802 D3 vs Revel Salon 2

[A Surfer]

For those of you looking for an album that is excellent for auditioning, I highly recommend the album Anian by 9Bach.

 

[MasterApex]

They aren't coatings - they're just made of the stuff.

For hard tweeters, the following things matter a lot:
- Speed of sound through the material (i.e. how fast the sound travels across the dome from edge to center; the higher the better)
- Stiffness to weight ratio (higher the better; an ideal speaker diaphragm has infinite stiffness and zero weight)

Beryllium has a very high stiffness to weight ratio (it's extremely low density for a metal) and its internal speed of sound is high as well. The first breakup mode in a 1"-ish Be tweeter is very high (an octave or so above the top of human hearing).
Diamond, on the other hand, has a density about twice that of Be (1.8g/cm3 vs 3.5g/cm3) and only about a 20% higher internal speed-of-sound (13,000 m/s vs 16,200 m/s), but it's very very stiff.

But... It doesn't really matter what the tweeter is made of. What matters is how it's implemented. An aluminum dome in a good design performs better than a beryllium (inverted) dome or a diamond dome in a bad design.

This is down pretty much entirely to frequency response. Distortion plays a role here too, somewhat.

Thanks ...this is very educational.
And it makes sense , as I observe that new generation tweeter sounds more life like (realism) in reproducing the sounds of cymbals, bells, breaking glass (in movie tracks).
It seems frequency response is not the main factor for sound quality (since there is bass/treble adjustment and some speaker crossover knobs to tailor the upper frequency response).....how it produces the sound with the good material property on bass/mid/tweeter are more important, right?

 

[dfuller]

Thanks ...this is very educational.
And it makes sense , as I observe that new generation tweeter sounds more life like (realism) in reproducing the sounds of cymbals, bells, breaking glass (in movie tracks).
It seems frequency response is not the main factor for sound quality (since there is bass/treble adjustment and some speaker crossover knobs to tailor the upper frequency response).....how it produces the sound with the good material property on bass/mid/tweeter are more important, right?

Nope! Frequency response is far and away the most important factor.

 

[blueone]

Nope! Frequency response is far and away the most important factor.

Agreed, but midrange and tweeter distortion can be an audible factor too. I remember some kevlar midranges had distortion problems, and some tweeters (obviously not the 800/802D tweeters or the Salon2 tweeter) are known to have limited headroom, especially in the lower end of their recommended bandpass.

 

[dfuller]

Agreed, but midrange and tweeter distortion can be an audible factor too. I remember some kevlar midranges had distortion problems, and some tweeters (obviously not the 800/802D tweeters or the Salon2 tweeter) are known to have limited headroom, especially in the lower end of their recommended bandpass.

Sure can. Definitely experienced this before.

 

[blueone]

3) Mebbe. Aside from the cannons, not a great recording. (Which recording btw?)

I'm sure he's talking about the now famous Telarc recording originally released on vinyl.

 

[ahofer]

I admit I do have a bit of an axe to grind about B&W. I had a pair in the mid-80s that I loved (DM 220s, I think), but replaced later with Magnepans. When I recently replaced my (Thiel) speakers in 2018, B&W were the first speakers I went to audition. I don’t remember the model, but they were in the 8-12k price point. They were almost instantly irritating-no point in going through the playlist. I felt sort of betrayed, as my early experience had been so favorable and I had anticipated really liking them.

These treble-enhanced curves are successful, which is why another technically superb shop, Paradigm, has imitated them. But it sounds awful to me, and ruins what otherwise is a very clean speaker, backed by a reputable manufacturer.

 

[LightninBoy]

The curve for the Shure mics looks terrible.

Yes, but Its the most popular live vocal mic and its not even close. You've probably heard it a thousand times live or on live recordings. Its cousin ... the SM57 ... is used on electric guitar amps live and in studio. If you are listening to a distorted guitar, you are probably listening to an SM57.

 

[preload]

I wonder if people who claim the 800-series B&W's are overly bright are listening with them completely toed in and aimed directly at the listener (I.e. What Revel, Genelec, and Kef tells you to do).

