New Philharmonic BMR HT Towers

[Rickysa]

the answer appears to be different horses for different courses.

Agreed...a year ago, I was content to go with a pair of Monitors. Now, I'm planning a trip to Vienna to listen to 'em all . (not to mention the Ascend Ascoustics ELX-RAAL mentioned above...too many good options)

 

[amper42]

Agreed...a year ago, I was content to go with a pair of Monitors. Now, I'm planning a trip to Vienna to listen to 'em all . (not to mention the Ascend Ascoustics ELX-RAAL mentioned above...too many good options)

I know a listening test is nice, but the best audition is having them in your listening space and being able to AB them against your existing favorite.

 

[arichman]

I would very much like to be corrected, but at this point the answer appears to be different horses for different courses.

Without disagreeing with myself, the BMR Tower should be capable of putting in a stronger performance than what I was finding. And the fault appears to lie largely with me; in trying to find the upper limit of SPL it is important that no additional EQ boosts to the signal should be applied at any point. So only cuts were used in correcting the bass response in the Minidsp Flex. In the Yamaha preamplifier, I typically set the Parametric EQ to either Front or Through, which leaves either the front left right pair or all the speakers alone, respectively. However, this time I had the parametric EQ set to Flat, which allows positive boosts and one of these was a large boost precisely at 80 hz to one of my front speakers. This reduced my headroom by 4.5 dB, and correcting for this the maximum peak response is actually about 106 dB at 2 meters, so perhaps 112 dB at 1 meter which is the right ballpark. It is also very, very loud.

 

[samysound]

As I've described previously, I've been using my BMR Towers in my small home theater. As they're not specifically designed for this purpose, I've kept the listening distance short (2 meters), they're crossed over to subwoofers at 80hz, my listening reference volume calibrated to my Yamaha CX5100 using the supplied microphone is roughly 85dB.

While I'm generally very happy with this set up, perhaps not surprisingly the weak point is SPL. I've been watching Bladerunner 2049 as my grueling test case, and it appears at least with respect to this movie soundtrack I have little to no headroom (I'm using Hypex NC400 monoblocks for amplification). There is an early scene when the flying car is landing at the protein farm which caused my Towers sufficient distress that they were making snapping sounds which I suspect was the woofer reaching its limit at 88dB average.

I hooked up my calibrated UMIK-1 microphone and played this section back using the Real Time Analyzer in REW at 85 dB, so just under the point where things start sounding dangerous. The problem is certainly not the tweeter, it is right at the crossover point where the subs hand off to the Towers that SPL peaks (see attached). The average SPL is not scary high at all, it is just this (mid) bass, at 88dB those peaks are over 100 dB. I guess the issue is High Dynamic Range, but I am nevertheless somewhat disappointed that the system is not handling transient peaks of just over (perhaps) 100 dB. Should I be?

Are you running any room correction that might boosting the signal around those freqs and reducing your headroom?

 

[arichman]

Are you running any room correction that might boosting the signal around those freqs and reducing your headroom?

Yes. As it turns out, although I was aware of the problem and trying to avoid it, I had overlooked something (see Response #483)

 

[cavedriver]

Granted, but when I got my BMR Towers, the HT was no more than a gleam in Dennis Murphy’s eye.

my understanding is that the choices in drivers for the HT when it came to increasing the power handling were mainly the different tweeter and a new version of the BMR. Again, this is just my understanding, but the Purifi woofers were chosen for their ability to play down to 80 Hz with very minimal distortion and not necessarily because the 8" Revelator was limiting the output of the original towers. But depending on content of course it's reasonable that you could reach the limits of the woofer before the rest of the speaker. Someone here could calculate the excursion limit of the revelator for 100 dB peaks at 80 Hz, but not me.

 

[Rickysa]

were mainly the different tweeter and a new version of the BMR.

which, I believe, is why they went to the AMT in the Monitors (to match the HTs) with the updated BMRs

 

[arichman]

my understanding is that the choices in drivers for the HT when it came to increasing the power handling were mainly the different tweeter and a new version of the BMR. Again, this is just my understanding, but the Purifi woofers were chosen for their ability to play down to 80 Hz with very minimal distortion and not necessarily because the 8" Revelator was limiting the output of the original towers. But depending on content of course it's reasonable that you could reach the limits of the woofer before the rest of the speaker. Someone here could calculate the excursion limit of the revelator for 100 dB peaks at 80 Hz, but not me.

my understanding is that the choices in drivers for the HT when it came to increasing the power handling were mainly the different tweeter and a new version of the BMR. Again, this is just my understanding, but the Purifi woofers were chosen for their ability to play down to 80 Hz with very minimal distortion and not necessarily because the 8" Revelator was limiting the output of the original towers. But depending on content of course it's reasonable that you could reach the limits of the woofer before the rest of the speaker. Someone here could calculate the excursion limit of the revelator for 100 dB peaks at 80 Hz, but not me.

My Genelecs (M040) also complained at exactly the same point (also crossed over at 80hz), a sharp crack that came and went which I attributed to clipping, so there’s something in the mix that is quite a nasty peak. And based on the RTA plot I showed, it isn’t the tweeter or the mids.

 

[ryanosaur]

my understanding is that the choices in drivers for the HT when it came to increasing the power handling were mainly the different tweeter and a new version of the BMR. Again, this is just my understanding, but the Purifi woofers were chosen for their ability to play down to 80 Hz with very minimal distortion and not necessarily because the 8" Revelator was limiting the output of the original towers. But depending on content of course it's reasonable that you could reach the limits of the woofer before the rest of the speaker. Someone here could calculate the excursion limit of the revelator for 100 dB peaks at 80 Hz, but not me.

Correct.
2 8ohm Purifi woofers in parallel: power handling and output. The 8" Revelator is a 4 ohm driver, very capable, but likely coming close to its limits at reference level peaks on its own. Also, its size likely influenced the design choice... two of those in a TL cabinet would be very, very large considering the size of the BMR Tower vs HT.

which, I believe, is why they went to the AMT in the Monitors (to match the HTs) with the updated BMRs

Raal has become a little difficult to order from and getting consistent deliveries was becoming chancy, as I understand it. While they have not officially killed off the Raal version of the Monitor, it was a smart move to make certain they had a back up plan. Using the same AMT Tweeter they already have spec'd is a no-brainer.

 

[Rickysa]

While they have not officially killed off the Raal version of the Monitor,

That's great news as I hoped to buy a pair with the RAALs...I bought drivers a good bit ago to build a pair, so it will be nice to see what they are supposed to sound like

 

[MarkS]

The BMR Monitor with the RAAL ribbon tweeter in satin walnut finish is in stock and available:

The BMR Monitor (Price EACH)

philharmonicaudio.com