802 D3 vs Revel Salon 2

[MasterApex]

Thanks for the explanation. Reviewer talk about new materials coating (Be, Diamond, ..) etc on the speaker surface to increase stiffness and breakup frequency that is above hearing frequency ....Yet, these new materials seem to improve the "presence" or "life like" quality of the sound?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Reviewer talk about new materials coating (Be, Diamond, ..) etc on the speaker surface to increase stiffness and breakup frequency that is above hearing frequency ....

If that's what the manufacturer says and the physics seems logical.

....Yet, these new materials seem to improve the "presence" or "life like" quality of the sound?

That, also, seems an inference.

 

[blueone]

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.

I don't think what I've heard with female voices would be well explained by a 3KHz emphasis, but you've got a good point that some microphones (especially those used by commercial studios) could be designed to have characteristics that emphasize female voices. It wouldn't surprise me one bit. If that's the case, it probably wouldn't take much of a speaker emphasis to highlight the additive effect.

 

[blueone]

Thanks for the explanation. Reviewer talk about new materials coating (Be, Diamond, ..) etc on the speaker surface to increase stiffness and breakup frequency that is above hearing frequency ....Yet, these new materials seem to improve the "presence" or "life like" quality of the sound?

The Be and Diamond domes are not coatings. The domes are solid Be or Diamond.

 

[echopraxia]

I’ve owned the B&W 702 S2’s in the past and heard the 802 D3. I actually preferred the 702 S2’s over the 802 D3 that I heard at the time, since the latter sounded too bright to me (though to some extent it could have been the room). So I bought the 702 S2’s, and had them for a while.

I got a fair bit of enjoyment out of the 702 S2’s, but started to notice something was wrong when only a very particular set of music genres or tracks sounded really good on it. In fact, the vast majority of music sounded way way too harsh and bright, painfully so.

But I just chalked it up to not all music being of the same sound / mastering quality. “Why is so much music mastered to sound so terrible?”, I thought to myself.

Well, I later learned that it wasn’t the mastering that was flawed. It was the speakers. I realized there were entire genres of music and a whole world of music and audio I was missing out on, when I bought some Mackie 8” studio monitors from Guitar Center for $500/pair for my computer setup, and found them to sound consistently good across a vast variety of music — even on tracks that always sounded bad on the B&W speakers.

In fact, I kept finding more and more tracks that sounded fantastic on the neutral speakers, but sounded way too bright or harsh or just “wrong” on the B&W 702 S2’s (and my older B&W CM6 S2’s).

So to OP, I highly suggest (if you are still comparing them) trying out new tracks you haven’t necessarily selected for. Because there is one major pitfall of using test tracks you’ve selected that sound good on your current speakers to evaluate other speakers: Using test tracks that sound fantastic on a colored speaker you’re familiar with (B&W) to test neutral speakers (Revel) is going to inevitably make the latter sound less exciting at first, because most likely those tracks were mastered “incorrectly“ against a neutral target. Similarly, using test tracks that sound fantastic on a neutral speaker is more likely to reveal the colorations and deviations from accuracy in other speakers.

Now, if you have a particular collection of songs you really really like and they happen to sound best with B&W’s coloration, then that’s great and you get a good deal! Everyone is happy.

But if you’re like me and many others who enjoy a wide variety of genres, you may find that you’re missing out on a whole world of music that your B&W’s are subtly ruining. And if you use neutral speakers with good off axis response, you can always equalize them to match almost any coloration you want (aside from inconsistent off-axis response).

Personally, I’ve moved on from B&W and have no regrets whatsoever.

 

[dfuller]

Thanks for the explanation. Reviewer talk about new materials coating (Be, Diamond, ..) etc on the speaker surface to increase stiffness and breakup frequency that is above hearing frequency

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.

Yet, these new materials seem to improve the "presence" or "life like" quality of the sound?

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

 

[DonH56]

I don't think what I've heard with female voices would be well explained by a 3KHz emphasis, but you've got a good point that some microphones (especially those used by commercial studios) could be designed to have characteristics that emphasize female voices. It wouldn't surprise me one bit. If that's the case, it probably wouldn't take much of a speaker emphasis to highlight the additive effect.

