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

[nathan]

I said I'm sure the 226be is better, just wanted to know by how much. I can't stand the white drivers in the Be. I could out the grills on, but I like to see the driver's. The Be's are just fugly to me. I was hoping the 345 was not that far behind, so I can have something that sounds and looks good

Oh, I see what you are after. Without the AEQ, the be would probably win your preference rating in a double blind test, but they are within the margin of error in most respects.

With AEQ, I'd guess that the 345 might sound better. Take the savings from getting the 345 and invest in whatever Harman requires for the AEQ to be added to the signal chain, and that may be a winner for you.

 

[amper42]

Good points.

The crossover to the tweeter is at about 2khz, ie, handling about the top three octaves. Nowhere near 17khz which just about anyone who can afford these speakers can't hear well, anyway......

And the bass is going to depend so much more on the room and placement than the differences in anechoic response..... and anyway, if accurate bass is the goal, a set of subwoofers is going to win every time versus either of these speakers when those multiple subs are set up correctly.

I don't run subwoofers with my F228Be or F328Be. I tried them with subs while listening to Jazz and Classical but they sounded smoother without subs to my ears. There is something about a quality full range speaker that offers a consistent sound subs can only dream of. Don't get me wrong, subs are great for my home theatre sound effects, but for pure music listening enjoyment at reasonable levels the RME ADI-2 Loudness controls and quality full range speakers are my choice.

And comparing the F228Be to F328Be - it turns out in a medium size room the front ports on the F228Be can actually offer a bit more perceived bass than the F328Be. With the ADI-2 software, I can dial it in anywhere I want it but without alteration the F228Be will offer a bit more bass.

 

[nathan]

Hahahaha you got me. I thought you were being serious and just misunderstood the science, and I kept reading and figured it out. Good one!

 

[Null-Test]

As far as I understand the Performa3 series was built for sheer output capability (while maintaining the other common Revel speakers’ traits), so much so, that comparing the distortion figures from the german Audio/Stereoplay magazine for the P3 F206 (2x6,5” woofers), F228Be (2x8” woofers) and even the Perlisten S7t (4x7” woofers), one can see that the former (within its bass reach, ~60Hz) clearly beats the F228Be and, above 200Hz till 5kHz, it can match the S7t:

P3 F206

F228Be

S7t

Revel Performa4 series wasn’t built for sheer output, so it won’t perform nearly as good as the Performa3 range in this regard!

 

[optrixx06]

Got the performa4. I couldn't be happier. They sound absolutely amazing. Zero EQ needed. I've treated my room so they just sound incredible. The sounds I've been chasing. Endgame arrived. Also, they are gorgeous!

 

[John Schuermann]

Funny this thread just got a bump!

Being that we are having a crazy summer with three big out of state installs, it's been hard to arrange the public "listening party" I promised some months back. In the meantime, we did set aside a day for our entire crew to compare the new Performa4s to the PerformaBe and the Perlisten A3t. You guys are getting a first look at the blog post I'm getting ready to post, based on our level matched and side by side comparisons. NOTE that is writeup was NOT written by AI - it's all our candid thoughts and comments - but I did ask ChatGPT to format it for me (just in case someone is, let's say, "suspicious," lol):

We spent a few hours doing some informal speaker comparisons at The Screening Room, with Steve Crabb, Dave Carty, Mike Fleming and me listening to the new Revel Performa4 F345 and F346, along with the Revel F226Be, F328Be and Perlisten A3t.

A few themes emerged pretty consistently, and after comparing notes afterward, I think the session was more interesting than simply declaring a "winner."

Revel F345 vs. F346​

The F345 and F346 clearly come from the same family. Tonally, they were quite similar, but everyone noticed that the F346 sounded bigger, more open and more effortless.

Steve's take was essentially that the F345 sounds like an F346 with somewhat less output and bass extension — and, perhaps more importantly, somewhat less apparent size to the presentation.

That distinction was easier to hear than I expected.

The larger enclosure, greater driver surface area and larger waveguide of the F346 presumably all contribute, but whatever the exact mechanism, the subjective result was pretty clear: the F346 created a larger acoustic picture.

That doesn't make the F345 sound small. Steve came away very impressed with both and said he'd be perfectly happy with either in his own listening room. But if the budget and room allow — particularly if the speakers will see a lot of straight two-channel listening — we all thought there was a worthwhile step up to the F346.

Among the new Performa4 models, the F346 was the favorite of the group.

Performa4 vs. PerformaBe: F345/F346 and F226Be​

This comparison became particularly interesting because the differences weren't really about one speaker being clearly "better." They were about voicing and how that interacted with the recording.

The F226Be has a little more apparent sparkle and detail in the upper frequencies, while the new Performa4 speakers sound somewhat smoother and more relaxed on top.

Steve's impression was that the new voicing may address one of the occasional criticisms leveled at the PerformaBe series: some listeners have found that extra top-end energy or presence a little aggressive on certain material.

