Revel F35 Speaker Review

[Absolute]

My idea was actually to do the room EQ filters mannualy and then, since they are room EQ filters for that LP, to use them with every speaker he will be evaluating by listening. IMO only by doing filters mannualy you can assure that only room modes are corrected and not the anything else. I am defintiely sceptical you can make Dirac to generate such filters.

You would have to do them manually and you would have to do them for each speaker. The reason is that most speakers will behave differently even when placed the same. Some extra output at a particular mode will create different reactions in both peaks and dips elsewhere. From my experience.

I dont' agree with your statement about elevated distortion when filling the dips as those dips room EQ will be filling have anyhow been attenuated by room.

Not sure I understand. The speaker will have a ~linear output before EQ. If you add a peak somewhere to correct for a dip, you will increase the speaker output at that frequency. Depending on how much headroom the speaker has at this particular frequency, you might create audible distortion regardless of room response.
A small speaker like Neumann KH80 vs a big like the Revel F35 will probably not react the same when trying to compensate for dips.

My idea is based on a simple premise: every speaker you put on a certain LP in a room will exhibit same deviations from PIR because of room influence. If you manage to comepnsate the room influence on LP in that room response will again become similar to PIR and your listening session would be much more accurate.

I think that the premise is wrong due to the variables mentioned already. I do think it would be valuable to EQ each speaker separately, but that is time consuming and of limited use to those who understand the spinorama measurements.
And I think we should aim to educate people to understand both spinorama-charts and to acknowledge the use and limitations of EQ.

But I do appreciate your line of thought. I just don't agree that it's as simple as it appears.

 

[QMuse]

You would have to do them manually and you would have to do them for each speaker. The reason is that most speakers will behave differently even when placed the same.

No offense, but I think you are mixing room EQ with speaker EQ. Once you eliminate the room influence at the LP (which is not related to speakers) of course that speakers will still sound differently, but that is exactly the point of speaker listening test.

Room EQ is validd for all speakers as long as they are at the position for which room EQ was done.

 

[tuga]

I often here this usual argument of self called audiophiles that flat loudspeakers sound boring, but cannot really comprehend it either from my previous experiences and from the fact that most recordings are mixed on flatish loudspeakers to give pleasure to their listeners as also sound engineers want to be successful in their job which means their recordings are loved and bought by as many people as possible. I personally find good recordings everything else then boring when played by neutral loudspeakers in a good room, the opposite is rather true for me when I listen to some coloured "high end" setups in Hifi shows and showrooms.

I think this misunderstanding happens mainly due to 3 reasons:
a) Most don't really know what a neutral loudspeaker is as they just look at on axis FR plots.
b) Some think that a linear FR at listening position is neutral (which it isnt in most cases and just sounds harsh and bass-light).
c) For some audiophiles its their standard "revenge" to objectivists because they said that their preferred products are misconstructions.

Now about High End manufactures, of course they have all to find a kind of unique sale point philosophy to support their existence and sales, if they would just create neutral products one would buy it better and cheaper from the Pro side of audio. On other side I have no problem with audio end product consumers like the most of us when they just chose their products emotionally even if its based on a myth. (I just hate when this happens at the production side as its time to break finally audio's circle of confusion). Also about colorations needed to spice up poor recordings, if people want they are free to pay a lot of money for a tube amp with high K2 distortion which usually can't even be turned off for a good recording, I personally would prefer though audio enhancers that are used in studios which are more effective and flexible.

Personally I happen to prefer gear that accurately reproduces the recorded signal. With electronics this is easy to evaluate on the test bench, with speakers not so much and thus personal preference kicks in.
As I've been saying over and over is that I have reservations regarding this one-size-fits-all rating which is very much in disagreement with what I have been observing for years.

As for the excerpt that you've quoted, I don't know what you mean by "self called audiophiles" but I don't understand people's comments either regarding flat sounding "boring", "dull", etc.
I agree that many assume flatness because they've read a review or looked at an FR plot. People often also attribute the wrong cause the something they dislike in the presentation or performance or a particular piece of gear.

 

[Blumlein 88]

What about pair matching, or dispersion? You can't get that information from listening to a single speaker and both parameters affect stereo performance.

Dispersion will somewhat be rolled into the mono response. Pair matching would need two speakers.

 

[BYRTT]

...Don't you agree?

Sure and liked real many of your posts its just it goes in circles plus also sounds there's not enough hours in a day that amirm can find the time other than for his stated mission learn/educate from a listen to whatever out of box the anechoic response is, so far there looks or sounds to be a huge backlog of units to be tested and that is probably also a good argument nothing will change but lets see down the road if he comes up with new ideas that makes good sense, after all these acoustic tests is still a new thing so myself was fine enough when we got the explanation why R3 wasnt doing well in listening test but the panther coupling in for example R3 and 8341A think is a bit tilted in that Klipped scanner was asked sweating real hard and had to surrender output some real nice spins.

