• 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 F328Be Speaker Review

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,919
Location
North Alabama
FWIW, Polish magazine Audio tested the F228Be and the F208 with measurements.

The bass performance seems to be basically identical:

https://audio.com.pl/testy/stereo/kolumny-glosnikowe/3091-revel-f228be#laboratory

https://audio.com.pl/testy/stereo/kolumny-glosnikowe/2413-revel-performa3-f208#laboratory

Both, however, are front ported.


Are those nearfield measurements? Boosted bass implies they are. If so, that will result in upward LF tilt that won't match anechoic results.

Also, ~4ms gating is used (evidenced by the camel humps in the lower midrange > 250Hz). A valid data point every 250Hz... 250/500/750/1000/1250/1500/etc/etc. That means poor data resolution until 1kHz region (subjective call). Will not show any resonances in the midrange.

d2FjPTcwNXgxLjQ2NA==_src_55462-revel-f228be-audiocompl-lab1.jpg
 

Bear123

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 27, 2019
Messages
796
Likes
1,370
Regardless of how big the speakers or woofers are, it really isn't that difficult to understand that subwoofers are necessary in order for optimal placement....this can't be done when the low frequency drivers are stuck in the same place where the speakers are.

Proper placement is just as important as full range playback capability. Two speakers in a room with an outdated 2 channel setup cannot accomplish this.

The F328's crossed at 80 Hz with a good pair of subs(placed properly and eq'd) will be a higher fidelity system than the two speakers alone are capable of being.
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,881
Likes
9,665
Location
Europe
The most likely explanations IMHO (if not measurement error) would be all/any of the following:
  • Those three 8" woofers of the F328 require a larger box than Revel was willing to put them in to extend lower than the two 6" woofers of the F226 in its not-much-smaller enclosure.
  • Revel prioritised sensitivity over bass extension.
  • Revel designers believe that a floorstanding speaker with a bass response that gently rolls off below ≈100Hz provides better overall performance in-room.
I tend to believe in points (2) and (3). I also think that the target audience for this type of speaker does not use room EQ and has no tone controls available, hence it makes sense to counteract overblown bass due to room gain.
 

AndreaT

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
615
Likes
1,193
Location
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Revel F328Be floor standing speaker. I purchased a single unit through our company (Madrona) with kind discount from Harman Sales (I asked for a review sample from the PR group but was told "don't call us, we will call you."). The retail cost of F328Be is US $8000 each or $16,000 for a pair. This makes it the most expensive speaker we have tested to date.

I chose the color black and I must say, this is one gorgeous speaker:

View attachment 92617

It comes in an exquisite finish with sparkles in it in the top panel:
View attachment 92618

Even the Beryllium tweeter exudes beautify (in the eye of an audiophile of course):

View attachment 92619

Here is a closer shot of the speaker itself:
View attachment 92620

As you see, there are three 8 inch woofers backed by two large ports in the back. There is then a mid-range and tweeter.

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

I performed over 2000 measurement which resulted in error rate of less than 1% throughout the range. This took over 4 hours to capture all the data which resulted in a 1.5 gigabyte file (imagine doing this work manually!).

Temperature was 60 degrees F. Measurement location is at sea level so you compute the pressure.

Measurements are compliant with latest speaker research into what can predict the speaker preference and is standardized in CEA/CTA-2034 ANSI specifications. Likewise listening tests are performed per research that shows mono listening is much more revealing of differences between speakers than stereo or multichannel.

Reference axis was between the midrange and tweeter (a guess).

Revel F328Be Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 92621

This speaker was very difficult to measure in low frequencies. The combination of two ports and three woofers created an overly complex low frequency sound field. The initial runs produced clearly incorrect measurements below 200 Hz. After five sets of measurements and optimization, I dialed out almost all the error. The results show that little step between 100 and 200 Hz which Harman data does not. I suspect with a bit more optimization that could have been filled in a bit more. This aside, for a passive speaker we have excellent flatness of response especially considering how many sound producing elements there are here.

Efficiency is superb for a Revel speaker but do keep in mind that we need power in low frequencies the most and there, we don't have nearly the 91 dB that we have in the upper range. This of course applies to all speakers.

