Philharmonic Ceramic Mini (review and measurements by Erin)

[fineMen]

i believe .. and Dennis can correct me if i'm wrong, the ceramic drivers sound very clean/clear due to the drivers being very distortion free...the distortion levels certainly showed up in the data...that may well be similar to the non coated revel drivers....

My very own experience showed no difference between so called ceramic and plain aluminium that was beyond expectable tolerances in the breakup.

The answer will be in the sales of these, which I guess will be pretty good. But also Dennis already discussed the design goals of these which are different from the other speakers that you seem to think have already solved everything.

No quite sure about that. I wasn't after commercial success, but if there is any need for something compromized in comparison to virtually perfect specimen. My obsession is with 'standard' speakers. I'm after a one for all model, maybe in different sizes but not in terms of technology. KEF R+ and coax (real?) Genelec come very close, if they are not already there. The KEF R3 was on sale recently for 1k a pair.

another factor , Dennis isn't in this to compete with revel or kef, he's kind of his own "niche" market.. extremely wide dispersion, very linear, very clean sounding speakers with deep clean bass, if any of those attributes bother the consumer , then revel , kef may be an answer...

I don't like the competition. It sparks exotic offers of no further value; to the contrary as we look at the 'high end' segment of the market. Bold claims of being 'better' due to x/y/z, all 'scientifically proven', speak 'quantum' etc. There is no better anymore, the spinorama proves it!

Stereo (recreational audio) is a technology that based on arbitrary intuitions for many decades. Now we have a standard--the spinorama. First time in history there is a chance that the whole business gets a grip on its material, software and hardware.

Let's normalize one side of the equation, the speaker namely.
Let's acknowledge that the other side, the recording namely, is an artform that is neither 'naturally' standardized, nor must it be standardized by external rules.

 

[pjug]

No quite sure about that. I wasn't after commercial success, but if there is any need for something compromized in comparison to virtually perfect specimen. My obsession is with 'standard' speakers. I'm after a one for all model, maybe in different sizes but not in terms of technology. KEF R+ and coax (real?) Genelec come very close, if they are not already there. The KEF R3 was on sale recently for 1k a pair.

I don't think the examples you are holding up a ideal do serve as "one for all". I like the Phil BMR because I can use it in a family room with a lot of seating and the sound sounds good everywhere. I don't think a much narrower speaker can give that.

 

[fineMen]

I like the Phil BMR because I can use it in a family room with a lot of seating and the sound sounds good everywhere.

Good point in my favor. Off center the stereo shows its downside. Collapsing soundfield shifting elsewhere, hilarious comb filter effects. => decorrelated, delayed, room & directivity adopted center speaker.

We need to proceed the process of standardization. Not fo the recording techniques, but for the speaker thing. Not 11 point 3 virtual reality but something more humble that works.

Under this aspect, layed out in my previous post, I just ask what the 'ceramic' may contribute. ( Otherwise Dennis is a good man, and the speakers as they are are as good as it gets. )

 

[pjug]

Good point in my favor. Off center the stereo shows its downside. Collapsing soundfield shifting elsewhere, hilarious comb filter effects. => decorrelated, delayed, room & directivity adopted center speaker.

We need to proceed the process of standardization. Not fo the recording techniques, but for the speaker thing. Not 11 point 3 virtual reality but something more humble that works.

Under this aspect, layed out in my previous post, I just ask what the 'ceramic' may contribute. ( Otherwise Dennis is a good man, and the speakers as they are are as good as it gets. )

Off center the tonality sounds pretty good to me. Compared to narrower speakers I have tried where high end is missing in chairs off to the side.

On the ceramic's contribution being a good speaker for $850/pr you are comparing speakers that cost $1K ea or more.

 

[tw 2022]

My very own experience showed no difference between so called ceramic and plain aluminium that was beyond expectable tolerances in the breakup.

i believe you .. and i believe Dennis's most recent post would verify that...

 

[tw 2022]

I don't like the competition. It sparks exotic offers of no further value; to the contrary as we look at the 'high end' segment of the market. Bold claims of being 'better' due to x/y/z, all 'scientifically proven', speak 'quantum' etc. There is no better anymore, the spinorama proves it!

Dennis has a specific voicing in mind , it is a niche audience.. i'm not sure he's taking suggestions on what that might evolve into beyond what people buy.. you should order bmr's and see how they sound to you.. i heard the bmr's and og r3's on the same day.. the bmr's sounded cleaner , with more bass to me .. and they sounded good all over the demo room not just the "a1" listening position... ymmv....

 

[fineMen]

Dennis has a specific voicing in mind , it is a niche audience ...

I gave my quite bold statement to be taken with a spoon of salt (as I suggested quoting Jean d'Arc). We need just and only standardized speaker in the studio and at home, period. Voicing is a sin in my book ;-) You can always use an equalizer today if you like your recordings served tinted.

