• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Revel M105 vs M106 -- how to interpret measurements?

ElNino

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
557
Likes
722
For family reasons I'm thinking of downgrading from my current floorstanders to some bookshelves for a couple of years. I'm trying to decide between the Revel M105 and M106. I've got a sub but I find I generally prefer to use a little bass EQ rather than the sub (I find I get fewer room issues this way, and I'm not a basshead so quantity isn't a major issue for me). I also do NOT need to run these loud.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the M105 vs. the M106? Going by Harman's spins (available here: https://speakerdata2034.blogspot.com/2019/03/spinorama-data-revel-home.html), the M105 is generally the better speaker, and would probably have a better overall preference score (non-LFE anyway) according to the Olive methodology. However, the designer, Kevin Voecks, has posted on another forum that he recommends the M106 even if one is crossing over to a sub. Does anyone have any idea why this would be? What's the technical rationale?

Subjective impressions comparing the two would be fine too.
 

daftcombo

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,687
Likes
4,068
Hi,

You might want to read this comparison of the much cheaper Focal Aria 906 to the Revel M106:

Comparisons


I had an excellent pair of bookshelf speakers on hand to compare the Focal Aria 906 with: Revel’s Performa3 M106. It’s uncanny how similar the two models look on paper. The Revel’s overall dimensions are similar to the Focal’s, at 15"H x 8.3”W x 11"D (though the Revel has a very pronounced wedge shape, tapering to a width of only 4.5” at the back). And it weighs the same: 19 pounds. However, the M106 feels more substantial when hefted. The Revel, too, was finished in Piano Black, and its top panel was finished in a rubbery material. Instead of low in front, however, the Revel’s 2” port is in the upper part of its rear panel. Each speaker has a single set of binding posts of similar quality, although the Revel’s are all metal (the Focal’s has some plastic). The Aria’s leather front and rear panels and its contrasting midrange-woofer cone of light-brown flax give it a more artistic appearance than the M106, which is more businesslike: nearly the entire speaker is black, even the drivers. Where the two differ most significantly is in price: the Revel Performa3 M106 costs $2000/pair, or $500 more than the Focal Aria 906.


Although each speaker has its strengths and weaknesses, on an absolute scale, both represent excellence for a bookshelf speaker costing around $2000/pair. However, I could hear subtle differences. Although I’d rate the Performa3 M106 as more true to the source signal than the Aria 906, I preferred the sound of the Focal to the Revel. Listening to “Keith Don’t Go,” from Nils Lofgren’s Acoustic Live (16/44.1. FLAC, Capitol), I found the Aria 906’s touch of warmth more engaging than the slightly clinical sound of the M106, and Lofgren’s guitar was rendered larger through the Focals. Bass depth was similar with both speakers -- I estimate at around 50Hz -- but for bass tightness, I give the nod to the Revel. Still, this advantage of the M106 could be somewhat negated with the careful matching of amp to Focals. But when it came time to take off my reviewer hat and just listen for fun, I preferred the Focal Aria 906 every time.

source: https://www.soundstagehifi.com/inde...-loudspeakers#most-read-reviews-last-365-days (with measurements next page)
 
OP
E

ElNino

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
557
Likes
722
Hi,

You might want to read this comparison of the much cheaper Focal Aria 906 to the Revel M106:



source: https://www.soundstagehifi.com/inde...-loudspeakers#most-read-reviews-last-365-days (with measurements next page)

I'm kind of set on the Revels, but the issue I'd have with those Focals based on the measurements is that the tweeter has a fairly prominent resonant peak just above 20kHz. When I was younger, I used to be able to hear metal dome resonances in the 21-22kHz range. I can't any more, but I imagine my daughter probably can and I want something she can listen to as well.
 

aarons915

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
685
Likes
1,140
Location
Chicago, IL
For family reasons I'm thinking of downgrading from my current floorstanders to some bookshelves for a couple of years. I'm trying to decide between the Revel M105 and M106. I've got a sub but I find I generally prefer to use a little bass EQ rather than the sub (I find I get fewer room issues this way, and I'm not a basshead so quantity isn't a major issue for me). I also do NOT need to run these loud.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the M105 vs. the M106? Going by Harman's spins (available here: https://speakerdata2034.blogspot.com/2019/03/spinorama-data-revel-home.html), the M105 is generally the better speaker, and would probably have a better overall preference score (non-LFE anyway) according to the Olive methodology. However, the designer, Kevin Voecks, has posted on another forum that he recommends the M106 even if one is crossing over to a sub. Does anyone have any idea why this would be? What's the technical rationale?