Look at how the dashed blue line (early window) nicely parallels the black dashed green line indicating excellent directivity (direct and indirect sounds match). This makes the speaker room friendly as the reflections don't change the tonality of the speaker much. And also allows easy equalization. Let's look at the sum of important early reflections:

View attachment 92625

Amazing that all the varying reflections sum to such a smooth response. Putting everything together, we get a prefect predicted in-room frequency response:

View attachment 92626

It took me forever to measure all the drivers and ports in near-field. Turns out most of them were duplicating each other's response so here is a sample set:

View attachment 92627

Notice the port tuning down to 30 Hz! This speaker should produce very deep bass. And clean too when you look at these incredible distortion measurements:
View attachment 92629

Are you seeing what I am seeing? Even at 96 dB SPL, you hardly have any bass distortion. Indeed during measurements, I could hear the most perfect sweep ever of any speaker I have tested. Most of the time I hear the pitch change/distort during the range. Not here. The sweep was so buttery smooth. Yes, that is an objective technical term!

Here is the distortion in absolute level:

View attachment 92630

I picked 50 dB as a rather arbitrary limit long time ago with speaker after speaker missing that mark in low frequencies. Not the Revel F328Be. With the exception of one frequency, it stays well below that.

Horizontal beam width is very smooth:

View attachment 92631

Notice how the line in pink is also smooth (-12 dB).

Shown as a contour map, we see the same nice response:

View attachment 92632

Due to inclusion of a mid-range, the vertical response is also good compared to our typical 2-way speakers:

View attachment 92633

Since this is a tall speaker, you may want to tilt it down a bit if you are sitting too close to it.

Finally, here is our impedance measurement:

View attachment 92634

That is a pretty low impedance so make sure you have a good, high-current amplifier to go with this speaker.

There is a small resonance visible but I don't see a sign of it in the frequency response so it must be quite minor.

Revel F328Be Listening Tests
Truth to be told, I measured this speaker weeks back. But then it sat in the garage because I could not figure out how to carry it to our loft to listen to it. I almost post just the measurements but then I thought questions of sound and comparison against my Revel Salon 2 would come from every angle. Asked my wife if should could help me drag it upstairs and she said no way as did my back. Didn't know what to do for a while until I realized there was another option: create a setup in our living room which is at the same level as the garage. So I built a quick system out of Matrix Element i streamer and DAC plus Purifi Amplifier. The picture you saw at the start of the review was the setup except I had the speaker further into the room.

First impression was: "this is the sound I am always looking in a speaker." It sounded very familiar to me as it should. What surprised me though was the deep bass. I had not heard such clean and deep bass out of any speaker I have tested so far. My own Salon 2 speakers produce them of course but nothing I had tested would come close. The F328Be was there. It is a wonderful kind of bass you don't get out of a sub in how clean and integrated it is. It doesn't jump out to slap you in the face. At the same you wonder why you had never heard these notes with smaller speakers.

I ran through my "speaker killer" tracks which are full of these sub bass frequencies and the F328Be produced them like it was an everyday affair. Even at super elevated levels, the sound was exceptionally clean. No hint of bass distortion let alone bottoming out. I could see the triple woofers moving but no deep excursion to make them distort.

The one sensation you should know about is that these are tall speakers. When placed too close to you, the voices sound like they are way above you. In a way this is a natural presentation of the size of a singer. But at the same time, you don't want it to keep reminding you so. Push them out and this effect reduces.

I actually listened to the F328Be out in the open first before pushing it into the corner. The latter did cause a bit of boominess due to room mode. I don't have current measurements for our living room so I did not try to dial them out. It is the nature of speakers that play low that they excite room modes more, requiring DSP correction for best sound.

So do the F328Be speakers outperform my Salon 2? With no ability to listen to them in the same spot, I can't say for sure. I can say that at no time I wished I had the F328Be instead of my Salon 2. Its sound simply asymptote up the level of Salon 2 but didn't exceed it. You are spending $6,000 less with 328Be so coming this close is impressive.

In some sense I am the wrong guy to review this speaker, coming from Salon 2. It was impossible to impress me with a speaker with similar tonality and performance.

