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

[Steve Dallas]

Review 2 - Home Theater vs. Revel F206
Prepare for the copy and paste of wordy things...

Setup

ROOM

I am a huge failure as a home designer, as I managed to draw another audio room as essentially a cube. This time, this idiot drew it to these dimensions: 13.1’ W x 12.9’ D x 10.5’ H. Room modes abound in here as well, with particularly strong examples at 43Hz, 54Hz, 86Hz, and 107Hz. The Schroeder frequency calculates to 219Hz. The amcroc analysis of this room is dismal.

Like the home office, this room is treated with broadband absorption ranging from 3 to 5" in thickness to help with comb filtering and flutter echo, smoother the overall room response, and to bring the RT down to a reasonable level. At least this room is carpeted. Its RT60 is also around 350ms.


POSITION

After shooting some in-room measurements of my F206s for comparison, I took a pair of Monoprice Monolith 24" stands down from the attic to hold the BMRs. The bases of the stands are covered in an aluminum-backed sticky asphalt product. The support tubes are filled with 16 Lbs of baking soda per stand. All threaded things are held in place with blue Loctite. Sorbothane discs adorn the top plates.

I positioned the standmounters as best I could, using measurements as my guide. I was not willing to move the Revels, however.. This deserves a huge disclaimer. Here goes:

As you will see in the room photo, I placed the BMRs next to, and slightly forward of, the Revels. The Revels occupy the best locations in this room. Because the Revels are very difficult and time consuming to locate and level, I did not move them. (Why oh why oh WHY did Harman put a silly hat on the Performa3 line that prevents me from using a precision level on top of them?!?!) The BMR measurements you will see in this post do not represent their best possible performance in this room.

I again spent 1 hour moving the BMRs around the front of the room, listening to Johnny Cash, but this time drinking good pilsner. The speakers ended up 102" apart and ~92" from the MLP. The rear port was 13" from the front wall, and the speakers were toed in 1.5". Side wall distance was 29". The MLP is ~104" from the front wall and ~54" from the back wall.

As you can see the BMRs on 24" stands are taller than the F206s, and the top 3 drivers sit a few inches higher.

I made sure to position the BMRs in front of the Revels to prevent any proximity diffraction from disadvantaging the BMR measurements.

Equipment

All equipment used in this review is again normal stuff within reach of mere mortals.

Windows 10 laptop - Dell
Amazon Music HD for streaming
foobar2000 for FLAC playback from NAS
Equalizer APO for PEQ adjustment

Peachtree Nova 150 integrated as USB DAC and front pair amplifier
Denon AVR-X4700H as DAC and preamp and center/surround amplifier
Roku Ultra as video source

Speakers normally used in this room are the aforementioned Revel F206s as the front stereo pair, a Revel C25 as the center channel, and 4x Polk 65-RT in-walls as side and rear surrounds. Subs are a pair of SVS SB-2000s.

The Nova 150 (rated 250W at 4 Ohms at 0.01% THD, if I read the Icepower measurements correctly) had no trouble driving the BMRs to home theater levels and struggled not at all with dynamics.


Uncorrected Measurements

As before, I shot several in-room measurements with REW and my UMIK-1 using the moving microphone method inside a roughly 18" cube making up the major listening position with at least 60 samples each, before doing any critical listening. These measurements were taken using my laptop plugged into the Peachtree via USB with Equalizer APO disabled.

Everything under 500Hz is dominated by the room. Under 1000Hz is heavily influenced by the room, so keep that in mind as you peruse these in-room measurements.

Left speaker uncorrected:

Right speaker uncorrected:

Right vs left speakers uncorrected:

BMR stereo uncorrected:

BMR stereo uncorrected vs. target:

~30 Hz bass extension at the intersection with the target at ~76 dB!

Once again, there is nothing really objectionable here. Interestingly, that little 8K dip shows up here as well. I can work with these in this room, too.

Coming soon: corrected responses and other misc. measurements...

 

[Steve Dallas]

Corrected Measurements

After I took the initial measurements, I listened without correction to get a sense of the speakers, while I again surveyed the results and created some PEQ filters. This time, I took the time to create separate filters for left and right speakers. I let REW take its stab at creating the filters automagically for each speaker, then manually adjusted them a bit. If you see a simple number in the Q column, that indicates a manual edit to that row.

In my experience REW does not pull room modes down enough, and pushes nulls up too much. Let's see if that holds true here.

One of my manual edits was to pull down 2,000 Hz by -3dB. If you look at the FR, that seems a bit much. Since I did not normalize overall levels during measurement, the average SPL of the target curve becomes debatable. We shall see how that works out for me.

Left PEQ filters:

As seen in Equalizer APO:

I'm guessing that 855 Hz peak will be too much. And that 227 Hz peak will not work out as REW planned.

Left predicted results:

Right PEQ filters:

As seen in EQ APO:

Same thoughts on the 820 Hz peak.

Right predicted results:

Stereo corrected measurement:

As predicted, the room modes can be pulled down more, that 820 / 855 Hz peak is a bit too much, the 227 Hz peak did not in fact work as REW planned, and my 2000 Hz correction was about right. Using this result, I tweaked the PEQ for both channels and set about listening. Unfortunately, the family came home and took away any opportunity to take more measurements, as the noise floor increased dramatically with the presence of a pretty lady, 3 kiddos, and 3 doggers.

Here is where those filters ended up:

BMR L2
Filter  1: ON  PK       Fc    42.1 Hz  Gain  -2.8 dB  Q 10.446
Filter  2: ON  PK       Fc    83.7 Hz  Gain  -8.8 dB  Q 5.448
Filter  3: ON  PK       Fc     213 Hz  Gain  -1.8 dB  Q 5.000
Filter  4: ON  PK       Fc     227 Hz  Gain   3.0 dB  Q 5.000
Filter  5: ON  PK       Fc     245 Hz  Gain  -3.0 dB  Q 5.000
Filter  6: ON  PK       Fc     286 Hz  Gain  -1.9 dB  Q 5.000
Filter  7: ON  PK       Fc     855 Hz  Gain   2.5 dB  Q 4.000
Filter  8: ON  PK       Fc    2000 Hz  Gain  -2.5 dB  Q 4.000

BMR R2
Filter  1: ON  PK       Fc    43.2 Hz  Gain  -7.6 dB  Q 5.216
Filter  2: ON  PK       Fc    75.3 Hz  Gain  -3.7 dB  Q 9.263
Filter  3: ON  PK       Fc    84.5 Hz  Gain  -9.9 dB  Q 6.794
Filter  4: ON  PK       Fc     266 Hz  Gain  -8.4 dB  Q 5.000
Filter  5: ON  PK       Fc     380 Hz  Gain  -4.0 dB  Q 5.000
Filter  6: ON  PK       Fc     820 Hz  Gain   2.5 dB  Q 3.500
Filter  7: ON  PK       Fc    2000 Hz  Gain  -2.5 dB  Q 5.000

Listening results (of sorts) up next...

 

[Steve Dallas]

The Pretty Lady wants to finish off the New Year's champagne with me, so I will complete the review some time tomorrow.

 

[Shazb0t]

I think you're referring to bass response. I'll be publishing detailed full-range measurements closer to the release date.
Here's a nearfield combined measurement of the woofer and port for the tower. It tracks Paul Kittinger's modeling, so I think it's accurate. The box alignment is a mass loaded transmission line tuned to 24 Hz, which corresponds to the F6 point with no room gain. Based just on listening tests, the response is quite full at 25 Hz. At 20 Hz--not so much. (Ignore the absolute dB scale reading--I futzed around with the Offset scaling to make the F3 and F6 points easier to see. The overall system sensitivity for the tower is around 87 dB.)

View attachment 102796

Which RAAL tweeter are you using in the towers? I can't be 100% sure but it looks smaller than the 70-20? If it isn't the 70-20, I'm curious about the decision not to use the larger tweeter on a tower of that size. Thanks!

 

[muad]

Which RAAL tweeter are you using in the towers? I can't be 100% sure but it looks smaller than the 70-20? If it isn't the 70-20, I'm curious about the decision not to use the larger tweeter on a tower of that size. Thanks!

The 70-20 has better power handling and can cross over lower. But since he's crossing over to a tiny BMR mid, he can crossover higher and still match dispersion.