Also people here have a tendency to freak out when they see the treble emphasis from the stereophile FR graph, perhaps not realizing that it represents a narrow on-axis window. The HF response of these B&W's can be easily adjusted by varying the amount of toe-in.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

If you like the sound of B&W's house curve, more power to you. Home audio is at the end really all preference- you're not aiming for something that can be used as a studio monitor (though, I do know of a few mastering guys who use B&Ws).


There is a massive Harman bias in this forum, that's for sure. But that said, I can't say I've ever heard any Harman family speaker that I've particularly liked.

Sounds like anti-Harmon bias

 

[thewas]

The 3 kHz peak will emphasize upper vocal overtones. A lot of vocal mics have a similar "presence peak" (marketed as such) to help vocals "cut through" the mix. A lot of people like it, and it works on some material, just not all IME/IMO. The rising response to 10 kHz will emphasize the higher transients and such but we are less sensitive to those frequencies. Note the 3 kHz peak is about 3 dB; I would consider it "noticeable" but it is not a huge bump up. The combination can emphasis upper frequencies and explain why some folk might use words like "faster" or "greater presence" and such when describing the sound.

Also the on axis increase is more than compensated by the increased directivity at that region and usual high "highend" listening distances as it can be seen from the horizontal 30° measurement

(source: https://www.gute-anlage.de/media/pdf/f6/cc/f5/802D3_Stereo_11_15_.pdf )

and matches more the voicing of most after 2000s B&W models which rather have a presence dip. (A reason why the on-axis compensated angular plots of Stereophile are not helpful and have been correctly criticised by many).

 

[polmuaddib]

Since I have

I wonder if people who claim the 800-series B&W's are overly bright are listening with them completely toed in and aimed directly at the listener (I.e. What Revel, Genelec, and Kef tells you to do).

Also people here have a tendency to freak out when they see the treble emphasis from the stereophile FR graph, perhaps not realizing that it represents a narrow on-axis window. The HF response of these B&W's can be easily adjusted by varying the amount of toe-in.

I had B&W 804 Nautilus for a while. I generally liked their sound but the thing that bothered me was that the soundstage was messed up if i listened to them toed in. All the cymbals, hihats, HF stuff was fixed on speakers. When I toed them out almost facing the rear wall, only then the soundstage got right, instruments were between speakers. But then they sounded darker and always felt something was missing.
I experimented a lot with toe in/out balance, until I sold them.
I don't have that problem with new speakers. Even though they are bigger, I don't percieve sound coming from them directly, but rather between them and around them. In other words, the illusion is complete.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I'm sure he's talking about the now famous Telarc recording originally released on vinyl.

Could be. Was an impressive demo but, of course, there were two Telarc 1812s.

 

[blueone]

Could be. Was an impressive demo but, of course, there were two Telarc 1812s.

There was a second one?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

There was a second one?

Yup.

 

[blueone]

Thanks, Kal. One recording of the 1812 Overture is enough for me.

 

[preload]

Thanks, Kal. One recording of the 1812 Overture is enough for me.

I wonder if they used compression to fit all of the dynamic range of this recording onto vinyl.

Also I just figured everyone skipped ahead to the cannons to test their subwoofer.

 

[MasterApex]

Yup.

I have that SACD (first on the above pic) version.
The recording has huge dynamic (sound level difference between loud vs soft) that makes you feel like you are in the auditorium life concert.
I have to crank my pre-amp about 15dB more than typical pop songs recording....This is where my older N801 shines, it can handle the Canon sound at 98dB peak ( not sustained average) volume , no distortion or hitting limit driven by Levinson.

 

[blueone]

I wonder if they used compression to fit all of the dynamic range of this recording onto vinyl.

Also I just figured everyone skipped ahead to the cannons to test their subwoofer.

Interestingly, I understand the cannon shots are most dangerous to tweeters, especially those crossed at 2KHz or so.

 

[Cadguy]

The KEF 107s I had in the past could play the cannons on the older Telarc CD frighteningly loud and tight. I still have the original LP as well and my Shure V15 VxMR can track the cannon shots without skipping.