Nice review. Buchardt 400ii is a very well designed speaker and gives a wide soundstage and natural sound, and scales very well with better amplifiers, for me not near field ( sharp high end data is due to near field listening i think), forgiving with poor music. I also have the KEF R3, (also very well designed) different sound, more detail in the higher frequencies, more picky about placing , base not as deep, but more dynamic above 60hz area, cleaner sound.
For me, the crossover is why I could spend more than 2 000$ on a pair of bookshelf speakers! These are top quality components. No iron or ferrite core inductors, best on the market capacitors, and no sand cast resistors! I guess the cables are on the level too. Other companies can learn a lot on how to make a good design from Buchart! Very good product and very good video! Thanks!
Erin, I'm loving your reviews more and more. Your presentation, graph comparisons, and detailed explanations... Great mix of info, insights and opinion. Well done! Wishing you and your channel continued success! 😊
I really like the live review. I have the s400 mk2 and really enjoy them. My room is 13 wide by 18 long with 8 foot ceiling. I had GIK help me with room treatments. I like the wide sound via wave guide. We have friends over for listening sessions (scotch tasting). I’m always on the prowl for other speakers but so far these meet my needs. I do pair them with a REL T9x subwoofer. Great review.
Great review as usual. I use these in a mixed-use system that does a lot of home theater, however there is only one row of 3 seats at 3 meters with subs, therefore they do very well.
Thanks, this is a great and honest review! I do love my pair of them, but I've consistently felt that there's something recessed in some vocals. The measurements here seem to perfectly match my subjective impressions of their sound. I think you're right that in some sense, this slight unevenness may actually be part of the reason that they have such nice perceived sound stage depth. Like many things in audio, it's probably one of those "you can't have it all" situations - if they didn't have that unevenness, maybe they'd stage "flatter" for better or worse. I don't really feel that the bass rolloff matches my subjective impressions though, but that's on me, not a mark of distrust in the measurements. Maybe the shelved shape of it actually matches with room gain nicely, such that when summed up it doesn't get bloated but rather gets fairly linearly lifted in the lower octave when placing them kinda near-ish to walls, as I do.
I believe that dip is mostly attributed to the attempt to extend the low end response to 1800 hertz. That is alot to ask of a 20mm dome . The waveguide horn loading just isn't going to compensate. So at the other end is the rather large midbass at 175mm with directivivity issues becoming significant at the same 1800 hertz. The crossover is the result with all those parts ( expensive even with those modest ones) . Having that many will take some away from the drivers inevitably. So I'm not surprised and this is exactly expected. I've found from experience that a 5 1/4 "midbass and 1" tweeter will cover all the vocal ranges the best. But then a sub preferably two will be necessary with a relatively high cross over for it and the speaker itself (80-100 hertz) . They do look well made (real wood venier ? ) and good even without grills. I had a pair of speakers with a similar waveguide 1" tweeter and 5 1/4 " midbass... excellent vocals they were paired with another set of larger speakers and a sub .... many months of placement to get it right on a large work space otherwise it would be an unsightly mess.
A very impressive design! I "waveguided" my ribbon and got rid of the biggest problem with my speaker.. 6 db boost doesnt sound as a lot, but a 10db increase feels as twice as loud!
Thank you for this video. Especially the part about the “suck out” below the twitter line. I thought I’m imagining it until I saw the vertical polar chart
Thanks Erin, for a great review as usual, I'm deciding between a few speakers (most of them you already reviewed) and want to take your opinion, as I honestly highly value it. First, **Room measurements:** Room size: 12.2 * 15.5 ft Distance from listening position = 8 ft Distance between speaker and wall behind it = 2ft I can bring them closer to me, increasing the distance from wall to 2.5 ft, and decreasing listening distance to 7.5 ft Distance between the right speaker and a side-wall = 2.5 ft, can be increased to: 3ft **Preference:** 1- Neutral sound (lol), good bass, clean mids, and clear sounds (don't mind if it's a teeny tiny bit on the bright side but no glare). Not interested in very high volumes as my room is small. 2- I don't have acoustic wall panels yet, but I'm buying them as well. 3- My source is a large 24bit HQ music library I own, in addition to Spotify. I have already a Yamaha AV rx-v471 (bear with me), I hope to use it and not to have to buy a new AMP, but pls tell me if it's not a good idea, I had it connected to a pair of Klipsch 600rm and I didn't really enjoy as much (I'm not sure which to blame the klipsch or Yamaha or the match) Anyway, Based on the AV I have, you may think I'm looking for a home theatre system but not, I discovered that what I truly want is a pure musical system, home theatre is a low secondary priority for me. **My Options:** A- Passive speakers, because: Longer lifespan, easier to change and upgrade system(though based on my location and budget I don't think I'll be changing frequently), can use my existing AV or buy a new AMP (now or later) B- Active speakers: The beauty of this option for me is that I won't have to go into the process of testing the speakers with the AMP and DACs and try to figure compatibility, which Audiophiles usually love but would be impossible for me since I moved a few months back (for work) to a country where very few audio options exist. Active Speakers solve this as they provide one package where everything is super compatible, so I won't have the risk of purchasing a pair of speakers that won't match with my Yamaha, then I spend big on a quality AMP just to find out they don't really match with my new speakers and I get stuck with a non-compatible pair for many years until I am able to replace. **Speakers available to me are:** 1- Buchardt S400 MkII (~2000 $) 2- Buchardt A10 (~4000 $)
I'm surprised, isn't this the speaker that all the reviews absolutely praised it's extreme bass performance and extension (for the size)? Crazy. Love the data.
