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

[John Schuermann]

Fascinating post! Measurements and detailed graphs are great, but like any good thing, they can be taken too far. How does it sound to a particular person in their particular room? Or, as Revel seems to be currently considering, how does it sound in blind tests to a series of individuals in a particular room?

True, but also Floyd Toole has pretty conclusively demonstrated that a good speaker is a good speaker in any room, and a bad speaker is still a bad speaker in any room.

In other words, if you do a blind test of four speakers in Room A and then do a blind test of the same four speakers in Room B, they will still rank the same even if the acoustic properties of the room are different. The overall scores might be higher or lower, but the preference ranking will remain the same.

 

[Imakeller]

So now "showroom sound" is acceptable (even good, actually!) when Revel does it?

I’d say some skepticism is healthy on this point. As long as Revel keeps providing comprehensive measurements, it should keep them honest.

 

[Vergiliusma]

So now "showroom sound" is acceptable (even good, actually!) when Revel does it?

A lot of respected designers do it. Notice in the rest of the line as F3 drops the tunings become more flattish.

It's just one of the trade-offs when you want a small box with the chosen mid-woof in your speaker line and are trying to get the most out of it with the end user in mind.

Let's look at it the other way. Would you be ok with an overdamped tuning for a tower speaker or subwoofer, or does it always need to be maximally flat?

 

[TurtlePaul]

So now "showroom sound" is acceptable (even good, actually!) when Revel does it?

I suspect that they tested without a sub and found that the preference is to have a midbass boost if it gets extension into the 40s then have a perfectly flat response and have -6 dB roll off at around 55 hz. When trying to integrate a sub, using these or the M16 is a lot worse unless you are using a lot of EQ. That being said, there are a lot of posts on r/audiophile which shows systems with small bookshelf speakers and no subs, and I expect that the flat speakers sound terrible in that regard as the bass is just missing. Bass is a hugely influential part of preference and speakers with no bass I could easily see scoring lower than speakers with worse flatness. However, I wish they tested with subwoofers in 2.1 systems for the bookshelf speakers (because that is how I use speakers).

 

[John Schuermann]

Thanks for this post, it’s very informative.

Another difference that I have seen stated online is that the Perlisten speakers are capable of playing much louder before the onset of significant distortion than then 328be. In your experience, is there truth to this?

During all of our tests at all kinds of volume levels people's preferences - or at least their comments - remain the same. Our room is 22' x 16' x 8, and the MLP is part of a 13' equilateral triangle. I don't think we've ever played them loud enough where distortion has become an issue.

Some people do get hung up on hitting theatrical reference levels, but small room reference is actually about 7 to 8 db down from theatrical, and I've never had a problem playing the F328Be at insane volume levels in here.

My personal preference is for the Revel F328Be over the S7t and my SCL2s, but I definitely get the appeal of the Perlisten and the Synthesis speakers in our room. I listen to a lot of orchestral music so that spaciousness is extremely important to me. Then again, close mic'd instruments - especially percussion - have this incredible "right there in the room" quality with the JBL SCL2 in particular. We have people fly in all the time to compare the three speakers side by side, and their impressions are always the same. In general, people tend to gravitate to the more open sound of the Revels, but it's probably 40% Revel preference when we do these sessions vs. 30% each for Perlisten and JBL. That's damn close! We install systems from all three brands regularly.

As far as SPL and dynamics, it's interesting that I used to use the OPEN RANGE gunfight to show how much more dynamic the JBL Synthesis speakers were than the Salon2s, my previous "main" speakers. With the F328Be that difference has narrowed considerably. Compared to the Salon2, the F328Be is more dynamic and has a greater sense of fine detail. BUT I still miss that wonderful silky sound that the Salon2 had on top. I've never heard another speaker do it. Discussing this with Floyd I think we both agree that the Salon2 was special due to its diffraction reducing cabinet. There was much less sense of the sound coming from the front of the speaker. Instead there was just this incredible airiness on top that was addictive. It took that "spaciousness" element to a whole other level.

 

[John Schuermann]

That C245 center channel seems like a big miss for the Performa4 line. I’m sure it’s very good, but there should be a step up. It doesn’t project that Revel was serious about the higher end HT consumers with flat panels. Revel should have listened to @Rex Anderson on that one. People with a AT projection screen can obviously go with 3 towers for L/C/R. Those with flat panels could go with a C426Be center (excellent, but pricey) or track down an Ultima Voice2 on the secondary market. While not exact matches, they’d be much better than the C245.

All of us at TSR wish there had been a direct replacement for the Performa3 C208. But you know what? The C208 just didn't sell. The C426Be doesn't sell well either.

WE sold a ton of the C208s (we meaning The Screening Room) because we recognized what a great center it was. But people did complain about how BIG and expensive it was. The same is true of the C426Be.