As not to bother you more, I just listened uncritically to Golden Earring's 'Radar Love'. What a fine piece of studio works that is! Guitar and singer in their own echo-chamber, clearly separated left/right. Very nice, as soft ice cream, added glaring points of funny sounds, people mumbling in the background, a fleshy bass, just cool pop, ahhh ... . KEF R3s. Auditioning 20° off center, relaxed.

O/k it is 2k for a most recent pair, 1k for the older variant of the R3. But isn't it so that we have speakers that fulfill the specification set by the spinorama perfectly? The coax is an innovation that others may copy in the future (daring to invest in real (!) research). Why not stick to those, e/g the Neuman 120 II also. Is it worth to use quite good drivers, but omit the waveguide departing from golden rules again?

Regarding another innovative field, the intermodulation, the 'ceramics' will only hand out 85dBs or so with less than 1% of IM distortion. That is for one watt, you tube amp lovers! Allow for peaks at 95dB, 10 watts. Good enough by reasonable standards. But the KEF will deliver 10dB more (subjectively double the volume) easily, because it is effectively a three-way.

Good enough, but nothing to write home about. Same as yesterday ...

 

[pjug]

Voicing is a sin in my book ;-) You can always use an equalizer today if you like your recordings served tinted.

Regarding another innovative field, the intermodulation, the 'ceramics' will only hand out 85dBs or so with less than 1% of IM distortion. That is for one watt, you tube amp lovers! Allow for peaks at 95dB, 10 watts. Good enough by reasonable standards. But the KEF will deliver 10dB more (subjectively double the volume) easily, because it is effectively a three-way.

I took the voicing comment as more to do with the overall sonic character. With Philharmonic a large part of this being the wider dispersion choice over more controlled directivity, as Dennis said earlier in the thread. I get the impression that you think the idea that there is a tradeoff to consider here is nonsense. Otherwise why do you insist that there can be a "one for all" speaker?

On the SPL limitation, point taken but many would use these high passed with a sub where they will do better than you say. Still, if very high SPL is a must for you then maybe these are not the best choice. Edit: that should go without saying for a mini speaker.

 

[tw 2022]

I took the voicing comment as more to do with the overall sonic character. With Philharmonic a large part of this being the wider dispersion choice over more controlled directivity, as Dennis said earlier in the thread. I get the impression that you think the idea that there is a tradeoff to consider here is nonsense. Otherwise why do you insist that there can be a "one for all" speaker?

On the SPL limitation, point taken but many would use these high passed with a sub where they will do better than you say. Still, if very high SPL is a must for you then maybe these are not the best choice.

yes , high spl would be the trade off with some of Dennis's designs... i agree that Dennis doesn't voice his speakers with "coloration".. that would be a false narrative , imo... he designs speakers to play "clean, neutral and clear" and to have decent/ very good bass...

 

[fineMen]

Otherwise why do you insist that there can be a "one for all" speaker?

Because it is a necessity! Recording, essentially designing a recording is an art in itself. You have to keep the channels of transferring the message clear and predictable. If there were a 'better' speaker, it would depart from the foreseen route, hence impairing the exactness in delivering the message. I learned about communication theory at the age of 12, in a language class at school, sorry. What feels natural to me may be a major obstacle to you, which is not your fault.

btw, in response to other comments, a waveguide doesn't restrict the dispersion, it widens it!

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I gave my quite bold statement to be taken with a spoon of salt (as I suggested quoting Jean d'Arc). We need just and only standardized speaker in the studio and at home, period. Voicing is a sin in my book ;-) You can always use an equalizer today if you like your recordings served tinted.

As not to bother you more, I just listened uncritically to Golden Earring's 'Radar Love'. What a fine piece of studio works that is! Guitar and singer in their own echo-chamber, clearly separated left/right. Very nice, as soft ice cream, added glaring points of funny sounds, people mumbling in the background, a fleshy bass, just cool pop, ahhh ... . KEF R3s. Auditioning 20° off center, relaxed.

O/k it is 2k for a most recent pair, 1k for the older variant of the R3. But isn't it so that we have speakers that fulfill the specification set by the spinorama perfectly? The coax is an innovation that others may copy in the future (daring to invest in real (!) research). Why not stick to those, e/g the Neuman 120 II also. Is it worth to use quite good drivers, but omit the waveguide departing from golden rules again?

Regarding another innovative field, the intermodulation, the 'ceramics' will only hand out 85dBs or so with less than 1% of IM distortion. That is for one watt, you tube amp lovers! Allow for peaks at 95dB, 10 watts. Good enough by reasonable standards. But the KEF will deliver 10dB more (subjectively double the volume) easily, because it is effectively a three-way.

Good enough, but nothing to write home about. Same as yesterday ...

The older KEF 3 and the BMR's went head-to-head last summer at the Arizona Audio Club's speakerfest. 52 people voted after listening to both (and14 other speakers) during the day. The BMR's got 29 first-place votes ( more than all of the all of the other entries combined), and the KEF's received 3. Coaxials apparently aren't the only way to design a high quality speaker.

