Philharmonic BMR Speaker Review

[xarkkon]

If I am being honest, I personally preferred the BMR. It had lower bass extension without mechanical failure and I liked the HF presentation more.

cool, can't say i'm surprised about the bass extension given how much smaller the buchardts are. thanks for the feedback!

 

[tuga]

Again, I ask what percent distortion is audible? This requires blind listening tests, done with appropriate negative and positive controls. What should be pretty obvious may very well be your opinion. So be it. But that doesn't pass for scientifically determined data.

It is definitely a good question, and I agree that we need more properly conducted research on audibility thresholds using trained listeners, material that is fit for purpose, and also long-term critical assessment.

 

[tuga]

CSD plots are a waste of time, IMHO, mainly because you can play with the slices/window and floor and make the result look different from one run to the next.

I accept that you may not wish to do it but you don't have to "play with the slices/window and floor and make the result look different from one run to the next".
In fact you should be consistent from review to review not just in the CSD but in every other kind of measurement plot, something that Amir wasn't doing in the first speakers he measured.
Most magazines which produce CSD plots are consistent from test to test.

 

[hardisj]

I accept that you may not wish to do it but you don't have to "play with the slices/window and floor and make the result look different from one run to the next".
In fact you should be consistent from review to review not just in the CSD but in every other kind of measurement plot, something that Amir wasn't doing in the first speakers he measured.
Most magazines which produce CSD plots are consistent from test to test.

I didn't say I had to. In fact, I wouldn't. I said "you can play...". My point being, different reviewers alter how they provide this data and it's not an apples to apples comparison across datasets. However, the FR data I provide is directly comparable to Amir's in that the methods are much the same, with some variance of accuracy (both his and mine) one way or the other, but still within the CTA-2034 tolerance band of ±1.5dB.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Again, I ask what percent distortion is audible? This requires blind listening tests, done with appropriate negative and positive controls. What should be pretty obvious may very well be your opinion. So be it. But that doesn't pass for scientifically determined data.

I also doubt that this level of distortion is audible on music, but we also have to ask: audible at what output level? The NRC test is made at twice the usual distance but at the common 90 dB level. So that's really loud. I have a feeling the ringing in my ears would mask whatever spurious output there is at 6 kHz (first harmonic of 3 kHz). In any event, the newer X version of the RAAL 64-10 has substantially lower distortion.

 

[617]

Worth pointing out that placing drivers off center not improves axial response but also power response. In other words, the total sound output of the speaker in all directions is smoother with offset drivers. This is less of a concern with drivers in waveguides or pistons operating at some frequency where directivity is narrower than 180 degrees.

 

[R Swerdlow]

I also doubt that this level of distortion is audible on music, but we also have to ask: audible at what output level? The NRC test is made at twice the usual distance but at the common 90 dB level. So that's really loud. I have a feeling the ringing in my ears would mask whatever spurious output there is at 6 kHz (first harmonic of 3 kHz). In any event, the newer X version of the RAAL 64-10 has substantially lower distortion.

That's worth knowing. Thanks for pointing that out.

For anyone who ever struggled with how to devise a listening test that might answer the distortion audibility question, comparing two BMR speakers, one with the 64-10 tweeter, and the other with the 64-10X tweeter might be a way. Of course, once the output gets turned up to 90 dB or higher, everyone would leave the room. Leaving that question forever unanswered… …

 

[thebabyparrot]

@Dennis Murphy any idea how the BMR would work on a desk ? Thinking of getting some and putting it alongside a 48 inch LG OLED for PC use.

 

[ribosradagast]

@Dennis Murphy any idea how the BMR would work on a desk ? Thinking of getting some and putting it alongside a 48 inch LG OLED for PC use.

What's your listening distance? The drivers don't have time to properly integrate within 1 or 2 meters

Source: I tried to use it on my desk lol

 

[MZKM]

@Dennis Murphy any idea how the BMR would work on a desk ? Thinking of getting some and putting it alongside a 48 inch LG OLED for PC use.

This guy likes his:
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/f3czay
The horizontal and vertical directivity are wider than your typical speaker (well, the very top end isn’t as good vertically), which is good for being in the near-field.
Coaxials are still king though (and luckily a desktop setup will easily allow for EQ).

 

[Chromatischism]

cool, can't say i'm surprised about the bass extension given how much smaller the buchardts are. thanks for the feedback!

So if the S400's extend to 25 Hz in my room, the BMR would extend to what? I think either would be plenty, and more than someone needs if they're using subs anyway. I'd judge based on performance from 80 Hz and up.

 

[EEG]

Speaking about using subs in combination with bookshelf speakers. I see that 80Hz is kinda mandatory value ,witch I personally doubt. It depends on a lot of factors, others than the simple low frequency response of the speaker. To integrate a subwoofer in a system is not as simple as it seems. On the great audihoolics review on the BMR's James Larson said: "At times, subwoofers were used to supplement the bass with an 80 Hz crossover frequency."
That's OK, the crossover of the sub is set at 80Hz , but he didn't say a word about about any low pass cut on the speakers ,also at 80Hz. Having a 50 Hz sound , just an example ,coming both from the subs and the speakers ,although the bass is omnidirectional , is not a happy circumstance. A complete bass management also includes the frecquency low cut of the speakers. Parasound Halo(and Hint 6) ,Outlaw RR2160 ,HK 990 ,stereo receivers from Yamaha(R-N 803D) ,Marantz ,Denon ,Onkyo, Arcam ,they all have low cut filtering options for the speakers. Not to mention all modern AV multichannel receivers.