I had the mark 1 version and whilst yeah it had extension that went low, there was no punch or real weight unless it was loud and it was only really in the sub bass so didn’t sound like a bass heavy speaker to me if that makes sense?
@@Brett1334 makes sense but as someone who believes not EQ'ing a speaker with a high quality DSP EQ is an extremely low IQ caveman "hifi" mindset, extremely outdated, I am ONLY concerned with what a speaker is capable of, and not AT ALL concerned with how it sounds out of the box, unless we're talking about fundamental issues that cannot be truly addressed with EQ, which I recognize is commonly the case, and this channel talks about the EQ-ability of speakers all the time... directivity, phase, cabinet issues, etc. But if the data suggests EQ can alter the frequency response and there aren't other more serious deal breaking issues that remain, then I ONLY care what the speaker is capable of. And a big part of that, as a fan of 2 channel audio, is bass output capability, so bookshelf speakers usually can't do what I want. So how loud and punchy is the s400 or whatever capable of? Imo the IDEAL speaker comparison consists of EQ'ing them to sound or measure (depending on dispersion differences) as close to the same as possible, and THEN evaluate the remaining differences, after FR has been equalized/corrected as much as possible. It is solely those differences I'm concerned with, which characterize everything ELSE about the speaker besides it's frequency response, which can easily be changed by EQ or by design choices like crossover, box tuning, etc. I cannot emphasize enough how this would be the best way of testing speakers for those willing to EQ and who have adequate amplifier power. What is the speaker CAPABLE of in terms of bass output and tightness/punchiness etc, what's the soundstage and imaging like, the quality of the mids and highs beyond simple frequency amplitude response. I have a custom built set of speakers that, due to their improper and simplistic design and component matching, measure HORRIBLY when tested "flat", by which I mean without EQ. But if you heard them in that state, you would have absolutely no idea what they're capable of when EQd, I'm talking 18db boost in the low bass, and many, like 1-2 dozen, parametric EQ parameters total (much is regarding room correction of course, but much of it is just the speakers issues). When they're EQ'd they sound pretty incredible and they're CAPABLE of a lot, given the 15" jbl 2225h woofers. They have relatively small low power horn mids and ribbon tweeters crossed high for hf extension and clarity. They're far from ideal still, but a million times better with EQ. They can sound bright, mellow, harsh, smooth, midnass heavy and full, or dry and subbass heavy... all based on EQ. I use a measurement microphone as a baseline and then my ears. "Flat" aka linearly boosted down to 30hz with EQ. I've never met a speaker that didn't need some EQ, at least to taste like boosting the low bass, 30-40hz at the peak and rolling off above that, and a little tilt up or down in the high highs, at least 2-5 bands, in the right spots, minimum for every speaker. A speaker is as good as it CAN sound, not as good as it DOES sound without adjustment. A better speaker out of the box can easily be inferior to another after what it's capable of has been brought out of it.
Maybe it’s relative to size. I have a pair of small mirage bookshelf, mrm 1, and they go shockingly low for the size. Small room or near field no problem. For living room a sub is needed as they just can’t move enough air at low freq
The first gen had problems too. Basically it comes down to the woofer. They replaced nbac with nrx2. This is how they sound. Nbac has boosted bass and a little bit of it is thanks To high nonlinearity , nrx2 is slightly falling below 300hz.
Wonderful to see the measurements and hear your very clear explanation about the listening window vis a vis driver size etc. that way one learns not just about this speaker but about speakers in general how to select one and how ones personal preferences relate to speaker design. Nice!