If you have EQ ability in your system, try bumping up the band around 3 kHz (and elsewhere), and you can get a feel for how the sound changes.

Most vocal mics include a HF boost. Probably the most well-known stage mics are the Shure 57/58 (same capsule , different body) -- here is the SM58's response curve:

Neumann KMS104:

Many others out there... I don't have many mics left in my collection, got rid of most when I quit doing live recording. I know my old pair of AKG C1000 end-fire condensers have a similar HF boost as I usually had to EQ it down when recording my trumpet or brass groups. It would also emphasis the violins in the mix, vexing...

 

[MasterApex]

Typical test tracks that I use to compare and for active listening (SACD or DSF file):
1) Jazz of pawnshop = track 2 and 4
2) Norah Jones Come away - track 1 and 5
3) 1812 overture Eric Kunzel - track 1 and 4
4) Dire straits - Money for nothing
5) Pink Flyod - Dark Side on Moon

Those are the tracks where I found 802D3 is more life-like.

I listen to pop music as background in office , can't do work in my Hi Fi room unfortunately

 

[richard12511]

I think the extra "presence" or what I called "life-like" is beyond frequency response plot.
It may be how accurate the speaker itself reproducing the sounds (slew rate, damping) and the lack of cabinet resonance which would defocus the sound.

Cabinet resonance would show up in the frequency response, though. Any sort of resonance that is loud enough to be audible will show up in the frequency response. From looking at the frequencies response measurements, it really looks like the B&W cabinets are more(not less) resonant, and I truly believe that is intentional. I'll bet they have some internal listening data that is guiding them to including those "resonances" we see.

I really think you just like that response that B&W is putting out. It's not more neutral in any way technically, but it may sound more neutral or life like to some people, and that makes it best for those people. Something may be technically more natural, but if it doesn't sound that way to me, why should I want it? After all, we're in this for our own enjoyment .

 

[richard12511]

Typical test tracks that I use to compare and for active listening (SACD or DSF file):
1) Jazz of pawnshop = track 2 and 4
2) Norah Jones Come away - track 1 and 5
3) 1812 overture Eric Kunzel - track 1 and 4
4) Dire straits - Money for nothing
5) Pink Flyod - Dark Side on Moon

Those are the tracks where I found 802D3 is more life-like.

I listen to pop music as background in office , can't do work in my Hi Fi room unfortunately

I use some of those same test tracks .

 

[blueone]

If you have EQ ability in your system, try bumping up the band around 3 kHz (and elsewhere), and you can get a feel for how the sound changes.

Most vocal mics include a HF boost. Probably the most well-known stage mics are the Shure 57/58 (same capsule , different body) -- here is the SM58's response curve:
View attachment 127943

Neumann KMS104:
View attachment 127944

Many others out there... I don't have many mics left in my collection, got rid of most when I quit doing live recording. I know my old pair of AKG C1000 end-fire condensers have a similar HF boost as I usually had to EQ it down when recording my trumpet or brass groups. It would also emphasis the violins in the mix, vexing...

The curve for the Shure mics looks terrible. The plot for the Neumann isn't visible.

I don't have EQ capability in my music system beyond about 100Hz, but I do have multiple female acapella recordings, including a couple I made myself, and various spectrum analysis tools. When I get a chance I'll take a look at what's cooking. It's never occurred to me to do that before.

FWIW, the KEF 207/2 I was auditioning at the time I was shopping for what became the Salon2s sounded very similar on the same female vocal recordings to the Salon2s. The KEF and the Revel weren't in the same room or even at the same dealer, but the similarity was obvious. The B&W 800D (and 802D; a local dealer had both available) were the outliers. I will say this, I can understand why many people would prefer the B&Ws, especially for popular music.

 

[richard12511]

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

Indeed. We know that frequency response(both on and off axis) is the most important thing. If the frequency responses are different, then it's highly likely that the differences we hear are based on that. When the frequency responses look almost identical, yet I still hear a difference, that's when I might start looking elsewhere(distortion, time domain, etc.).

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Typical test tracks that I use to compare and for active listening (SACD or DSF file):
1) Jazz of pawnshop = track 2 and 4
2) Norah Jones Come away - track 1 and 5
3) 1812 overture Eric Kunzel - track 1 and 4
4) Dire straits - Money for nothing
5) Pink Flyod - Dark Side on Moon

1) I do not know or use this (because of distaste for the music).
2) Ditto.
3) Mebbe. Aside from the cannons, not a great recording. (Which recording btw?)
4) I often use (and like) this but it is so manipulated that there's little "life-like" about it. Also, the various masterings may be an issue.
5) Ditto.

Those are the tracks where I found 802D3 is more life-like.

I have heard most of these with the 802D3 and do think they sounded good, even exciting. Life-like not.
So what do you mean by life-like? The individual voices and instruments?

 

[MarkS]

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).

Which translates into what in terms of measurements?

I'm very tempted to think that Be is just pure marketing hype.

 

[blueone]

Which translates into what in terms of measurements?

I'm very tempted to think that Be is just pure marketing hype.

The most obvious advantage is that it has the stiffness of a metal dome, but the breakup mode is pushed beyond 50KHz. Aluminum domes breakup near the audible range.

 

[richard12511]

Which translates into what in terms of measurements?

I'm very tempted to think that Be is just pure marketing hype.

I would say higher breakup and lower distortion. Why does the Salon2 fall of so fast above 10kHz, though?

 

[MarkS]

And "breakup" produces what measurable effect(s)?

 

[dfuller]

And "breakup" produces what measurable effect(s)?

Big frequency response spikes in metal diaphragm speakers. You can see it in full-range response measurements of aluminum or magnesium woofers, like so (this is the Dayton RS225):

See how it starts to roll off and then goes nuts up around 3k? That's the speaker no longer behaving as a piston.

In a tweeter, that happens higher up.

Aluminum (Scan-Speak D2904/9800), the big breakup mode is around 30k.

Beryllium (Scan-Speak D3004/6640), the big breakup mode isn't even shown in measurements - it's up above 50k somewhere.

Is this audible? Well... maybe, but certainly not directly. It can have an impact as intermodulation distortion, at some level, but the further you move it away from human hearing, the less likely it will be an issue. Some lesser quality aluminum tweeters can have the breakup modes well lower because its internal damping is so poor, and that likely is audible.

I would say higher breakup and lower distortion. Why does the Salon2 fall of so fast above 10kHz, though?

You know, I'm not sure. I've seen it in some beryllium drivers though and the little I've been able to find says it's because of the stiffness, but I don't quite understand this one.

 

[Lsc]

I would say higher breakup and lower distortion. Why does the Salon2 fall of so fast above 10kHz, though?

I think that’s due to the waveguide. The Salon2 has an older waveguide design (obviously).

 

[DonH56]

The curve for the Shure mics looks terrible. The plot for the Neumann isn't visible.

I don't have EQ capability in my music system beyond about 100Hz, but I do have multiple female acapella recordings, including a couple I made myself, and various spectrum analysis tools. When I get a chance I'll take a look at what's cooking. It's never occurred to me to do that before.

FWIW, the KEF 207/2 I was auditioning at the time I was shopping for what became the Salon2s sounded very similar on the same female vocal recordings to the Salon2s. The KEF and the Revel weren't in the same room or even at the same dealer, but the similarity was obvious. The B&W 800D (and 802D; a local dealer had both available) were the outliers. I will say this, I can understand why many people would prefer the B&Ws, especially for popular music.

The Neumann is very similar to the Shure. Remember, these are mics for a specific purpose, chosen for their tonal signature. "Flat" is not a criteria for them; they are designed to emphasize vocals and the HF "boost" is desired in this application. There are other mics that have flat response, and mics tailored for specific instruments and such. But the Shure 58 is one of the most widely used vocal mics in the world, though more for stage than studio recording.