GoldenEar BRX Review

If Google brought you here directly, jump to page one.

Comparisons

In this section we check out how the GoldenEar BRX compares to other bookshelf speakers. Since my arsenal of speakers is rather limited, I cannot offer too many one-on-one battles. However, the comparisons are supposed to give you a better understanding of how the BRX sounds.

I will compare the BRX to two KEF speakers. First, the LS50 (non-meta) because it’s one of their most popular models and many people will have a baseline of reference. Second, the R3 Meta, which is my personal go-to speaker at home. Additionally, I will compare them to the Arendal 1723 Monitor THX, which recently found its way into my apartment.

KEF LS50

I am comparing the discontinued first generation LS50 here, so please be aware that the new LS50 Meta might not fit the following description. The LS50 went for 1,499 USD back in the day.

When I first hooked up the BRX into my chain, I thought it sounded like an LS50 with bass. This sentiment still stands and is definitely the most notable difference between the two. The BRX goes deeper than the LS50 and delivers more weight down low. The LS50, while also having a very precise bass like the BRX, pushes lows more towards your direction. GoldenEar’s BRX places bass between the speakers to be observed, but not felt. Bass also has higher resolution and finer texture on the BRX, while it sounds smoother on the LS50.

The midrange of both speakers is oozing of transparency, and they come across in similar fashion. But the BRX puts more richness into each instrument, making them sound more organic and a touch fuller overall. Where the GoldenEar also leaves the LS50 in the dust is vocal and emotional presence. Singers sound more convincing and life-like with the BRX than with the KEF. Both speakers deliver their music on a slightly lighter note, with an airy appearance.

In terms of technical performance both stand their solid ground. The BRX, however, creates a taller sound stage and stretches a wider and deeper image with better layering. In comparison to the BRX the LS50 sounds more two-dimensional. The BRX brings out finer amounts of detail and places instruments on a darker background with better lighting.

The treble on the LS50 is a touch brighter sounding, while the BRX is more forward and richer overall. Highs sound somewhat more metallic on the LS50, whereas the BRX is more natural in that regard. But the higher presence of treble on the BRX makes it less comfortable for my ears at times.

KEF R3 Meta

The R3 Meta replaced the LS50 as my personal pair of bookshelf speakers at home just a few months ago. A pair of R3 Meta’s currently sells for $2,200 USD, which is $300 USD more than the BRX.

The R3 Meta and the BRX do share some similarities in their sound signature, but they both are also quite different. Both monitors deliver a room filling vocal presence that can become quite addictive. But the KEF does so with a slightly warmer presentation, where instruments and singers sound a bit fuller and richer.

The bass on the BRX is more neutrally tuned, while the KEF gives them a touch more forward positioning. Bass sounds more dynamic and goes deeper with the R3 Meta, while it also comes more at you. The BRX places bass between the speakers again, making you less involved. Bass has more grunt and thunder on the R3 Meta than on the BRX.

The midrange transparency of both speakers is outstanding, but the R3 Meta sounds a tad more resolved and detailed here. It trickles out finer nuances from the back of the show. Instruments and singers also carry more weight and have a slightly bigger body.

In terms of technical performance, both speakers deliver very high resolution and great levels of imaging. The sound stage of both is tall and wide, but the KEF edges out the GoldenEar on both, even if not by a mile. Considering the size difference of the speakers it is remarkable what the BRX achieves here though.

The treble on the BRX is richer and fuller sounding, while the R3 Meta is a bit brighter again. Both speakers provide a clear and clean sound in the top-end. Though the violins and cymbals sound a touch brighter on the R3 Meta, whereas the BRX infuses a warmer glow.

Arendal Sound 1723 Monitor THX

The Arendal is a humungous bookshelf speaker, that is almost as tall as my eleven-year-old son, when they are placed on stands. These speakers are two-way stand-mounts using two 8” low-end/mid drivers and a separate 28 mm treble driver. The Arendal can be yours for $2,600USD.

The bass on the Arendal is truly fantastic. It rumbles when needed, delivers precision and thunder and sounds organic and tight. The BRX feels light in comparison. GoldenEars’ BRX presents lows with less weight and authority compared to the 1723. It is only natural that two speakers that show so different physiques will sound vastly different in the lows.

In the mids both create similarities but sound obviously different. Both speakers produce superb vocal clarity, but the BRX sounds more emotional, richer and fuller compared to the 1723 Monitor THX. The Arendal sounds cleaner and more polished. It also creates a more forward upper midrange presence, which can make it sound shouty. Nothing the BRX would ever do.

In terms of technicalities there are key differences again. The Arendal produces a finer resolved image with sharper detailing. While the stage of the BRX is more intimate than the Arendal’s, it appears taller to me. It sounds more three-dimensional than the 1723 Monitor THX, which has flatter height. The BRX also places instruments left and right of the speakers, which I didn’t find the Arendal to do.

Treble of both extends well, but the BRX to me goes further up the ladder with higher presence. It sounds a tad brighter and sharper edged than the Arendal, where cymbal crashes are more forward than on the 1723.

Ultimately, I think, the two speakers are for different tastes. The BRX is wonderful for organic music, something that is sweet and soft with great vocals. The Arendal is the better choice if you need a home cinema or studio speaker type presentation with lots of rumble and seemingly unlimited vocal clarity.

Conclusion

GoldenEar has created a beautiful and compact bookshelf speaker that excels in transparency and resolution. The BRX delivers a room-filling sound that comes across with a unique emotional presence that makes acoustic music sound oh so good. It offers a sound signature that prioritizes detail, neutrality and an expansive sound stage, making it an ideal choice for genres where precision is key.

The GoldenEar BRX is a fantastic choice for audiophiles who value detail, precision, and imaging, making it well-suited for acoustic, classical, jazz, and vocal music. While its bass response is articulate and neutral, those seeking a heavier, more physical low-end presence may find the BRX lacking in impact. Nonetheless, the BRX’s strengths in midrange and treble detail, along with its impressive soundstage, make it a highly versatile speaker for those who prioritize accuracy over sheer bass power. Of course, there is always the option to add a subwoofer to the BRX, which should make a very interesting pairing in my opinion.

Summary

Pros:

Impeccable design
Compact format
Tall and wide sound stage
Vocal presence
High resolution and transparency

Cons:

Centered bass is less involving
Could do with more body
Treble on the edge of sharpness