Subjective impressions comparing the two would be fine too.

The M105 clearly measures better in the crossover range but since you sometimes like to listen without a sub, the M106 would probably be a safer bet.
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,915
Likes
3,394
Location
Minneapolis
I can say that if you do not listen loudly the M105 has plenty on tap
For family reasons I'm thinking of downgrading from my current floorstanders to some bookshelves for a couple of years. I'm trying to decide between the Revel M105 and M106. I've got a sub but I find I generally prefer to use a little bass EQ rather than the sub (I find I get fewer room issues this way, and I'm not a basshead so quantity isn't a major issue for me). I also do NOT need to run these loud.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the M105 vs. the M106? Going by Harman's spins (available here: https://speakerdata2034.blogspot.com/2019/03/spinorama-data-revel-home.html), the M105 is generally the better speaker, and would probably have a better overall preference score (non-LFE anyway) according to the Olive methodology. However, the designer, Kevin Voecks, has posted on another forum that he recommends the M106 even if one is crossing over to a sub. Does anyone have any idea why this would be? What's the technical rationale?

Subjective impressions comparing the two would be fine too.

He recommends the M106 as most people who follow his design philosophy always recommend a 6.5" sized driver over a 5.25". This is because it is thought that even when crossing actively at 80hrz (using bass management to high pass the monitor) the 5 incher is thought to be just to small - bear in mind this really only applies at high volumes.
The driver used in M105 is quite substantial. I found my pair provides very reasonable output without ever sounding compressed or distorted. It has some of the cleanest bass I have owned in a 5incher (but not the deepest) It is a very compact design and the bass it produces defies the size. I think you could get by enjoying most music without a sub.
Frankly, I suspect the notion of less room issues without a sub is an odd notion. I do understand that you may have to pick a location based on other factors but the subwoofer can be moved around for optimal bass reinforcement and the monitors can not. In any case I found the M105 speakers blend well with a sub around 50hrz. Start there. If you have active high pass ability and want a little more ommph maybe try 80hrz. (I would still use 50-60hrz myself)
Anyway, if price and size are not a factor I'd buy the M106 for the extra dynamics and sightly better low end - because why not? Actually buy both and return the one you like less. (you will like them both of course as they are awesome but you must try them out in your home)
Measurements will simply and unequivocally NOT tell you the whole story and not everyone likes the same sound signature/qualities. Never buy a speaker based on the "Spins", use that to guide you but buy a speaker because you like how it sounds.
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,915
Likes
3,394
Location
Minneapolis
Hi,

You might want to read this comparison of the much cheaper Focal Aria 906 to the Revel M106:



source: https://www.soundstagehifi.com/inde...-loudspeakers#most-read-reviews-last-365-days (with measurements next page)

I do like the Focal house sound. It is very dynamic and usually measures quite well. That said the Revel and Focal have very different sounds. That tweeter on the Focal is wonderful and rowdy and the SB acoustics one in the Revel has such low distortion and smooth roll off that it seems unbelievable it is a metal dome. It is fantastic for the type. It will take two very different people to pick one over the other. Not the same sound.
That said because the Aria can be had often brand new for $1k and $750 as refurb some peeps out to check it out. Really hard to find the M106 for less than retail. Damn those Performa3's are smooth though.
 

Putter

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
492
Likes
771
Location
Albany, NY USA
Hi,

You might want to read this comparison of the much cheaper Focal Aria 906 to the Revel M106:



source: https://www.soundstagehifi.com/inde...-loudspeakers#most-read-reviews-last-365-days (with measurements next page)
I have to say that any review that ends with careful matching of amp to Focals raises my BS meter. Blind tests have shown that amps can't be reliably ID'ed by sound as long as being operated within its limits, let alone 'carefully matched' to a given speaker.

Also he compares the speakers on ONE piece of music! Hardly what I'd call a definitive comparison. Maybe the Revels sound better on orchestral works than the Focal.