It is really a great pleasure to see your review videos! Thank you very much! Just one question regarding the vertical response: Was the bass-midrange driver positioned above the tweeter during the measurement, as Buchardt intended? If so, an owner should definitely not sit too low, because the actual problem arises at negative angles, see "Vertical Contour Plot". I myself use the loudspeaker in the "classic" way with the tweeter above the bass-midrange driver. Only with this alignment am I really satisfied, which your measurements would immediately confirm. BR
Hi Erin, I am trying to buy a pair of bookshelf speakers blindly between KEF R3 meta and Buchardt S400 MKII for prog rock, some rock, fusion jazz and jazz music. Which in your opinion is the better speaker> I am also open to any other speaker suggestion. Thanks in advance.
Not a bad speaker, but probably not worth the hype. I have heard a pair, but not sure if it was a mark 2 or not, was nothing that really wowed me.🤷 Thanks for your honest review as usual.👍🙂
I love my Buchardt s400 mkII's, they are great speakers. No speaker is perfect and you can easily find fault with anything. Fortunately I don't listen in an anechoic chamber.
Hello, I have a Luxman l505ux mark II integrated amplifier with some B&W 703 s2, in your experience with speakers, which brand and model do you recommend to maximize the experience of my amplifier?
Overall, these seem to be my kind of speaker. There's a lot going on in their crossover - there are 6 coils, and 7 caps, and 5 resistors. My guess is 4th order and an L-pad on the tweeter with a very nice bypass cap, a 3rd order on the woofer, and a notch filter on the woofer.
Very interesting data. Thanks Erin! I really hope Buchardt does some sort of 3-way design, WAW-esque, with a tweeter crossed high and woofer crossed ~400-500hz. The vertical directivity issue is enough to keep me away from them for now. In an MTM, somewhat acceptable. Bookshelf-style 2 way... not so much. Looks to me like a classic driver spacing hiccup. Regardless, this is all great food for thought. Quite interested to see what Buchardt comes out with in the future. The DSP+bi/tri-amp combo allows for a ton of design possibilities. Sweet platform to design off of.
How would the Buchardt MKII compare to the Wharfdale Linton 85s? I"ve trying to make a decision. I'm using a Rogue Sphinx v3, which is a hybrid tube preamp in an integrated amp with 100 watts per channel. Any help is appreciated.
Great review. Erin, do you mind putting some pictures of those drivers/components also on your website? Btw, a passive radiator basically acts like a port (acutally very similar)
Awesome Erin! I love nerding out on your data driven reviews. Interestingly in my room (5x4m, speakers on long wall spaces apart by 2.6m), the bass is anything but lacking in depth and easily hits 35Hz. And in terms of tonal balance, despite the lift in upper HF, these speakers don’t sound bright at all. I think it’s worth noting that what the data doesn’t really show is just how enjoyable these speakers are. Also, bass resolution (aka “texture”) is sublime in my opinion. Instruments just sound real/lifelike to my ears. Also worth noting that the S400 mk2 don’t suffer fools amplifier-wise. 👍🏻👌🏻
It wasn’t completely lacking but below 50Hz the impact was noticeably diminished. I had them 2.5 feet from the back walls so less boundary reinforcement.
@@ErinsAudioCorner makes sense mate. I had them less than one foot from the back wall, plus my room has gain at 40Hz. What was cool though was that the bass was still smooth setup like this. I think Buchardt have engineered them well for small/medium European rooms
Same experience with the base here, but using the I150 amp as pre with its room correction. It really is cool looking at the adjustment it did and how much it did sound wise. Room dampening vs room EQ is getting interesting
Friends are looking for the sub because they can not believe what they are hearing from this tiny speakers 😂. Going to add a sub this weekend but have not missed it
Looks great except the 3rd/5th order distortion above 2khz is likely audible at higher volumes. Wonder if it's the tweeter or aluminum waveguide ringing a bit?
Great T-shirt Erin. I been there. (Spooner Oldham was still around!). Anyway. Please point me toward one of your reviews for a speaker that exhibits a wider soundstage. It's a tougher google. ✌
You should normalise the crossover to 90Hz because that is now the standard high-pass for all immersive systems, in saying that in immersive the „standard“ is that the sub is additive so therefore all boxes should in theory be run full range, in practice I believe the boxes are all rolled off at 90Hz too to avoid intermodulation distortion.
waveguides are usually plastic (or even better composite) to avoid resonance not because they are being cheap. aluminum can introduce ringing. physics misconception. and they are most definatly stock SB drivers (but thats not a bad thing)
Plastic can introduce plenty of resonance problems of its own, and cast aluminum is generally regarded as an excellent material to my understanding. Both materials undoubtedly have pros and cons, and I would hesitate to generalize at all. I think Erin's point is not that alu=good, but rather that this waveguide seems to be made of higher quality materials than the thin cheap plastic that is quite common.
