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

[amper42]

Personally, I want a speaker that's measured by ASR without knobs or counter measures that can alter the sound. Either it measures well or it doesn't. No fudge factor or extra gear required for "Optimal" use.

If proper EQ is not included in the crossover, I automatically take it off my list of candidates to consider.

 

[kyuu]

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree at the risk of further thread sidetracking, but if you get the chance to try full range Dirac (DLBC+ART), do it!

Neither DLBC nor ART apply outside of the bass region if I understand them correctly. But in any case, many people have tried full range correction and found it unnecessary or even detrimental. Personally, I haven't even bothered to pay for full-range Dirac. My speakers (Revel W553L) have a very good in-room response on their own, and we know that "correcting" a speaker's response above Schroeder based on in-room measurements is the wrong way to do it.

 

[Chromatischism]

Personally, I want a speaker that's measured by ASR without knobs or counter measures that can alter the sound. Either it measures well or it doesn't. No fudge factor or extra gear required for "Optimal" use.

If proper EQ is not included in the crossover, I automatically take it off my list of candidates to consider.

So no JBL M2 for you then?

 

[Imakeller]

Neither DLBC nor ART apply outside of the bass region if I understand them correctly. But in any case, many people have tried full range correction and found it unnecessary or even detrimental. Personally, I haven't even bothered to pay for full-range Dirac. My speakers (Revel W553L) have a very good in-room response on their own, and we know that "correcting" a speaker's response above Schroeder based on in-room measurements is the wrong way to do it.

Both DLBC and Dirac ART require basic Dirac Live to be used in conjunction with them. As I said, ART focuses on 20-150Hz with basic Dirac then covering the rest of the FR up to 20kHz. Although turnabout would be fair play, I won’t tell you that you are wrong in how you choose to enjoy your system, but I would encourage you to personally try ART if you ever get the chance. If the goal is having your system sound the best it can in-room, you may end up agreeing with me. ART stands for Active Room Treatment and it certainly lives up to its name.

 

[holbob]

Isn't this speaker exactly the same as dsp in active loudspeakers, only coming after the loudspeaker in software rather than baked into the finished product? I have half a dozen peq's on my minidsp flex (300hz onwards) to correct my ascilab c6b, and then run dirac afterwards for gain/delays and room correction.

 

[D-Livs]

If the speaker with three smaller drivers can sound equal to the older speaker with two larger drivers, and 15% smaller cabinet volume, that counts as a significant achievement, right?

 

[jhaider]

I do hope they publish the PEQ parameters used for AEQ so people can apply them with non-AEQ compatible gear.

They won't. You can only get the factory EQ for the JBL Synthesis SCL speakers if you buy their rebranded Trinnov, I believe. Even if you bought the Synthesis-refaced Crown DCIn amps you're SOL.

In any event, AEQ is fundamentally not much different from the EQ setting offered by, e.g., @pierre at https://www.spinorama.org/. Yes, in theory it should be better because it should be tuned by a human who knows the product. In any event, for a Revel product external EQ should not be a selling point, IMO. If you look through spinorama.org at previous and current gen Revels, EQ based on anechoic data does not have much impact. On the old Performa3's, probably the biggest impact is taking down the mid-treble resonance of that SB Acoustics tweeter (I've played with 4 and they all had it), so it's innate to the tweeter IMO). Everything else is probably more for the eyes than the ears.

 

[kemmler3D]

Soliciting speaker EQ as a feature by the manufacturer seems stupid to me. Why didn't they just design the crossover correctly to begin with?

1) unit-to-unit variation can't be (easily) accounted for in the crossover

2) too many filters in the crossover might have other unwanted effects, loss of sensitivity, etc.

Agree that you should just get the calibration file (like you do with a UMIK-1, for example) and not need to use proprietary gear, but it's a reasonable feature in principle, IMO.

 

[jhaider]

View attachment 509895

View attachment 509896

Black oak veneer is back? Ugh.

 

[Imakeller]

They won't. You can only get the factory EQ for the JBL Synthesis SCL speakers if you buy their rebranded Trinnov, I believe. Even if you bought the Synthesis-refaced Crown DCIn amps you're SOL.

In any event, AEQ is fundamentally not much different from the EQ setting offered by, e.g., @pierre at https://www.spinorama.org/. Yes, in theory it should be better because it should be tuned by a human who knows the product. In any event, for a Revel product external EQ should not be a selling point, IMO. If you look through spinorama.org at previous and current gen Revels, EQ based on anechoic data does not have much impact. On the old Performa3's, probably the biggest impact is taking down the mid-treble resonance of that SB Acoustics tweeter (I've played with 4 and they all had it), so it's innate to the tweeter IMO). Everything else is probably more for the eyes than the ears.