 

[QMuse]

Sure and liked real many of your posts its just it goes in circles plus also sounds there's not enough hours in a day that amirm can find the time other than for his stated mission learn/educate from a listen to whatever out of box the anechoic response is, so far there looks or sounds to be a huge backlog of units to be tested and that is probably also a good argument nothing will change but lets see down the road if he comes up with new ideas that makes good sense, after all these acoustic tests is still a new thing so myself was fine enough when we got the explanation why R3 wasnt doing well in listening test but the panther coupling in for example R3 and 8341A think is a bit tilted in that Klipped scanner was asked sweating real hard and had to surrender output some real nice spins.

Well, arguments have been presented so no more going in circles with that. Regarding his time effort I would only need a few control in room measurements to test filters accuracy. It is of course up to him to decide as he is the one performing the listening tests and doing all the Klippel and forum publishing work. As I said, I'm proposing this only because I put much value in his listening tests as IMO it greatly complements Klippel's measurement and I believe this would enable him to better evaluate speakers while listening.

 

[ROOSKIE]

It's not so simple. Some speakers are meant to be placed closer to the wall, some away from it etc.

Indeed, in addition to everything mentioned the amount of baffle step compensation built into the design greatly changes the distance from rear for best bass. Some designers plan for the speaker near the wall, thus little compensation others build in 5-6 db. Meaning they expect you to pull them out around 5 feet from the rear walls for even bass.

 

[QMuse]

Indeed, in addition to everything mentioned the amount of baffle step compensation built into the design greatly changes the distance from rear for best bass. Some designers plan for the speaker near the wall, thus little compensation others build in 5-6 db. Meaning they expect you to pull them out around 5 feet from the rear walls for even bass.

That is something that you do not do when evaluating speakers through listener test. Don't you remember a photo from Harman labs that @amirm posted some time ago from which it is clear that machine swapping the speakers behind the curtain is fixed to the floor so all the speakers are positioned on one (same) place while listeners are also sitting in a fixed positions. Let's not complicate things unnecessarily.

 

[Vuki]

But fortunately we are not listening in harmans lab. And if the speaker is not meant to be placed in the free field and is compared with one that is, than tbe method of comparation is wrong and the result is invalid.

 

[Vuki]

One could go as far as to say that results from harmans tests are valid only for harmans listening room...

 

[amirm]

I think some key aspect of the research and the reason I test and review speakers is lost. So read this. It is what I say in person when people ask me about speakers.

A well-designed speaker hugely increases the odds that you will be satisfied with it regardless of content you use, the room you use it in, or your "tastes."

We have done this with electronics where satisfaction with what I recommend, and what objective measurements show, is extremely high. We need to replicate that with speakers.

There are two steps in that:

1. Measurements. You all should know what they are by now and why we measure this way.

2. Spot listening test. This is what I am doing. Per above, a well designed speaker has high odds of satisfying me in my quick listening tests. If I say something doesn't have enough bass, or distorts quickly, then that sharply reduces the chances that we can satisfy the bolded section above.

As such, it is not the goal or desire to sit there and optimize a speaker for my room.

Now, there is an issue I spotted which was the fact that speakers with much more low frequency response were not showing that benefit. Indeed, there was an inverted relationship there. I solved that with just one EQ at one room mode. My listening setup deviates from research causing this extra factor that was not addressed by others.

Of course, room optimization is critical to good sound but is orthogonal to what speaker is well engineered.

 

[Vuki]

Amir, don't you think that speaker designed to be placed close to the wall would benefit, in your listening test, from optimal placement?

 

[TimVG]

A $100k measurement robot and here we are arguing about the 5 min sighted listening test lol.

 

[amirm]

Amir, don't you think that speaker designed to be placed close to the wall would benefit, in your listening test, from optimal placement?

Such a speaker better be flagged as such and clearly state that it doesn't sound good any other way. And in general, I suggest buying a general purpose speaker than one like that.

 

[BYRTT]

I think some key aspect of the research and the reason I test and review speakers is lost. So read this. It is what I say in person when people ask me about speakers.

A well-designed speaker hugely increases the odds that you will be satisfied with it regardless of content you use, the room you use it in, or your "tastes."

We have done this with electronics where satisfaction with what I recommend, and what objective measurements show, is extremely high. We need to replicate that with speakers.

There are two steps in that:

1. Measurements. You all should know what they are by now and why we measure this way.

2. Spot listening test. This is what I am doing. Per above, a well designed speaker has high odds of satisfying me in my quick listening tests. If I say something doesn't have enough bass, or distorts quickly, then that sharply reduces the chances that we can satisfy the bolded section above.