Conclusions
It was great to test the premier speaker in Harman's newest line. The F328Be is in entirely different class than any other speaker we have tested. The difference comes in impressive bass performance that is essentially distortion-free. This brings a level of clarity and dynamics that is addictive. You can play as loud as you possibly want and the speaker comes along happily. No sign of any change in speaker response. It is just at home playing audiophile tracks and rock and roll.

Needless to say, I am happy to recommend the Revel F328Be. If you want to buy a set of speakers and be done with it, you know what to get now!

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

This was our 100th speaker review and measurements!!! Hooray!

motion-graphics-number-animation.gif


Hard to imagine testing so many speakers since January. When I bought the Klippel NFS measurement system, I was wondering how it would ever pay for itself. I figured if I tested 100 speakers, it would still cost $1000 per so we could have just asked a service to do the work. But here we are in less than a year and we are already passing that benchmark. Here is to another 100 speaker reviews!

Appreciate any donations using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
Wonderful speaker and wonderful review. Left wondering how the better value f208 compares for about $ 11,000 less to my ears. The ASR review was also very favorable for the f208.
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,881
Likes
9,665
Location
Europe
Huh? It's matching, except that the illustration doesn't include the "very far from wall" case.

EDIT: funnily, there's the complete version a bit later
monitorplacement_subwooferbackwall.jpg
This is correct and the reason is simple:
  • The sub needs to be close to the wall to prevent nulling due to reflection from the wall.
  • The sat should be so far away from the wall that the frequency of the first null is below the xover frequency (< 80 Hz). If this is the case there is no nulling from the sat since it does not emit those frequencies in the first place.
 

Beave

Major Contributor
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
1,403
Likes
3,043
Are those nearfield measurements? Boosted bass implies they are. If so, that will result in upward LF tilt that won't match anechoic results.

Also, ~4ms gating is used (evidenced by the camel humps in the lower midrange > 250Hz). A valid data point every 250Hz... 250/500/750/1000/1250/1500/etc/etc. That means poor data resolution until 1kHz region (subjective call). Will not show any resonances in the midrange.

I think you're right - they use 4ms gated response and mate that to a close-mic measurement for the bass. Most of their measurements show a hump in the bass, much like John Atkinson's measurements at Stereophile.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,342
Likes
6,718
No one here is using the technique described in those pages. Namely, Harman's proprietary Sound Field Management (SFM). The system only exists in JBL Synthesis ARCOS DSP which we used at our old theater at Madrona. And I am setup to use in my theater. I have written a full published article on it with tons of data: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/computer-optimization-of-room-acoustics.12/

In a nutshell, the system varies level, phase and frequency response of each sub independently to optimize its response against every other speaker in the room. The computational system can iterate millions of settings to arrive at its correct value. No way, no how you are doing that manually with PEQ, or any other automated system.

Imagine how a pair of sub would be optimally crossed to not just one speaker but two or more. If your room is irregular then even identical main speakers will have different response. As will identical subs in different locations.

Sadly JBL discontinued its only consumer standalone box that had SFM in (BassX) years ago. The closest to may be Dirac bass management but I am not sure that even that gets close.

Here is Dr. Toole in the very pages you listed:
View attachment 92831

And the motivation:
View attachment 92832

Yes, you can get usable results with equalization let's not think that is the same as optimization done inside of a speaker.

You make it sound like SFM is the only one of its kind, and the only way to get 4 subs to sound better than no subs. I don't agree with this. There are others that exist, and I've heard rumors that SAM4 will be joining that list. Also, I don't see this as an all or nothing proposition. It's not as if you need absolute perfection to get (for example) the Salon2 + 4 subs to sound better than the Salon2 on it's own. While manual integration is unlikely to sound as good as those Synthesis/DBM/MSO/SAM integrated systems, IME, it's not terribly difficult to get better, more linear(+- 3 from 10-100Hz or so) sound over multiple seats than what you can get from even the best 2.0 system. Even the best speakers(like the Salon2) tend to be more like +-10(from 10-100Hz)prior to EQ once you start to look at multiple seats, or at least that has been my experience. I'd be curious to see what your bass response looks like prior to EQ and over 6 seats or so. Maybe you're just really lucky. Maybe it so happens the best spot for imaging in your room also happens to be a great spot for getting neutral bass over many seats. My experience is that if you have mains that are flat to 20Hz(which very few are), you can get a +-3 response at the MLP, but only after EQ, and only for that one seat. I'm sure you've heard many more systems than I have, though, so you really do have me questioning myself a bit.