The problem with all the above mentioned speakers is that they don't fit into people's HT stands / cabinets.

Note that the Revel Be in-walls tied for first place even against their box equivalent in our in-wall double blind speaker shootout (Revel F228Be vs. W228Be vs. Triad Gold vs. JBL SCL6). Those are great for an LCR in a home theater system, and you don't have to waste money on speaker cabinetry.

 

[John Schuermann]

I always liked Revels and wish them good luck with their new lineup.

But this new line just screams "stereo". No big center, no slim bookshelves many like for surrounds, and absolutely nothing for Atmos. And the sub is a different story. It defies the logic of pricing beyond Perlisten, which are probably way better.

A curious decision IMO. I can't see any of these making their way into my room.

Part of the problem is that Harman sees JBL Synthesis as their home theater brand, not so much Revel. That said, the Revel Be in-walls have gone into three high end HTs we've installed over the last year and those systems are outstanding.

So yes, Revel has always been primarily two channel focused, but can be made to work wonderfully well in a home theater system. My own personal system after doing all these blind tests is all Revel Be based.

 

[John Schuermann]

We all need different SPL for sure. But if aiming at reference at MLP and say modest +5 low end shelf, you are talking about 116dB at 1 m (105+5+6 db for say 3m distance). This ain't happening below 100hz (just being generous) at any decent distortion, so sub up for the reference, as going to 6.5" drivers points the way. Since this line screams stereo, and given the price, would be surprised if they go this loud.

I'm co-mixing a film right now with a true pro out in LA, and both of us mix in HT sized rooms (I'm writing the score and pre-mixing it for my final LA session). Reference for both of our rooms is 78 / 98, not 85/105. So something to consider.

 

[John Schuermann]

As my beloved main speakers are over 30 years old, Revel 228Be or 328Be speakers have been on my list of possible replacements, should the need arise.
The new Performa4 line will not be on that list. Unless testing proves otherwise, I do not have confidence that they will play clean at higher volumes

We plan to do a listening test with the P4s against the new Perlisten A series and one of the new JBL Synthesis in-room speakers. We'd love to have others bring their own speakers to the party.

 

[Oddball]

I'm co-mixing a film right now with a true pro out in LA, and both of us mix in HT sized rooms (I'm writing the score and pre-mixing it for my final LA session). Reference for both of our rooms is 78 / 98, not 85/105. So something to consider.

Well, that is kind. I am also not a fan of pushing it all the way. But 98dB is still quite a bit louder than most speakers can take without a proper bass management.

If you would to ask of my opinion, I would reduce the spread to 15dB. Still loud enough to make the point and probably more friendly to home setups.

 

[tineared]

We plan to do a listening test with the P4s against the new Perlisten A series and one of the new JBL Synthesis in-room speakers. We'd love to have others bring their own speakers to the party.

Please share the results of your test back here, particularly with the Perlistens.
Are you taking bets?

 

[John Schuermann]

Good post. Your descriptions match and can mostly be attributed to differences in directivity/dispersion between the brands. Revel tend to be wider, a less common and sometimes sought after presentation.

I would argue that the alternative isn't hyper detail, both are equally detailed. But the presentation on the sound stage is more precise and fixed in space. Revels will be more spacious and open at a cost of sound stage precision not detail in frequency response.

This is one of those subjective things, but I think I can qualify it more objectively. Yes, absolutely the detail is there with the Revels just like with the Perlistens. But it's somewhat "obscured" by that sense of spaciousness.

Think of it this way. Let's say I record a sax player in a recording studio, a fairly dead room and I'm mic'ing them up close.

I play that back through my monitors and it's like, wow, listen to all that detail - fingers running up and down the valves, the sound of the player's teeth on the reed, sounds like the player is RIGHT THERE.

But it sounds "dry," lifeless. So I add a little reverb. Now the sound opens up and I get this wonderful sense of space "around" the instrument. But now some of that detail is "obscured."

In the same way, a Revel speaker will tend to bring more of the room into the equation, opening up the sound.

Another way to think of it: fire a gun in a small room and then fire it in a big warehouse. Big difference in your perception of that sound even if they are the same SPL. For this reason I think many people say a Perlisten or JBL is more "dynamic," when what you are hearing is a greater predominance of direct sound (vs. a greater percentage of room reflections with a Revel).

No right or wrong here, just differences in presentation.

 

[John Schuermann]

Please share the results of your test back here, particularly with the Perlistens.
Are you taking bets?

To quote David Letterman, "as always, no wagering."

Of course we will be writing up the results. I'm interested to hear the new Perlistens as the waveguide looks like it might open up the sound more like the Revels.

