Philharmonic Audio BMR Philharmonitor Bookshelf Speaker Review

[Alex2507]

The overall engagement I felt in the surround field was much deeper than before.

Could that be a simple matter of the BMRs being better than the MiniPhils for surround duty?

 

[ryanosaur]

Could that be a simple matter of the BMRs being better than the MiniPhils for surround duty?

Not out of the realm of possibility. They are all very closely matched in terms of voicing, especially up high with the Raals. But the 3's really do bring something more to the party.

 

[D Murphy]

Not out of the realm of possibility. They are all very closely matched in terms of voicing, especially up high with the Raals. But the 3's really do bring something more to the party.

I have my 3's and BMR's right next to each other in my large living room, and have done countless comparisons using my volume compensated AB preamp. People are always surprised when I put on a show for them, although not so much in the bass department. The 3's have 10 Hz deeper bass, and that's obvious whenever there's content down there. The 3's also have more energy in the midbass, and I actually prefer the BMR's less prominent response on a lot of material. For rock, I think most people would prefer the 3's. The midrange is where things get interesting. The BMR doesn't have an open back for the mids, so you would naturally expect that the 3's would throw a deeper and more spacious sound stage. If anything, the opposite is true. The BMR's sound stage is just as deep and spacious, and it's higher than the 3's. I would have to include that the extraordinary dispersion of the BMR midrange driver makes up for the lack of an open back, and it's much narrower vertical height (compared to the 3's planar) adds to sound stage height. From a purely tonal perspective, there's really not much if any difference between the BMR's and the 3's other than in the bass. So--is there really any advantage to the 3's much more expensive midrange and tweeter? When push comes to shove, yes.. On complex orchestral music with lots of brass played at very high volume, the 3's are a little cleaner in the midrange and lower treble. That's to be expected, but I'm not sure you would find any issue with the BMR's in that department unless you had the 3's for a comparison.

 

[ryanosaur]

I have my 3's and BMR's right next to each other in my large living room, and have done countless comparisons using my volume compensated AB preamp. People are always surprised when I put on a show for them, although not so much in the bass department. The 3's have 10 Hz deeper bass, and that's obvious whenever there's content down there. The 3's also have more energy in the midbass, and I actually prefer the BMR's less prominent response on a lot of material. For rock, I think most people would prefer the 3's. The midrange is where things get interesting. The BMR doesn't have an open back for the mids, so you would naturally expect that the 3's would throw a deeper and more spacious sound stage. If anything, the opposite is true. The BMR's sound stage is just as deep and spacious, and it's higher than the 3's. I would have to include that the extraordinary dispersion of the BMR midrange driver makes up for the lack of an open back, and it's much narrower vertical height (compared to the 3's planar) adds to sound stage height. From a purely tonal perspective, there's really not much if any difference between the BMR's and the 3's other than in the bass. So--is there really any advantage to the 3's much more expensive midrange and tweeter? When push comes to shove, yes.. On complex orchestral music with lots of brass played at very high volume, the 3's are a little cleaner in the midrange and lower treble. That's to be expected, but I'm not sure you would find any issue with the BMR's in that department unless you had the 3's for a comparison.

Hi Dennis! Always good to see you here.
Thank you for your thoughts and knowledge. I can't say I disagree.

The overall engagement I felt in the surround field was much deeper than before. So maybe it is the Di-Pole contribution? I can't really answer that objectively, try as I may.

Perhaps it is the smaller room bringing more of the Di-Pole sound out? More direct reflections from the front and sides due to proximity?
Of all people, you know I'm curious and eager to learn about what's going on here. I certainly am not going to claim to have the answer, but I do know I can hear something in the Mids of the 3s that I don't get from the BMRs.

Is one particularly better than the other? That's like asking if I prefer Cake or Ice Cream. To which I simply answer, "Yes!"

Both are remarkable, and I'm still grateful to have these wonderful boxes around me!

(But seriously, Dennis, I'd love to hear more from you about what might be happening in my room, please.)

Cheers!

 

[PENG]

The BMR's sound stage is just as deep and spacious, and it's higher than the 3's.

