• Welcome to ASR. 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!

New Revel Performa4 / Arcam Radia speaker line-up -- with Anechoic EQ

kyuu said:
Well I also disagree with that. A lot of the materially is in 2.0, of course, but that's not because of some inherent superiority in the format.

Even then, there's really no daylight between front L/R speakers that will perform well with music and those that would do well with movie soundtracks. The goals are the same.

For example, our esteemed Kal Rubinson has a lovely multichannel surround system that he built expressly for music. If he hooked that up to a Bluray player and listened to a movie soundtrack through it, would it be deficient in some way? I rather doubt it.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are arguing here - my point was about horizontal centers not L/R towers, so your quote is kind of taking it out of context. Just to make sure I will make the point again - there is a fundamental difference between 2.0 material and multi-channel material. It is a mathematical difference with signal being coded in 2 channels, or 5.1 or more channels and gear you need to reproduce it. I am not arguing what is superior as that is a different story. But I guess everyone can do a simple math and determine if they need big and performing horizontal center channel or will just cut the corners and get whatever is convenient.

Well Kal does not have a screen in that setup so I guess movie soundtrack would tell only half of the story, if that. But his setup is definitively reference for multi-channel music for sure, and then some.
 
Last edited:
If I were strictly listening to music, I wouldn’t have felt the need to go quite as extreme with my subwoofers. Although, there’s no thrill like overkill!
 
The modern electro pop I listen to challenges my subwoofers much more than the classic movies I watch.

It also barely touches the center channel compared to modern movies. Atmos music center is only very lightly used.

I don't think one can make generalizations about movie and music audio needs until you define the content. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they are different.

You just need the right tool for the job.
 
Imakeller said:
If I were strictly listening to music, I wouldn’t have felt the need to go quite as extreme with my subwoofers. Although, there’s no thrill like overkill!
Click to expand...
Right, we did not get that far as I thought we were on center channels but you are definitely right. "Extreme" is a relative word though, even on this forum :facepalm:. I count myself as upper mainstream :D.
 
Last edited:
Mort said:
The modern electro pop I listen to challenges my subwoofers much more than the classic movies I watch.

It also barely touches the center channel compared to modern movies. Atmos music center is only very lightly used.

I don't think one can make generalizations about movie and music audio needs until you define the content. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they are different.

You just need the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...
While you are mostly right, for 2.0 you just need 2 speakers - or am I wrong again arguing the math that my daughters got at the age of 3?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lsc
Imakeller said:
If I were strictly listening to music, I wouldn’t have felt the need to go quite as extreme with my subwoofers. Although, there’s no thrill like overkill!
Click to expand...
As an aside, the fact that I prioritize music over cinema is why my three subs are sealed and not ported.
Just sayin'
 
Oddball said:
While you are mostly right, for 2.0 you just need 2 speakers - or am I wrong again arguing the math that my daughters got at the age of 3?
Click to expand...
Um no smartass. I think you are making a very trivial point. Yes channel count is different.
 
Mort said:
Um no smartass. I think you are making a very trivial point. Yes channel count is different.
Click to expand...
They mostly called me the dumb ass - probably something in that. But yeah, the channel count and system requirements are obviously different.
 
middlemarch said:
It's in my sig., Studio 2s for mains, Gem 2s for surrounds and a C426 center. The Classic 3s look a little lost between the Studios and Gems. But serve the purpose surprisingly well. I never did have a proper amp for the 3.3s, always just used a Denon at 140W/channel. I now use a Crown XLS1502 for the Studios. Never did a direct compare between the Studios and the 3.3s, but from memory the 3.3s could definitely hold their own. Those speakers can speak with authority.
Click to expand...
If I was a betting man I’d guess that the Studio2 is a far better speaker than the 3.3 so I don’t think you really are missing out on anything.

Of course I do have a strong bias towards Revel :).
 
Mort said:
Atmos music center is only very lightly used.
Click to expand...
Is it?

1771880361492.png
1771884939113.png
1771884964603.png


Credit goes to @Jean.Francois for the spatial visualizations.
 
Lsc said:
If I was a betting man I’d guess that the Studio2 is a far better speaker than the 3.3 so I don’t think you really are missing out on anything.

Of course I do have a strong bias towards Revel :).
Click to expand...
I'm quite certain that you have never heard a pair of NHT 3.3s.
 
kyuu said:
Bah, besides the no picture. :p

I definitely did not. But obviously the channel count is not part of the point.
Click to expand...
I was referring to people that actually know myself - not the Oddball, so this was definitely not meant for you. But it is obvious to everyone that channel count is actually the essential point where you start to build your system. So not really sure what is your point?

I can do this all day as Cap said - I have Revel C426 that will do things right even with bigger towers like Heco La Diva (can't say that I don't like the name or the appearance). And my surrounds are well, old but gold. Look at the signature. Right, and there are 4 subs that are not small. I can throw anything at this system and yeah, will sound amazing. How much can you cut from the reference? Well, I have no idea as don't have to deal with it.
 
Last edited:
tineared said:
As an aside, the fact that I prioritize music over cinema is why my three subs are sealed and not ported.
Just sayin'
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean but the original comment was admittedly a little confusing.

Unfortunately for me I can only achieve ideal music and movies up to 5.1 or 7.1 but because there are no Atmos speakers that match the base layer perfectly, anything related to Atmos or “heights” will always be less than ideal unless I get new speakers.

My 3 subs are also sealed. Replacing my old SVS PB16 made a big difference for music using subs.
 
tineared said:
I'm quite certain that you have never heard a pair of NHT 3.3s.
Click to expand...
Based on the measurements of every other NHT speaker I've seen I personally wouldn't expect much. Certainly nothing on par with Revel. But who knows, maybe those are the exception?

Edit: Oh there are measurements for the 3.3, such as you get from Stereophile anyway:

NHT 3.3 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 1: Measurements John Atkinson performed the measurements on the NHT 3.3, handing me the file only after I had finished my auditioning. Its B-weighted sensitivity measured approximately 87dB/W/m (B-weighted). Its impedance (fig.1) is quite uniform, both in magnitude and phase angle...
www.stereophile.com www.stereophile.com

Not terrible, but not amazing either.
 
kyuu said:
Based on the measurements of every other NHT speaker I've seen I personally wouldn't expect much. Certainly nothing on par with Revel. But who knows, maybe those are the exception?

Edit: Oh there are measurements for the 3.3, such as you get from Stereophile anyway:

NHT 3.3 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 1: Measurements John Atkinson performed the measurements on the NHT 3.3, handing me the file only after I had finished my auditioning. Its B-weighted sensitivity measured approximately 87dB/W/m (B-weighted). Its impedance (fig.1) is quite uniform, both in magnitude and phase angle...
www.stereophile.com www.stereophile.com

Not terrible, but not amazing either.
Click to expand...
Like most HiFi companies, NHT has gone through ownership and direction changes.
Just Google NHT 3.3 reviews and see what shows up
 
tineared said:
I'm quite certain that you have never heard a pair of NHT 3.3s.
Click to expand...
That’s correct. I only have fairly extensive experience with the studio2. The speakers that I missed out in that era was the Dunlavy SC-IV. Unfortunately I graduated college too late and they were discontinued.

I’m sure the somewhat interesting looking 3.3 are good speakers, but I just don’t think anyone who has the studio2 needs to look back.
 
I'm honestly kinda bummed at this new Revel line-up but I'm not the biggest fan boy.

In the past Revel generally had wider directivity, I think. Is that still mostly true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom