Beoplay M5 (right) would be my recommendation even against two pieces of M3's (left) - because the M3's doesn't support stereo pairing support anyway!
#Note: Find full B&O review list at the bottom.
Both Beoplay M3 and M5 are multi-room, stand-alone Wi-Fi speakers designed for home (stationary) use.
- If you're looking for a portable speaker, then stop reading this post right here and go check out my Beoplay M5 vs Beolit 20 article.
The main differences between Beoplay M3 vs M5 are related to design, sound quality and sound propagation.
I also contacted the Bang & Olufsen Customer Service about this (find mail history at the bottom) and put together all my findings here in this post.
Quick Summary
- Does M5 justify the extra price when compared to M3?
Depends on the positioning of the speaker.
If it's placed towards the center of the room, then the answer is clearly yes. I'd recommend the M5 my eyes closed.
If, however, it's going to be placed closer to the walls, then it might not worth the added price. I'm sure you'll still appreciate the better low frequency response - but does it worth the increase? Only you can decide that. To me (I'd define myself as an audiophile. Hello.), it does.
M5 is equipped not only with larger drivers & amplifiers, but also with MORE of them. On top of that, it propagates the sound on a 360 degree range.
As a result, although Beoplay M3 is still more than capable for most of us; Beoplay M5 delivers noticeably better sound quality - especially in the bass department (low frequency response).
Make sure to check out Beoplay M3 vs M5 chart on bang-olufsen.com.
M5 also offers wider sound propagation and more useful & slick speaker control options. Unlike M3, it's also compatible with Spotify Connect as well.
...then I'd strongly recommend you to check out their different color Kvadrat covers as well before buying - both for the M5 and for the M3.
Don't forget to check out B&O's very own AR app to see how both M3 and M5 would look like in your own home.
Sound quality & propagation
Have you ever noticed that there often tends to be quite the opposite opinions about a speaker?
I can understand this for more "personal taste" kinda products like clothing, for example.
But for engineering products like speakers? Personal tastes and preferences probably still play a role. But shouldn't it be less?
Why is it that we can't set a universal metric for sound quality?
First time I asked this question to myself has been a pivotal day.
Because it turns out that in the mid 90's, Electrical Engineer PhD Floyd Toole came up with a method called Spinorama. This is exactly what he accomplished with this. Turns out that his book Sound Reproduction is like the bible of audiophiles.
Put it simply, Spinorama is a set of measurements that gives a comprehensive overview of a speaker's performance from various angles.
It allows you to compare the performances of different speakers before even laying your ears hands on them.
Isn't that amazing?
This is why Spinorama was apparently groundbreaking news for audio industry. Hence in the mid-late 2010's, most brands and magazines began publishing Spinorama measurements, despite the challenges of making such measurements.
Fortunately, now we have the Spinorama data for a bunch of quite popular speakers. Pierre Aubert put all this untidy data together and put it into https://www.spinorama.org/. This is a stunning source. Pretty valuable stuff from him right there.
All good up to this point.
Now there comes a caveat.
Since the sound speakers propagate are in the form of omnidirectional waves, all measurements are obtained in anechoic or semi-anechoic chambers (a super-quiet room where soundwaves don't bounce back, here's how different that room sounds [a mind blowing time-adjusted video]).
This is a problem because it means that Spinorama alone, unfortunately, won't give us all we need. Placement and reflections play an equally important role there too.
This is why most A-class brands (like SVS, Bang & Olufsen, etc) often come up with room correction features, adjusted either manually or automatically. The EQ adapts itself to the placement (room, corner, center, etc) for a better (deeper and more accurate) sound. Which is great.
Additionally they often emphasize the importance of placement, here is an example: https://www.svsound.com/blogs/subwoofer-setup-and-tuning/75365187-the-art-of-subwoofer-placement
Anyways...
The source code under Pierre Aubert's work is licensed under GPL (General public license). He didn't perform any of the measurements himself, and instead he compiled all of them into one place, so that makes sense.
At this point, I thought that if there was a tool that combined both the Spinorama with the room acoustics data, it'd be extremely useful.
Unfortunately, it turns out that there wasn't any.
This is where I stepped in and partnered with an Acoustics and Audio Engineering PhD in order to achieve this.
We combined Spinorama data with room acoustics and came up with Soundton. A very simple, 2D online tool that allows you to:
- Reveal optimal speaker positions in a room,
- Test with real speakers from real brands,
- Compare different speakers and different positions in the room.
It can be very valuable for the vast majority.
The colormap provides you the locations with the best (green) and worst (red) listening experience.
It works the best with subwoofers since Soundton processes low frequency response waves only.
- Soundton is going to be, say, 80% accurate. Not 100%.
- Because, other parameters such as the age/materials of the building, furniture/windows in place also have an impact on room acoustics.
- If you want absolutely the most detailed room analysis, then what you need is an acoustics consultant. Mind you that's going to require deep pockets and patience though... assuming you find the right person and they get the job done.