As such, it is not the goal or desire to sit there and optimize a speaker for my room.

Now, there is an issue I spotted which was the fact that speakers with much more low frequency response were not showing that benefit. Indeed, there was an inverted relationship there. I solved that with just one EQ at one room mode. My listening setup deviates from research causing this extra factor that was not addressed by others.

Of course, room optimization is critical to good sound but is orthogonal to what speaker is well engineered.

Thanks happy here method/policy get them analyzed and distinguish point 1 and 2, that said in panther rating have hard see why anechoic response subjective spot analyzed in point 2 to be disapointing shall ruin exelent analyzed objective data from Klippel scanner, i mean nothing wrong tell the truth and sure you hear what you hear in that spot about tonality and its interesting info including anything that distorted before what your personal preference for SPL is or that there really is no bass, some of the point 2 analyze conclusions and limitations is viewable looking various spread of nice graphs supported per review plus looking manufacture datasheet.

 

[Soniclife]

Such a speaker better be flagged as such and clearly state that it doesn't sound good any other way. And in general, I suggest buying a general purpose speaker than one like that.

What is a general purpose speaker in this context, one that isn't designed around rooms having walls?

 

[Robbo99999]

I think some key aspect of the research and the reason I test and review speakers is lost. So read this. It is what I say in person when people ask me about speakers.

A well-designed speaker hugely increases the odds that you will be satisfied with it regardless of content you use, the room you use it in, or your "tastes."

We have done this with electronics where satisfaction with what I recommend, and what objective measurements show, is extremely high. We need to replicate that with speakers.

There are two steps in that:

1. Measurements. You all should know what they are by now and why we measure this way.

2. Spot listening test. This is what I am doing. Per above, a well designed speaker has high odds of satisfying me in my quick listening tests. If I say something doesn't have enough bass, or distorts quickly, then that sharply reduces the chances that we can satisfy the bolded section above.

As such, it is not the goal or desire to sit there and optimize a speaker for my room.

Now, there is an issue I spotted which was the fact that speakers with much more low frequency response were not showing that benefit. Indeed, there was an inverted relationship there. I solved that with just one EQ at one room mode. My listening setup deviates from research causing this extra factor that was not addressed by others.

Of course, room optimization is critical to good sound but is orthogonal to what speaker is well engineered.

That's why I think a little EQ experiment like you did is useful when the "well engineered" aspect of your measurements doesn't match with the reality of your subjective testing...which is exactly what you did in this review to explain the initial mismatch - I suppose that rules out a third unaccounted reason for why a speaker doesn't subjectively sound good (with the first two reasons either being bad engineering or quirky speaker / room interactions)....but no idea what the 3rd reason would be!

 

[ROOSKIE]

That is something that you do not do when evaluating speakers through listener test. Don't you remember a photo from Harman labs that @amirm posted some time ago from which it is clear that machine swapping the speakers behind the curtain is fixed to the floor so all the speakers are positioned on one (same) place while listeners are also sitting in a fixed positions. Let's not complicate things unnecessarily.

I hear ya and I am not trying to be complicated. I am pointing out that this is complicated in nature & ignoring that isn't good practice.
Harman was doing their best, their set-up is not a golden rule. Ignoring room placement doesn't work when the speaker is designed to be placed according to a particular design philosophy. Most speaker manufacturers are considering the typical room placement and they may each have a different take on what typical is. (such as right near the wall or way out in the room) This really affects the bass the "most" & therefore the tuning and the compensation for the distance of the baffle from the rear wall. The DIY guys build their speakers for their rooms but consumers of finished products can't do that. Anyway.
Even Harmans amazing set-up would favor a speaker that sounds best in that spot. That is why even though it is wonderful it is still not an exact science like that.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Such a speaker better be flagged as such and clearly state that it doesn't sound good any other way. And in general, I suggest buying a general purpose speaker than one like that.

I don't know. I know this sounds hard to accept.
I suggest that every speaker has a slightly different design philosophy behind it in terms of how the room is factored in because all rooms are not equal and all speakers are not designed for a guy like me who will move everything in the room so the stereo sounds great. It is one of the reasons I do read all the subjective reviews. Often the person will have the not insignificant time it takes to determine some of these parameters. It is very time consuming but in the circle of audio peeps I know it is assumed, no manual needs to suggest it. We just know it is part of the gear and needs to be addressed. Therefore some gear will not even work in our spaces but will thrive in others.

Obviously DSP and bass management and other things make it even more complex but that is really why a number of people go for a DIY/custom room specific design.

 

[Vuki]

To sum it up if possible: "audio science review" turns to be not so scientific when personal audio preferences get in front of the measured data. Then "ASR" is nothing more than another "Absolute Sound"