This allows for use of the cheaper Raal 64-10. Since it's "smaller" in the horizontal dimension, it maintains a wider dispersion pattern relative to the 74-20 in the higher frequencies. You can see the difference in dispersion. The first link uses the 64-10 and the second the 70-20.

So long story short, it will still keep the really wide dispersion that the smaller standmount BMR has.

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRM2/srm2meas.html
http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRT/Ascend Sierra Ribbon Tower.pdf

 

[Dennis Murphy]

The 70-20 has better power handling and can cross over lower. But since he's crossing over to a tiny BMR mid, he can crossover higher and still match dispersion.

This allows for use of the cheaper Raal 64-10. Since it's "smaller" in the horizontal dimension, it maintains a wider dispersion pattern relative to the 74-20 in the higher frequencies. You can see the difference in dispersion. The first link uses the 64-10 and the second the 70-20.

So long story short, it will still keep the really wide dispersion that the smaller standmount BMR has.

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRM2/srm2meas.html
http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRT/Ascend Sierra Ribbon Tower.pdf

Correct. I think the 70-20 only makes sense in a 2-way where a low cross (2 kHz) is desirable. It's pointless to use it when the crossover point is closer to 4,000 Hz. You lose horizontal dispersion with no real gain. A more logical substitute would be the 70-10, and i would use that model if I wanted to cross the tweeter closer to 3 kHz or use shallower crossover slopes. But the 64-10 is ideally suited to its application in the BMR speakers. If it had been available when I designed the Philharmonic 3, I would have used it instead of the 70-10.

 

[Shazb0t]

Correct. I think the 70-20 only makes sense in a 2-way where a low cross (2 kHz) is desirable. It's pointless to use it when the crossover point is closer to 4,000 Hz. You lose horizontal dispersion with no real gain. A more logical substitute would be the 70-10, and i would use that model if I wanted to cross the tweeter closer to 3 kHz or use shallower crossover slopes. But the 64-10 is ideally suited to its application in the BMR speakers. If it had been available when I designed the Philharmonic 3, I would have used it instead of the 70-10.

Do you feel the same way about the Salk SoundScapes? Salk Veracity/SongTower? Ascend Sierra RAAL Towers? I assume you were heavily involved with the Salk offerings. From what's been shown in distortion measurements on ASR the 64-10 appears to have potentially audible distortion levels and spikes at much lower SPL than the 70-20, so I don't necessarily agree that framing the comparison on only the dispersion characteristics is entirely fair. Thoughts?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Do you feel the same way about the Salk SoundScapes? Salk Veracity/SongTower? Ascend Sierra RAAL Towers? I assume you were heavily involved with the Salk offerings. From what's been shown in distortion measurements on ASR the 64-10 appears to have potentially audible distortion levels and spikes at much lower SPL than the 70-20, so I don't necessarily agree that framing the comparison on only the dispersion characteristics is entirely fair. Thoughts?

I can't speak for the Ascends, but I used a 2 kHz cross for the Salk speakers with the 70-20. I haven't seen any distortion measurements for the 64-10 with a 4 kHz cross point, other than my own. The new BMR, which uses the 64-10X RAAL, can meet a .5% limit at 96 dB at one meter. That's better than the Phil 3 could ever muster with the 70-10, even with a higher crossover point (4K) I designed for someone who specialized in burning up tweeters. The BMR that Erin tested used the previous model 64-10 and about a 3500 Hz crossover. I could eliminate the distortion issue entirely by using the SB Acoustics Be tweeter, but the BMR wouldn't sound as good.

 

[HooStat]

but the BMR wouldn't sound as good

I am curious as to what you mean by that.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Comparative Measurements

FREQUENCY RESPONSE
First up are the frequency response graphs.

I misspoke in a passage above. I said I took the Revel measurements before moving the BMRs into the room. That is incorrect. The BMRs were already placed in the room, and I took all the measurements of both sets of speakers in the same session. Therefore the F206s may suffer some edge diffraction from the BMRs. I blame COVID-BRAIN for the discrpency. I had it in late October and am still not quite the same.

