Buchardt A500 subjective review

[Instar]

Hello,

I am an audio user who enjoys listening to music in a small room in an apartment house. (W 3.2m * D 3.4m * H 2.4m)

I've been using speakers from Genelec 8030c, Genelec 8341a, JBL 705p, KEF R3, etc.

And until recently, the system was configured with KEF R3, Nad M10, and SVS SB1000 Dual.

My Room


Then I learned about Buchardt and became interested in the A500, so I bought it.

I felt like I needed to streamline the audio system and the A500 felt attractive because the Kii audio three or the Dutch&Dutch 8c were so expensive.

My first impression of the A500 The detail on the low frequencies was disappointing compared to the existing system.

In the case of the mid-range, it felt like there wasn't much difference compared to the KEF R3, but I felt a little farther away.

In the case of the high range, it was a bit irritating and bright.

I wanted to measure with REW + umik-1, but my umik-1 broke, so I couldn't measure.

I took the A500 to my acquaintance's house.

acquaintance's Room


My acquaintance has a Genelec 8351B and earthwork m30 mic.

There, detailed measurements and comparative listening were possible.

InRoom measurements / Brown : Buchardt A500, Purple : Genelec 8351B

Buchardt A500 THD

Genelec 8351B THD


As you can see, the A500's THD was too high.

Overall, THD is high.

In this part, I felt that the details of the low range were disappointing compared to when using the KEF R3 + SVS SB1000 Dual.

Of course, even though the distortion rate of THD in the low frequency band is high,

there are parts that are difficult for people to perceive, so it may be that people feel different.

But even taking that into account, the THD seems to be too high.

We also tried to measure the many master tunings the A500 boasts.

Basic master tuning (2.5 way 25hz)

Nearfield Studio tuning

3way tuning


Results of hearing about the three tunings

Basic master tuning is suitable for listening at low volumes.

3way tuning was fine for listening with a volume of about 80db. (Thoughts of my acquaintances)

My acquaintances say that the Buchardt A500 sounds good balance and is equipped with a lot of creative and diverse functions.

However, they think it is less cost effective when competing with split systems like speakers, subwoofers, and network players.

In this regard, I am somewhat the same.

After completing the measurements, I purchased the Genelec 8351B and then compared and listened to at home.

The result of listening to the A500 after listening to the 8351B

The A500's mid-range sounded a backed out, and the low frequencies were a unnatural.

But I thought the A500's sound wasn't bad overall.

I also checked the A500's iPhone calibration function and other network streaming and various functions, and it worked fine.

In conclusion, the A500 is a Compact all-in-one speaker with Not bad performance

But, I think it's a bit unsuitable for listening to music with more than 80db volume.

also, it has a problem of not overcoming physical limitations such as THD, and I think that this can be a big deal for users who used subwoofers.

However, users who have never heard of sub low may not be aware of this.

I think the A500 is a bit pricey when it competes with the Genelec 8030c/KEF R3 with a decent subwoofer, and split systems like network players.

But it doesn't look bad for users who want to be compact.

Personally, I think there will be a further leap forward by replacing the A500's woofer unit with a better quality unit and replacing the rear woofer with a sub-only unit.

If you have any questions, I will answer.

 

[q3cpma]

That monitor looks far.

 

[Instar]

That monitor looks far.

Yes.

The monitors between the speakers cause comb filtering, so I inevitably installed them to the rear wall as far as possible.

 

[AudioJester]

Awesome! Thanks for sharing.
Do you have similar measurements of your Kef R3 and subs?

 

[Instar]

Awesome! Thanks for sharing.
Do you have similar measurements of your Kef R3 and subs?

The KEF R3 and dual subwoofer system play up to 17hz. Overall it is similar. Both the A500 and R3 have a flat on-axis.

From the FR graph, there is no difference other than the bandwidth, but the dual subwoofer system has a much lower THD and much more detail in the sound.

 

[napilopez]

I think the A500 is cursed! My Umik-1 also broke shortly before I received the speakers!

Thank you for the measurements @Instar. They confirm my own though our impressions are a bit different and that's okay. I've done most of my listening from 3m, though I tested the nearfield tuning both close and far.

The low frequency results are about as expected -- there's only so much you can expect from dual 6.5-inch woofers. I do listen at lower volumesso it suffices for me, though of course not as good in the bass as with my dual subs.

The recessed midrange you heard could be explained by the shelf in the sound power.

But since you listen very nearfield, one thing that might affect the A500's vocal clarity is its narrow vertical window with the three tunings you tested.

With the nearfield 2.5way tuning, being just 5 degrees below the reference axis (between the waveguide and woofer edges)or 10 degrees above will significantly impact the upper mid and presence regions:

Perhaps, more importantly, desk bounce will be much worse with the A500's standard nearfield tuning than the coaxial speakers: everything between -10 to -40 degrees could lead to a recession in the midrange:

In fact, IMO it would difficult to use the A500 with this tuning in a nearfield situation with at least some midrange recession compared to the KEF or Genelecs. I personally think the R3s are recessed as well due to their own midrange dip, but if you have EQd them you will not notice this due to their almost perfect directivity.