 

[John Schuermann]

Thought everyone here might enjoy this - kinda goes to what I've been saying about spaciousness vs. direct sound. Here is a quote from Floyd Toole after we did our big Salon2 vs. M2 shootout back in 2017. The Salon2 won by a small but significant margin and I asked Floyd why this might be so. Floyd helped us create the double blind test rig:

I suspect you were hearing the differences in directivity (reflections). See Figure 2 in my 2015 JAES paper for a comparison between the M2 and Revel Studio. The Revel will excite more room reflections, as happens in live performances. You (and I) like this, but there are those who prefer pinpoint localizations. I suspect that this is responsible for the "silkiness".

Dominant direct sound is less forgiving and less natural. In a concert hall a few rows back the direct sound is buried in reverberation. However, if the listener is less dedicated to classical music and movies are the thing then the rules can change.

I've never heard the M2 behind a screen, but in my entire lifetime I have never heard a horn loudspeaker that did not "identify" itself, usually with sounds localizable to the throat. I thought the M2 might have broken that trend, and I guess the answer is "almost".

re. exciting more room reflections - there is no doubt that the Revel does generate more reflections, and evidence is that in recreational listening that is an advantage. That is seen in the DIs … more room reflections add "spaciousness" and reflections from large angles arrive along HRTFs that have more treble, which adds to the "size" (loudness?) of the source.

Wow, this is seriously right to my point, and explains exactly what we've been experiencing during these listening tests. As I always say, "it ain't magic."

 

[amper42]

Thanks for this post, it’s very informative.

Another difference that I have seen stated online is that the Perlisten speakers are capable of playing much louder before the onset of significant distortion than then 328be. In your experience, is there truth to this?

Neither the Revel F328Be or the Perlisten have issues playing at high volume levels with low distortion. However, if you wish to maintain healthy hearing so you can enjoy music for a lifetime, I would recommend avoiding high volume conditions.

 

[John Schuermann]

Neither the Revel F328Be or the Perlisten have issues playing at high volume levels with low distortion. However, if you wish to maintain healthy hearing so you can enjoy music for a lifetime, I would recommend avoiding high volume conditions.

ABSOLUTELY.

So many people in various HT groups seem determined to go deaf.

 

[jhaider]

That C245 center channel seems like a big miss for the Performa4 line. I’m sure it’s very good, but there should be a step up. It doesn’t project that Revel was serious about the higher end HT consumers with flat panels. Revel should have listened to @Rex Anderson on that one. People with a AT projection screen can obviously go with 3 towers for L/C/R. Those with flat panels could go with a C426Be center (excellent, but pricey) or track down an Ultima Voice2 on the secondary market. While not exact matches, they’d be much better than the C245.

I spoke to their rep at Axpona today about my disappointment on this. After trying to spin some nonsense about the waveguide (I pointed out the issue is woofer spacing) he conceded the center is more a “check the box” (exact words) than anything else.

I thought the towers they were playing sounded fine, but the finishes they’re offering are about a dozen years out of date. Black ash and an espresso type veneer. Performa3/Be looks like the newer speaker.

 

[MayI]

You need to remember that Revel isn't only about neutral response, it's about what is preferred in blind listening sessions.

That's interesting. I think one of the fears of the Samsung acquirement were things like the Harman Lab being sidelined or gone. Do you know who runs the lab now with most of the old guard gone?

It's possible that listeners thought the M145 sounded too thin without the extra bass bump, and preferred the extra bottom (even at the expense of some accuracy in the measurements).

Makes sense even if purists take issue

Point being that the Spinoramas are great for narrowing down the list of speakers to audition, but based on 9 years of us doing blind, sighted and double blind tests of top measuring models, it's still really helpful to give all these speakers a listen - preferably side by side and level matched.

Makes sense even if purists take issue . Hopefully people are doing just that at Axpona.
Thanks John

 

[Mort]

But it sounds "dry," lifeless. So I add a little reverb. Now the sound opens up and I get this wonderful sense of space "around" the instrument. But now some of that detail is "obscured."

In the same way, a Revel speaker will tend to bring more of the room into the equation, opening up the sound.

Yes, very accurate too. The directivity/dispersion will also add a bit of reverberance to the sound from the good off axis behavior. To many ears the wider Revel (or Philharmonic Audio for another example) favors acoustic music which is itself often reverberant - that's obviously a matter of taste but I think it's more often true than not. I also like it for home theater when I don't want the precise soundstage and sometimes have multi-listening point issues, which are also better with a wide directivity and the larger soundstage.

 

[MarkS]

I'm not sure why Revels are regarded as having particularly wide dispersion. Here are the horizontal distribution plots for the AsciLab C6B, Revel M106, and Philharmonic BMR bookshelf speakers: