Is The Revel Ultima Salon2 STILL the State Of The Art?

[hvbias]

Just curious, at USD$8K for an excellent used pair of Salon2, you would pay 3x or more for Blade Meta 2 and Kii 3 BXT or is that cost not factored in?

Viewing it purely for myself, I absolutely would. Music/hifi provides me so much enjoyment (I've probably spent north of $50k on music) that the pain of the additional expense would be soon forgotten. I'm not the type of audiophile that has 200 amazing sounding albums or just streams and that's all the stereo is used for. I've tried rewording this sentence several times to make it sound not pretentious and I am pretty sure I am still failing so here goes- since I became a huge classical fan in the late 90s the best repertoire (and ergo best performances) have often brought me something more than just enjoyment, like Mahler's Symphony 8 live or on an incredible stereo is pretty much spiritual or transcendental. Just one of hundreds of pieces that gives me that feeling. I've also spent a lot on flying/hotels to get to classical concerts.

I also made a decent amount while I was working so it doesn't have any long term financial impact on me and I will already be leaving my children a decent inheritance. I subscribed to the Boglehead philosophy of saving and investing aggressively and living within your means so spending ~$35k-50k on a pair of speakers wouldn't be a light decision from a psychological point of view. But even taking all that into account it's absolutely worth it to me.

There was a blind test on AVS Forum between Salon 2 and JBL M2 (never heard it, but I have heard 4367, forgot to include that in my post) and the Salon 2 came out winning that blind test which from what I heard does not surprise me, they are that good and the M2 is already a highly regarded speaker. I think I would take the Salon 2 over 4367 but I would prefer to hear both in the same room.

For anyone else- this would be a much tougher question that I can't answer but if forced to pick a side for someone where the money aspect did matter, the Salon 2 at $8k would be the way to go.

Sorry for the long winded post!

 

[Jiraya369]

I heard D&D 8C, Kii 3 BXT, Blade Meta 2, 8361A (two different occasions), a custom Klipsch K402 setup, and Salon 2 within the last 10 years. They remained a superb speaker with unoffensive aesthetics. Would I buy one in 2025- definitely not, the Blade Meta 2 and Kii 3 BXT (not in mastering mode, but the more neutral mode) were better.



8361A are tonally excellent speakers (so good I will be buying 8331A unheard, which I never do for anything expensive) but with two different Genelec subwoofers they still sound like you're listening to monitor speakers. They simply don't have the disappearing/large sound of the Blade, Kii 3 BXT or even Salon 2. I brought this up before in the forum and some people solve this with multichannel and up mixing software to have the rear Genelecs also surround you with music. IMO this is a band-aid solution and not good for one of the main genres I listen to.

i don't really get the genelec comment like, how do the others sound big? The Revel must be wider but the Blade as well? that's interesting.

 

[Luvchampagne]

Viewing it purely for myself, I absolutely would. Music/hifi provides me so much enjoyment (I've probably spent north of $50k on music) that the pain of the additional expense would be soon forgotten. I'm not the type of audiophile that has 200 amazing sounding albums or just streams and that's all the stereo is used for. I've tried rewording this sentence several times to make it sound not pretentious and I am pretty sure I am still failing so here goes- since I became a huge classical fan in the late 90s the best repertoire (and ergo best performances) have often brought me something more than just enjoyment, like Mahler's Symphony 8 live or on an incredible stereo is pretty much spiritual or transcendental. Just one of hundreds of pieces that gives me that feeling. I've also spent a lot on flying/hotels to get to classical concerts.

I also made a decent amount while I was working so it doesn't have any long term financial impact on me and I will already be leaving my children a decent inheritance. I subscribed to the Boglehead philosophy of saving and investing aggressively and living within your means so spending ~$35k-50k on a pair of speakers wouldn't be a light decision from a psychological point of view. But even taking all that into account it's absolutely worth it to me.

There was a blind test on AVS Forum between Salon 2 and JBL M2 (never heard it, but I have heard 4367, forgot to include that in my post) and the Salon 2 came out winning that blind test which from what I heard does not surprise me, they are that good and the M2 is already a highly regarded speaker. I think I would take the Salon 2 over 4367 but I would prefer to hear both in the same room.

For anyone else- this would be a much tougher question that I can't answer but if forced to pick a side for someone where the money aspect did matter, the Salon 2 at $8k would be the way to go.

Sorry for the long winded post!

Have you listened to the Perlisten 7T Limited Edition or Magico M7? Rockport Avior II?

 

[kyuu]

i don't really get the genelec comment like, how do the others sound big? The Revel must be wider but the Blade as well? that's interesting.

Yes, the directivities of the Genelec and Blade are pretty similar. That's why I was wondering in what context he heard them. In a studio setting, where the room is probably heavily treated, I can see getting the impression that they sound "small" due to the lack of reflections in the room. In a normal domestic space I don't see why the Genelecs would sound any smaller than something like the Blade, asides from the visual cues perhaps.

 

[Jiraya369]

Yes, the directivities of the Genelec and Blade are pretty similar. That's why I was wondering in what context he heard them. In a studio setting, where the room is probably heavily treated, I can see getting the impression that they sound "small" due to the lack of reflections in the room. In a normal domestic space I don't see why the Genelecs would sound any smaller than something like the Blade, asides from the visual cues perhaps.

perhaps the size might have led to a different sound in a different room due to positioning. Maybe where he heard the genelec from, the bass was lower. And bass is imo the only thing that makes any audio product sound truly larger. Below 500 hz the room dominates so ig it's just the positioning that messed things up for him.

For example, in the place i put my speakers in originally, i couldnt hear anything below 100 hz. So yeah, that's the issue with sub-less speakers and a lack of calibration/room optimsation, loads of things can go wrong.

But if we rule out these issues then 100% you're right, we're quite prone to falling for visual cues!!

At least he's right about one thing, all of them are absolutely fantastic and are rightfully "endgame"

 

[hvbias]

i don't really get the genelec comment like, how do the others sound big? The Revel must be wider but the Blade as well? that's interesting.

Both Genelec systems were clearly full range. @kyuu might have a good point about how the rooms were treated but I heard Genelec in a studio only once, the other time it was a domestic environment. To hear normal scale symphonies (i.e., not historically informed with smaller orchestras) on the Blade 2 or Kii 3 BXT really did reproduce the scale quite well (I mean as far as the limitation of speakers is concerned relative to the real thing) and both times it didn't really sound like I was listening to speakers. Likewise with the scale of a modern concert grand when playing fortissimo. Neither KEF or Kii 3 BXT sounded like the sound was glued to the speakers which I heard with the 8361A. All of this might have been meaningless with heavily multi-tracked/manipulated music.

Both times the Genelec sounded nigh on identical. And again I was so impressed by their tonality that I am doing something I've never done before, I'm buying the 8331A or 8341A blind once I can figure out what computer screen size I want to settle on. The 8361A were tonally so much better than my current computer speakers- JBL LSR 306 MK2.

Have you listened to the Perlisten 7T Limited Edition or Magico M7? Rockport Avior II?

Perlisten would be highly unlikely or if I did it was unknowing, I have not heard of the company before. Magico and Rockport only at hifi shows and I never took note of what their models were. IMO I would not pay much attention to what I heard at a show.

 

[xanalog]

This fish (Leo) just does not fit in this aquarium.

But the poor Leo was a guppy some years back and just did not stop growing.
Either the fish is too big for the aquarium or the aquarium is too small for the fish!

Every time I see a mismatch between room size vs. speaker size, I think of poor Leo; the victim, not the villain.

 

[hvbias]

Every time I see a mismatch between room size vs. speaker size, I think of poor Leo; the victim, not the villain.

Unless the speakers are physically dominating the room to the point you have to listen to them in the near field, the size of the speakers relative to the room is inconsequential. For a small room managing the bass with subwoofers and EQ will be far more important than the physical size of the speakers. Toole's listening tests also show that the tonality of speakers can be gauged in unoptimal rooms. Ideally everything being discussed would be able to be heard blind, in the same room but we can only go based off what realistic resources we have available to us.

The traditional audiophile logic would be to place a small bookshelf in a small room, it's not correct. Your analogy would be more accurate comparing it to prisoners living in a cell that is too small/cramped.

 

[MattHooper]

Unless the speakers are physically dominating the room to the point you have to listen to them in the near field, the size of the speakers relative to the room is inconsequential. For a small room managing the bass with subwoofers and EQ will be far more important than the physical size of the speakers. Toole's listening tests also show that the tonality of speakers can be gauged in unoptimal rooms. Ideally everything being discussed would be able to be heard blind, in the same room but we can only go based off what realistic resources we have available to us.

The traditional audiophile logic would be to place a small bookshelf in a small room, it's not correct. Your analogy would be more accurate comparing it to prisoners living in a cell that is too small/cramped.

My room is 15’ x 13’ and I’ve had all sorts of large loudspeakers including ones that went down to 25 Hz, and I never had any trouble getting subjectively excellent sound. I prefer floor standards to sat/subs.

 

[jhaider]

Could the Dunlavy SC-IV been considered the SOTA in its time? If not, what other speakers were measuring better?

Dunlavy Audio Laboratories SC-IV loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 3: Measurements Fig.1 shows the SC-IV's impedance magnitude and phase, measured with the MLSSA system but plotted with the Audio Precision software for consistency with other reviews published in Stereophile. The former stays between 4 and 6 ohms from 37Hz to 2150Hz, with minimum values...

www.stereophile.com

There’s not enough measurement there to make such claims. I have a lot of respect for JD, but IMO his speakers were a great example of massive brainpower and engineering effort beautifully executed in service of the wrong goals: time whatever without consideration of the basic and necessary condition of smooth off-axis response. The most telling line in the write up is this one: “It wasn't possible to do a family of off-axis plots, the DAL anechoic chamber not having a suitable loudspeaker turntable.” (emph. added) Yet, the montrously complex 1st order crossovers needed for that on axis step response or whatever result in considerable off-axis lobing. When I heard them (may have been the bigger ones; don't recall), the most notable feature to me was hearing large sound presentation differences with small head or body movements. Really, coffin-sized headphones.

IIRC in terms of big array speakers, Snell XA was a (roughly) contemporary peer. Now that was another SOTA passive forward-firing monopole speaker: novel vertical array to sculpt directivity (Perlisten owes quite a bit to the late David Smith’s work — one can fairly call Perlisten's design approach a synthesis of Smith’s McIntosh designs and his later Snell designs, with updated drive units) box-in-a-box construction with constrained layer damping, and modern high-order crossovers. Salon2's drive units are better, but in terms of design concept it's a lot simpler than the big old Snells. A pity those Snells are relatively unknown today, and the brand was in the Sound United graveyard before being transferred to the Harman graveyard.

Now, it is all subjective. I’m surprised nobody has yet said that unless it’s a cardioid 138.6 degree wide cast aluminum synergy horn cabinet employing constrained layer damping, using custom beryllium and textreme Purifi drivers, and FIR whatever all over the place in the integrated electronics, it's yesterday's news.

 

[Buckchester]

I believe it gets to a point where smoother spin curves are no longer audible. I think the Salon2 is probably close to that point. All else equal, something with a smoother curve may not be reliably distinguished in a blind test.

 

[Oddball]

Are you talking about Dirac ART? If so how many speakers are involved in the setup.

Yes Dirac ART. 9.4.4 system, it's in the signature. LCR are F3 30hz and surrounds F3 40-50hz.

 

[Wesseling Audio Lab]

For a small room managing the bass with subwoofers and EQ will be far more important than the physical size of the speakers.

My room is 15’ x 13’ and I’ve had all sorts of large loudspeakers including ones that went down to 25 Hz, and I never had any trouble getting subjectively excellent sound. I prefer floor standards to sat/subs.