 

[Ericglo]

I also doubt that this level of distortion is audible on music, but we also have to ask: audible at what output level? The NRC test is made at twice the usual distance but at the common 90 dB level. So that's really loud. I have a feeling the ringing in my ears would mask whatever spurious output there is at 6 kHz (first harmonic of 3 kHz). In any event, the newer X version of the RAAL 64-10 has substantially lower distortion.

You and me both. You and me both. I find it annoying that some people (usually AVS) feel that unless a speaker can do 125 db with 150 db peaks at 50 feet then it is trash.

I think the last time I checked I was around 65 db at the listening position.

 

[Chromatischism]

Speaking about using subs in combination with bookshelf speakers. I see that 80Hz is kinda mandatory value ,witch I personally doubt. It depends on a lot of factors, others than the simple low frequency response of the speaker. To integrate a subwoofer in a system is not as simple as it seems. On the great audihoolics review on the BMR's James Larson said: "At times, subwoofers were used to supplement the bass with an 80 Hz crossover frequency."
That's OK, the crossover of the sub is set at 80Hz , but he didn't say a word about about any low pass cut on the speakers ,also at 80Hz. Having a 50 Hz sound , just an example ,coming both from the subs and the speakers ,although the bass is omnidirectional , is not a happy circumstance. A complete bass management also includes the frecquency low cut of the speakers. Parasound Halo(and Hint 6) ,Outlaw RR2160 ,HK 990 ,stereo receivers from Yamaha(R-N 803D) ,Marantz ,Denon ,Onkyo, Arcam ,they all have low cut filtering options for the speakers. Not to mention all modern AV multichannel receivers.

A crossover attenuates both speakers - the sub and the speaker will both have a roll off, where they meet in the middle and sum to flat. I am sure that is what James did.

 

[EEG]

Very few subwoofers on the market are able to do that. They must have high level inputs and outputs(to speakers) assuming that the crossover works both on the sub and the speakers. In many cases this is not happening.
My SVS PB 2000 has LFE and LINE inputs only. So the sub crossover has nothing to do with the speakers conected to the amplifier. I 'm using a small DSP box hooked between pre out and main in connections on my HK3490. My speakers are B&W DM 602 S3. 70Hz is the crossover frequency .

 

[AnalogSteph]

Seeing that nobody has commented on this yet - am I the only one who finds the level increase in the ~2.8-3.5 kHz range odd? Smells awfully like an unhappy crossover component in the midrange/tweeter section, presumably an iron core inductor in the lowpass.

 

[richard12511]

So if the S400's extend to 25 Hz in my room, the BMR would extend to what? I think either would be plenty, and more than someone needs if they're using subs anyway. I'd judge based on performance from 80 Hz and up.

Is that after EQ? If not, then I think you may have an atypical room. When I tested them in my room, I was only getting 34-36Hz extension. My 160lb towers only get 27-30Hz in here. Website lists 33Hz in room extension, which was close to what I experienced. Never tried the BMR(though I plan to some day), so I can't speak to that. They're much larger though, so I'd assume they could dig a bit deeper(maybe 5Hz or so?).

 

[Beave]

So if the S400's extend to 25 Hz in my room, the BMR would extend to what? I think either would be plenty, and more than someone needs if they're using subs anyway. I'd judge based on performance from 80 Hz and up.

I'm HIGHLY skeptical that the S400s extend to 25Hz in your room. How did you determine this?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Seeing that nobody has commented on this yet - am I the only one who finds the level increase in the ~2.8-3.5 kHz range odd? Smells awfully like an unhappy crossover component in the midrange/tweeter section, presumably an iron core inductor in the lowpass.

I'm not quite sure what your concern is. We already know the tweeter has rising distortion in that area at high SPL's, and that has nothing to do with crossover components per se. In any event, All of the inductors in the mid and tweeter circuit are air core's with appropriate AWG's, and the caps are all poly's.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I got some time tonight to measure distortion on a new BMR with the RAAL 64-10X tweeter to see what the reduction in THD would be at 90 dB, one meter. It's hard to read because OmniMic changes he aspect ratio and the dB grid when I save the plot, but if you get out your magnifying glasses, the new 64-10X RAAL is hitting about .6% THD from 3 kHz on up. That compares with about 1.7% for the old tweeter. At 95 dB with ear plugs on, it rises to about 1% over the same area, vs 3% for the original tweeter. The BMR midrange is under .2% most of the time. OmniMic transitions to room mode at around 600 Hz, so the various wiggles below that point are room modes. The response above that point is quasi-anechoic, which looks flatter than it really is because of the aspect ratio and 10 dB vertical grid.