AudioAficionado.org  

Go Back   AudioAficionado.org > Manufacturers Forums > Revel Speakers

Revel Speakers The Science of Sound

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 04-29-2019, 03:35 PM
Kal Rubinson Kal Rubinson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marsalis View Post
My conclusion was quite different. I bought these speakers for my 2nd, smaller system, after reading Kal review and seeing the measurements (System driven by Vitus Signature Integrated). I was impressed at the beginning, but they fatigue me fairly quick. They are simply too bright to my ears. Violins and trumpets are unbearable (and so are most female voices). The “present” area is impressive at first, but ultimately, for me, unpleasant and not realistic. The BBC curve would have helped here. They also have some sort of a metallic haze that was present at all time. Overall, not a speaker I can live with.
Sorry to hear about that. How big is the room and what is your listening distance? Mine is described in the review and I sit about 12' from the main L/R speakers.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-29-2019, 06:15 PM
marsalis marsalis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 99
Default

That's ok, I should have auditioned them first, my bad. It’s an open den, so no issues of reflections. I do sit about 15’ away. Had other speakers here, none sounded so forward.

Last edited by marsalis; 04-29-2019 at 06:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-29-2019, 08:12 PM
paulphoosreal paulphoosreal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marsalis View Post
That's ok, I should have auditioned them first, my bad. It’s an open den, so no issues of reflections. I do sit about 15’ away. Had other speakers here, none sounded so forward.


Like all mass produced products and custom as well, quality control can vary. I’m a CEDIA installer and I’ve seen issues arise many times even when testing has been included with the product. Your mention of a haze has made me curious. I’m familiar with Revels line and I’ve never had the problem of haze mentioned in reviews. Before giving up on the speakers I’d try to get a replacement pair. Your Revels are made in Indonesia and shipping could have caused some components to get out of whack. Or a QC problem at factory. Hopefully it comes together for you.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-30-2019, 10:14 AM
Soundmig Soundmig is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Colorado - Western Slope
Posts: 246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marsalis View Post
That's ok, I should have auditioned them first, my bad. It’s an open den, so no issues of reflections. I do sit about 15’ away. Had other speakers here, none sounded so forward.
Marsalis .... sorry the F228Be's did not work out for you. No speaker works for "everyone" that's for sure.
My experience is very different as I selected the speaker based on extensive audition, because it has tremendous soundstaging and transparency (important to me) without being bright or strident. Other speakers that I like that seem to have similar warmth AND transparency are the Harbeth 40.2's and the Vandersteen 7MkII's. I'd describe none of the above mentioned speakers as "bright".
At some point it may depend on perspective. I grew up playing piano, trumpet and French Horn in bands and Orchestras. So my aural memory is based on an "on stage" perspective. There is definitely more HF energy on stage than there is 15 rows back in the audience. There is also more "detail" and a more defined "attack envelope" present on stage, so I have a tough time listening to speakers that don't provide that information. Some instruments get a little dirty when played loud at a close distance and that is "natural". Reproducing the "edge" of a trumpet at 6 feet without it sounding harsh is a real feat. To me the F228Be's have that ability and I very much enjoy the sound.
The F228Be's are also very sensitive to what is upstream from them. I use a Schiit Gungnir MB DAC which is "warm" sounding and I drive them with a MC modified Hafler which is on the Mosfet warmish side as well. Perhaps the upstream warmth helps my situation?
Anyway, sorry to hear that they did not work for you in your system and room. That has to be very disappointing.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-01-2019, 07:27 PM
aqman aqman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 101
Default Revel F228Be vs. Magico A3 and Paradigm 3F

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundmig View Post

Still getting a handle on these big boys in a small room (10.5' x 11.5' x 9'), but surprisingly they are working!

Did you ever consider, hear or compare the m126Be? I’ve had my eye on these and my room isn’t much bigger than yours. I already have subs so I’m curious if there is a big difference other than bass extension.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-01-2019, 11:07 PM
Soundmig Soundmig is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Colorado - Western Slope
Posts: 246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aqman View Post
Did you ever consider, hear or compare the m126Be? I’ve had my eye on these and my room isn’t much bigger than yours. I already have subs so I’m curious if there is a big difference other than bass extension.
I auditioned the M126Be as well, and it is a fine speaker. It isn't quite as good in the mid-range as is the 228, but I'm splitting hairs. One of my favorite recordings (A Sheffield Labs recording of wind ensembles) has some bassoon in it that was clearly better on the 228 vs. the 126. It seemed to me that in the attempt to get enough bass from the 6" driver on the 126 they tuned it such that there is mild veiling of some of the "texture" that makes a bassoon sound like a bassoon. Same with the French Horns on the same recording. I'm not sure how else to describe it, but that's the best I can do. That having been said, the 126 was one of the best sounding speakers I have heard (if not the best) at under $5K and it is substantially better (clearer and easier sounding) than the F208. Not as much bass as the 208, but a "better" sound that is clearer, more open AND yet more relaxed sounding. I found the 208 to have some mid-range hardness that I'd not be able to tolerate for the long haul.
Each person has things that they listen for, but that is what I heard. I'd highly recommend and audition of the 126Be as it is very very good. It may be tough to integrate subs with it, as the speaker is very detailed and very "quick". I was wanting to get rid of subs altogether and the 228Be's in my small room allowed me to 86 the subs!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-02-2019, 09:49 PM
aqman aqman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 101
Default

Thanks for your detailed reply. I may try to audition the 126s someday soon. I understand about the subs- it took me some effort to get them just right, which necessitated a multi-channel DAC and JRiver so I could delay the mains. But now I’m invested and enjoying the benefits.