After looking at the data, it might explain why I didnt particularly like this speaker, especially for its price. I dont personally mind a 1-3khz dip, but any dip right in the heart of the midrange and coupled with a rise at the top end makes it sound rather boring/sterile. That was the impression I got everytime I listened to it. Also maybe the narrow dispersion. In comparison, I loved how the LS50 Meta and R3 Meta sounded and in no way they sounded boring. Heck, even my Genny 8331 (quite similiar dispersion pattern) dont sound as boring. Personal preference I guess, but the S400MKII has flaws that I didnt like.
@@vintageflanker7096 I know the R3s (even my genny 8331) have a more narrow dispersion, hence why I stated Im curious why I liked how the R3 Metas and 8331 sounded. I did not like how the OG R3 sounded, that is another sterile/boring sounding speaker to me but I cant find any relation objectively. I owned the OG R3s for a slightly less than a year, I didnt like it one bit. A side by side with the R3 Meta confirmed how I disliked the OG but the Meta sounded way more coherent.
@@AbsoluteFidelity Did not listened to the Meta yet. But, yes, I returned th OG R3 because it sounded boring (and sometimes bright) to me. Did not like the spacial presentation either.
@@vintageflanker7096 any way you could relate objectively why it sounded 'boring' to you? I personally cant because other speakers with narrow dispersion and neutrality dont sound lifeless to me. Brightness wasnt quite a problem with the OG R3s, my room is treated and I had them with minimal toe in. When I heard the S400 MKII, although they had different sound qualities, this lifelessness was apparent. Going thru both their data, I cant seem to find a common point, only the treble on both are slightly lifted. I can also assure you I can bear with a lifted treble as I own the Choras and Arias, so I dont think that is the cause either. Imagine how silly I look when I tell people a Genelec is 'livelier' than the R3.
Hello, Enjoy your channel, I see you took these Speaker Apart. I would be curious if you use a Different Sound Deadening ( Same Lengths/Thickness ??? ) and see what your measurements are, What the heck is that stuff, looks like Medical Pill Bottle Material??? Nothing like spending that extra production cost on Good LOL Sound Deadening
Personally, I'd go with the KEF R3 Meta. But in some ways I prefer the Buchardt here. Buchardt bass was a bit better, subjectively and it has a more uniform horizontal response. However, the KEF has better vertical response and better estimated in-room response (notably in the HF). Tradeoffs.
I thought the bass of this speaker would be superb because of youtube revieuws. Was very dissapointed when I triend them in my 7m by 4m room. Got a 12DB dip at 50hz goiing down from 125hz +-. Retrun policy is 100 per product. Apart from the bass they sound sound cristal clear. Also have the kc 62, thinking of goiing dual or changing speakers.
Flat 35hz in my living room. Base is putting several floor standers to shame. Room dampening or room correction recommend. I use a little of both but I150 as pre with room EQ made a massive difference
Nice looking speaker, but WAY overpriced. I would NEVER pay more than about $650 for a set of bookshelf speakers with 6.5" woofer or smaller. There is no way that that over $2k price tag is justified. Its trolling on the manufacturers / distributing part. People should put their foot down and boycott overpriced stuff like this. Then perhaps the companies will properly price stuff like this. I mean really, would you spend $1000 for a hammer?
Nice review. Buchardt 400ii is a very well designed speaker and gives a wide soundstage and natural sound, and scales very well with better amplifiers, for me not near field ( sharp high end data is due to near field listening i think), forgiving with poor music. I also have the KEF R3, (also very well designed) different sound, more detail in the higher frequencies, more picky about placing , base not as deep, but more dynamic above 60hz area, cleaner sound.
Absolutely brilliant review, I love the process you use, by far the best presentation on RUclips 👍
Thanks!
For me, the crossover is why I could spend more than 2 000$ on a pair of bookshelf speakers! These are top quality components. No iron or ferrite core inductors, best on the market capacitors, and no sand cast resistors! I guess the cables are on the level too. Other companies can learn a lot on how to make a good design from Buchart! Very good product and very good video! Thanks!
Yep, when I saw the Jantzen components, that got my interest.
Jantzen cross cap is their entry level capacitor.
Erin, I'm loving your reviews more and more. Your presentation, graph comparisons, and detailed explanations... Great mix of info, insights and opinion. Well done! Wishing you and your channel continued success! 😊
Thank you.
I really like the live review. I have the s400 mk2 and really enjoy them. My room is 13 wide by 18 long with 8 foot ceiling. I had GIK help me with room treatments. I like the wide sound via wave guide. We have friends over for listening sessions (scotch tasting). I’m always on the prowl for other speakers but so far these meet my needs. I do pair them with a REL T9x subwoofer. Great review.
Great review as usual. I use these in a mixed-use system that does a lot of home theater, however there is only one row of 3 seats at 3 meters with subs, therefore they do very well.
Thanks, this is a great and honest review!