 

[pjug]

Because it is a necessity! Recording, essentially designing a recording is an art in itself. You have to keep the channels of transferring the message clear and predictable. If there were a 'better' speaker, it would depart from the foreseen route, hence impairing the exactness in delivering the message. I learned about communication theory at the age of 12, in a language class at school, sorry. What feels natural to me may be a major obstacle to you, which is not your fault.

btw, in response to other comments, a waveguide doesn't restrict the dispersion, it widens it!

I don't use my speakers for recording. I already described how I use the BMRs in a family room where they work well compared to narrow speakers. Can you point to the waveguide speakers that do what the BMR does?

 

[pjug]

The older KEF 3 and the BMR's went head-to-head last summer at the Arizona Audio Club's speakerfest. 52 people voted after listening to both (and14 other speakers) during the day. The BMR's got 29 first-place votes ( more than all of the all of the other entries combined), and the KEF's received 3. Coaxials apparently aren't the only way to design a high quality speaker.

And the price of the BMR is in the "one for all" range. Kidding of course. Less than @fineMen 's "one for all" price but obviously must of us have our own ideas for audo budgets.

 

[DMill]

@Dennis Murphy I truly hate you because this is a perfect example of something I don’t need and yet want to replace a perfectly nice pair of Elacs with that cost more. The only reason I don’t buy these today is I think I’ll just save up and buy the BMRs and never buy another speaker again. You must be a terrible person for making me want spend more on this hobby than I ever should.

 

[tw 2022]

@Dennis Murphy I truly hate you because this is a perfect example of something I don’t need and yet want to replace a perfectly nice pair of Elacs with that cost more. The only reason I don’t buy these today is I think I’ll just save up and buy the BMRs and never buy another speaker again. You must be a terrible person for making me want spend more on this hobby than I ever should.

that's a wise choice, bmr's are pretty great...Dennis has had the same effect on me...

 

[aarons915]

These are pretty good speakers, I don't really think a wave guide is strictly necessary but I also don't see some of these new parts like ceramic or Be drivers being objectively better than traditional materials either. Comparing to the similar size Polk R100 that Erin also reviewed, they actually measure very similar with similar THD numbers, the Polk have less of a directivity mismatch and I doubt those drivers are anything special. The R200 is oddly even better even with the larger woofer and no waveguide but you can still see a clear advantage with the directivity indices of KEF and Revel speakers(in general) and in my experience that smooth directivity is what makes a speaker sound the most natural.

 

[TurtlePaul]

Regarding another innovative field, the intermodulation, the 'ceramics' will only hand out 85dBs or so with less than 1% of IM distortion. That is for one watt, you tube amp lovers! Allow for peaks at 95dB, 10 watts. Good enough by reasonable standards. But the KEF will deliver 10dB more (subjectively double the volume) easily, because it is effectively a three-way.

I think you will find the dimensions of these is much closer to the LS50 than the R3 (which are BMR sized). For smaller than average rooms, the size and output of these is fine. I feel like apples to oranges comparing to a speaker 4.5” taller and 2” deeper.

 

[tw 2022]

I think you will find the dimensions of these is much closer to the LS50 than the R3 (which are BMR sized). For smaller than average rooms, the size and output of these is fine. I feel like apples to oranges comparing to a speaker 4.5” taller and 2” deeper.

i would agree.. they are , after all , mini's...

 

[jhaider]

But then he has to get the FDA involved and post Nutrition Facts along with accurate measurements...

Too much work for a small ID Speaker Co.

FWIW, I'm think FDA standardized food labels were one inspiration for Spinorama. Tire sidewalls were another.

Dennis would no doubt agree Spinorama Facts speaker label enforcement should be within the FTC's jurisdiction.

In this regard I'm tempted to praise KEF.

It's worth noting what KEF offers at this price point.

Q350 Bookshelf Speaker

2-way bookshelf If space is limited the Q350 will not limit your musical enjoyment, a Uni-Q driver and clever port design let it open up the sound. With KEF's signature Uni-Q driver array and a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) port, the Q350s deliver detailed natural sound with high clarity...

us.kef.com

I'd put that speaker squarely in the "rat rod" category - elite driver tech and excellent systems engineering (see review) with cost-constrained cabinet quality finished in cheap-looking vinyl wrap, and perceived parts quality more in line with budget speakers such as a stamped frame basket for the coax. That speaker targets a different enthusaist than Philharmonic even before one starts on differences in dispersion width. They both have their place, but they're different.

 

[ajax247]

that's a wise choice, bmr's are pretty great...Dennis has had the same effect on me...

And me! I just built a pair of v1 BMR monitors, and they have replaced my M105s. Which replaced my 35 year old dbx SF1500s, very wide dispersion speakers by design. I missed that! And I have it back with the BMRs, along with way cleaner sound.