No kidding!!! I had been comparing my R900 with the BMRs with two pairs of speaker wires connected to the A21. One time (just yesterday), I picked the wrong wires on the right channel of the BMR, it took me a couple minutes to realize I was listening to just one speaker. I felt embarrassed that it took so long.

I was listening to Anne Akikko Meyers Seasons dream album, only a few instrument was playing. Her violin seemed to come from the middle, so that's the excuse.

Isn't the violin supposed to be on the left though? I know the BMR has very good off axis response, but I thought the violin should be quite directional? I might have been distracted at the time too.

 

[Swerd]

No kidding!!! I had been comparing my R900 with the BMRs with two pairs of speaker wires connected to the A21. One time (just yesterday), I picked the wrong wires on the right channel of the BMR, it took me a couple minutes to realize I was listening to just one speaker. I felt embarrassed that it took so long.

I was listening to Anne Akikko Meyers Seasons dream album, only a few instrument was playing. Her violin seemed to come from the middle, so that's the excuse.

Isn't the violin supposed to be on the left though? I know the BMR has very good off axis response, but I thought the violin should be quite directional? I might have been distracted at the time too.

This could be an example of expectation bias at work. You believed you connected both speakers and were listening in stereo. Your brain did its best to turn a single speaker's output into stereo .

In your defense, the short time I heard the BMR speakers in my home, back during the BMR Road Show, I thought these speakers were the best I've ever heard at creating a broad stereo image. I didn't try listening to a single speaker, but I'm not surprised at what you described.

 

[D Murphy]

Hi Dennis! Always good to see you here.
Thank you for your thoughts and knowledge. I can't say I disagree.

Perhaps it is the smaller room bringing more of the Di-Pole sound out? More direct reflections from the front and sides due to proximity?
Of all people, you know I'm curious and eager to learn about what's going on here. I certainly am not going to claim to have the answer, but I do know I can hear something in the Mids of the 3s that I don't get from the BMRs.

Is one particularly better than the other? That's like asking if I prefer Cake or Ice Cream. To which I simply answer, "Yes!"

Both are remarkable, and I'm still grateful to have these wonderful boxes around me!

(But seriously, Dennis, I'd love to hear more from you about what might be happening in my room, please.)

Cheers!

I would have to be there to come up with any explanation. Also, I've never used the 3's in home theater or the BMR's as surrounds, , so I don't know how they sound in that application. The effect of the 3's open back is pretty unpredictable. I don't claim there's any clear science to it. Maybe the mixing in cinema sound tracks brings out something from the 3's that doesn't occur with with a closed back.

 

[ryanosaur]

I would have to be there to come up with any explanation. Also, I've never used the 3's in home theater or the BMR's as surrounds, , so I don't know how they sound in that application. The effect of the 3's open back is pretty unpredictable. I don't claim there's any clear science to it. Maybe the mixing in cinema sound tracks brings out something from the 3's that doesn't occur with with a closed back.

I'm still probably less than 15% HT usage on my rig... Getting into Multi-Channel Music (5.1 SACD and DTS Discs) was one of my biggest goals with this system. They do not disappoint, though (across the board, regardless of programming!).

 

[PENG]

By the way, I only mentioned BMR vs Phil 3 in a small room because in a larger room, even just a medium large room, the BMR may not be loud enough for some people. No issue for me though as my average spl requirement is only 75 dB from 10-11 ft.

When I compared them with my R900, I noticed the difference in spl was about 5 to 6 dB from my listening position. The Phil 3's sensitivity is the same as the BMR's, but it probably can handle twice as much power input, and should be enough to make a noticeable difference in a medium sized room, all else being equal.

 

[everettT]

By the way, I only mentioned BMR vs Phil 3 in a small room because in a larger room, even just a medium large room, the BMR may not be loud enough for some people. No issue for me though as my average spl requirement is only 75 dB from 10-11 ft.

When I compared them with my R900, I noticed the difference in spl was about 5 to 6 dB from my listening position. The Phil 3's sensitivity is the same as the BMR's, but it probably can handle twice as much power input, and should be enough to make a noticeable difference in a medium sized room, all else being equal.

The revelator woofer can handle gobs of power ..

