OP
Steve Dallas
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #121
Eh. If that were true, this pair would have cost me -$630,774.59. Methinks I have been ripped off!!!
Last edited:
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Philharmonic BMR Monitor Semi-Objective Review - Road Show Stop 1
- Thread starter Steve Dallas
- Start date
Eh. If that were true, this pair would have cost me -$630,774.59. Methinks I have been ripped off!!!
Personally, I like the looks of my high gloss BMR walnut cabinets with white woofer better. It looks classy to me. But if you close your eyes they both sound the same!
If you could get the BMR in white and paint the ribbon face plate white for an all white drivers, then I would agree.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2020
- Messages
- 1,071
- Likes
- 4,547
Although I agree, I guess the white can be a little distracting for HT unless you use the grills.Personally, I like the looks of my high gloss BMR walnut cabinets with white woofer better. It looks classy to me. But if you close your eyes they both sound the same!
View attachment 104755
I would also expect nothing less. It's been my experience, especially with good Room EQ, that the old saw that you must have identical speakers all around for HT is another attempt to part us with more money than necessary.
I've used identical, similar, dissimilar, and much inbetween over the years. If they are half-way good and can take EQ I've not noticed any issues.
I currently have Davone Solos (very similar to Revel F208s) up front and utterly dissimilar but still good measuring B&O 600s as rears.
Whether using XT32 or ARC for EQ they blend just fine.
Ricardojoa
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2020
- Messages
- 101
- Likes
- 83
BMR vs Acend Sierra Tower
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2020
- Messages
- 1,071
- Likes
- 4,547
I don't think this question was ever addressed. If you double up on a given woofer, the cabinet volume has to be twice that for a single woofer in order to preserve the same bass extension. I haven't done the math, so I don't know whether the Revel cabinet volume is twice that of the BMR. That assumes the same box tuning. If the box is tuned for greater output in the midbass, then that will also sacrifice bass extension. I don't know what the facts are here, but it's certainly possible and even likely that the Revel cabinet and choice of tuning results in a more rapid roll-off in bass response.
OP
Steve Dallas
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #128
Office Redux - Setup
Below words are random.
As promised, some setup measurements...
This morning, the family was out for an hour, so I was able to take some comparative toe-in measurements.
My methodology was to start with zero toe, then incrementally add 1/2" toe-in, measured as the difference from each back corner of the speaker to the front wall. I stopped at 2", which had the speakers pointed directly at the MLP.
These measurements were taken 1.5" farther from the front wall, averaging 9.75" this time.
The speakers are now sitting on 24" stands, which work better than the taller stands I used before. My ears are new a couple inches above the tweeters when I sit up straight, and in line with the tweeters when I slouch in my chair.
Interestingly, the wide directivity of these speakers means there is little difference between toe angle measurements. This is also very obvious in listening tests. Making Johnny Cash dance on my nose is far too easy.
As before, REW's RTA was employed to take >60 averages within and around a roughly 18" cube at the MLP using the MMM. I used 1/6 smoothing this time to make the overlays easier to read.
Left speaker overlay showing only 0", 1", and 2" for clarity:
Right speaker overlay showing only 0", 1", and 2" for clarity:
If you assumed the 0.5 and 1.5" measurements fall within the bounds created by the 0 and 2" measurements, you would be pretty much correct.
Predictably, the speakers lose a little high frequency energy when pointed straight ahead. There is not any obvious directivity error when moving off axis. This is confirmed in @hardisj and Audioholics' measurements.
Pointing them directly at the MLP provides the smoothest response by half a decibel or so here and there.
I am going with 1" for aesthetic reasons. Time to make some PEQ filters for EQ APO and shoot measurements of the corrected response. I may activate the 15 day Dirac trial and see what it can do with them just to add another dimension to the review.
Just for fun, here is the left Roadshow speaker overlaid with the 1" measurement from above. These are not level-matched, and remember the Roadshow speakers were on 8" taller stands and 1.5" closer to the front wall.
Below words are random.
As promised, some setup measurements...
This morning, the family was out for an hour, so I was able to take some comparative toe-in measurements.
My methodology was to start with zero toe, then incrementally add 1/2" toe-in, measured as the difference from each back corner of the speaker to the front wall. I stopped at 2", which had the speakers pointed directly at the MLP.
These measurements were taken 1.5" farther from the front wall, averaging 9.75" this time.
The speakers are now sitting on 24" stands, which work better than the taller stands I used before. My ears are new a couple inches above the tweeters when I sit up straight, and in line with the tweeters when I slouch in my chair.