I've seen @Floyd Toole post here from time to time, so perhaps he can weigh in on the 2.0 vs multi-sub debate. I'd be curious to hear his thoughts. In his book it seems like he's more on the multi-sub side of the argument, but I could be wrong. Or, his opinion could be contingent on the use of SFM.

If Floyd does respond, I'd like to ask:

If I don't have SFM, but I do have another bass management system(like DBM or SAM4) that also considers each sub's position, delay, phase, etc., (and optimizes for the best combination of all)can I still get better bass than I could get by not using subs it all? I'm willing to spend 100+ hours tweaking and moving to get the best response possible, but I want to be putting those hours towards the approach(4 subs or 0 subs) that has the highest potential for good bass.
 
Last edited:

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,881
Likes
9,665
Location
Europe
I have done a lot here. I worked Neumann to dial it in almost perfectly to their anechoic measurements. On these towers, I ran the full scan twice and a number of quicker scans to optimize the results. It is outside of my physical ability to keep messing with it with no reliable reference to shoot for. Remember, no anechoic chamber is correct in these low frequencies. Companies test a speaker outdoor and then use that to calibrate the indoor anechoic measurements. So neither measurement is precise.
Yes, I think the Klippel results are very reliable. I remember that the non perfect bass response of the KH80 was due to low temperatures during its first two test. Could it be that the F238Be suffers from the same problem? At least here it's getting colder.
Ultimately, this is academic anyway because in room variations of bass can be as much as 20 dB. As much as I like to get this right if I can, as a real issue, it does not exist or justify me spinning my wheels on these tall and heavy speakers.

In the future we may get a more willing manufacturer than Harman to get to the bottom of this with another tower speaker.
Actually I think that (as I wrote above) Harman expected the buyer to use neither room EQ nor tone controls and hence designed the bass response such that it does not lead to overblown bass due to room gain.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,796
Likes
242,749
Location
Seattle Area
I recently picked up a JBL BassQ which implements SFM.
imagehandler.ashx

Will get to it soon. :)
Ah, I am jealous! We had one years ago at Madrona but the team sold it. :( I understand its filtering is different than ARCOS but otherwise should work the same. Is this something personal or publishing for stereophile? If former, would be great to see your impression of it.
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,881
Likes
9,665
Location
Europe
According to the Olive research, bass extension counts for around 30% in terms of listener preference. While I agree that in-room variations may render mild irregularities in a speaker's bass output of little more than academic interest, low-frequency extension appears to be of more than academic interest according to the science, I would have thought.
I'm quite sure this is the reason why the score is not as good as expected: FR falls below 100 Hz and room gain is not factored in.
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,881
Likes
9,665
Location
Europe
In 2008 Kevin Voecks told Larry Greenhill in a interview for Stereophile compairing the Salon2 versus Studio2:

The Salon2 moves more air and has greater output, particularly in the bass. The Salon2's three 8" woofers have a combined area equivalent to a 14" woofer, but the heat generated is spread out among three voice-coils. This means that you won't get the heat buildup that leads to dynamic compression. (As voice-coils heat up, impedance goes up and leads to a mismatch in a speaker's filter network.) The Salon2 is more resistant to dynamic compression than the Studio2 because it has more drivers to dissipate the heat. The Salon2 also has a smaller midrange than the Studio2. This leads to a better match between tweeter and midrange drivers, helping control the Salon2's off-axis response.

Seems to imply the 3 woofers in the Salon2 are superior performance wise to dual subwoofer augmentation. Having recently purchased a "pre-owned" pair of Salon2's I can confirm this using the miniDSP SHD and Dirac. This compared to a pair of Monitor Audio Silver 8's and 2 JL Audio f110 subs with Dirac.

