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

[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.

 

[aarons915]

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.



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.

View attachment 103664

View attachment 103667

I did point them straight ahead but if the strong sidewall reflections were responsible for what I was hearing then I would think you would want them toed-in a bit to reduce those reflections, not sure how much of a difference it would make either way being a wide dispersion design. With the KEF's I do it because they are generally a bit smoother in the listening window compared to directly on-axis and it also makes the sidewall reflections a bit stronger, which should help out the narrower dispersion design. The 2k peak in your measurements does seem to be some kind of excess energy in that region, it's very similar to how the LS50's measure in my room.

 

[Steve Dallas]

I did point them straight ahead but if the strong sidewall reflections were responsible for what I was hearing then I would think you would want them toed-in a bit to reduce those reflections, not sure how much of a difference it would make either way being a wide dispersion design. With the KEF's I do it because they are generally a bit smoother in the listening window compared to directly on-axis and it also makes the sidewall reflections a bit stronger, which should help out the narrower dispersion design. The 2k peak in your measurements does seem to be some kind of excess energy in that region, it's very similar to how the LS50's measure in my room.

What I hypothesize to be true often turns out to be false. Your presumption could be right. Or wrong.

The 2K peak does not show up in Erin's nor Audioholics, nor Dennis' measurements. I am not sure where it comes from other than potentially a summing of direct sound plus reflections. <-- potentially false hypothesis thataway

Funny you mention the LS50s. I had a pair of the Black Edition for several years and very much liked them, which is how I ended up with R3s. I just happen to have measurements for comparison. This is the BMRs in the media room vs. the LS50s with more toe and less toe. Notice any similarities above 500Hz?

The BMRs I ordered should be here this week. I will take dozens of measurements as I set them up. I normally discard all but the final measurements, but I will label and save them this time for posting.

 

[aarons915]

What I hypothesize to be true often turns out to be false. Your presumption could be right. Or wrong.

The 2K peak does not show up in Erin's nor Audioholics, nor Dennis' measurements. I am not sure where it comes from other than potentially a summing of direct sound plus reflections. <-- potentially false hypothesis thataway

Funny you mention the LS50s. I had a pair of the Black Edition for several years and very much liked them, which is how I ended up with R3s. I just happen to have measurements for comparison. This is the BMRs in the media room vs. the LS50s with more toe and less toe. Notice any similarities above 500Hz?

View attachment 103696

The BMRs I ordered should be here this week. I will take dozens of measurements as I set them up. I normally discard all but the final measurements, but I will label and save them this time for posting.

Yes that is interesting, the LS50 exhibits more of a peak right at 2k, which is evident in their off-axis measurements at Soundstage and is consistently shown in most peoples' room measurements that I see. The BMR's peak is a smoother lower Q Peak starting around 1500 and going to 3k and that is actually shown in Erin's measurements if you look at the early reflections, which is a very good approximation of what your room curve should be. You're right though that my hypothesis may not be correct, I wish I had Erin's measurements when I had them in my room. I had the 1st version as well, so it's possible this new version is slightly different in the bass frequencies.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Yes that is interesting, the LS50 exhibits more of a peak right at 2k, which is evident in their off-axis measurements at Soundstage and is consistently shown in most peoples' room measurements that I see. The BMR's peak is a smoother lower Q Peak starting around 1500 and going to 3k and that is actually shown in Erin's measurements if you look at the early reflections, which is a very good approximation of what your room curve should be. You're right though that my hypothesis may not be correct, I wish I had Erin's measurements when I had them in my room. I had the 1st version as well, so it's possible this new version is slightly different in the bass frequencies.

I probably should stop making statements based on memory. It is there at ~1dB, and ~1dB is what we see in my office measurement.

It is also visible in the plot @alexis posted. There is a 1 to 2dB bounce, bounce, bounce starting just above 1K, centered at 2K, 5K, and 15K.

But... We are applying a huge magnifying glass to what is objectively excellent frequency response. I think I pulled that 2K peak down by 1dB, which is nothing. This would not cause the speakers to sound overly bright without some kind of environmental contributor, which brings us full circle.

 

[honn]

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.

Thanks @Steve Dallas and @aarons915 for your discussion. My room's 9 feet wide and the speakers will be 5.5 feet apart from each other, and around 18 inches from the side walls. So the brightness issue might likely be present as well. In the case where I cannot audition both speakers and have to choose one based on available information, the KEF R3 might be well suited for my small listening room.. or I should treat the room a bit. Also, James Larson said that in comparison with the Revel M126Be, the BMR's tweeter is just a tad bid hotter, he still says the BMR is a very special speaker.

