New Philharmonic BMR HT Towers

[Soniclife]

Smart engineering may have solved the problems, but there are still a lot of speakers that don't have smart port engineering. Port resonances have been a continuing issue in
Amir's reviews.

Especially for 2 ways, less of an issue for 3 way speakers,

 

[valerianf]

The advantage of the BR front port is that the tower speaker can be placed against a wall.
For large speakers (i.e. tower speaker) I am only buying BR front port design.
For smaller speakers (i.e. bookshelf speaker) it is not an issue as the air movement is reduced.

 

[chych7]

Port distortion is also probably less of an issue when one considers a subwoofer is often present in HT use, typically crossed over around 80 Hz, which is a bit above the port tune frequency for the BMR I think.

 

[alexis]

Port distortion is also probably less of an issue when one considers a subwoofer is often present in HT use, typically crossed over around 80 Hz, which is a bit above the port tune frequency for the BMR I think.

80Hz is a lot higher than the BMR HT Tower tuning (At 40)

 

[TurtlePaul]

Port distortion is also probably less of an issue when one considers a subwoofer is often present in HT use, typically crossed over around 80 Hz, which is a bit above the port tune frequency for the BMR I think.

I don't think you grasp the issue. Ports are designed by tuning the length of the port to resonate at a certain frequency. However if the port is a fixed width circle and isn't made of dampened material, the width of the port can resonate as well.

For most 2-3” ports the “port problems” end up in the 800 hz - 1.5 khz range. You can have the lows crossed to a sub but still have the midrange activating the port making peaks in the response or making terrible resonances as shown in the decay times.

 

[dave999z]

Been going back and forth on the BMR HT and Ascend ELX Titan.

Curious which one you chose, and how you've liked them.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Curious which one you chose, and how you've liked them.

I’ll second this. Sound quality may be a toss up and come down to other factors.

 

[dave999z]

Yeah I'm pretty much down to deciding between the BMR HT and Ascend ELX RAAL. Very hard decision. For me, oddly, the finish actually cuts in favor of the Ascends, because I want piano black. (Well I really want satin black.) I think the BMR HT is a great looking cabinet and the ebony finish is gorgeous; just not exactly right for my room (have multiple other woods in the room, and will have four other speakers (most likely Ceramic Minis or True Minis) and two subs that won't match that tower finish).

I was planning on pairing the BMR HT with one or two Rythmik F12 subwoofers. Reviews I read of the ELX though suggest the bass is so huge that they may not even need a sub. I'm assuming they have impressive extension for towers, but still are not going to compare to crossing over and sending the low frequencies to a Rythmik sub. I'll be using them for maybe 75% home theater and 25% music listening (mostly classical, but a wide range). The 25% is what I care about though! Really don't care how perfect or not my home theater sound is... if it's big and impressive that's fine. I'm basing the purchasing decision on how they perform for 2ch music listening.

I always wanted Salk SongTower RTs, but they're no more. Next on my list was the BMR HT. But the Ascend ELX is now an interesting option too.

Help me.

 

[ryanosaur]

Yeah I'm pretty much down to deciding between the BMR HT and Ascend ELX RAAL. Very hard decision. For me, oddly, the finish actually cuts in favor of the Ascends, because I want piano black. (Well I really want satin black.) I think the BMR HT is a great looking cabinet and the ebony finish is gorgeous; just not exactly right for my room (have multiple other woods in the room, and will have four other speakers (most likely Ceramic Minis or True Minis) and two subs that won't match that tower finish).

I was planning on pairing the BMR HT with one or two Rythmik F12 subwoofers. Reviews I read of the ELX though suggest the bass is so huge that they may not even need a sub. I'm assuming they have impressive extension for towers, but still are not going to compare to crossing over and sending the low frequencies to a Rythmik sub. I'll be using them for maybe 75% home theater and 25% music listening (mostly classical, but a wide range). The 25% is what I care about though! Really don't care how perfect or not my home theater sound is... if it's big and impressive that's fine. I'm basing the purchasing decision on how they perform for 2ch music listening.

I always wanted Salk SongTower RTs, but they're no more. Next on my list was the BMR HT. But the Ascend ELX is now an interesting option too.