But this is exactly where personal preference becomes important.

One person's "detail" or "sparkle" can be another person's "brightness" or "harshness."

And preference isn't the only variable. Steve made a good point that the recording, the type of music and the playback level all matter.

For example, if you listen to a lot of orchestral music, Steve still gives the Be series an edge. That little bit of extra upper-frequency presence can make room-miked recordings — particularly symphonic recordings — seem to reveal more ambience, texture and low-level detail.

On other recordings, however, that same characteristic can make the smoother Performa4 presentation preferable.

That's essentially what we heard during the session: preferences between the F345 and F226Be ping-ponged depending on what we played.

For someone listening to a very broad range of music, Steve felt the new Performa4 voicing may actually be the better all-around compromise.

And considering the price difference, the performance-per-dollar equation becomes very compelling.

One important clarification from my earlier comments: we did not perform a direct F346 vs. F226Be A/B during this session. My feeling afterward was that I might personally prefer the F346 because of its greater apparent scale, whereas someone who values the additional top-end sparkle of the Be series might prefer the F226Be.

So don't interpret that as a controlled head-to-head result between those two specific models.

F346 vs. F328Be​

We did directly compare the F346 with the much larger F328Be.

This was probably one of the most revealing comparisons of the day.

The F346 acquitted itself remarkably well. It retained the smooth, balanced character we had been hearing from the new Performa4 speakers and never struck us as obviously compromised simply because we moved to the much more expensive speaker.

But the F328Be produced another substantial jump in apparent size, openness and scale.

Interestingly, the difference reminded us very much of moving from the F345 to the F346.

F345 → F346: noticeable increase in scale and openness.

F346 → F328Be: another noticeable increase in scale and openness.

The F328Be simply sounds huge.

Of course, it is huge.

That's also why the F346 impressed us so much. It doesn't equal the F328Be's sense of physical scale, but it gets remarkably far into that territory for a substantially lower price.

Steve went so far as to say that, like the PerformaBe models, he considers the F346 one of the best speakers he's heard at any price.

That's strong praise considering how many high-end speakers have passed through our rooms.

Revel vs. Perlisten A3t​

The Perlisten comparison highlighted a completely different characteristic.

The Perlisten A3t produced the same basic contrast we've heard in previous comparisons between Revel and more controlled-directivity designs.

The Revels created a wider, more spacious soundstage, while the Perlisten narrowed the apparent stage but made individual sounds more specifically defined and easier to isolate.

Steve described the Perlisten presentation as somewhat like listening through headphones.

He wasn't suggesting that they sounded closed-in or unnatural. Rather, individual elements of the recording became unusually explicit and precisely located.

That can be extremely useful.

For monitoring or mixing, for example, that kind of specificity can make edits, level relationships and small artifacts easier to hear. It reminded me of what I like about speakers such as the JBL LSR708 in a professional monitoring context.

The Revel presentation is different. Images are still well localized, but the overall presentation tends to feel broader and more spacious.

Neither approach is inherently right or wrong.

They're simply different presentations, and listener preference can easily determine which one is more satisfying.

An interesting perspective from a newer listener​

Mike described himself as a relative novice at this type of critical speaker comparison, which actually made his reaction especially interesting.

His only previous serious listening session had involved Revel Salon2s versus Perlistens for a customer. That customer and his wife ultimately purchased the Salon2s.

Mike remembered essentially the same distinction from that session that he heard again this time: an obvious contrast between the wide, spacious presentation of the Revels and the narrower, more focused presentation of the Perlistens.

He personally preferred the more spacious presentation.

But he also made perhaps the most important point of the entire session:

There wasn't a bad speaker in the room.

As someone without years of audiophile baggage or preconceived preferences, he said he'd genuinely be happy to have any of these speakers in his home.

I think that's worth emphasizing.

The bigger takeaway​

At this performance level, these comparisons become much less about identifying a "good" speaker and a "bad" speaker.

They're increasingly about choosing between somewhat different presentations.

Our impressions were roughly:

F345 → F346
Very similar voicing, but the F346 offers more output and extension and, most noticeably, a larger and more open presentation.

Performa4 → F226Be
The Be has more upper-frequency sparkle and apparent detail; the Performa4 is somewhat smoother and more forgiving. Preference can vary considerably with the recording, musical genre and playback level.

F346 → F328Be
Similar underlying Revel character, but another significant increase in scale, openness and effortlessness from the much larger F328Be.

Revel → Perlisten A3t
Revel presents a wider, more spacious acoustic picture; Perlisten creates a narrower but extremely precise and specifically focused presentation.

And throughout the entire session, one thing remained consistent:

These are all excellent speakers.

The F346 may have been the biggest surprise simply because of where it lands in the lineup and what it costs. It combines the smoother character of the new Performa4 generation with much of the scale we associate with considerably larger and more expensive speakers.