 

[HooStat]

One thing I was struck by was that the 206 didn't seem that much bigger than the BMR. It is a little hard to tell from just the front view, of course. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that, to use 2 woofers, you would basically have to make the BMR a floor stander like the 206 in terms of cabinet size.

Thanks for doing all this work on these speakers. It is very interesting.

 

[Steve Dallas]

One thing I was struck by was that the 206 didn't seem that much bigger than the BMR. It is a little hard to tell from just the front view, of course. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that, to use 2 woofers, you would basically have to make the BMR a floor stander like the 206 in terms of cabinet size.

Thanks for doing all this work on these speakers. It is very interesting.

The BMR is 8" wide and 12.5" deep. The F206 is 8.2" wide and 12.1" deep. and a little over twice as tall Yes, I imagine you are correct.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Also, James Larson said that in comparison with the Revel M126Be, the BMR's tweeter is just a tad bid hotter, he still says the BMR is a very special speaker.

Just a couple of comments here. First, the new BMR's are voiced down a bit from the version James tested. I doubt very much that the current BMR would sound brighter than the Revel, particularly since the Revel has a moderate peak in the mid-treble on axis. See James' measurement below. Second, and I would think more significant from a "brightness" standpoint, the BMR's have a dip centered at 2.8 kHz. This is a diffraction effect caused by the centered mounting of the BMR mid on the baffle. It goes away as you move off axis and probably doesn't amount to much in terms of audibility, but to the extent that there is any tonal character to the BMR's, it's much more likely to be at that point, which is also the most sensitive frequency range for the human hear. Of course, as Steve has taken pains to point out, any speaker's character will be room dependent.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Some poor vanity photos taken with a potato camera...

 

[Steve Dallas]

 

[honn]

Just a couple of comments here. First, the new BMR's are voiced down a bit from the version James tested. I doubt very much that the current BMR would sound brighter than the Revel, particularly since the Revel has a moderate peak in the mid-treble on axis. See James' measurement below. Second, and I would think more significant from a "brightness" standpoint, the BMR's have a dip centered at 2.8 kHz. This is a diffraction effect caused by the centered mounting of the BMR mid on the baffle. It goes away as you move off axis and probably doesn't amount to much in terms of audibility, but to the extent that there is any tonal character to the BMR's, it's much more likely to be at that point, which is also the most sensitive frequency range for the human hear. Of course, as Steve has taken pains to point out, any speaker's character will be room dependent.
View attachment 103744

Thanks for this clarification Dennis!

 

[alexis]

Some poor vanity photos taken with a potato camera...

View attachment 103746

View attachment 103747

View attachment 103748

Wow - excellent job capturing the "water like" feeling of the piano mirror finish!!!

 

[Masterh]

I've owned the Philharmonic-BMR monitor for about three years and anyone calling it HOT has room issues or has ears that are overly sensitive to high end. It is a lot of things, but HOT, it is not...in my rooms.

 

[stren]

So to confirm - for the US only the squarer cabinets are available - they will be generally in the wine colored veneer with limited runs in piano white and black? You will also get the choice of black or white woofer? In Taiwan however there are limited runs of curved cabinets in other colors too like the red that has been shown? I assume the curved cab's are more $$$, because they are sure are pretty otherwise.

Speaking of the woofer - this is a 6" woofer while the f206 uses a similar but not identical 5.25 for mid and 2x6.5 for bass. How then does the BMR go lower? Is it all about the port tuning? It's not like the cabinet is bigger for the BMR.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Yes that is interesting, the LS50 exhibits more of a peak right at 2k, which is evident in their off-axis measurements at Soundstage and is consistently shown in most peoples' room measurements that I see. The BMR's peak is a smoother lower Q Peak starting around 1500 and going to 3k and that is actually shown in Erin's measurements if you look at the early reflections, which is a very good approximation of what your room curve should be. You're right though that my hypothesis may not be correct, I wish I had Erin's measurements when I had them in my room. I had the 1st version as well, so it's possible this new version is slightly different in the bass frequencies.

I found another measurement I meant to post... Look at 2KHz:

In the media room, I initially pulled 2K down by -3dB per channel. I ended up giving half back and ended up at -1.5dB. The EQ I posted on the last page was incorrect. This is the correct version, taken from the config folder:

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  -1.5 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  -1.5 dB  Q 4.500

Otherwise, the only EQ I applied was directed at room modes. Midrange and treble correction in both rooms was minimal.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Wow - excellent job capturing the "water like" feeling of the piano mirror finish!!!

Sorry about the fingerprints. I didn't want to wipe them for fear of scratching them.