This is my own subjective opinion, however, it is confirmed by my wife's greater complaint ratio. :D
I'm not so sure:
  • Can 3 small voice coils handle more heat than one big voice coil?
  • A bigger woofer has more linear excursion and therefore can move more air than 3 smaller woofers despite having the same combined area.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,796
Likes
242,749
Location
Seattle Area
You make it sound like SFM is the only one of its kind, and the only way to get 4 subs to sound better than no subs. I don't agree with this.
The discussion was what Dr. Toole said in the book. What he said was about SFM, not some other technique.

There are other techniques such as CFD modelling of the room. See: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/subwoofer-low-frequency-optimization.15/


I have not seen any other advanced multi-sub optimization like those.

Will have to see if the new Dirac reaches to these heights.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,342
Likes
6,718
You know, it's funny.

My subwoofer comment was vague enough to mean various things, I suppose, and of course lots of people decided it meant something heretical.

Relax, I don't have any opinions on audio that are so interesting. Although the tendency to dogpile on ASR can be a bit interesting.





First, I should start by saying that my main music system has dual subs and EQ. :)

There is no disputing that if you want accurate in-room deep bass, such as the immaculate waterfall graphs down to ~17hz that you linked to, then you need to bust out the multiple subwoofers. It's basic physics. There's no other way. As @Dimifoot wrote, I too hope that it is basic foundational knowledge in this hobby or at least on this forum.

That all said...



Need? I certainly would not agree that subs are necessary or even ideal for "most" music.

Strong bass down to the 30-40hz range is deep enough for nearly all music, and a lot of music doesn't need bass reproduction that deep.

Finally, there's the matter of budget. A multisub+roomEQ setup with subwoofers capable of accurate deep bass is not cheap. It certainly can be done cheaper, particularly if you're going DIY or buying used, but multisubs+EQ is generally going to start out at around $1K at retail and obviously can cost much more.

Unless their overall budget is so large that a grand or two is insignificant, most people would be generally better off spending an extra grand on their treble and midrange (you know, where the music actually lives) than dumping all that money into the bottom octave alone.

As @amirm said, a speaker like this Revel that can cover that range and do it well, is going to sound great for nearly everything.



As for EQ? Well, I don't think it belongs in this discussion. If you want accurate in-room response, it is a requirement, and that is particularly true for bass. But that is equally true either with or without subwoofers.
I agree that “need” is definitely going too far, though I suppose it depends on what that need is in reference to. Needed
For many speakers, yes, the NFS computation is more accurate than anechoic chamber. Indeed the system is also sold to be used in anechoic chamber to improve its accuracy.

For these speakers, until we have a gold standard (speaker measured outdoor away from any reflections for countless feet), we don't know. Both systems have accuracy errors. I just don't know enough to say for sure.

I have asked Klippel about this and they don't have an answer but stick by NFS working correctly and producing the right response.

Simple: laws of physics. Measurements are showing anechoic response, not what a speaker does in a room. As soon as you place a speaker close to any walls, those walls focus the bass energy forward and you get more bass. Then other walls add to it causing destructive and constructive interference which we call room modes. Take your speaker outdoor and listen to it. The amount of bass it produces will shrink way down and will not sound anything like what you hear in your room.

The thing that has me doubting the bass here is your subjective comments about how this is the deepest bass you've heard yet, as several of the speakers so far seem to dig quite a bit deeper. A lot of those speakers, are bookshelf speakers, though. It's like the NFS is correctly measuring the bass response for bookshelf speakers, but not for tower speakers.

It's not just this speaker, either. Most(if not all) of the towers measured so far have shown disappointing bass extension. I agree that we need a third party(like Harman) to weigh in.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,796
Likes
242,749
Location
Seattle Area
I'd be curious to see what your bass response looks like prior to EQ and over 6 seats or so.
???? Me? My music system is optimized for one seat, mine. :) I showed you the computer modelling we used for old theater at Madrona. And then SFM was used on top of that to optimize an array of subs.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,796
Likes
242,749
Location
Seattle Area
The thing that has me doubting the bass here is your subjective comments about how this is the deepest bass you've heard yet, as several of the speakers so far seem to dig quite a bit deeper.
They all distort so easily that the low bass performance is of little value. In many cases I had to filter out the dirty bass down that low.