Help me.

Flip a coin?

I'm biased toward Philharmonic.

There is nothing wrong with Dave's Speakers. Especially if he's fixed the slight upward tilt in his Voicing which he used to use a few years back.

As to crossing to Subs, even the BMR Towers (like my Phil 3s) benefit from that: So will the Sierra Towers.

Between the HTs and the Sierras, I think the only edge you get with Sierra is a little deeper extension compared to the HTs. Flip that to the BMR Towers and the only thing the Sierras have on them is higher sensitivity.

So... it sounds like it's a battle over aesthetics for you, and we can't help with that.

If I stumbled on a sack'o'cash today, I would order up the HTs in a heartbeat. But like I said... I'm biased.

 

[cavedriver]

If anyone is looking for a pair of the Philharmonic HT's I may be selling my pair. They are unique because they have a prototype walnut veneer finish that Dennis decided not to market.

 

[JAJDACT]

Flip a coin?

I'm biased toward Philharmonic.

There is nothing wrong with Dave's Speakers. Especially if he's fixed the slight upward tilt in his Voicing which he used to use a few years back.

As to crossing to Subs, even the BMR Towers (like my Phil 3s) benefit from that: So will the Sierra Towers.

Between the HTs and the Sierras, I think the only edge you get with Sierra is a little deeper extension compared to the HTs. Flip that to the BMR Towers and the only thing the Sierras have on them is higher sensitivity.

So... it sounds like it's a battle over aesthetics for you, and we can't help with that.

If I stumbled on a sack'o'cash today, I would order up the HTs in a heartbeat. But like I said... I'm biased.

I am an Ascend fanboy but I like Philharmonic as well. As far as the upward tilt on voicing goes,the ELX Ribbon towers I have don't roll off the highs as much as Dennis does with his speakers,there isn't an upward tilt, but the treble is elevated a little on axis so at my MLP it's not rolled off as much,it stands out on older rock recordings mostly but for other genre's its not as noticeable. The Sierra LX's I owned did have a little bit more of a roll off so I am assuming the ELX Titan Towers would measure similarly. As far as aesthetics I prefer Philharmonic's finishes by a slight margin. But I like the small form factor of the ELX towers.

 

[ryanosaur]

I am an Ascend fanboy but I like Philharmonic as well. As far as the upward tilt on voicing goes,the ELX Ribbon towers I have don't roll off the highs as much as Dennis does with his speakers,there isn't an upward tilt, but the treble is elevated a little on axis so at my MLP it's not rolled off as much,it stands out on older rock recordings mostly but for other genre's its not as noticeable. The Sierra LX's I owned did have a little bit more of a roll off so I am assuming the ELX Titan Towers would measure similarly. As far as aesthetics I prefer Philharmonic's finishes by a slight margin. But I like the small form factor of the ELX towers.

Agreed... these two designers are more similar than not in what they do, and the differences are so minimal that it really is a toss up.

 

[mj30250]

Here is someone who compared them both side-by-side:

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/4k-usd-limit-for-a-pair-of-tower-speakers-for-2-0-music-no-sub-room-philharmonic-audio-bmr-arendal-723-thx-and-what-else.3273732/post-62581552

 

[Nkam]

Has anyone tried the BMR HT and the Regular BMR tower side by side?


I think I might like the BMR HT more because it is louder for my room and I would probably like the slightly less wide dispersion of the BMR HT.

 

[alexis]

Has anyone tried the BMR HT and the Regular BMR tower side by side?


I think I might like the BMR HT more because it is louder for my room and I would probably like the slightly less wide dispersion of the BMR HT.

Many people have in the 2023 Capital Audio Fest Philharmonic Audio Room 306. We have instant switching capability with volume compensation in the room.

 

[aarons915]

Agreed... these two designers are more similar than not in what they do, and the differences are so minimal that it really is a toss up.

True but one has a Klippel NFS to design their speakers now and the new versions all seem to be much better than the previous version because of it.

 

[ryanosaur]

True but one has a Klippel NFS to design their speakers now and the new versions all seem to be much better than the previous version because of it.

Owning one does not make one a better designer. Please keep in mind that Philharmonic worked with an NFS owner to have designs proven.
And before that, paid to have at least one design measured at the NRC Anechoic Chamber.