He does say that he found preferred the Focal's when listening casually.
Finally and I know reviewers never take this into consideration, there are several Focal ads on the Soundstage website, but none I could find for Revel.
I'm sure that they're both decent speakers. The measurements for both look good although the Revel's might be a hair better, but the review is far short of definitive.
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,915
Likes
3,394
Location
Minneapolis
I have to say that any review that ends with careful matching of amp to Focals raises my BS meter. Blind tests have shown that amps can't be reliably ID'ed by sound as long as being operated within its limits, let alone 'carefully matched' to a given speaker.

Also he compares the speakers on ONE piece of music! Hardly what I'd call a definitive comparison. Maybe the Revels sound better on orchestral works than the Focal.

He does say that he found preferred the Focal's when listening casually.
Finally and I know reviewers never take this into consideration, there are several Focal ads on the Soundstage website, but none I could find for Revel.
I'm sure that they're both decent speakers. The measurements for both look good although the Revel's might be a hair better, but the review is far short of definitive.

I don't think (I certainly hope not) that anyone thinks this one opinion is definitive. I think the guy who mentioned it is trying to show there are other options - prolly because he likes Focal.
I also doubt the reviewer only used 1 piece of music and his language didn't come across that way to me. It is just a way to recapitulate for simplicity in a review. This is normal for a review to toss out a few specific examples.
I own and try LOTS of speakers. Most speakers don't beat out other speakers on everything. I can say that Focal makes a very fine speaker, I have owned two pairs and they were both a great music speaker. I also really dig that Focal makes all their gear in France and makes all their own drivers. I also love Revel and appreciate their approach. (nothing wrong with switching to SB acoustics drivers - they are excellent) That said I can totally see why someone would prefer something a little more fun compared to the Revel sound sig.
I know I discovered I prefer the JBL 530 to the Revel M105, yes indeed that old 530!
 
  • Like
Reactions: wje

Putter

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
492
Likes
771
Location
Albany, NY USA
I don't think (I certainly hope not) that anyone thinks this one opinion is definitive. I think the guy who mentioned it is trying to show there are other options - prolly because he likes Focal.
I also doubt the reviewer only used 1 piece of music and his language didn't come across that way to me. It is just a way to recapitulate for simplicity in a review. This is normal for a review to toss out a few specific examples.
I own and try LOTS of speakers. Most speakers don't beat out other speakers on everything. I can say that Focal makes a very fine speaker, I have owned two pairs and they were both a great music speaker. I also really dig that Focal makes all their gear in France and makes all their own drivers. I also love Revel and appreciate their approach. (nothing wrong with switching to SB acoustics drivers - they are excellent) That said I can totally see why someone would prefer something a little more fun compared to the Revel sound sig.
I know I discovered I prefer the JBL 530 to the Revel M105, yes indeed that old 530!

I guess all I was trying to say was that I didn't put a lot of value in the review, except as one man's opinion. Although it might seem that I prefer Revel, I have no experience with either speaker or for that any speakers of either brand.
 

TimVG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,573
Measurements will simply and unequivocally NOT tell you the whole story and not everyone likes the same sound signature/qualities. Never buy a speaker based on the "Spins", use that to guide you but buy a speaker because you like how it sounds.

Ehm uhm.. They may not tell you the whole story, but they tell you plenty. Think of anything deviating from a flat direct sound as an EQ curve permanently applied to everything you're playing. In my experience, unless there are directivity issues, deviating from as flat a direct sound as possible has never lead to any improvement.
 

YSDR

Active Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
273
Likes
287
There is always a possible conflict between objectively good and subjective taste. Not everyone likes flat frequency response, even with controlled directivity or low harmonic distortion for example.
 

TimVG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,573
Perhaps not everyone, but most people in fact do. This is of course a discussion that comes down to anecdotal vs factual evidence supported by controlled testing. Since recordings vary greatly, broadband tone controls can be employed to suit the sound to taste. However I'm quite sure no one will prefer a loudspeaker with several audible resonances and it is always best to start off with a neutral reproducer. The situation would improve drastically if this practice would be employed from the start when recordings are mixed and mastered.
 

YSDR

Active Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
273
Likes
287
Yes, recording/mixing/mastering is very important to done with neutral speakers. But in reality, even big name studios using B&W or similar speakers, this causes almost chaotic results imho.
 

