I recently put together a second system for my office which feature the Buchardt s400 mkii speakers. Driving them with a Luxman 590axii class A amp and Gold Note streamer/dac. For my needs, and the office space, I've been impressed with the base. The above system is giving my reference system a run for its money.
I'm surprised by the comments on the Buchardt's lack of base. I've been blown away how deep they go driven by the Luxman. If I turn things up, it feels like I'm in a nightclub!
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?
- ...
- 42 posts total
I guess the issue I was running into is the type of bass. Let me reiterate. As Burchardt points out, they are shooting for flat / neutral response in mk ii so the bass (60-200 hz) is not boosted. As also explained by @vthokie83, the designer removes the bump in Mk I to exchange more accurate sound in Mk II which makes sense as the boosted bass tends to colorate midrange. One could also observe the boosted bass in Dynaudio Special 40 (in the 2nd chart). That is why almost everyone here agree that Special 40 tends to produce punchier bass than S400 Mk ii. I guess I was soooo customed to the boosted bass (all my existing speakers are) and felt unsatisfied with the more "neutral" bass response from Burchardt. I am getting (used) there. Burchardt gives me more days to consider keeping the speakers and I will try the best with all great suggestions offered here. Thank you all. Buchardt S400 mk ii
Dynaudio Special 40
|
@lanx0003 - Makes sense. Thanks for additional context! |
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. |
I hear you. Special 40 was actually one of my top choices but the bass is not every thing. Based on the reviewers I trust including Stereophile and users' feedback, Special 40 was criticized being a bit overly emphasized upper midrange and relatively hard, congested midrange. Buchardt S400 or even S300 has more airy, open top end and bigger soundstage. I was impressed with Buchardt in those areas during the past month of auditioning. |
- 42 posts total