However, I do not know if you noticed Buchardt recently added two more tunings that could significantly help.

One is a test 3-way tuning with a 1.8kHz crossover instead of the standard ~2.8kHz one. This could significantly improve the vertical directivity probably at the expense of a bit more tweeter distortion, but potentially worth the trade-off.

The other is a new 2.5-way tuning designed with a more forward midrange in mind.

I have not had the chance to test either of these yet, and buchardt hasn't posted measurements for these two new tunings, but they both seem like they could be useful for your setup.

 

[HifiFan]

There's a review of A500 in Gearslutz. They have very positive review in 2 studio settings and they seem to had great feedback on the development of studio master tunings.

 

[Instar]

I think the A500 is cursed! My Umik-1 also broke shortly before I received the speakers!

Thank you for the measurements @Instar. They confirm my own though our impressions are a bit different and that's okay. I've done most of my listening from 3m, though I tested the nearfield tuning both close and far.

The low frequency results are about as expected -- there's only so much you can expect from dual 6.5-inch woofers. I do listen at lower volumesso it suffices for me, though of course not as good in the bass as with my dual subs.

The recessed midrange you heard could be explained by the shelf in the sound power.

But since you listen very nearfield, one thing that might affect the A500's vocal clarity is its narrow vertical window with the three tunings you tested.

With the nearfield 2.5way tuning, being just 5 degrees below the reference axis (between the waveguide and woofer edges)or 10 degrees above will significantly impact the upper mid and presence regions:

View attachment 79514

Perhaps, more importantly, desk bounce will be much worse with the A500's standard nearfield tuning than the coaxial speakers: everything between -10 to -40 degrees could lead to a recession in the midrange:

View attachment 79519

In fact, IMO it would difficult to use the A500 with this tuning in a nearfield situation with at least some midrange recession compared to the KEF or Genelecs. I personally think the R3s are recessed as well due to their own midrange dip, but if you have EQd them you will not notice this due to their almost perfect directivity.

However, I do not know if you noticed Buchardt recently added two more tunings that could significantly help.

One is a test 3-way tuning with a 1.8kHz crossover instead of the standard ~2.8kHz one. This could significantly improve the vertical directivity probably at the expense of a bit more tweeter distortion, but potentially worth the trade-off.

The other is a new 2.5-way tuning designed with a more forward midrange in mind.

I have not had the chance to test either of these yet, and buchardt hasn't posted measurements for these two new tunings, but they both seem like they could be useful for your setup.

Thanks for the good comment.
Obviously, the A500 may not be suitable for my environment. My listening distance is about 1.2~1.5m.
Personally, I think a bookshelf speaker should have full performance at this distance, even if it is not a coaxial speaker.
I think the A500 is a compact all-in-one speaker with a variety of functions, but I think it is expensive in terms of price and performance compared to a split audio system.
Personally, unless you prefer a particularly compact environment,
I think it is better to attach a subwoofer and network player to the Genelec 8030 or KEF R3.

 

[Instar]

There's a review of A500 in Gearslutz. They have very positive review in 2 studio settings and they seem to had great feedback on the development of studio master tunings.

I've read the review
But I don't trust much those reviews.
The A500 certainly sounds well-balanced and has attractive features, but it's too bad when it comes to THD.

 

[aarons915]

After completing the measurements, I purchased the Genelec 8351B and then compared and listened to at home.

How do you compare the KEF R3 to the Genelec 8351?

 

[richard12511]

Hello,

I am an audio user who enjoys listening to music in a small room in an apartment house. (W 3.2m * D 3.4m * H 2.4m)

I've been using speakers from Genelec 8030c, Genelec 8341a, JBL 705p, KEF R3, etc.

And until recently, the system was configured with KEF R3, Nad M10, and SVS SB1000 Dual.


View attachment 79434
My Room


Then I learned about Buchardt and became interested in the A500, so I bought it.

I felt like I needed to streamline the audio system and the A500 felt attractive because the Kii audio three or the Dutch&Dutch 8c were so expensive.


View attachment 79435
View attachment 79436


My first impression of the A500 The detail on the low frequencies was disappointing compared to the existing system.

In the case of the mid-range, it felt like there wasn't much difference compared to the KEF R3, but I felt a little farther away.

In the case of the high range, it was a bit irritating and bright.

I wanted to measure with REW + umik-1, but my umik-1 broke, so I couldn't measure.

I took the A500 to my acquaintance's house.


View attachment 79437
acquaintance's Room


My acquaintance has a Genelec 8351B and earthwork m30 mic.

There, detailed measurements and comparative listening were possible.


View attachment 79444
InRoom measurements / Brown : Buchardt A500, Purple : Genelec 8351B

View attachment 79445
Buchardt A500 THD

View attachment 79448
Genelec 8351B THD


As you can see, the A500's THD was too high.

Overall, THD is high.

In this part, I felt that the details of the low range were disappointing compared to when using the KEF R3 + SVS SB1000 Dual.