As reported above, all measurements were taken using REW's real time analyzer and the moving microphone method, with at least 60 averages per set inside a roughly 18" cube at the MLP.

SPL matching between the two sets of speakers was not attempted. I simply adjusted the volume until the average SPLc was around 76dB in stereo and started taking measurements.

F206 left uncorrected:

BMR vs. F206 left FR uncorrected with overlay separation:

(Ignore SPL difference)


F206 right uncorrected:

BMR vs F206 right FR uncorrected with overlay separation:

(Ignore SPL difference)


F206 Stereo uncorrected:

BMR vs. F206 stereo uncorrected FR with overlay separation:

(Ignore SPL difference)

BMR vs. F206 stereo uncorrected FR without overlay separation:

The most notable thing about the FR comparisons is the BMRs have greater low frequency extension at meaningful SPL. Otherwise, both speakers perform as well as can be expected in this room, and both closely follow the -1 dB / octave Harman-like curve I use as my target. If we are splitting hairs, the Revels exhibit a slightly smoother response above 1 KHz in my room and require a bit less correction. However both speakers are excellent performers, and both speakers require little correction effort to make them nearly ideal.

This is an attempt to overlay both FRs with my target to determine how much greater bass extension the BMRs have over the F206s:

At 2 db below the target of 76 dB, the BMRs extend ~6 dB lower than the F206s. Yes, that reads 26 Hz at 74 dB. Impressive!


RELATIVE SENSITIVITY
To get an idea of relative sensitivity, I took an MMM measurement of one speaker, then swapped the speaker leads and took another MMM of the other speaker on the same channel. Very scientific, I know. REW shows us the mean SPL of each measurement, but because of the excitement of the room modes under 500 Hz, I do not find that average to be useful. If we focus our attention above 500 Hz, where our hearing is most sensitive, it can be argued Harman managed to squeeze about 2 dB more out of the Revels. Possibly. It may also fair to say Dennis was able wring more out of the low end, overall. And, remember the BMRs are not in the optimal location in this room.

An unexpected result is that I expected the rear ports on the BMRs to excite the room modes more than the front ports on the F206s. That does not appear to be the case here.

EDIT: Chart removed.

Well, I FUBAR'd the relative SPL measurements. Room correction was turned on for one of the pairs of speakers for both measurements. That invalidates the results. Here is your unscientific replacement metric. When switching from the Revels to the BMRs, I hit the volume up button 4 times. Each hit is worth 1/2 dB, which equals a difference of 2 dB. This was loosely regulated using a Radio Shack SPL meter set to to C weighting and slow response. That's all I have. Suffice it say, the BMRs present little difficulty to drive.

I think I am nearly out of graphs, so subjective listening must be up next (for real this time)...


Conclusion
What we see here are two extremely accurate designs competing on unequal footing, where the smaller monitor manages to dig deeper in low frequency extension, despite its positioning disadvantage, while the larger contender predictably squeezes out a few more decibels in overall loudness. And this occurs where the larger speakers are blessed with occupying the best placement in the room.

Simple room correction is quick and easy with both speakers, as they are both very well behaved. Other than room-induced nulls, both speakers can be EQ'd to match something like a Harman curve.

As I interpret the measurments and correlate them to what I heard in the room, I am calling the objective challenge a draw. In my opinion, this speaks very highly of the BMRs.

 

[Steve Dallas]

It appears there is a 2nd bottle of champagne, and I have been voluntold to participate. More tomorrow, it seems...

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I am curious as to what you mean by that.

Simple. The RAAL has much broader dispersion than the Be and is a better match for the BMR mid's wide radiation pattern. The sound stage is deeper and more expansive with the RAAL. Distortion would be a couple of ticks lower with the Be, but I would be amazed if anyone could pick that out in a controlled test.

 

[overg]

It appears there is a 2nd bottle of champagne, and I have been voluntold to participate. More tomorrow, it seems...

You absolute tease.

Hey Dennis, are the new versions headed to anyone who also has the old versions? I know these new ones have an updated Raal and a different woofer, but I also believe you said you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in a blind test. Just curious if you've got anyone on tap for the Road Show who can directly A/B both versions.

 

[alexis]

You absolute tease.