Positioning solves the room mode issues as stereo mono bass cancels room modes similar to running multiple subs. Toole at Toronto AES presentation starting at 1:57:00

 

[MattHooper]

There’s not enough measurement there to make such claims. I have a lot of respect for JD, but IMO his speakers were a great example of massive brainpower and engineering effort beautifully executed in service of the wrong goals: time whatever without consideration of the basic and necessary condition of smooth off-axis response. The most telling line in the write up is this one: “It wasn't possible to do a family of off-axis plots, the DAL anechoic chamber not having a suitable loudspeaker turntable.” (emph. added) Yet, the montrously complex 1st order crossovers needed for that on axis step response or whatever result in considerable off-axis lobing. When I heard them (may have been the bigger ones; don't recall), the most notable feature to me was hearing large sound presentation differences with small head or body movements. Really, coffin-sized headphones.

IIRC in terms of big array speakers, Snell XA was a (roughly) contemporary peer. Now that was another SOTA passive forward-firing monopole speaker: novel vertical array to sculpt directivity (Perlisten owes quite a bit to the late David Smith’s work — one can fairly call Perlisten's design approach a synthesis of Smith’s McIntosh designs and his later Snell designs, with updated drive units) box-in-a-box construction with constrained layer damping, and modern high-order crossovers. Salon2's drive units are better, but in terms of design concept it's a lot simpler than the big old Snells. A pity those Snells are relatively unknown today, and the brand was in the Sound United graveyard before being transferred to the Harman graveyard.

Now, it is all subjective. I’m surprised nobody has yet said that unless it’s a cardioid 138.6 degree wide cast aluminum synergy horn cabinet employing constrained layer damping, using custom beryllium and textreme Purifi drivers, and FIR whatever all over the place in the integrated electronics, it's yesterday's news.

Excellent post, thank you!

 

[Lsc]

The Dunlavy SC-IV were my dream speakers in the late 90s. Unfortunately, I was too busy chasing tail and didn’t get a chance to buy a pair.

Quintessence audio had the SC-IV and I thought it was the best speaker I’ve ever heard especially at that price…and looked the best.

 

[hvbias]

Positioning solves the room mode issues as stereo mono bass cancels room modes similar to running multiple subs. Toole at Toronto AES presentation starting at 1:57:00

There is also Welti (free to read).

Edit: so technically this is multiple, but only two. When I posted this I was thinking more along the lines of requiring more than that. Anyway hope someone finds it helpful.

 

[Wesseling Audio Lab]

There is also Welti (free to read).

Edit: so technically this is multiple, but only two. When I posted this I was thinking more along the lines of requiring more than that. Anyway hope someone finds it helpful.

I don't see free. Members and cost $33

 

[Oddball]

I was too busy chasing tail and didn’t get a chance to buy a pair.

I think you did well. My coin also tended to flip on the tail side more often than the head .

 

[Juhazi]

There is also Welti (free to read).

Edit: so technically this is multiple, but only two. When I posted this I was thinking more along the lines of requiring more than that. Anyway hope someone finds it helpful.

A public presentation by Welti & Devantier (Harman) https://www.harman.com/documents/multsubs_0.pdf

Earl Geddes promoted multiple subs even earlier

GedLee LLC

Multiple Subwoofer after Geddes

 

[traind]

I subscribed to the Boglehead philosophy of saving and investing aggressively and living within your means so spending ~$35k-50k on a pair of speakers wouldn't be a light decision from a psychological point of view.

I read Bogle's book and adopted his financial philosophy way back in my 20s. Highly recommended for anyone needing investment guidance. ASR readers will really appreciate Bogle's thinking and data. But making the psychological shift to spending is one I am actively working on as I just retired earlier this year. There's the logic of, oh, I can buy that and it will make absolutely no material difference to our daily lives financially and then there is the decades old practice of being reasonable and valued conscious! Not automatic to undo the latter.