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
Does anyone have any thoughts on the M105 vs. the M106? Going by Harman's spins (available here: https://speakerdata2034.blogspot.com/2019/03/spinorama-data-revel-home.html), the M105 is generally the better speaker, and would probably have a better overall preference score (non-LFE anyway) according to the Olive methodology. However, the designer, Kevin Voecks, has posted on another forum that he recommends the M106 even if one is crossing over to a sub.

As they have opposed opinions one of them is wrong - either Olive's methodology needs adjustment or Voecks opinion does. ;)
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,915
Likes
3,394
Location
Minneapolis
Perhaps not everyone, but most people in fact do. This is of course a discussion that comes down to anecdotal vs factual evidence supported by controlled testing. Since recordings vary greatly, broadband tone controls can be employed to suit the sound to taste. However I'm quite sure no one will prefer a loudspeaker with several audible resonances and it is always best to start off with a neutral reproducer. The situation would improve drastically if this practice would be employed from the start when recordings are mixed and mastered.

Nobody knows how many people prefer a flat sound. The actual numbers have not been published to my knowledge. In any case it is a probability not a fact. We know there is this idea/set of tests that in a controlled test environment flatter sound prevailed against some number of competing alternatives. It may have been that flat sound "won" by appealing most to 30%, 40%, 51%, 65% of participants. Even at 85%, that leaves million of people who prefer something else.
I read regular reviews by people who discuss that such and such reference speaker is flatter and yet somehow the preferred speaker is the one a little on the rowdy side.
I personally tend to like speakers that have a flatter response with a top end that rolls off but there are also speakers I like that do not, including some that have a rising top end. They defy my norms.
Same way some people like the sound of a toy piano and the sound of a nice grand, or a busted started acoustic guitar and a well tuned high end guitar, and a hoarse voice and a smooth one.
Everyone can use the measurements and reviews to feel more confident choosing to spend valuable time trying a speaker, yet when dropping the cash I highly suggest trying a few models and choosing which one sounds better to the buyer rather than what any measurements or reviews suggest.
 

YSDR

Active Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
273
Likes
287
And there are objective explanations why some are prefer other than flat subjectively, like human physiology, state of mind etc. Or even room acoustics can play big role, although that is not exactly in subjective way but similarly.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
I dunno why anyone would buy a certain speaker based on its tone. Buy a neutral speaker with even off-axis response and no resonances and you can EQ your speaker to whatever target curve you want, and then if you ever want to change it it's easy.

If you buy a speaker with poor off axis response, then you're stuck with the way it sounds until you feel like selling it and starting the whole headache over again. Short of truly herculean EQ efforts that tend to only be valid for a single listening position, anyways.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,384
Location
Seattle Area
Does anyone have any thoughts on the M105 vs. the M106? Going by Harman's spins (available here: https://speakerdata2034.blogspot.com/2019/03/spinorama-data-revel-home.html), the M105 is generally the better speaker, and would probably have a better overall preference score (non-LFE anyway) according to the Olive methodology. However, the designer, Kevin Voecks, has posted on another forum that he recommends the M106 even if one is crossing over to a sub. Does anyone have any idea why this would be? What's the technical rationale?
After testing a ton of speaker with smaller woofers, I can tell you that no matter how perfect the tonality, once the woofer starts to distort, game is over. It is so noticeable and much more so than the rest of the band. So i can see why Kevin would say to get the one with larger woofer. That would push out the distortion point farther out allowing you to enjoy the rest of the spectrum.
 

YSDR

Active Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
273
Likes
287
Buy a neutral speaker with even off-axis response and no resonances and you can EQ your speaker to whatever target curve you want, and then if you ever want to change it it's easy.
Although I share your point, I don't think I need to explain that not everyone wants to use EQ. You need additional circuitry(s) to do that and even with high-end devices like the expensive AVR-s for example, there are measurable degradations to the sound if EQ is engaged. This is just for example, but many other reasons are possible.
 

Haint

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2020
Messages
346
Likes
452
Although I share your point, I don't think I need to explain that not everyone wants to use EQ. You need additional circuitry(s) to do that and even with high-end devices like the expensive AVR-s for example, there are measurable degradations to the sound if EQ is engaged. This is just for example, but many other reasons are possible.

Any measurable degradation pales in comparison to what the room imparts up to about 400 or 500Hz though. I don't think anyone suggests leaving the modal and transition regions completely untouched in domestic spaces.
 
Top Bottom