent - to produce a fairly wide and smooth beam width.

The BMR Towers and HT Towers are totally different animals. Expect most measurements to be considerably different between these two designs.

 

[ryanosaur]

Yes agreed. But like 90 wide or 70 wide is my question?

It’s a little more narrow than the Raals, but wider than your conventional 1” dome.
70 is a safe bet based on everything I’ve heard from Dennis and others familiar with the AMT being used. Keep in mind that a major part of Dennis’ design philosophy centers on wider dispersion. He had to make some allowance in the HT design for the AMT’s narrower dispersion to balance the sensitivity goal that said AMT helps him achieve.

 

[RickS]

I think these are the only measurements out there?

Philharmonic BMR HT Tower Speaker Review

We reviewed the Philharmonic Audio’s BMR HT Tower to verify if it bring their extreme high-fidelity sound to a wider dynamic range that is more appropriate for heavy-duty home theater applications.

www.audioholics.com

Would contact @Dennis Murphy. I recall he had Erin do some measurements but did not want a review published for undisclosed reasons.

 

[ryanosaur]

Would contact @Dennis Murphy. I recall he had Erin do some measurements but did not want a review published for undisclosed reasons.

Erin will not review a Speaker if he is hired to take measurements. Dennis hired him to take certain Klippel measurements. A review through AH had already been done or was in process, iirc.

A search through the Philharmonic thread on AVS will yield some of those measurements as well as discussion about the circumstances.

 

[cavedriver]

The BMR Towers and HT Towers are totally different animals. Expect most measurements to be considerably different between these two designs.

I significantly disagree with this statement. I would say they are more similar than they are different- cone woofers with ported bass, MTM arrays, mids are Tectonic BMR's, tweeters are ribbons. Additionally both speakers use the same crossover topology with almost the same crossover points and both are mass-loaded transmission line designs. Differences include AMT vs ribbon tweeters, larger BMR's in the HT, and twin woofers, and the original towers of course have wider and more broadly rounded fascias. Having listened to both a fair bit I assure you they behave similarly. Or maybe you could point to exactly which words in my comment are inaccurate when talking about their directivity?

 

[amper42]

I significantly disagree with this statement. I would say they are more similar than they are different- cone woofers with ported bass, MTM arrays, mids are Tectonic BMR's, tweeters are ribbons. Additionally both speakers use the same crossover topology with almost the same crossover points and both are mass-loaded transmission line designs. Differences include AMT vs ribbon tweeters, larger BMR's in the HT, and twin woofers, and the original towers of course have wider and more broadly rounded fascias. Having listened to both a fair bit I assure you they behave similarly. Or maybe you could point to exactly which words in my comment are inaccurate when talking about their directivity?

I have the BMR Tower, its sensitivity is approximately 6db lower than the HT version. That's a big difference.
It's not all about directivity, even though I'm sure it you were playing both the BMR Tower and HT version in the same room I could easily tell the difference blindfolded even after power was turned up on BMR Tower to compensate for lower sensitivity.

The width of dispersion on the HT version will be 10-15 degrees less. But, the ATM tweeter should actually offer improved vertical dispersion. All I would have to do is stand up while listening to both and be able to tell which one was playing. If the music has a healthy low bass line the BMR Tower will standout easily over the HT. These speakers are so different on the low end it's crazy. And the difference between ATM and RAAL is also easily detectable. These speakers will sound much different than you may expect. I would be willing to bet the BMR Tower will sound better with Classical music while the HT version will excel with highly rhythmic jazz and rock passages. The listening experience between the two will be obvious to anyone who owns both for an extended period.

 

[tw 2022]

Yes agreed. But like 90 wide or 70 wide is my question?

probably close to 90 .... ask Dennis, he'll be transparent...

 

[JATC]

Here are previously mentioned klippel measurements Erin did for Dennis from the AVS forum.

 

[Mort]

Yes, it's the beamwidth I was hoping to find. Like this.

 

[cavedriver]

I have the BMR Tower, its sensitivity is approximately 6db lower than the HT version. That's a big difference.
It's not all about directivity, even though I'm sure it you were playing both the BMR Tower and HT version in the same room I could easily tell the difference blindfolded even after power was turned up on BMR Tower to compensate for lower sensitivity.

The width of dispersion on the HT version will be 10-15 degrees less. But, the ATM tweeter should actually offer improved vertical dispersion. All I would have to do is stand up while listening to both and be able to tell which one was playing. If the music has a healthy low bass line the BMR Tower will standout easily over the HT. These speakers are so different on the low end it's crazy. And the difference between ATM and RAAL is also easily detectable. These speakers will sound much different than you may expect. I would be willing to bet the BMR Tower will sound better with Classical music while the HT version will excel with highly rhythmic jazz and rock passages. The listening experience between the two will be obvious to anyone who owns both for an extended period.

Again, Mort asked specifically about the "directivity beamwidth", not "could you tell the two speakers apart in a room". I addressed his question, and my answer still holds, although I was perhaps a bit optimistic about the Mundorf's beam width (see below). The differences you describe have little to nothing to do with directivity. Yes, the speakers are easy to tell apart- the audible height of the non-HT towers is clearly higher than the HT, and the lack of bass on the HT (since Dennis designed it for integration with a sub in a theater setup) is obvious. But that was NOT the question.

 

[cavedriver]

Yes, it's the beamwidth I was hoping to find. Like this.


View attachment 455226

From the polar above it looks like the HT gets around +/- 60 degrees up to ~5k, then drops significanty after that such that it's not as wide as those Genelecs above that point. Apparently the Mundorf tweeter and narrower cabinet does not do as well as the RAAL. Here's the Philharmonic Monitor since I can't find one for the tower - looks like more than 70 degrees almost al the way to 20k - impressive and explains why those models "disappear" so well in a room.

 

[Mort]

Yes. I have owned every current model of Philharmonic Audio speakers although I sold off all but a single pair of HTs. I'm definitely not unfamiliar with them but wondered if anyone had done the actual beamwidth calculations.

 

[amper42]

Yes. I have owned every current model of Philharmonic Audio speakers although I sold off all but a single pair of HTs. I'm definitely not unfamiliar with them but wondered if anyone had done the actual beamwidth calculations.

@Mort - did you still have the BMR Tower in your possession when you received the first HT speakers?
What did you think about how they compare?

Thanks!

 

[Mort]

@Mort - did you still have the BMR Tower in your possession when you received the first HT speakers?
What did you think about how they compare?

Thanks!

I did. I like PA for the wide directivity and the Raals are a little wider so I slightly prefer them for that.

But for my loud bass heavy music, I needed a sub with the bmr towers which eliminated their best feature - full range. And they are surprisingly large, physically.

HTs are svelte and dynamic with just a hair less directivity. I could only tell on tracks with a lot of acoustic reverb (and even then maybe it's just my brain). If one is going to use a sub with passive, tower speakers (and you want wide-directivity), I can't imagine a better speaker than the HTs.

So much in a small package.

 

[Mort]

Here's the Philharmonic Monitor since I can't find one for the tower - looks like more than 70

Yeah Audioholics used the BMR monitor as the poster boy for wide directivity in their video series. Those Grimms measured recently by Amir are 90! That's what made me wonder about the HT.

Although I still love wide directivity for acoustic things, I've gradually become more appreciative of the nearfield monitor direct sound approach (Genelec etc..). Those are my mains now. I keep the HTs in my home theater.