Dave is clearly taking advantage of the ASR-proofing of his designs. I have no issue with this. Quite the opposite, I think it is very admirable.

Regarding Dennis, his Speakers still perform exactly as he wants them to. This is also very admirable.

And both designers are enjoying success.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Owning one does not make one a better designer. Please keep in mind that Philharmonic worked with an NFS owner to have designs proven.
And before that, paid to have at least one design measured at the NRC Anechoic Chamber.

Dave is clearly taking advantage of the ASR-proofing of his designs. I have no issue with this. Quite the opposite, I think it is very admirable.

Regarding Dennis, his Speakers still perform exactly as he wants them to. This is also very admirable.

And both designers are enjoying success.

As is usual in audio, this topic is very complicated. I certainly wish I could afford a Klippel machine, and Dave appears to be using his to good advantage. My only reservation is that I think it can be overused to achieve an impressive "predicted room response" using the Harmann protocol. I'm not convinced that this measure captures what you hear in many instances. Frequently, but not always, I've found the on-axis response to be a much better predictor of actual room response than the predicted response. And you don't need a Klippel to design in a flat on-axis response. One example is the SVS ultra. I won't tick off Amir by reproducing Erin's plots, but what I heard in my living room pretty much mirrored his (and my) on-axis measurement. Based on that result, I developed a revised crossover that many people have used with positive results. If I had to judge this speaker's performance just by the predicted room response, I wouldn't know how to improve it. In sum, I don't feel at that much of a disadvantage using my lowly Praxis measurement system to achieve a linear on-axis response with smooth off-axis behavior.

 

[ryanosaur]

As is usual in audio, this topic is very complicated. I certainly wish I could afford a Klippel machine, and Dave appears to be using his to good advantage. My only reservation is that I think it can be overused to achieve an impressive "predicted room response" using the Harmann protocol. I'm not convinced that this measure captures what you hear in many instances. Frequently, but not always, I've found the on-axis response to be a much better predictor of actual room response than the predicted response. And it you don't need a Klippel to design in a flat on-axis response. One example is the SVS ultra. I won't tick off Amir by reproducing Erin's plots, but what I heard in my living room pretty much mirrored his (and my) on-axis measurement. Based on that result, I developed a revised crossover that many people have used with positive results. If I had to judge this speaker's performance just by the predicted room response, I wouldn't know how to improve it. In sum, I don't feel at that much of a disadvantage using my lowly Praxis measurement system to achieve a linear on-axis response with smooth off-axis behavior.

Ha!
You, of course, say much more eloquently than I. Yet the result is the same.

If the worst critique you get is that the Speaker doesn’t get as loud as “I” might want it to… or that one just doesn’t enjoy the wide dispersion of your designs, then you are in a great place.

 

[jhaider]

My only reservation is that I think it can be overused to achieve an impressive "predicted room response" using the Harmann protocol.

This this this.

I'm not convinced that this measure captures what you hear in many instances. Frequently, but not always, I've found the on-axis response to be a much better predictor of actual room response than the predicted response.

I mostly agree with that, and @Sean Olive did a study (reported in Sound Reproduction - a book that seems often referenced but rarely read thoroughly) where people drew curves representing their perceived tonality, which largely tracked the direct sound.

That said, a large dispersion disruption in the midrange (generally caused by a too big mid, and tweeter on a crappy waveguide such as a flat baffle) is IMO an audible problem.

And you don't need a Klippel to design in a flat on-axis response. One example is the SVS ultra. I won't tick off Amir by reproducing Erin's plots, but what I heard in my living room pretty much mirrored his (and my) on-axis measurement.

@amirm measured this one too I think. Good example of a speaker with bad waveguide (flat baffle) and on axis response sacrificed on the altar of power response. The solution to this is to put some thought into the waveguide instead of using a flat one, or make the mid super small.

.

I don't feel at that much of a disadvantage using my lowly Praxis measurement system to achieve a linear on-axis response with smooth off-axis behavior.

Those of us who do this at home are at the disadvantage that we can’t get high resolution measurements very low. That and the automation are NFS’s advantages.