I heard the 208s a few years ago and remembered a bit of ‘chestiness’ for lack of a better audiophile term.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-03-2019, 05:43 PM
GSOphile GSOphile is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: NC
Posts: 553
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundmig View Post
Marsalis .... sorry the F228Be's did not work out for you. No speaker works for "everyone" that's for sure.
My experience is very different as I selected the speaker based on extensive audition, because it has tremendous soundstaging and transparency (important to me) without being bright or strident. Other speakers that I like that seem to have similar warmth AND transparency are the Harbeth 40.2's and the Vandersteen 7MkII's. I'd describe none of the above mentioned speakers as "bright".
At some point it may depend on perspective. I grew up playing piano, trumpet and French Horn in bands and Orchestras. So my aural memory is based on an "on stage" perspective. There is definitely more HF energy on stage than there is 15 rows back in the audience. There is also more "detail" and a more defined "attack envelope" present on stage, so I have a tough time listening to speakers that don't provide that information. Some instruments get a little dirty when played loud at a close distance and that is "natural". Reproducing the "edge" of a trumpet at 6 feet without it sounding harsh is a real feat. To me the F228Be's have that ability and I very much enjoy the sound.
The F228Be's are also very sensitive to what is upstream from them. I use a Schiit Gungnir MB DAC which is "warm" sounding and I drive them with a MC modified Hafler which is on the Mosfet warmish side as well. Perhaps the upstream warmth helps my situation?
Anyway, sorry to hear that they did not work for you in your system and room. That has to be very disappointing.
Interesting perspective, Soundmig. Not trying to highjack this thread, but would be interesting to hear your perspective on orchestral recordings and how 'natural' or desired by you might be different (or not) from what most recording engineers are trying to achieve.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:14 PM
Soundmig Soundmig is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Colorado - Western Slope
Posts: 246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSOphile View Post
Interesting perspective, Soundmig. Not trying to highjack this thread, but would be interesting to hear your perspective on orchestral recordings and how 'natural' or desired by you might be different (or not) from what most recording engineers are trying to achieve.
Not sure that I understand the question completely. Suffice it to say that "most" orchestral recordings sound too bright to me. I think that in an effort to gain transparency and detail (like the Conductor hears), many classical recordings are just too bright. My favorite example of a "classical" recording that I think is really well recorded and "not too bright" is the Sheffield Labs "Music for Winds and Percussion, a tale of two cities" of Mozart, Grieg and Husa compositions. The CD version (made from Analog session tapes) sounds "just right" to me and is wonderful on the F228Be's.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-04-2019, 08:58 AM
GSOphile GSOphile is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: NC
Posts: 553
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundmig View Post
Not sure that I understand the question completely. Suffice it to say that "most" orchestral recordings sound too bright to me. I think that in an effort to gain transparency and detail (like the Conductor hears), many classical recordings are just too bright. My favorite example of a "classical" recording that I think is really well recorded and "not too bright" is the Sheffield Labs "Music for Winds and Percussion, a tale of two cities" of Mozart, Grieg and Husa compositions. The CD version (made from Analog session tapes) sounds "just right" to me and is wonderful on the F228Be's.
Thanks, Soundmig. This was pretty much what I was looking for.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Audioaficionado.org tested by Norton Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:41 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©Copyright 2009-2023 AudioAficionado.org.Privately owned, All Rights Reserved.
Audio Aficionado Sponsors
AudioAficionado Subscriber
AudioAficionado Subscriber
Inspire By Dennis Had
Inspire By Dennis Had
Harmonic Resolution Systems
Harmonic Resolution Systems
Wyred4Sound
Wyred4Sound
Dragonfire Acoustics
Dragonfire Acoustics
GIK Acoustics
GIK Acoustics
Esoteric
Esoteric
AC Infinity
AC Infinity
JL Audio
JL Audio
Add Powr
Add Powr
Accuphase - Soulution
Accuphase - Soulution
Audio by E
Audio by E
Canton
Canton
Bryston
Bryston
WireWorld Cables
WireWorld Cables
Stillpoints
Stillpoints
Bricasti Design
Bricasti Design
Furutech
Furutech
Shunyata Research
Shunyata Research
Legend Audio & Video
Legend Audio & Video