Of course, even though the distortion rate of THD in the low frequency band is high,

there are parts that are difficult for people to perceive, so it may be that people feel different.

But even taking that into account, the THD seems to be too high.

We also tried to measure the many master tunings the A500 boasts.


View attachment 79449View attachment 79450Basic master tuning (2.5 way 25hz)


View attachment 79452View attachment 79453Nearfield Studio tuning


View attachment 79454View attachment 79455
3way tuning


Results of hearing about the three tunings

Basic master tuning is suitable for listening at low volumes.

3way tuning was fine for listening with a volume of about 80db. (Thoughts of my acquaintances)

My acquaintances say that the Buchardt A500 sounds good balance and is equipped with a lot of creative and diverse functions.

However, they think it is less cost effective when competing with split systems like speakers, subwoofers, and network players.

In this regard, I am somewhat the same.

After completing the measurements, I purchased the Genelec 8351B and then compared and listened to at home.


View attachment 79459View attachment 79458


The result of listening to the A500 after listening to the 8351B

The A500's mid-range sounded a backed out, and the low frequencies were a unnatural.

But I thought the A500's sound wasn't bad overall.

I also checked the A500's iPhone calibration function and other network streaming and various functions, and it worked fine.

In conclusion, the A500 is a Compact all-in-one speaker with Not bad performance

But, I think it's a bit unsuitable for listening to music with more than 80db volume.

also, it has a problem of not overcoming physical limitations such as THD, and I think that this can be a big deal for users who used subwoofers.

However, users who have never heard of sub low may not be aware of this.

I think the A500 is a bit pricey when it competes with the Genelec 8030c/KEF R3 with a decent subwoofer, and split systems like network players.

But it doesn't look bad for users who want to be compact.

Personally, I think there will be a further leap forward by replacing the A500's woofer unit with a better quality unit and replacing the rear woofer with a sub-only unit.

If you have any questions, I will answer.

Considering the competition, I'd say it did fairly well. Going up against the 8351b is a nightmare for 99% of loudspeakers.

 

[Ericglo]

Replacing the woofers may increase the cost significantly. Going from the SB to the Purifi is around $300 per driver retail.

 

[Instar]

How do you compare the KEF R3 to the Genelec 8351?

The 8351B is a loudspeaker that satisfies in all respects without a single lack.

It is particularly detailed and sharp while having a heavy mid-range that is particularly dense.

In addition, the low frequency range gives a very dynamic feel.

The KEF R3 is also a relatively inexpensive 3-way coaxial speaker and sounds great, but it doesn't seem to be comparable to the 8351B.

Of course, this is my subjective taste.

 

[Instar]

Replacing the woofers may increase the cost significantly. Going from the SB to the Purifi is around $300 per driver retail.

yes.

Obviously the price will be much more expensive than it is now, but that won't be the price of the kii audio three or the Dutch&Dutch 8c.
I think A500 need a better woofer unit.

 

[Instar]

Considering the competition, I'd say it did fairly well. Going up against the 8351b is a nightmare for 99% of loudspeakers.

Yeah...

Even if it's not the 8351B, I think it's a bit unfortunate compared to the system where I connected the subwoofer to the KEF R3, JBL 705p, and Genelec 8030c I used before.
Only in terms of performance.
Even if you connect a subwoofer and a separate network player to the KEF R3, JBL 705p, and Genelec 8030c, you can get excellent sound at a lower price.

 

[Ericglo]

yes.

Obviously the price will be much more expensive than it is now, but that won't be the price of the kii audio three or the Dutch&Dutch 8c.
I think A500 need a better woofer unit.

So, you would be willing to pay another $2000 for a model with Purifi drivers?

 

[Chromatischism]

I've seen Mads say that these (S400/A500) work best at 2-3 meters because of the waveguide and driver distance. It's possible the sound just isn't converging for you sitting that close.

 

[Instar]

So, you would be willing to pay another $2000 for a model with Purifi drivers?

I think I will fully consider the measurements.

 

[Daverz]

I've seen Mads say that these (S400/A500) work best at 2-3 meters because of the waveguide and driver distance. It's possible the sound just isn't converging for you sitting that close.

First thing I thought when I saw the setup in the OP. These are not meant as nearfield monitors. Didn't bother with reading further, so sorry if I missed if a more typical setup was tried.

 

[Instar]

I've seen Mads say that these (S400/A500) work best at 2-3 meters because of the waveguide and driver distance. It's possible the sound just isn't converging for you sitting that close.

Mads said that it would be better if the distance was more secured, with normal sound being heard from a distance of at least 1m. I listened at 1.2m and my acquaintances at 1.5m. The A500 is not a floor standing, but a small 6.5-inch bookshelf speaker. I think it's normal for good performance to come out at this distance. It is not at all close. Enough to drive a 2way speaker. Moreover, if the A500 produces the best sound at 2-3m, wouldn't the 80db volume limit come ironically?
The distortion of the A500 is a whopping 37% based on 80db at 28hz. No matter how difficult it is to experience the low-frequency THD, that is too much.