 

[PENG]

Hello again BMR owners, I have been using mine with the stands originally bought for the LS50s but they seem too high for the much taller BMRs. I am ready to buy something more suitable, any recommendations?

 

[ryanosaur]

Hello again BMR owners, I have been using mine with the stands originally bought for the LS50s but they seem too high for the much taller BMRs. I am ready to buy something more suitable, any recommendations?

Hi PENG!
I like my VTF stands, available in many finishes and heights. Others like Sanus, and some are very stoked for the Monolith stands. Those are always seemingly the main options. I use one of those inexpensive isolation pads in between the BMR and the top plat of the stand which gives an extra 2" and helps protect the finish from potential scratches.

 

[Eppie]

I have VTI stands that I've been very happy with but recently purchases these VIVO stands from amazon (Canadian site) with the plan to give them to my daughter along with the vintage KEFs that I refurbished. The VTIs are powder coated metal with floor spikes and I used adhesive foam pads to protect the speaker bottom. The bottom plate of the DF series matches the shape of my Paradigms but they have other models if you don't have the curved back BMR Monitor. The VIVOs are a little more modern looking with glass plates and either spikes or rubber feat. Both models have cable management that let you run the cables through the posts. I'll be setting up the VIVO stands on Thursday or Friday and will have some pics and first hand impressions available then.

 

[Alex2507]

any recommendations?

 

[PENG]

I have VTI stands that I've been very happy with but recently purchases these VIVO stands from amazon (Canadian site) with the plan to give them to my daughter along with the vintage KEFs that I refurbished. The VTIs are powder coated metal with floor spikes and I used adhesive foam pads to protect the speaker bottom. The bottom plate of the DF series matches the shape of my Paradigms but they have other models if you don't have the curved back BMR Monitor. The VIVOs are a little more modern looking with glass plates and either spikes or rubber feat. Both models have cable management that let you run the cables through the posts. I'll be setting up the VIVO stands on Thursday or Friday and will have some pics and first hand impressions available then.

I have been browsing Amazon.ca's but I am sure if the VIVO stands are sturdy enough for the 33-35 lbs BMR (non curved), they don't provide such info iir. The VTI website don't have any price info so I would have to find out from a dealer, hopefully there is one in Ontario. Did you have the VTI for your BMR, do you remember roughly how much for a pair? Thank you

 

[PENG]

View attachment 49841

Photos with speakers on them please!!

 

[Kvn_Walker]

View attachment 49841

Been there, done that! Gotta cover them with decorative towels for WAF purposes though.

 

[Eppie]

I have been browsing Amazon.ca's but I am sure if the VIVO stands are sturdy enough for the 33-35 lbs BMR (non curved), they don't provide such info iir. The VTI website don't have any price info so I would have to find out from a dealer, hopefully there is one in Ontario. Did you have the VTI for your BMR, do you remember roughly how much for a pair? Thank you

Hope to build some BMRs later. I have Paradigm Studio 20 which are smaller than the BMR but quite heavy. The Paradigm stands were $300 but the VTI were only around $200 with a similar look. The VIVO box is much lighter so not sure if they'll handle the BMRs. The VTIs are heavy and very solid. If you plug the bottom opening for the cable routing the posts can be filled with sand for even more weight but I didn't see the need. You need to check the dealer list for current pricing. I think I ordered mine through Cymax. They have the 29" DF for $154 which is likely too tall. The 24" DF is $170.

 

[D Murphy]

The results of the recent Phoenix speaker fest have just been made public. 16 speakers were auditioned for a little over 100 attendees. These included the Buchardt S-400 MK 2, the KEF R3, ATC SCM 11, Tekton Impact monitor, Triangle Comete,and a "BMR" monitor from a little-known outfit near Washington, D.C. Participants spent most of the day listening to the speakers in 3 rooms. Each speaker was in the same position on the same stands, and those who entered a raffle were then asked to list their 1st, second, and third choices. 52 people voted. The BMR received 29 1st choice ballots. The runner up was the Triangle with 6 votes. The KEF R3 received 3 votes, and the ATC and Buchardt 2 each. Thanks to club president Jeff Kalina for giving me the opportunity to enter the BMR monitors.

 

[zieglj01]

Well done