Hey Dennis, are the new versions headed to anyone who also has the old versions? I know these new ones have an updated Raal and a different woofer, but I also believe you said you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in a blind test. Just curious if you've got anyone on tap for the Road Show who can directly A/B both versions.

Dennis can comment on the US market. Several Taiwan customers have both Scan woofer BMR and SB BMR in their room (Both version has the 64-10X RAAL), AB and decide which one they want to keep. The sensitivity gain is real on the SB version. Many customers also choose to keep the new version because of the walnut piano finish and white woofers. They sound very similar if you adjust the volume.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Dennis can comment on the US market. Several Taiwan customers have both Scan woofer BMR and SB BMR in their room (Both version has the 64-10X RAAL), AB and decide which one they want to keep. The sensitivity gain is real on the SB version. Many customers also choose to keep the new version because of the walnut piano finish and white woofers. They sound very similar if you adjust the volume.

I only know of one such customer in the domestic market--he traded in a BMR kit he had built for a pair of the new ones, mostly on aesthetic grounds, and I have't heard back from him. I compared the two and if pressed hard against a wall, I might say the new version has slightly better woofer-mid integration. Or not. It really is a toss-up except for sensitivity. I can't speak to the old vs. new 64-10 question since both of these had the new X version.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Subjective Listening Results - Media Room
I have more words.

The signal path was Amazon Music HD or foobar2000 playing on my laptop with Equalizer APO enabled and through the Peachtree Nova 150 via USB. All listening tests included the posted EQ above. Comparisons with the F206s included switching EQ filters in EQ APO and level matching with my SPL meter.

During my listening tests in the office, it was quickly apparent these BMRs "do something like the Revel thing," meaning clean, clear, wide treble, clean, crisp midrange, deep, accurate bass, large sound stage, and effortless dynamic rage. That caused me to want to get them into this room to compare with a pair of midsize Revels to see how the BMRs stack up in those categories.

While I did spend several hours listening to many of the same selections and many others, I do not think it useful to list out another set of tracks, tests, and impressions. The BMRs passed every test in my office, and would do the same in my home theater. (They did seem to like the carpet, though!)

Instead, I want to focus on and describe the categories listed above, with particular focus on the sound stage.

TREBLE
Subjectively, the treble octaves satisfy all the adjectives I used above. They are also immediate when required. Dispersion is very wide, and treble frequencies sound smooth very far off axis. Quantity and quality of the treble (and midrange) frequencies remained the same as I switched seats on the sofa.

Vertical placement appears to be somewhat important. My ears tell me the vertical dispersion of the tweeter is limited, and I prefer to sit in a position which places my ears within perhaps 30 degrees of the tweeter axis, which is not a problem in practice. Thirty degrees is quite forgiving, and this is quite normal. Quite.

MIDRANGE
All the usual adjectives of praise apply to the midrange octaves as well. Dispersion again has my attention here, as it is very wide and smoothly integrated with the tweeter. Midrange frequencies are also smooth very far off axis. There are no odd dips nor peaks. In-room response is predictable and simple to correct if needed.

BASS
As previously discussed, these speakers can go low at useful SPL. That quantity is great, assuming the speaker does it accurately and with low distortion. The bass produced by the BMR is clean and accurate. I never succeeded in making the woofer misbehave at what I consider normal listening levels. This thought never once crossed my mind: "That did not sound right."

It is a large speaker, but I still look at it sideways at times, because I expect to look up and see at least two 8" drivers. The BMRs easily produce similar overall scale to my F206s with fewer drivers and a smaller cabinet. The F206s may produce less low frequency distortion, but any difference in that regard is inaudible to me.

SOUNDSTAGE

Sound stage tests can only be attempted on tracks recorded, mixed, and mastered to produce a sense of width, depth, and height. I will discuss a handful of recordings and how the BMRs reproduce what was produced.

Depth

Bubbles by Yosi Horikawa on Wandering
I previously noted a track named notebook on this album, which is also excellent. Bubbles is a track featuring bouncing and rolling ping pong balls, marbles, and other round things, and it is very good for subjectively measuring the width and depth of the sound stage. On lesser speakers, this sounds like a science class demonstration, where everything is happening on a large table in front of you. On speakers as capable as the BMRs, the action takes place in a field about 160 degrees wide. Balls sound as if they are starting from behind the front and side walls and bouncing into your lap, stopping at the crotch area (yikes!) You are believably enveloped in sound. The sound field is seamless, meaning things believably move left, right, forward, and backward without gaps and without you noticing the illusion is created by only 2 speakers.

Corrs Live [album] by the Corrs (CD version)
Depth is easy to produce, when you can roll things toward a bank of microphones. It is much more difficult to do on a live stage. Whoever engineered this album did an admirable job of it, whether intended or not. The easiest thing to note is the location of the drums relative to other instruments. The kit should sound centered roughly 8' behind the vocalists and embedded with the strings. If you focus on the drum kit, you can begin to hear the locations of the other instruments, such as one acoustic guitar and bass to the left and forward of the drum kit, and the piano forward and to the right of the kit. When the drum kit is traded for the bodhran drum, it is clear the drum is roughly 8' forward of the kit and occupying the same space as the tin whistle and violin at the front of the stage. The Revels do an excellent job of painting an audio picture of this stage, and the BMRs do it just as well.

Horizontal

Speaker sales guys all think I'm an odd duck shortly after I sit down. Apparently, asking for something orchestral, closing one's eyes, moving one's arms out in the shape of a V , then looking down at one's crotch is the stuff of weirdos and malcontents. Or so I have been told. Too many times.

Painting a soundscape as wide as the 1st reflection point in the room is easily accomplished by even basic speakers. Making that soundscape nearly 180 degrees wide when appropriate is a rare accomplishment in my experience. That is to say, accurately portraying the size of the stage--not artificially increasing it.

The Corrs and Yosi Horikawa selections work here as well.

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace [album] by John Williams and the London Symphony Orchestra. Yes. Really. Terrible film. Excellent soundtrack with awesome production quality. The listener should hear a performance stage wider than the listening room, and some instruments should appear to come through the walls. The sound stage presented on this album is absolutely massive in every direction, and the BMRs succeed in portraying it accurately. This is also an excellent album to test dynamic range, and the BMRs succeed here as well. Finally, you can hear the sand getting everywhere.

Vertical

Freefallin' by John Mayer on Where the Light Is Live
The production quality of this track allows you to sit in the audience and be enveloped in sound as if you were there. It is unique in that you can tell John is above you. The vocal track and acoustic guitar track are somehow located high center. The BMRs locate John correctly.

Back to the Corrs Unplugged.
The piano is located stage right and on the ground, whereas the rest of the musicians are on a riser. The recording captures this, and the BMRs reveal it.

BMR vs F206 Results - Music Playback

This contest is surprisingly close. Each speaker does a few things better than the other, and there is no runaway winner. Here are some bullets:

• The F206s cast a taller image (must be the fancypants waveguide)
• The F206s are ~2 dB more efficient
• The F206s have the advantages of dual bass drivers
• The BMRs extend lower
• The BMRs cast an image that is equally wide and deep
• The BMRs are more easily serviceable
• The BMRs fit and finish is almost equal to the F206s
• The BMRs cost half as much as the F206's street price
• The fact that this is even a contest is astounding to me

Now, I will channel Zeos and stop cleaning my house, err... I mean play This-OR-That (ignoring cost):

• BMRs or Revel F206s - F206s
• BMRs or Revel M106s - BMRs
• BMRs or KEF R3s - BMRs in wide directivity applications, R3s in narrower directivity applications
• BMRs or JBL 580s - BMRs
• BMRs or B&W N805s - BMRs
• BMRs or B&W N804s - BMRs
• BMRs or Dynaudio X18s - Hahahahahahahahaha! Be serious.

Conclusion

The BMRs took their performance to my media room / home theater and amped it up a notch. Once again, they do no wrong worth noting and hold their own against larger, more expensive speakers. Against the F206s, the BMRs are different but nearly equal. Let me sum my thoughts up this way: If I had known about these when I purchased the Revels, I would have purchased two pairs of BMRs instead. <-- not hyperbole

As for the question about whether I put my money where my mouth is and ordered a pair? Yes. I did. At full retail. Anyone want to buy a pair of X18s?

