Philharmonic BMR Tower Review

[Paul DS]

Ah, sorry, missed that. Yes, recordings can be like computer programs. As they say: "garbage in, garbage out".

There was a discussion on the Double Impact in 2018. Our resident reviewer, ShadyJ, liked them as well.

I have found that many people criticize them without ever having heard them. I have never been able to find any reliable measurements on the DIs listed anywhere which does send up a big red flag. I have listened to my DIs for about 3 years now, and the only thing I really dislike is their massive size (they weigh 118 lbs). I always have the speaker grilles on so the circular tweeter alighnment does bother me in the least. It would be nice to have a nice cabinet to go with them, but they only come in colors. Mine is gloss black.

 

[D Murphy]

Very different design principals between those two speakers so I would expect them to sound noticeably different. I found measurements for the Double Impact on Stereophile, compared to measurements for the BMR tower. As you can see, the BMR is very flat all the way down to 30 Hz. It's a very neutral speaker. I had a chance to listen to them last October and they do sound wonderful. Their wide dispersion also gives them a very wide sweet spot. I could move about the room and the tone remained consistent and imaging was consistent as well. The graphs for the Double Impact show that it has more pronounced bass, and while the on axis response is good, it has a fairly narrow listening window in the vertical plane.

Just a note on Stereophile's bass measurements. Any speaker with a flat anechoic response below 200 Hz will measure with a big hump in the Stereophile reviews. That's because John Atkinson measures the bass nearfield and splices it on to the anechoic measurements. For reasons known only to John, he doesn't normalize for the different measuring distance, which makes it look like a flat speaker has a 6 dB bass peak.

 

[Paul DS]

Just a note on Stereophile's bass measurements. Any speaker with a flat anechoic response below 200 Hz will measure with a big hump in the Stereophile reviews. That's because John Atkinson measures the bass nearfield and splices it on to the anechoic measurements. For reasons known only to John, he doesn't normalize for the different measuring distance, which makes it look like a flat speaker has a 6 dB bass peak.

John Atksinson is giving measurements for the Tekton Impact Monitors, not the Double Impacts. Two totally different speakers.

 

[everettT]

John Atksinson is giving measurements for the Tekton Impact Monitors, not the Double Impacts. Two totally different speakers.

Dennis was referring to the Stereophile's measurement technique not any actual speaker, FWIW.

 

[Paul DS]

Dennis was referring to the Stereophile's measurement technique not any actual speaker, FWIW.

Thanks appreciate it. I've never been able to find any reputable measurements of the Tekton Double Impact speakers. I would love to see Gene do the measurements on this speaker.

 

[everettT]

Thanks appreciate it. I've never been able to find any reputable measurements of the Tekton Double Impact speakers. I would love to see Gene do the measurements on this speaker.

If you have a measurement mic you can get a really good idea without going full blown outdoor ground plane measurements for the LF. If you could ship one of yours we could up that.

 

[Paul DS]

If you have a measurement mic you can get a really good idea without going full blown outdoor ground plane measurements for the LF. If you could ship one of yours we could up that.

Sorry, I have no measurement mics. A double impact speaker weighs 118 lbs, so not really fesible to ship anywhere.

 

[everettT]

Sorry, I have no measurement mics. A double impact speaker weighs 118 lbs, so not really fesible to ship anywhere.

Completely understand, lol. Might be a worthwhile investment considering the price of a measurement mic is reasonable in this hobby and you get the benefits of being able to measure the speakers in your room. Even the "one push" solution for Dayton Audio is still pretty inexpensive.

 

[Paul DS]

Completely understand, lol. Might be a worthwhile investment considering the price of a measurement mic is reasonable in this hobby and you get the benefits of being able to measure the speakers in your room. Even the "one push" solution for Dayton Audio is still pretty inexpensive.

Probably not getting into a measurement mic. I use the Audyssey mic setup on the Denon AVRX4700h, and call it good enough. I let the measurements up to the younger folks as I am a senior citizen these days, sigh.

 

[everettT]

Probably not getting into a measurement mic. I use the Audyssey mic setup on the Denon AVRX4700h, and call it good enough. I let the measurements up to the younger folks as I am a senior citizen these days, sigh.

I'm definitely AARP myself lol...

 

[D Murphy]

I'm definitely AARP myself lol...

Well, I've been a member in good standing of AARP for 100 years and i spend most of the day measuring stuff.

 

[shadyJ]

Just a note on Stereophile's bass measurements. Any speaker with a flat anechoic response below 200 Hz will measure with a big hump in the Stereophile reviews. That's because John Atkinson measures the bass nearfield and splices it on to the anechoic measurements. For reasons known only to John, he doesn't normalize for the different measuring distance, which makes it look like a flat speaker has a 6 dB bass peak.

I am not sure there is a way to get good repeatability with the way he measures low frequencies, so different designs will emphasize that low-frequency boost by different amounts, but not by amounts that would translate anechoically. My guess is that is why he doesn't normalize them. I think you can get an idea of the shape of the low-frequency response from his measurement technique, just not quite how it relates to the higher-frequency band.