This is the benefit of a large speaker like this. It can handle incredibly amount of power compared to little bookshelves or powered monitors.
 

tktran303

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
686
Likes
1,222
What do you make of Floyd Toole's opinion that multiple separate subs are a requirement for high fidelity bass, even with the Salon2(which he also owns)? Are you saying Floyd is incorrect?

I think context is important.

First let's define a “sub”
To fill in the bottom octave down to 20Hz.
I mean If you want more louder bass, what you need is an EQ around 50-200Hz...

If your loudspeakers don't reach 20Hz in room at a meaningful SPL at the listening position, then yes, a dedicated LFE speaker with built in EQ, gain, variable phase, +/- automatic measurement/correction will be helpful to extend the frequency response.

My understanding of the "the multiple subs in separate locations are better than one" idea are in respect to speakers with limited LF extension, eg. your typical passive 2-way speaker eg. 3-8" midwoofer aka stand-mount or "satellite" speakers.

I mean the whole point of the multiple subwoofers VS one is to help attain smooth and flat in-room bass down to 20Hz, in as many listening positions as possible.

Regardless of how big the speakers or woofers are, it really isn't that difficult to understand that subwoofers are necessary in order for optimal placement....this can't be done when the low frequency drivers are stuck in the same place where the speakers are.

Proper placement is just as important as full range playback capability. Two speakers in a room with an outdated 2 channel setup cannot accomplish this.

The F328's crossed at 80 Hz with a good pair of subs(placed properly and eq'd) will be a higher fidelity system than the two speakers alone are capable of being.

I haven't seen any evidence that one would benefit from using multiple "subwoofers", when your main speakers already have multiple larger drivers and ports (or passive radiators) or inbuilt DSP etc where it already gives smooth and flat in-room response down to 20Hz (or lower)

ie. whether you benefit from multiple subwoofers when you already have a dialled in system.

It's the in-room extension down to 20Hz which determines whether you need a "subwoofer" or not...


Let's try to take Floyd's points in context

■Everything matters: dimensions, placement of listeners, loudspeakers,
wall construction, where you put a door, and on and on.
There are no generalized “cookbook” solutions, no magic-bullet room
dimensions.
■ Without your own acoustical measurements, you are “flying blind.”
■ Without high-resolution measurements, you are myopic.
■ With good acoustical measurements and some mathematical predictive
capability, you are in a strong position to identify and explain major
problems.
■ There are indications that some combination of low-frequency acoustical
treatment, multiple subwoofers, and equalization will be helpful.

From Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers & Rooms; @Floyd Toole
 
Last edited:

Helicopter

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
2,693
Likes
3,945
Location
Michigan
Wonderful speaker and wonderful review. Left wondering how the better value f208 compares for about $ 11,000 less to my ears. The ASR review was also very favorable for the f208.

I bet they are pretty close in a blind test. The Be looks a lot prettier, and has just incredible FR for a passive speaker, with low distortion. Whether it is worth 11k to you depends on what slight incremental performance is worth to you.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,342
Likes
6,718
Need? I certainly would not agree that subs are necessary or even ideal for "most" music.

I agree that "need" is too strong a word. This is a hobby, after all. One can enjoy music on TV speakers. Giant speakers and subs are not needed.

Strong bass down to the 30-40hz range is deep enough for nearly all music, and a lot of music doesn't need bass reproduction that deep.

For me, it's not so much about the extension. There are a few speakers(like the Salon2) that extend deep enough to cover basically everything other than electronic and the rare pop song. The problem I see with 2.0 has more to do with the lack of linearity. Usually, I see 10dB swings over the 20-20,000Hz range when it's just two speakers in a room playing, especially when you start measuring over multiple seats. Sure, you can bring down the peaks with EQ, but the only way(that I know of) to fix the nulls is to introduce more bass sources and scatter them about the room.

This is all getting a bit off topic, though ;)
 
Top Bottom