Interestingly, the wide directivity of these speakers means there is little difference between toe angle measurements. This is also very obvious in listening tests. Making Johnny Cash dance on my nose is far too easy.
As before, REW's RTA was employed to take >60 averages within and around a roughly 18" cube at the MLP using the MMM. I used 1/6 smoothing this time to make the overlays easier to read.
Left speaker overlay showing only 0", 1", and 2" for clarity:
Right speaker overlay showing only 0", 1", and 2" for clarity:
If you assumed the 0.5 and 1.5" measurements fall within the bounds created by the 0 and 2" measurements, you would be pretty much correct.
Predictably, the speakers lose a little high frequency energy when pointed straight ahead. There is not any obvious directivity error when moving off axis. This is confirmed in @hardisj and Audioholics' measurements.
Pointing them directly at the MLP provides the smoothest response by half a decibel or so here and there.
I am going with 1" for aesthetic reasons. Time to make some PEQ filters for EQ APO and shoot measurements of the corrected response. I may activate the 15 day Dirac trial and see what it can do with them just to add another dimension to the review.
Just for fun, here is the left Roadshow speaker overlaid with the 1" measurement from above. These are not level-matched, and remember the Roadshow speakers were on 8" taller stands and 1.5" closer to the front wall.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Messages
- 624
- Likes
- 1,041
Do you have subs? There's a pretty substantial difference in low end extension in favor of the BMR. Because I have two subs I ended up going for a used pair of the M106 .
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Messages
- 624
- Likes
- 1,041
I have one sub, but it's low quality so I'm not expecting much from it. I'd like to not use it unless needed or for an occasional rock/electronic session. I will be using these for near field listening (primarily music listening). My main speaker requirements are 1) no EQ required, sound great out of the box (though EQ may help), 2) no sub required (for most music), 3) sound great near filed (at least good elsewhere should I decide to move it later), 4) $2k budget, 5) not bright or fatiguing (neutral preference, slightly warm ok). These will be powered by a Purifi amp.
@Jmudrick @Steve Dallas @Dennis Murphy Thoughts? I see the spin data at Erin's BMR and compare to @amirm M106 data, but the current BMR is now improved so direct comparisons are not exact. I've heard neither in person so I can't comment. I'm coming from a pair of HSU Research HB-1 MK2 and a Dual 10" car sub.
Last edited:
OP
Steve Dallas
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #133
I do own a pair of M106s. I did not compare them side-by-side, however. They are roughly equivalent, but there are some key differences.
- Both are wide directivity speakers
- The BMRs have lower bass extension
- The BMRs are 3 way with a wide dispersion midrange
- The BMRs are less expensive
- The BMRs are flat on top, so you can use a $#@%&*! level
- The M106s have better vertical directivity at high frequencies (better if your ears will be more than 20 to 30 degrees above the tweeter)
OP
Steve Dallas
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #134
Office Redux - More Setup
Fewer words. More graphs.
In this post, I more or less go through my process for applying simple PEQ room correction in 3 rounds of measurement.
FIRST ROUND
Obviously, the first round of measurements is finding out what the speakers do in the room uncorrected. I use the measurement method I have described several times in this thread to take 2 measurements each of left, right, and stereo. The reason I take 2 each is to make sure the measurements are repeatable.
Left speaker uncorrected:
Right speaker uncorrected:
Stereo uncorrected:
I use the left and right plots to create PEQ filters for each speaker and load those into Equalizer APO, then re-measure. Filter creation usually involves letting REW take a shot at it, then plenty of manual edits are applied.
Left speaker predicted:
Right speaker predicted:
SECOND ROUND
I alluded to this earlier, but due to summing effects, phase stuff, and whatever else, individual cuts to bass modes are usually not enough, and any boosted frequencies are exaggerated. I know this well and usually compensate for it, but I chose not to this time for illustration purposes. These measurements show the results of the above predicted EQ.
All looks decent in the individual results, but the stereo result shows a few dB too much in several bands. More work needed.
Left speaker corrected:
Looks pretty good. Three hundred to 600Hz could be pulled down a little more. Other stuff is narrow in Q.
Right speaker corrected:
Not too shabby.
Stereo corrected:
Well crap. Back to the first measurements to tweak the EQ. This usually consists of pulling down the offending room modes more and reducing the amount of boost applied.
THIRD ROUND
This should simply be a verification measurement. Sometimes I wall make some very minor tweaks after the results of Round 2 are known.
Left speaker corrected again:
Right speaker corrected again:
Stereo corrected again:
Now I have reached the point where the transgressions are mostly imperceptible. I know which frequencies to adjust a little more, so I will do that, but I do not need to re-measure, as the adjustments will be small, and I can accurately predict the results.