 

[D Murphy]

I am not sure there is a way to get good repeatability with the way he measures low frequencies, so different designs will emphasize that low-frequency boost by different amounts, but not by amounts that would translate anechoically. My guess is that is why he doesn't normalize them. I think you can get an idea of the shape of the low-frequency response from his measurement technique, just not quite how it relates to the higher-frequency band.

Maybe that's it, but a nearfield measurement should be pretty consistent across speakers, assuming you trust the software to combine the woofer and port measurements correctly. Although JA does note the issue in each review, it's been a source of confusion over and over again. I'm getting a little tired of having to explain those bass humps. Of course, I don't have to worry about JA measuring one of my speakers--I don't advertise in Stereophile or sell through dealers.

 

[doug s.]

i heard the double impacts a few years ago at a caf audio show, driven by lta electronics. i also heard the bmr towers this past november driven by less than sota electronics, imo. and, i had a pair of the bmr monitors in my large listening room for a few days (26x38x8.5), altho i had them crossed over to subs. i thought the d/i's were quite impressive. i think the bmr's are a bit more impressive. and, w/better amp/preamp, i think they'd be even better. if you have a pair of quality subs and actively cross them with the main speakers, i think the bmr monitors would offer performance very close to the bmr towers. in a big room like mine, it might still be advantageous to have the towers, even if crossed to subs.

of course, re philharmonic audio and tekton, that's just one person's opinion. both brands seem to get good reviews, and seem to offer real value for money.

doug s.

Many thanks for the info. I am using a pair of Tekton Double Impact speakrs which is a whole different thing than their monitors. I was interested in how well, or how poorly, the double impacts compared to the BMR tower speakers. The BMR Tower speakers are beautiful to say the least.

 

[Paul DS]

i heard the double impacts a few years ago at a caf audio show, driven by lta electronics. i also heard the bmr towers this past november driven by less than sota electronics, imo. and, i had a pair of the bmr monitors in my large listening room for a few days (26x38x8.5), altho i had them crossed over to subs. i thought the d/i's were quite impressive. i think the bmr's are a bit more impressive. and, w/better amp/preamp, i think they'd be even better. if you have a pair of quality subs and actively cross them with the main speakers, i think the bmr monitors would offer performance very close to the bmr towers. in a big room like mine, it might still be advantageous to have the towers, even if crossed to subs.

of course, re philharmonic audio and tekton, that's just one person's opinion. both brands seem to get good reviews, and seem to offer real value for money.

doug s.

Thanks for the info Doug. I think you probably know though, that it is impossible to compare speakers you heard a year ago to something you just heard. Aural memory is not much more than a few seconds at best after you hear a speaker, which is why A/B comparisons have to be made in the same acoustic environment and at the same time, not a year apart. It is very interesting to know, however, that you liked the Double Impacts. I have found, thru the years, that a speaker that I heard at a hi-fi store didn't necessarily sound the same in my living room. You are one of the first people here that has heard a Tekton Double Impact speaker. That you didn't dislike it does say an awful lot. Thanks again!

 

[doug s.]

of course it's not possible to compare speakers heard a couple years apart, let alone a few seconds apart. but, i can tell clearly that i liked something or not, even if it were heard a long time ago. that's all i was saying.

several years ago, i heard the philharmonic 3's at a caf show, and it was one of the best sounds at the show, and one of the best sounds i've ever heard. the phil 3 is the predecessor of the new bmr tower, and dennis says there's little difference between them. i thought the phil 3's were better, but i suspect it was room and electronics differences. the electronics, imo, were definitely a step up from what was used in the nov '22 caf show. when dennis says they're very similar, i trust him.

doug s.

Thanks for the info Doug. I think you probably know though, that it is impossible to compare speakers you heard a year ago to something you just heard. Aural memory is not much more than a few seconds at best after you hear a speaker, which is why A/B comparisons have to be made in the same acoustic environment and at the same time, not a year apart. It is very interesting to know, however, that you liked the Double Impacts. I have found, thru the years, that a speaker that I heard at a hi-fi store didn't necessarily sound the same in my living room. You are one of the first people here that has heard a Tekton Double Impact speaker. That you didn't dislike it does say an awful lot. Thanks again!

 

[Paul DS]

of course it's not possible to compare speakers heard a couple years apart, let alone a few seconds apart. but, i can tell clearly that i liked something or not, even if it were heard a long time ago. that's all i was saying.

several years ago, i heard the philharmonic 3's at a caf show, and it was one of the best sounds at the show, and one of the best sounds i've ever heard. the phil 3 is the predecessor of the new bmr tower, and dennis says there's little difference between them. i thought the phil 3's were better, but i suspect it was room and electronics differences. the electronics, imo, were definitely a step up from what was used in the nov '22 caf show. when dennis says they're very similar, i trust him.

doug s.

Thanks Doug, I trust your judgement!