I’m sure you’ll get used to the different bass response, but do you have to? I’ve seen some used S40’s go for a similar price to the Buchardt’s new. Buchardt being a newer company has gotten a ton of hype, and selling direct allows them to compete with much higher prices speakers, but the used market is driven by supply and demand and a much more accurate reflection of value. Personally I’d rather own a depreciated pair of S40’s with the bass profile I like, over a yet to be deprecated S400 mk2.
Buchardt S400 Mk II vs Sony SSCS 5 in Bass
I am still in the quest for a ideal bookshelf / stand mount as my secondary system. Recently I procured Buchardt S400 Mk II for in-home auditioning a month ago. The top end and midrange SQ is top-notch, airy and rich with dynamics. However, the bass is a bit on the light side to my taste. Although it is rated down to 33hz (- 3 dB) in room, I do not feel the bass is that impactful as compared to the Sony SSCS 5 which is only rated down to 53Hz (-3dB). Both me and my best half could hear more impactful, better-defined double bass notes from SSCS 5 than from S400. I was so puzzled / annoyed by this. Let me lay out the main specs that might affect the bass performance for comparison purpose.
Buchardt S400 Mk ii Sony sscs 5
Woofer 6" paper cone (on top) 5.12" cone (on bottom)
Enclosure 1 rear 8"x5" passive radiator 1 rear port
Bass rating 33 Hz (-3dB) 53 Hz (-3dB)
Efficiency 88 dB/m/w 87 dB/m/w
Both were driven by the same components, speaker placements, supported by the semi-sphere silicone footers, and evaluated with the same music. Does the rear port design more effective than the passive radiator? Does the position of woofer affect the bass weight? Can someone, in particular who owned the S400, shed a light on this please?