When I had the Roadshow speakers here, I brute forced them in stereo in my office, but took the time to go through all 3 rounds in the media room.
Those broad nulls are unfortunate and the fault of the terrible room. If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to get Dirac working on my PC and see what it can do.
The speakers are still sounding very good where things sit though.
And for giggles, here is the stereo result with psychoacoustic smoothing:
If that is truly how we hear, it is no wonder I no longer hear anything 'wrong.'
Fewer words. More graphs.
In this post, I more or less go through my process for applying simple PEQ room correction in 3 rounds of measurement.
FIRST ROUND
Obviously, the first round of measurements is finding out what the speakers do in the room uncorrected. I use the measurement method I have described several times in this thread to take 2 measurements each of left, right, and stereo. The reason I take 2 each is to make sure the measurements are repeatable.
Left speaker uncorrected:
Right speaker uncorrected:
Stereo uncorrected:
I use the left and right plots to create PEQ filters for each speaker and load those into Equalizer APO, then re-measure. Filter creation usually involves letting REW take a shot at it, then plenty of manual edits are applied.
Left speaker predicted:
Right speaker predicted:
SECOND ROUND
I alluded to this earlier, but due to summing effects, phase stuff, and whatever else, individual cuts to bass modes are usually not enough, and any boosted frequencies are exaggerated. I know this well and usually compensate for it, but I chose not to this time for illustration purposes. These measurements show the results of the above predicted EQ.
All looks decent in the individual results, but the stereo result shows a few dB too much in several bands. More work needed.
Left speaker corrected:
Looks pretty good. Three hundred to 600Hz could be pulled down a little more. Other stuff is narrow in Q.
Right speaker corrected:
Not too shabby.
Stereo corrected:
Well crap. Back to the first measurements to tweak the EQ. This usually consists of pulling down the offending room modes more and reducing the amount of boost applied.
THIRD ROUND
This should simply be a verification measurement. Sometimes I wall make some very minor tweaks after the results of Round 2 are known.
Left speaker corrected again:
Right speaker corrected again:
Stereo corrected again:
Now I have reached the point where the transgressions are mostly imperceptible. I know which frequencies to adjust a little more, so I will do that, but I do not need to re-measure, as the adjustments will be small, and I can accurately predict the results.
When I had the Roadshow speakers here, I brute forced them in stereo in my office, but took the time to go through all 3 rounds in the media room.
Those broad nulls are unfortunate and the fault of the terrible room. If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to get Dirac working on my PC and see what it can do.
The speakers are still sounding very good where things sit though.
And for giggles, here is the stereo result with psychoacoustic smoothing:
If that is truly how we hear, it is no wonder I no longer hear anything 'wrong.'
Last edited:
i'm anxiously awaiting your opinion of the bmr's/revel's in your media room, when you actually move the new bmr's to where the revel's are, and move the revels to where you had the roadshow bmr's. after sufficient break-in, of course.
doug s.
doug s.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 4,808
- Likes
- 3,749
Near-field I would go with the Revel over a 3-way using a vertical ribbon.
However there are probably even better choices. Look at the Genelec 8040. Meets all of your requirements. Skip the amp.
OP
Steve Dallas
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #137
i'm anxiously awaiting your opinion of the bmr's/revel's in your media room, when you actually move the new bmr's to where the revel's are, and move the revels to where you had the roadshow bmr's. after sufficient break-in, of course.
doug s.
I hope you are not holding your breath... Break-in could take YEARS! And I haven't even started swapping cables yet!
i'm ok w/100 hrs break-in. no need for anything more complex than what you did w/the roadshow pair. i only wish you'd done the speaker position swap w/the roadshow pair - curious if there would have been any differences.
doug s.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2020
- Messages
- 1,071
- Likes
- 4,547
Why would there be any difference?
i'm ok w/100 hrs break-in. no need for anything more complex than what you did w/the roadshow pair. i only wish you'd done the speaker position swap w/the roadshow pair - curious if there would have been any differences.
doug s.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2018
- Messages
- 6,248
- Likes
- 9,383
@Steve Dallas very nice review, thank you for all the work.
My observation is the BMR's are on the large size for a stand mount and might benefit from shorter stands 18"/50 cm. I might have missed it, but Salk builds these with a wide range of finishes for more money.
My observation is the BMR's are on the large size for a stand mount and might benefit from shorter stands 18"/50 cm. I might have missed it, but Salk builds these with a wide range of finishes for more money.
