................
I really should bite the bullet and find an unused basketball court, or buy a Klippel.
Fantastic showing. I really liked the Bmr monitor as part of the roadshow. When I have my own house where I can place towers, I’m buying theseBasketball court is much cheaper option - the only option for me actually
Klippel can earn you some money if there are enough loudspeaker manufacturers on your continent so you could provide measurement service in loudspeaker development and high resolution measurements for datasheets.
It’s live
For around that price, outside the Revels, I would also cross shop the Ascend Acoustics Sierra Towers w/ RAAL tweeter upgrade:Watched the video review.
I wish Audioholics would post the full spinorama though...
Is it fair to say, if you want wide-directivity tower speakers, but can't afford Revels, then get the BMR tower?
Any other options at <US$3700/pair for wide-directivity towers, or is just BMR tower?
Cross-posting my BMR impressions from Capital Audiofest today.
I did. I moved around the room left to right and front to back, standing and sitting. I didn't notice any issues at all which really surprised me. I spent quite a bit of time standing almost against the back wall, I would say ~13 ft. That would be my listening distance in my family room. Keep in mind I'm only 5'7 so someone who is very tall might notice something I wouldn't. I even spent some time in the front row, sitting on the edge of the seat and leaning forward low; still sounded great. The towers were probably 7-8 feet apart, but I might be off on that one.Curious - did you listen to them standing as well as sitting? If so from about how far away. It looks like a particularly good wide-horizontal directivity design. However, the long tweeter does fall off pretty quickly vertically. That makes any speaker with this kind of tweeter sound dull when going from seated to standing. I realize sound quality while well above the tweeter axis is simply not a priority for many. It does matter to some.
I’m curious how much the MTM configuration pulls the vertical directivity fall of lower. Subjectively I could see that cutting either way. Either they could sound more balanced in a sit-stand test or they could sound even duller.
A considerable discrepancy was not addressed in the review (maybe I missed the part).
It's late and I've spent 3 straight days in a hotel room demoing speakers and lugging everything back home, but I'm not really following this. James' ground plane measurements almost always show a declining response setting in relatively early. His results for the BMR tower are about the best I've seen. Compare these with the results for the giant Perlisten S7t tower (shown below). The factory spec for the speaker is a -10 dB point of 22 Hz. My nearfield measurements of the woofer and port combined response for the BMR tower were made without the crossover in place, since the baffle step compensation in the crossover filter will make it look like there's a peak in the midbass and a roll[-off in the lower midrange response. With room gain, the BMR tower is flat to 25 Hz, with useful output at 20 - 22 Hz.A considerable discrepancy was not addressed in the review (maybe I missed the part).
The manufacturer's and the reviewer's stated behavior of the speaker in the low bass range do not match at all.
Someone has made a serious mistake (sounds a bit melodramatic, no the end of the world is not triggered by this).
The f3 of 28Hz in the manufacturer's specification based on the manufacturer's measurement on the one hand.
The manufacturer measurement is based on near-field measurements of the driver and TL port. With dual channel measurements to correctly capture any non-minimum phase behavior of the TL port, not much can actually go wrong when calculating the overall frequency response from the two individual measurements if the basic rules are followed.
View attachment 163914
On the other hand, the Audioholic ground plane measurement. Nothing can actually go wrong with that either, if the basic rules are followed.
If you combine ground plane measurement and gated measurement and then generously assume that the average sound pressure level is 83.5dB (this is only the relative sound pressure level for the calculation, not the real sensitivity), you still only get an f3 of 53Hz. Only f6 is at 28Hz.
View attachment 163915 View attachment 163918
The point is not to evaluate the low frequency capabilities of the speaker, but that nearly an octave difference in measured f3 is so extremely different that guessing is likely to produce a better result.
This should be checked (of course also if my determined results are correct).
UPDATE: To make the difference clearer, here is a direct comparison of the two measurements (has the manufacturer perhaps forgotten the baffle step correction?):
View attachment 163931
What ctrl was pointing out is that the Audioholics measurement shows a higher F3 than that quoted by the manufacturer.I am quite confused by the question, I read the wall of text and could not figure out the main point you were trying to make. Are you saying there is an issue with the audioholic measurements or the F3 of speaker itself?
Yes--it is a common result for the Audioholics ground plane measurements to show an earlier roll-off than is specified by the manufacturer. I'm not sure why this is, but it is a fact. And I think the discrepancy is wider than can be explained by differences in the measuring technique.I am quite confused by the question, I read the wall of text and could not figure out the main point you were trying to make. Are you saying there is an issue with the audioholic measurements or the F3 of speaker itself?
Yes--it is a common result for the Audioholics ground plane measurements to show an earlier roll-off than is specified by the manufacturer.