Next up: home-theater-mix-and-match-aroo...

 

[overg]

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 is not a speaker many will have the chance to hear before buying, so you've done an incredible service for those looking for bookshelfs for under $2000 (or maybe even over $2000, given how they stacked up to the Revels). This one review alone may have made Dennis' investment in the road show worthwhile. Extremely nicely done.

 

[honn]

BMRs or KEF R3s - BMRs in wide directivity applications, R3s in narrower directivity applications

@Steve Dallas can I extrapolate from this that sonically the BMRs and R3s are pretty much on par and hence it comes down to their directivities?

a question for anyone who has an insight on this: in my less than 100 sq ft room, is there a definite speaker directivity to choose from? Watching a discussion on narrow vs wide directivity speakers on Audioholics, it seems like a wide directivity speaker (the BMR) suits my main genres (classical and jazz) more. But might it be that wide directivity speaker creates too much wall reflections in such small room that a narrow directivity speaker (KEF R3) might be better? Thoughts?

 

[aarons915]

@Steve Dallas can I extrapolate from this that sonically the BMRs and R3s are pretty much on par and hence it comes down to their directivities?

a question for anyone who has an insight on this: in my less than 100 sq ft room, is there a definite speaker directivity to choose from? Watching a discussion on narrow vs wide directivity speakers on Audioholics, it seems like a wide directivity speaker (the BMR) suits my main genres (classical and jazz) more. But might it be that wide directivity speaker creates too much wall reflections in such small room that a narrow directivity speaker (KEF R3) might be better? Thoughts?

I've had LS50s and now R3 for the past few years and was part of the 1st BMR road show. I have a small room as well, about 11' wide with 8 ft ceilings and my mains are about 3 feet from the sidewalls. I feel that KEFs in a small room have an ideal dispersion with the speakers pointing straight ahead, I get the feeling of spaciousness but it's not overwhelming. The BMR in my room sounded a bit bright and I did think maybe it was because of my small room and the dispersion compared to other speakers but it's hard to say for sure. After Erin's measurements of the BMR, the highs are just a bit hot relative to the bass so what I heard could be explained by that as well. Those are my experiences, it's hard to say how you would perceive them in your room.

 

[Steve Dallas]

@Steve Dallas can I extrapolate from this that sonically the BMRs and R3s are pretty much on par and hence it comes down to their directivities?

a question for anyone who has an insight on this: in my less than 100 sq ft room, is there a definite speaker directivity to choose from? Watching a discussion on narrow vs wide directivity speakers on Audioholics, it seems like a wide directivity speaker (the BMR) suits my main genres (classical and jazz) more. But might it be that wide directivity speaker creates too much wall reflections in such small room that a narrow directivity speaker (KEF R3) might be better? Thoughts?

Yes. I would call them essentially sonically equal. Different, but equal--except for the superior bass extension of the BMRs, of course. Unfortunately, there is no way for me to definitively answer your question. We focus on the objective on this forum, but the subjective is also very important. I would have to audition both speakers in your room. Having said that, I own a pair of R3s, and I am able to make both sets of speakers image very well in both of my rooms by adjusting position.

I've had LS50s and now R3 for the past few years and was part of the 1st BMR road show. I have a small room as well, about 11' wide with 8 ft ceilings and my mains are about 3 feet from the sidewalls. I feel that KEFs in a small room have an ideal dispersion with the speakers pointing straight ahead, I get the feeling of spaciousness but it's not overwhelming. The BMR in my room sounded a bit bright and I did think maybe it was because of my small room and the dispersion compared to other speakers but it's hard to say for sure. After Erin's measurements of the BMR, the highs are just a bit hot relative to the bass so what I heard could be explained by that as well. Those are my experiences, it's hard to say how you would perceive them in your room.

Just curious... Did you point the BMRs straight ahead? @Dennis Murphy told me on the phone that he listens to them with zero toe. Like most speakers, I found that I could alter the in-room FR by changing the toe, and I did not toe them in much in either room.

I saw Erin's PIR and was surprised by it. I did broadly pull down 2K in one room and 2.3K in the other room, but that was a matter of taste rather than necessity. In both my rooms, the FR generally followed a -1dB/octave target.