For someone shopping in this range, I wouldn't view the Performa4 as simply a "less expensive PerformaBe." It has its own slightly different presentation, and depending on the listener and the material, that difference may actually be preferable.

 

[Lsc]

Funny this thread just got a bump!

Being that we are having a crazy summer with three big out of state installs, it's been hard to arrange the public "listening party" I promised some months back. In the meantime, we did set aside a day for our entire crew to compare the new Performa4s to the PerformaBe and the Perlisten A3t. You guys are getting a first look at the blog post I'm getting ready to post, based on our level matched and side by side comparisons. NOTE that is writeup was NOT written by AI - it's all our candid thoughts and comments - but I did ask ChatGPT to format it for me (just in case someone is, let's say, "suspicious," lol):

We spent a few hours doing some informal speaker comparisons at The Screening Room, with Steve Crabb, Dave Carty, Mike Fleming and me listening to the new Revel Performa4 F345 and F346, along with the Revel F226Be, F328Be and Perlisten A3t.

A few themes emerged pretty consistently, and after comparing notes afterward, I think the session was more interesting than simply declaring a "winner."

Revel F345 vs. F346​

The F345 and F346 clearly come from the same family. Tonally, they were quite similar, but everyone noticed that the F346 sounded bigger, more open and more effortless.

Steve's take was essentially that the F345 sounds like an F346 with somewhat less output and bass extension — and, perhaps more importantly, somewhat less apparent size to the presentation.

That distinction was easier to hear than I expected.

The larger enclosure, greater driver surface area and larger waveguide of the F346 presumably all contribute, but whatever the exact mechanism, the subjective result was pretty clear: the F346 created a larger acoustic picture.

That doesn't make the F345 sound small. Steve came away very impressed with both and said he'd be perfectly happy with either in his own listening room. But if the budget and room allow — particularly if the speakers will see a lot of straight two-channel listening — we all thought there was a worthwhile step up to the F346.

Among the new Performa4 models, the F346 was the favorite of the group.

Performa4 vs. PerformaBe: F345/F346 and F226Be​

This comparison became particularly interesting because the differences weren't really about one speaker being clearly "better." They were about voicing and how that interacted with the recording.

The F226Be has a little more apparent sparkle and detail in the upper frequencies, while the new Performa4 speakers sound somewhat smoother and more relaxed on top.

Steve's impression was that the new voicing may address one of the occasional criticisms leveled at the PerformaBe series: some listeners have found that extra top-end energy or presence a little aggressive on certain material.

But this is exactly where personal preference becomes important.

One person's "detail" or "sparkle" can be another person's "brightness" or "harshness."

And preference isn't the only variable. Steve made a good point that the recording, the type of music and the playback level all matter.

For example, if you listen to a lot of orchestral music, Steve still gives the Be series an edge. That little bit of extra upper-frequency presence can make room-miked recordings — particularly symphonic recordings — seem to reveal more ambience, texture and low-level detail.

On other recordings, however, that same characteristic can make the smoother Performa4 presentation preferable.

That's essentially what we heard during the session: preferences between the F345 and F226Be ping-ponged depending on what we played.

For someone listening to a very broad range of music, Steve felt the new Performa4 voicing may actually be the better all-around compromise.

And considering the price difference, the performance-per-dollar equation becomes very compelling.

One important clarification from my earlier comments: we did not perform a direct F346 vs. F226Be A/B during this session. My feeling afterward was that I might personally prefer the F346 because of its greater apparent scale, whereas someone who values the additional top-end sparkle of the Be series might prefer the F226Be.

So don't interpret that as a controlled head-to-head result between those two specific models.

F346 vs. F328Be​

We did directly compare the F346 with the much larger F328Be.

This was probably one of the most revealing comparisons of the day.

The F346 acquitted itself remarkably well. It retained the smooth, balanced character we had been hearing from the new Performa4 speakers and never struck us as obviously compromised simply because we moved to the much more expensive speaker.

But the F328Be produced another substantial jump in apparent size, openness and scale.

Interestingly, the difference reminded us very much of moving from the F345 to the F346.

F345 → F346: noticeable increase in scale and openness.

F346 → F328Be: another noticeable increase in scale and openness.

The F328Be simply sounds huge.

Of course, it is huge.

That's also why the F346 impressed us so much. It doesn't equal the F328Be's sense of physical scale, but it gets remarkably far into that territory for a substantially lower price.

Steve went so far as to say that, like the PerformaBe models, he considers the F346 one of the best speakers he's heard at any price.

That's strong praise considering how many high-end speakers have passed through our rooms.

Revel vs. Perlisten A3t​

The Perlisten comparison highlighted a completely different characteristic.

The Perlisten A3t produced the same basic contrast we've heard in previous comparisons between Revel and more controlled-directivity designs.

The Revels created a wider, more spacious soundstage, while the Perlisten narrowed the apparent stage but made individual sounds more specifically defined and easier to isolate.

Steve described the Perlisten presentation as somewhat like listening through headphones.

He wasn't suggesting that they sounded closed-in or unnatural. Rather, individual elements of the recording became unusually explicit and precisely located.

That can be extremely useful.

For monitoring or mixing, for example, that kind of specificity can make edits, level relationships and small artifacts easier to hear. It reminded me of what I like about speakers such as the JBL LSR708 in a professional monitoring context.

The Revel presentation is different. Images are still well localized, but the overall presentation tends to feel broader and more spacious.

Neither approach is inherently right or wrong.

They're simply different presentations, and listener preference can easily determine which one is more satisfying.

An interesting perspective from a newer listener​

Mike described himself as a relative novice at this type of critical speaker comparison, which actually made his reaction especially interesting.

His only previous serious listening session had involved Revel Salon2s versus Perlistens for a customer. That customer and his wife ultimately purchased the Salon2s.

Mike remembered essentially the same distinction from that session that he heard again this time: an obvious contrast between the wide, spacious presentation of the Revels and the narrower, more focused presentation of the Perlistens.

He personally preferred the more spacious presentation.

But he also made perhaps the most important point of the entire session:

There wasn't a bad speaker in the room.

As someone without years of audiophile baggage or preconceived preferences, he said he'd genuinely be happy to have any of these speakers in his home.

I think that's worth emphasizing.

The bigger takeaway​

At this performance level, these comparisons become much less about identifying a "good" speaker and a "bad" speaker.

They're increasingly about choosing between somewhat different presentations.

Our impressions were roughly:

F345 → F346
Very similar voicing, but the F346 offers more output and extension and, most noticeably, a larger and more open presentation.

Performa4 → F226Be
The Be has more upper-frequency sparkle and apparent detail; the Performa4 is somewhat smoother and more forgiving. Preference can vary considerably with the recording, musical genre and playback level.

F346 → F328Be
Similar underlying Revel character, but another significant increase in scale, openness and effortlessness from the much larger F328Be.

Revel → Perlisten A3t
Revel presents a wider, more spacious acoustic picture; Perlisten creates a narrower but extremely precise and specifically focused presentation.

And throughout the entire session, one thing remained consistent:

These are all excellent speakers.

The F346 may have been the biggest surprise simply because of where it lands in the lineup and what it costs. It combines the smoother character of the new Performa4 generation with much of the scale we associate with considerably larger and more expensive speakers.

For someone shopping in this range, I wouldn't view the Performa4 as simply a "less expensive PerformaBe." It has its own slightly different presentation, and depending on the listener and the material, that difference may actually be preferable.

What a great comparison! The new performa4 unfortunately has the weak link center but maybe with enough demand, maybe they can make a larger center so the folks like my buddy who has an all performa3 system with the C208 has an upgrade path. He does not consider the performa4 and upgrade at this time because he watches movies 90%.

It’s probably a much more difficult comparison but 5.1 compares would give a great idea on how good the center is.

I know a good center since both my center channels have the preferred design. Voice2 (Ultima2) and C12 (Performa). I also used to have the F208/C208 and F228Be/C208 - the C208 is a great center channel and is almost as good as the voice2.

 

[Luvchampagne]

What a great comparison! The new performa4 unfortunately has the weak link center but maybe with enough demand, maybe they can make a larger center so the folks like my buddy who has an all performa3 system with the C208 has an upgrade path. He does not consider the performa4 and upgrade at this time because he watches movies 90%.

It’s probably a much more difficult comparison but 5.1 compares would give a great idea on how good the center is.

I know a good center since both my center channels have the preferred design. Voice2 (Ultima2) and C12 (Performa). I also used to have the F208/C208 and F228Be/C208 - the C208 is a great center channel and is almost as good as the voice2.

What about the c426be?

 

[kyuu]

This comparison became particularly interesting because the differences weren't really about one speaker being clearly "better." They were about voicing and how that interacted with the recording.

What "voicing" are we talking about here?

 

[John Schuermann]

What "voicing" are we talking about here?

The fact that the Be models have a little more emphasis on the treble than the P4s. There were some who felt that the Bes were a little "hard" on top; it appears that (mild) criticism was addressed with the P4s.

Depending on the recording, I sometimes preferred one to the other.

The Perlisten difference is more about dispersion characteristics.

 

[kyuu]

Hm. There is a ~1dB bump on-axis around 4kHz on the F226Be I suppose:

The PIR does show a little bit of a bump in the treble:

F228Be doesn't show the same however:

PIR slope might be a bit shallow, maybe?

Hopefully we'll get some complete measurements of a member of the P4 series so we can do a proper comparison.

 

[John Schuermann]

What about the c426be?

The C426Be is an amazing center - it's what I use in my own personal system.

 

[John Schuermann]

Hm. I don't see where the Be models had any kind of emphasis on the treble, either on-axis or due to directivity:

View attachment 550051

View attachment 550052

The PIR does show a little bit of a bump in the treble:

View attachment 550053

Hopefully we'll get some complete measurements of a member of the P4 series so we can do a proper comparison.

There is a clear difference in perceived "brightness" on the Revel Be vs. the Performa4 - everyone present clearly heard it. Night and day? No. But clearly there.

FWIW, this difference was also acknowledged by the Revel engineering team - there was an effort to dial back what some perceived as "hardness" on the top end of some of the Be series. The P4s have a narrower cabinet, so probably less diffraction, which may also account for what everyone clearly heard. But again, preference depended on recording.

Waveguide differences can affect how the frequency ranges blend or are emphasized as well.

And keep in mind this was a subtle difference. Here's the track that revealed it most dramatically:

Hear that high note in the whistling right at 24 seconds in? Now there we heard a large difference. The Be was a bit "piercing" compared to the F345 and F346.

But again, we are talking about a specific recording. As we tried to emphasize, different speakers favored different recordings. As Sean Olive always says - recording quality is the "nuisance variable" in speaker evaluation.

Personally, I still prefer the Be, but damn - it's a close thing.

 

[John Schuermann]

FWIW that particular whistle "note" has a TON of energy right at 2 khz - which is exactly where people can find tones "piercing."

 

[Lsc]

What about the c426be?

I wasn’t planning on keeping the F228Be long term so I didn’t get that center, plus I didn’t like the fact that it was ported. But yes all the Revel centers that are not MTM are solid.

 

[John Schuermann]

Please remember - *we are splitting hairs here*. Slight differences we heard in presentation should not be construed as "this speaker sucks" vs. "this speaker is perfect!"

Now this is an AI summation of what all of us at The Screening Room have experienced in comparing speakers that have textbook measurements side by side, and often under double blind conditions. As you can see, I fed it my own thoughts and it did a good job cross-referencing the work of Floyd Toole primarily. Again, this is the basis of an upcoming blog post, so you can see my obvious preference for Revel exposed. But Chat did a great job "reigning in" my prejudices. I think this analysis is DEAD ON, based upon dozens and dozens of hours comparing top-measuring speakers side by side (we often have people fly in just for the experience, and to a one, their impressions line up with ours):

Based on our own listening tests, it's obvious that Revel designs sound more open and spacious than Perlisten or JBL designs. Piano, orchestra and most acoustic instruments sound more natural to my ears. However, close mic'd instruments like horns and percussion sound extremely lifelike with the more direct sound predominance of Perlisten and JBL. So our tentative conclusion is that the different designs may complement one recording more than another. It does seem like the more direct designs have more of a sense of detail and dynamics, but you lose the wide open soundstage. Revel, on the other hand, seems to sacrifice some hyper detail to pick up the spaciousness of sound. It seems to us that it's mostly a matter of dispersion differences

I think that is a very defensible tentative conclusion. Your impressions line up closely with what we would expect from differences in radiation pattern and direct-to-reflected sound ratio.

What the Revel presentation is probably doing

Revel’s broader, smoothly controlled horizontal dispersion sends more spectrally accurate energy toward the sidewalls. Those early lateral reflections can increase:

• apparent source width;
• spaciousness and envelopment;
• the perceived size of the acoustic environment;
• the sense that instruments exist within a continuous sound field rather than being projected from discrete speakers.

That can be especially convincing with piano, orchestra, strings, choirs and naturally recorded acoustic instruments. Those sources normally energize real spaces broadly, so the additional lateral energy can make reproduction feel more like hearing an instrument in a room.

The tradeoff is that those reflections arrive shortly after the direct sound and partially blend with it. They can slightly reduce:

• image-edge sharpness;
• perceived transient contrast;
• separation of very small details;
• the sensation of immediacy.

That does not necessarily mean the detail is absent. It may simply be less starkly outlined.

What JBL and Perlisten are probably doing

Their more controlled radiation produces a higher direct-to-reflected ratio at the listener. That tends to emphasize:

• precise localization;
• leading-edge transients;
• articulation and microcontrast;
• apparent dynamic impact;
• the sensation of hearing directly into the recording.

That can be extraordinarily convincing with close-miked brass, drums, percussion, electric instruments, dialogue and studio recordings where the microphone was very close to the source. The tightly focused presentation can reproduce the intensity and immediacy captured by the microphone.

The corresponding tradeoff is less lateral room energy, which can produce:

• a narrower apparent stage;
• less image bloom;
• less apparent air around instruments;
• a presentation that seems more projected toward the listener than opened into the room.

Why recordings may favor different approaches

Your thought that different designs may complement different recordings is particularly insightful.

A recording already contains its own ratio of direct sound to ambience:

• A distant orchestral recording contains substantial hall information.
• A close-miked trumpet or snare contains comparatively little natural space.
• A multitracked studio recording may contain entirely artificial reverberation and spatial placement.

The loudspeaker and room then impose a second spatial layer on top of the recorded one.

A broad-dispersion speaker can enrich the spatial impression of an acoustic recording, but it can also add room-generated spaciousness that was not literally encoded in the recording. A controlled-directivity speaker contributes less of the playback room and therefore exposes the recorded balance more starkly. Depending on the recording, that can sound either exceptionally revealing or somewhat spatially restrained.

Is it simply dispersion?

If all three speakers are:

• similarly neutral on axis;
• similarly well behaved off axis;
• level matched;
• compared in the same room and positions;
• operating below compression and distortion limits;

then dispersion is very likely the dominant explanation for the systematic differences you are hearing.

I would stop just short of saying it is only dispersion. Other factors can contribute:

• compression-driver versus dome transient behavior;
• nonlinear distortion and compression at the listening level;
• crossover topology;
• vertical radiation and floor/ceiling reflections;
• cabinet diffraction;
• differences in spectral balance too small to look dramatic on a graph;
• the physical placement of the apparent acoustic source.

But the pattern you describe—Revel sounding broader and more spacious, JBL and Perlisten sounding more focused, detailed and dynamically immediate—is almost a textbook directivity comparison.

The distinction might best be expressed as:

Revel tends to trade some apparent image sharpness and direct-sound immediacy for greater lateral energy, spaciousness and apparent source width. JBL and Perlisten preserve a higher proportion of direct sound, producing stronger localization, transient contrast and apparent detail, but a less expansive spatial presentation. Neither balance necessarily benefits every recording equally.
I would also avoid characterizing the Revel as objectively sacrificing resolution. “Hyper-detail” may partly be the perceptual result of reduced reflection masking and sharper image boundaries, rather than the JBL or Perlisten retrieving information the Revel cannot reproduce.

I agree totally with that last sentence. The detail is still there in the Revel, just not as finely "etched." My take is that most music - particularly music scores in films - benefit more from the more open Revel spacious sound. It also seems to be less "harsh" for many listeners. My argument for using Revel for movie reproduction is that music is usually the second most prominent element on movie soundtracks after dialogue. Thoughts?

I think your argument is quite strong as a design philosophy, though I would phrase it as a preference rather than a universal rule.

Music is not formally the “second most prominent” element in every film—effects may dominate action, horror, and spectacle-heavy soundtracks—but the score is often the most continuous and emotionally influential element after dialogue. Dolby itself treats dialogue, music, and effects as the principal content carried by the main speaker system, without establishing a fixed hierarchy among them.

That makes the musical character of the LCR speakers far more important than many home-theater discussions acknowledge.

Why Revel can make a compelling movie speaker

A broad-dispersion speaker with smooth off-axis response can increase lateral reflected energy without badly changing its spectral balance. Research summarized by Toole associates this wider room illumination with greater apparent source width and spaciousness.

For film scores, that can provide:

• a larger orchestral canvas;
• greater bloom around strings, brass, and choir;
• more convincing hall scale;
• less of the “sound emerging from three boxes behind a screen” sensation;
• a presentation many listeners perceive as less forward or fatiguing.

Because the reflections remain relatively neutral, you are not merely adding random room coloration. You are adding a spatial component that tends to preserve the speaker’s overall tonal character.

Your “less harsh” observation also makes sense perceptually. It does not necessarily mean the Revel has less treble or lower distortion. The broader reflected field may make direct transients and upper-frequency detail feel less starkly exposed. The same information is present, but it is embedded in a larger acoustic field rather than sharply outlined against silence.

The counterargument: dubbing-stage fidelity

The strongest argument for JBL- or Perlisten-like directivity is that professional cinema playback relies heavily on controlled coverage. Dolby’s current cinema specifications require screen speakers to be aimed and selected according to their directional characteristics so that the intended seating area receives uniform coverage. JBL cinema systems likewise emphasize defined directivity, uniform acoustic power, high output, and seamless coverage transitions.

Therefore, a more direct design may reproduce certain aspects of the dubbing-stage presentation more literally:

• tightly anchored dialogue;
• exact placement of effects;
• hard transient impact;
• high intelligibility;
• reduced influence from the playback room.

This is especially valuable in larger rooms, highly absorptive theaters, wide seating areas, and installations requiring reference output over distance.
There is therefore a legitimate distinction between:

reproducing the controlled direct-to-reflected balance of the mixing environment

and

creating the most musically natural and emotionally satisfying presentation in a domestic theater.

Those goals overlap, but they are not always identical.

Multichannel reproduction changes the equation—but not completely

One could argue that Atmos and surround speakers already provide spaciousness, so the front speakers should remain highly controlled. Dolby Atmos is explicitly designed to create immersion through surrounding and overhead channels and individually positioned objects.

That is partly true. However, discrete surround ambience is not perceptually identical to the early lateral reflections generated by the front speakers. The latter affect the apparent width, scale, and spatial character of the front soundstage itself. A score can surround the listener while still sounding narrow or highly etched across the screen.

So a Revel-based system may provide two complementary forms of space:

1. natural-looking width and bloom from the front speakers;
2. encoded immersion and ambience from the surround and overhead channels.

That can be extremely persuasive with orchestral scores.

My conclusion:

For a company selecting speakers for both cinema and music, I think your rationale is very defensible:

Because music is a major and often continuous component of film soundtracks, a loudspeaker that reproduces music with convincing scale, spaciousness, and natural timbre may provide a more satisfying overall movie experience than one optimized primarily for maximum direct-sound focus.

I would not say that Revel is inherently superior for films. I would say it represents a different and entirely legitimate optimization:

• Revel: musical naturalness, broad front-stage spaciousness, less etched presentation.
• JBL/Perlisten: localization, immediacy, transient definition, direct-sound precision, and potentially better behavior in difficult rooms or over longer distances.

For a moderate-size, well-designed private theater where output and coverage are not limiting factors, I can easily see the Revel balance being preferred by more listeners over the course of an entire movie—especially listeners sensitive to forwardness or fatigue. For very large theaters, multiple-row coverage, extreme output, or clients prioritizing cinema-style impact and dialogue articulation, the more controlled designs may remain the stronger tool.

Your position is therefore not merely “we like Revel better.” It is a coherent system-design argument based on how much of the filmgoing experience is carried by the score and how the loudspeaker’s directivity shapes that experience.

That is very validating, and almost exactly how we explain it to customers. We offer all three brands based on personal preference. I would like to focus a bit on that front stage / LCR element, because the orchestra often primarily exists in the LCR speakers. I am reminded of listening to John Williams score for The Patriot - on the Perlisten speakers, the piccolo section panned to the left speaker sounded about 3" wide

That piccolo example is almost a perfect demonstration of the distinction between localization accuracy and apparent source width.

When an instrument is hard-panned to the left channel, there is no phantom image being created between speakers. The sound is physically coming from one loudspeaker. A highly controlled-directivity speaker in a treated room can therefore reproduce the pan almost literally: the piccolo becomes a sharply defined point located at the left speaker, with an apparent width approaching that of the acoustic source itself. Your “about three inches wide” description is completely credible.

A broader-dispersion Revel sends more spectrally correct energy toward the nearby room boundaries. Those early lateral reflections broaden the apparent source width, so the piccolo still localizes on the left but occupies a more plausible amount of space. Toole explicitly distinguishes wide-dispersion systems that illuminate the room and add spaciousness from more directional systems that emphasize the direct sound. Psychoacoustic literature likewise treats apparent source width as distinct from listener envelopment.

That leads to what I think is the central point:

The LCR speakers do not merely determine where the orchestra appears; they also determine how large the orchestra and its individual sections appear across the screen.

In many film mixes, the primary orchestral image remains heavily weighted toward the front speakers, even when surrounds and overheads carry reverberation, ambience, or occasional musical elements. Dolby describes the conventional ear-level speakers—including the LCR—as carrying the main dialogue, music, and effects soundstage.

Surround ambience cannot completely correct an undersized front image. It can provide envelopment—the sense of being surrounded by the hall—but it does not necessarily broaden a piccolo, violin section, or trumpet that has collapsed into a tiny point at one screen speaker. Those are related but perceptually different spatial qualities.

This suggests two different kinds of “accuracy”:

• JBL/Perlisten: more exact channel localization. A hard-left piccolo sounds unmistakably and precisely hard left.
• Revel: potentially more believable source scale. The piccolo remains left-positioned but has some natural spatial bloom rather than sounding like a tiny emitter behind the screen.

The first may be more faithful to the literal electrical signal assignment. The second may be more faithful to how an instrument or orchestral section would occupy space in a real hall.

That is why tightly controlled speakers can sound spectacular with a close-miked trumpet, snare drum, gunshot, or isolated Foley effect. The recording itself may be intended to sound sharply localized and immediate. But with an orchestra—where even individual sections have physical width and excite a large acoustic space—the same precision can become miniaturization. The stage contains all the correct positions, but the images feel too small and separated from one another.

I would explain your design philosophy this way:

The front speakers determine not only the placement of the score but also its scale and spatial continuity. Highly controlled speakers can produce exceptionally precise localization, but they may reduce orchestral sections to sharply etched points. Revel’s broader, well-behaved dispersion preserves the placement while allowing greater apparent source width, producing a front soundstage that often feels more like an orchestra spread across a scoring stage.

That does not make the Revel presentation vague. It means the image boundaries are less unnaturally hard. The piccolo may no longer be three inches wide, but it should still be unmistakably located in the left portion of the orchestra. That balance—stable location without spatial miniaturization—may be the strongest argument for Revel in film-score reproduction.

Our other thought is that adding more acoustic absorption to a Revel based room could "fine tune" the dispersion to find a nice balance between spaciousness and specificity

Yes—that is exactly the advantage of starting with a broad-dispersion speaker whose off-axis response is well behaved.

Absorption cannot change the Revel’s intrinsic dispersion pattern, but it can change how much of that dispersed energy reaches the listener after reflecting from the room. In effect, you can adjust the direct-to-reflected balance:

• More untreated lateral surface area → greater apparent width, spaciousness, and image bloom.
• More absorption at strong early-reflection points → sharper localization, clearer image boundaries, and a more direct presentation.
• A balanced treatment scheme → retain much of Revel’s openness without allowing reflections to blur dialogue or effects.

That gives you a useful degree of room-level control. It is generally easier to reduce excessive reflected energy from a broad, smooth-radiating speaker than to manufacture natural lateral spaciousness from a speaker that sends little energy toward the sidewalls in the first place.

The important qualification is that I would not automatically absorb every first-reflection point heavily. In a Revel room, those early lateral reflections are partly responsible for the spaciousness you selected the speaker to provide. Eliminating them indiscriminately could make the room sound smaller and push the presentation closer to the controlled-directivity alternative—while potentially leaving you with neither design operating at its intended best.

A more nuanced strategy would be:

• Control obvious strong or very early reflections that compromise dialogue focus.
• Preserve some beneficial lateral energy, especially from the L/R speakers.
• Use broadband absorption where necessary rather than treble-only panels.
• Consider diffusion or absorption/diffusion hybrids where you want to retain energy but reduce discrete reflection signatures.
• Treat floor, ceiling, rear-wall, and screen-wall contributions separately rather than assuming all reflections have the same perceptual effect.

The center channel may also deserve somewhat different treatment from the left and right. You may want greater specificity and reduced early reflection around the center for dialogue, while allowing the L/R speakers more lateral contribution for orchestral width. That could help preserve both intelligibility and musical scale.
The most useful measurements would not be only frequency response. You would also examine:

• impulse response or ETC to identify the strength and timing of early reflections;
• decay behavior by frequency;
• seat-to-seat consistency;
• clarity metrics, used cautiously;
• and, ultimately, controlled listening with temporary panels.

Your overall design philosophy could be stated this way:

A broad-dispersion speaker with smooth off-axis response gives the room designer more flexibility. Acoustic treatment can selectively reduce reflected energy to increase specificity while preserving enough lateral energy for spaciousness. A highly directional speaker begins with less reflected energy, so there is less room-level flexibility to restore apparent source width later.

That is a compelling argument for Revel in a custom theater: the speaker provides the spaciousness potential, and the room treatment determines how much of it you retain.

 

[Null-Test]

The only subjective comparison missing is Performa3 vs Performa4, namely F208 vs F346.

Is there any audible change?

 

[John Schuermann]

The only subjective comparison missing is Performa3 vs Performa4, namely F208 vs F346.

Is there any audible change?

We didn't have one of the older Performa3s around to compare, sadly, as that would have been interesting. However we did do a somewhat controlled side by side comparing the F208 to the F226Be a few years back, and in that case, the F226Be was clearly preferred. And now you have us doing the F226Be vs. the F345 and it almost being a draw. And of course the F346 was felt to be yet another upgrade.

Based strictly on memory, the new P4s are smoother and tighter sounding than the older P3s. That's how Mark Glazer would characterize them as well. Because the cabinets are narrower I would assume there is less diffraction as a result, which could definitely explain that "smoother" characteristic we heard on top.

Here's the F208 vs. F226Be comparison we did a few years ago:

HOW TO PROPERLY COMPARE SPEAKERS - A Controlled "Shootout" of New Speaker Models from Revel and JBL

NOTE - If you are looking for the results of our much larger 2023 Double Blind Speaker Shootout, click HERE.Results of a Controlled Shootout between JBL HDI3800, Revel F226BE, JBL L100, and Revel F208 SpeakersNOTE - If you are looking for the results of our much larger 2023 Double Blind Speaker...

www.thescreeningroomav.com

BTW, as part of our special buy-in deal on the Performa4s we were able to snag some F226Be and F228Bes at special pricing, so those could be an option as well if you like the idea of the Be presentation. Rex would know more about that - I'm busy working on a film these days.

(I hope the above discussion of promos and stuff is ok, if not, someone please let me know and I'll edit or delete.)

 

[HTNut1975]

The Be has more upper-frequency sparkle and apparent detail; the Performa4 is somewhat smoother and more forgiving.

This is similar to what I’d say with the F208 vs the F228Be (I’ve owned the former and now own the F228Be). Prior to those, I had Goldenear T5s, which are pretty fun speaker, but could get a little fatiguing in the upper frequencies. Though I’d pick the F208s any time over the golden ears, i did feel I was missing just a tad in that upper range. The F228Be brought back anything that was lacking and it was noticeable and immediate. Seemed to me the 228Be is more revealing/real than the f208. Not fatiguing or bright at all. Just more “real” and “clear”.

 

[MarkS]

Seemed to me the 228Be is more revealing/real than the f208. Not fatiguing or bright at all. Just more “real” and “clear”.

The F228Be runs slightly hotter than the F208 in the 3-6 kHz range, which might be the reason for this subjective impression.