I do love my pair of them, but I've consistently felt that there's something recessed in some vocals. The measurements here seem to perfectly match my subjective impressions of their sound. I think you're right that in some sense, this slight unevenness may actually be part of the reason that they have such nice perceived sound stage depth. Like many things in audio, it's probably one of those "you can't have it all" situations - if they didn't have that unevenness, maybe they'd stage "flatter" for better or worse.
I don't really feel that the bass rolloff matches my subjective impressions though, but that's on me, not a mark of distrust in the measurements. Maybe the shelved shape of it actually matches with room gain nicely, such that when summed up it doesn't get bloated but rather gets fairly linearly lifted in the lower octave when placing them kinda near-ish to walls, as I do.
If able try them with room correction. I use the i150 as a preamp and ran the adjustment. The difference in sound is incredible.
I believe that dip is mostly attributed to the attempt to extend the low end response to 1800 hertz. That is alot to ask of a 20mm dome . The waveguide horn loading just isn't going to compensate. So at the other end is the rather large midbass at 175mm with directivivity issues becoming significant at the same 1800 hertz. The crossover is the result with all those parts ( expensive even with those modest ones) . Having that many will take some away from the drivers inevitably. So I'm not surprised and this is exactly expected. I've found from experience that a 5 1/4 "midbass and 1" tweeter will cover all the vocal ranges the best. But then a sub preferably two will be necessary with a relatively high cross over for it and the speaker itself (80-100 hertz) . They do look well made (real wood venier ? ) and good even without grills. I had a pair of speakers with a similar waveguide 1" tweeter and 5 1/4 " midbass... excellent vocals they were paired with another set of larger speakers and a sub .... many months of placement to get it right on a large work space otherwise it would be an unsightly mess.
A very impressive design! I "waveguided" my ribbon and got rid of the biggest problem with my speaker.. 6 db boost doesnt sound as a lot, but a 10db increase feels as twice as loud!
Thank you for this video. Especially the part about the “suck out” below the twitter line. I thought I’m imagining it until I saw the vertical polar chart
Thanks Erin, for a great review as usual, I'm deciding between a few speakers (most of them you already reviewed) and want to take your opinion, as I honestly highly value it.
First, **Room measurements:**
Room size: 12.2 * 15.5 ft
Distance from listening position = 8 ft
Distance between speaker and wall behind it = 2ft
I can bring them closer to me, increasing the distance from wall to 2.5 ft, and decreasing listening distance to 7.5 ft
Distance between the right speaker and a side-wall = 2.5 ft, can be increased to: 3ft
**Preference:**
1- Neutral sound (lol), good bass, clean mids, and clear sounds (don't mind if it's a teeny tiny bit on the bright side but no glare). Not interested in very high volumes as my room is small.
2- I don't have acoustic wall panels yet, but I'm buying them as well.
3- My source is a large 24bit HQ music library I own, in addition to Spotify.
I have already a Yamaha AV rx-v471 (bear with me), I hope to use it and not to have to buy a new AMP, but pls tell me if it's not a good idea, I had it connected to a pair of Klipsch 600rm and I didn't really enjoy as much (I'm not sure which to blame the klipsch or Yamaha or the match)
Anyway, Based on the AV I have, you may think I'm looking for a home theatre system but not, I discovered that what I truly want is a pure musical system, home theatre is a low secondary priority for me.
**My Options:**
A- Passive speakers, because: Longer lifespan, easier to change and upgrade system(though based on my location and budget I don't think I'll be changing frequently), can use my existing AV or buy a new AMP (now or later)
B- Active speakers: The beauty of this option for me is that I won't have to go into the process of testing the speakers with the AMP and DACs and try to figure compatibility, which Audiophiles usually love but would be impossible for me since I moved a few months back (for work) to a country where very few audio options exist. Active Speakers solve this as they provide one package where everything is super compatible, so I won't have the risk of purchasing a pair of speakers that won't match with my Yamaha, then I spend big on a quality AMP just to find out they don't really match with my new speakers and I get stuck with a non-compatible pair for many years until I am able to replace.
**Speakers available to me are:**
1- Buchardt S400 MkII (~2000 $)
2- Buchardt A10 (~4000 $)
I150 and room correction will make you happy 👍
Be well Erin and thank you for another speaker insight.
Thank you.
I'm surprised, isn't this the speaker that all the reviews absolutely praised it's extreme bass performance and extension (for the size)? Crazy. Love the data.
I had the mark 1 version and whilst yeah it had extension that went low, there was no punch or real weight unless it was loud and it was only really in the sub bass so didn’t sound like a bass heavy speaker to me if that makes sense?
@@Brett1334 makes sense but as someone who believes not EQ'ing a speaker with a high quality DSP EQ is an extremely low IQ caveman "hifi" mindset, extremely outdated, I am ONLY concerned with what a speaker is capable of, and not AT ALL concerned with how it sounds out of the box, unless we're talking about fundamental issues that cannot be truly addressed with EQ, which I recognize is commonly the case, and this channel talks about the EQ-ability of speakers all the time... directivity, phase, cabinet issues, etc. But if the data suggests EQ can alter the frequency response and there aren't other more serious deal breaking issues that remain, then I ONLY care what the speaker is capable of. And a big part of that, as a fan of 2 channel audio, is bass output capability, so bookshelf speakers usually can't do what I want.
So how loud and punchy is the s400 or whatever capable of?
Imo the IDEAL speaker comparison consists of EQ'ing them to sound or measure (depending on dispersion differences) as close to the same as possible, and THEN evaluate the remaining differences, after FR has been equalized/corrected as much as possible.
It is solely those differences I'm concerned with, which characterize everything ELSE about the speaker besides it's frequency response, which can easily be changed by EQ or by design choices like crossover, box tuning, etc.
I cannot emphasize enough how this would be the best way of testing speakers for those willing to EQ and who have adequate amplifier power. What is the speaker CAPABLE of in terms of bass output and tightness/punchiness etc, what's the soundstage and imaging like, the quality of the mids and highs beyond simple frequency amplitude response.
I have a custom built set of speakers that, due to their improper and simplistic design and component matching, measure HORRIBLY when tested "flat", by which I mean without EQ. But if you heard them in that state, you would have absolutely no idea what they're capable of when EQd, I'm talking 18db boost in the low bass, and many, like 1-2 dozen, parametric EQ parameters total (much is regarding room correction of course, but much of it is just the speakers issues). When they're EQ'd they sound pretty incredible and they're CAPABLE of a lot, given the 15" jbl 2225h woofers. They have relatively small low power horn mids and ribbon tweeters crossed high for hf extension and clarity. They're far from ideal still, but a million times better with EQ. They can sound bright, mellow, harsh, smooth, midnass heavy and full, or dry and subbass heavy... all based on EQ. I use a measurement microphone as a baseline and then my ears. "Flat" aka linearly boosted down to 30hz with EQ.
I've never met a speaker that didn't need some EQ, at least to taste like boosting the low bass, 30-40hz at the peak and rolling off above that, and a little tilt up or down in the high highs, at least 2-5 bands, in the right spots, minimum for every speaker.
A speaker is as good as it CAN sound, not as good as it DOES sound without adjustment. A better speaker out of the box can easily be inferior to another after what it's capable of has been brought out of it.
Maybe it’s relative to size. I have a pair of small mirage bookshelf, mrm 1, and they go shockingly low for the size. Small room or near field no problem. For living room a sub is needed as they just can’t move enough air at low freq
You not factoring roomgain. Thats 50hz quasi anachoeic. I would guezz they go 39 or 38 hz with room gain easily!!
The first gen had problems too. Basically it comes down to the woofer. They replaced nbac with nrx2. This is how they sound. Nbac has boosted bass and a little bit of it is thanks To high nonlinearity , nrx2 is slightly falling below 300hz.
Ty for taking time 4 the video. 😊
Wonderful to see the measurements and hear your very clear explanation about the listening window vis a vis driver size etc. that way one learns not just about this speaker but about speakers in general how to select one and how ones personal preferences relate to speaker design. Nice!
Glad it was helpful!
It is really a great pleasure to see your review videos! Thank you very much! Just one question regarding the vertical response: Was the bass-midrange driver positioned above the tweeter during the measurement, as Buchardt intended? If so, an owner should definitely not sit too low, because the actual problem arises at negative angles, see "Vertical Contour Plot". I myself use the loudspeaker in the "classic" way with the tweeter above the bass-midrange driver. Only with this alignment am I really satisfied, which your measurements would immediately confirm. BR
I threw my back out. You know what? F it, we're doing it live! F this F'ing thing sucks! We'll do it LIVE! We'll DO IT LIVE!
Hi Erin, I am trying to buy a pair of bookshelf speakers blindly between KEF R3 meta and Buchardt S400 MKII for prog rock, some rock, fusion jazz and jazz music. Which in your opinion is the better speaker> I am also open to any other speaker suggestion. Thanks in advance.
Great review thank you! Hope you feel better and also share your car audio setup!
Great review. This was very different than any other review on RUclips that I’ve come across for these speaker.
Hi Erin. Nice review. Get well soon and be more careful with Your back as sometimes those problems take quite some time to heal properly.
Not a bad speaker, but probably not worth the hype. I have heard a pair, but not sure if it was a mark 2 or not, was nothing that really wowed me.🤷
Thanks for your honest review as usual.👍🙂
I love my Buchardt s400 mkII's, they are great speakers. No speaker is perfect and you can easily find fault with anything. Fortunately I don't listen in an anechoic chamber.
Neither do I. That would be weird. 😂
Hello, I have a Luxman l505ux mark II integrated amplifier with some B&W 703 s2, in your experience with speakers, which brand and model do you recommend to maximize the experience of my amplifier?
Overall, these seem to be my kind of speaker.
There's a lot going on in their crossover - there are 6 coils, and 7 caps, and 5 resistors. My guess is 4th order and an L-pad on the tweeter with a very nice bypass cap, a 3rd order on the woofer, and a notch filter on the woofer.
Very interesting data. Thanks Erin!
I really hope Buchardt does some sort of 3-way design, WAW-esque, with a tweeter crossed high and woofer crossed ~400-500hz. The vertical directivity issue is enough to keep me away from them for now. In an MTM, somewhat acceptable. Bookshelf-style 2 way... not so much. Looks to me like a classic driver spacing hiccup.
Regardless, this is all great food for thought. Quite interested to see what Buchardt comes out with in the future. The DSP+bi/tri-amp combo allows for a ton of design possibilities. Sweet platform to design off of.
How would the Buchardt MKII compare to the Wharfdale Linton 85s? I"ve trying to make a decision. I'm using a Rogue Sphinx v3, which is a hybrid tube preamp in an integrated amp with 100 watts per channel. Any help is appreciated.
How do these compare to the KEF R3 meta’s?
In my experience they where way better. Room dependant thou as they play really big. Can be adjusted with good room correction like with the i150.
Hey Erin, great review, as always. Any chance you could do the Buchardt P300s? They don't get nearly the amount of love their big brothers get.
Possibly. If Buchardt would like to loan me a pair for review.
Great review.
Erin, do you mind putting some pictures of those drivers/components also on your website?
Btw, a passive radiator basically acts like a port (acutally very similar)
Awesome Erin!
I love nerding out on your data driven reviews.
Interestingly in my room (5x4m, speakers on long wall spaces apart by 2.6m), the bass is anything but lacking in depth and easily hits 35Hz. And in terms of tonal balance, despite the lift in upper HF, these speakers don’t sound bright at all.
I think it’s worth noting that what the data doesn’t really show is just how enjoyable these speakers are. Also, bass resolution (aka “texture”) is sublime in my opinion. Instruments just sound real/lifelike to my ears.
Also worth noting that the S400 mk2 don’t suffer fools amplifier-wise.
👍🏻👌🏻
Agreed - no lack of bass here, either.
It wasn’t completely lacking but below 50Hz the impact was noticeably diminished. I had them 2.5 feet from the back walls so less boundary reinforcement.
@@ErinsAudioCorner makes sense mate. I had them less than one foot from the back wall, plus my room has gain at 40Hz. What was cool though was that the bass was still smooth setup like this. I think Buchardt have engineered them well for small/medium European rooms
Same experience with the base here, but using the I150 amp as pre with its room correction. It really is cool looking at the adjustment it did and how much it did sound wise. Room dampening vs room EQ is getting interesting
Friends are looking for the sub because they can not believe what they are hearing from this tiny speakers 😂. Going to add a sub this weekend but have not missed it
Looks great except the 3rd/5th order distortion above 2khz is likely audible at higher volumes. Wonder if it's the tweeter or aluminum waveguide ringing a bit?
Great T-shirt Erin. I been there. (Spooner Oldham was still around!). Anyway. Please point me toward one of your reviews for a speaker that exhibits a wider soundstage. It's a tougher google. ✌
Thanks for sharing, take it a bit easier and don't drown!
You should normalise the crossover to 90Hz because that is now the standard high-pass for all immersive systems, in saying that in immersive the „standard“ is that the sub is additive so therefore all boxes should in theory be run full range, in practice I believe the boxes are all rolled off at 90Hz too to avoid intermodulation distortion.
waveguides are usually plastic (or even better composite) to avoid resonance not because they are being cheap. aluminum can introduce ringing. physics misconception. and they are most definatly stock SB drivers (but thats not a bad thing)
Plastic can introduce plenty of resonance problems of its own, and cast aluminum is generally regarded as an excellent material to my understanding.
Both materials undoubtedly have pros and cons, and I would hesitate to generalize at all.
I think Erin's point is not that alu=good, but rather that this waveguide seems to be made of higher quality materials than the thin cheap plastic that is quite common.
Great take on these loudspeakers.
Thanks!
Thank you!
How do these compare to the KEF R3 metas
After looking at the data, it might explain why I didnt particularly like this speaker, especially for its price. I dont personally mind a 1-3khz dip, but any dip right in the heart of the midrange and coupled with a rise at the top end makes it sound rather boring/sterile. That was the impression I got everytime I listened to it. Also maybe the narrow dispersion. In comparison, I loved how the LS50 Meta and R3 Meta sounded and in no way they sounded boring. Heck, even my Genny 8331 (quite similiar dispersion pattern) dont sound as boring. Personal preference I guess, but the S400MKII has flaws that I didnt like.
Just asking: You don't like the "narrow" dispersion of the Buchardt? Because it clearly measures and sounds larger than R3. 😉
@@vintageflanker7096 I know the R3s (even my genny 8331) have a more narrow dispersion, hence why I stated Im curious why I liked how the R3 Metas and 8331 sounded. I did not like how the OG R3 sounded, that is another sterile/boring sounding speaker to me but I cant find any relation objectively. I owned the OG R3s for a slightly less than a year, I didnt like it one bit. A side by side with the R3 Meta confirmed how I disliked the OG but the Meta sounded way more coherent.
@@AbsoluteFidelity Did not listened to the Meta yet. But, yes, I returned th OG R3 because it sounded boring (and sometimes bright) to me. Did not like the spacial presentation either.
@@vintageflanker7096 any way you could relate objectively why it sounded 'boring' to you? I personally cant because other speakers with narrow dispersion and neutrality dont sound lifeless to me. Brightness wasnt quite a problem with the OG R3s, my room is treated and I had them with minimal toe in. When I heard the S400 MKII, although they had different sound qualities, this lifelessness was apparent. Going thru both their data, I cant seem to find a common point, only the treble on both are slightly lifted. I can also assure you I can bear with a lifted treble as I own the Choras and Arias, so I dont think that is the cause either. Imagine how silly I look when I tell people a Genelec is 'livelier' than the R3.
@@AbsoluteFidelityOG?
Hello, Enjoy your channel, I see you took these Speaker Apart. I would be curious if you use a Different Sound Deadening ( Same Lengths/Thickness ??? ) and see what your measurements are, What the heck is that stuff, looks like Medical Pill Bottle Material??? Nothing like spending that extra production cost on Good LOL Sound Deadening
Has anyone compared them to Tannoy speakers with dualconcentric driver?
So do you like it?
Yes.
How does it compare to the KEF R3 Meta?
Personally, I'd go with the KEF R3 Meta. But in some ways I prefer the Buchardt here. Buchardt bass was a bit better, subjectively and it has a more uniform horizontal response. However, the KEF has better vertical response and better estimated in-room response (notably in the HF). Tradeoffs.
Tested both, metas was the ones going back. MK2 did take a long time to break in thou. Expected with that passive drive
I thought the bass of this speaker would be superb because of youtube revieuws. Was very dissapointed when I triend them in my 7m by 4m room. Got a 12DB dip at 50hz goiing down from 125hz +-. Retrun policy is 100 per product. Apart from the bass they sound sound cristal clear. Also have the kc 62, thinking of goiing dual or changing speakers.
Flat 35hz in my living room. Base is putting several floor standers to shame. Room dampening or room correction recommend. I use a little of both but I150 as pre with room EQ made a massive difference
@@wegardfjeld3789 how big is your room? I have the I150 too.
Keep thinking it says $400 on the thumbnail. Obviously that couldn’t be true for this brand
I thought for a second they were $400. Its been a long day
😄😄😄
😂😂
Unreal price range. 30€ tweeter.20€ waveguide. 70€ woofer 30€ passiv radiator. Plus crossover. Overprized caps.
Can you justify 20.000 euros for Parker Duo Diamond ?
Yeah and design time is free right
Nice looking speaker, but WAY overpriced. I would NEVER pay more than about $650 for a set of bookshelf speakers with 6.5" woofer or smaller. There is no way that that over $2k price tag is justified. Its trolling on the manufacturers / distributing part. People should put their foot down and boycott overpriced stuff like this. Then perhaps the companies will properly price stuff like this. I mean really, would you spend $1000 for a hammer?
But you’re so small on there for a... awhile!
Yeah, I need someone to help me run the stream while I talk. I get so into what I'm talking about sometimes that I forget to change my window size.
Dude its "mark 2". Nobody says M K 2.
Bruh.
I say m k 2.
Who cares how he says it? Seriously.
Huh? I always say 'mike kilo 2'.
/jk
@Audfile it is “it’s” 😜
Dull dead warm laid back mellow and sleazy dark sound, nothing like Focal speakers, these are no good. Just like macintosh.
Gotta feel the treble in your teeth!
Focal for me are irritating harsh.
I like wilson benesch or magico 😏
Focal is great. Just need to add a 0 for getting this quality 😂
lol wat
Thanks!
Wow, thank you!