The new JBL SDP-60 & SDP-70 introduced at ISE have Dirac ART, which I thought was an interesting development. Could be the effects of the Denon & Marantz acquisition. I think these 60/70 units are capable of AEQ with some non-Synthesis speakers that are under the Harman umbrella, but not positive about that.

Thanks a lot for the reference to spinorama! They have great information there, including for my Salon2’s.

 

[Imakeller]

Black oak veneer is back? Ugh.

The look of the Arcams isn’t bad IMHO, but here’s hoping for something nicer on the Revel versions.

 

[Ktacos]

1) unit-to-unit variation can't be (easily) accounted for in the crossover

There's no reason a speaker coming from an established manufacturer shouldn't come extremely closely match, even passive models. If driver tolerances are so bad that one has to even worry about this, they need to use different drivers. Xover components are typically well within tolerances to the point that impedance graphs should be overlapping lines.

I mean look at these four peerless fsl driver I measured. These things are super cheap, and their tolerances are excellent. (This test was done because I didn't believe a diyaudio forums members crappy measurement data showing large inconsistencies).

 

[Chromatischism]

I find it amusing that people have been talking for years on here about using anechoic speaker data to do speaker EQ then room correction for everything else (in fact I brought that up in the big thread with Dr. Toole on AVS years ago).

And now here we are complaining about it.

You really can't please everyone.

 

[mmeysarosh]

If the speaker with three smaller drivers can sound equal to the older speaker with two larger drivers, and 15% smaller cabinet volume, that counts as a significant achievement, right?

We only have their specification and no spin data at moment nor any compression testing to really make a judgement. Other manufactures have also made this trade off on the past, KEF coming to mind in most of their lineup.

Driver requires better excursion and that may include longer coil windings, added power handling, and potentially a more powerful magnet structure. Driver diaphragm will have greater rigidity at its smaller size, but we are placing more pressure on it to achieve similar outputs. It might may also have greater power requirements in order to achieve the level.

I see this series being high performance, but with a mind towards being a better fit in more homes as larger speakers never make volume sellers. Price point is also middle of the road, especially noting their history. Revel has offered decent value for a higher end product, but wouldn't be described as a value minded product.

 

[MoreWatts]

Here's some specs on the smaller bookshelf/M105 replacement, which is the Arcam Radia R15 or Revel Performa4 M145. New model specs are from the Arcam website. M105 specs are from the owner's manual.

Spec	M145/R15	M105
1-inch tweeter material	Deep Ceramic Composite	aluminum
woofer driver, inches & material	5.25 Micro Ceramic Composite	5.25 aluminum
cross-over point, Hz	1.8 k	2.3 k
nominal impedance, ohms	6	8
sensitivity, dB (2.83V/1m)	85	86
amplifier power range, watts	15 - 150	50 - 150
bi-wire options	?	no
mounting points	yes	none
port placement	rear	rear
dimensions, H x W x D; in. (mm)	11.6 x 7.9 x 9.6 (294 x 200 x 245)	14 x 7.8 x 9.75 (356 x 200 x 248)
weight, lb. (kg)	15 (6.8)	15.7 (7.2)
frequency range, +- 6 dB	54 Hz to 40 kHz	56 Hz to ? kHz

The crossover and impedance are lower on the new model.

Handles the same power, can use a smaller amp, has the ~same frequency range, and is the first of the new speakers charted that weighs the ~same as the older model.

The new one has "a hidden mounting system."

The larger M146/R25 is bi-wire-able. This feature is not mentioned on the Arcam website for this smaller speaker, nor is there a photo of the back to be able to verify.

The Arcam site has no photos of the smaller bookshelf, and the only photo I found online showed the front with the grill attached, and looked ~identical to the larger bookshelf.

 

[amper42]

Here's some specs on the smaller bookshelf/M105 replacement, which is the Arcam Radia R15 or Revel Performa4 M145. New model specs are from the Arcam website. M105 specs are from the owner's manual.

Spec	M145/R15	M105
1-inch tweeter material	Deep Ceramic Composite	aluminum
woofer driver, inches & material	5.25 Micro Ceramic Composite	5.25 aluminum
cross-over point, Hz	1.8 k	2.3 k
nominal impedance, ohms	6	8
sensitivity, dB (2.83V/1m)	85	86
amplifier power range, watts	15 - 150	50 - 150
bi-wire options	?	no
mounting points	yes	none
port placement	rear	rear
dimensions, H x W x D; in. (mm)	11.6 x 7.9 x 9.6 (294 x 200 x 245)	14 x 7.8 x 9.75 (356 x 200 x 248)
weight, lb. (kg)	15 (6.8)	15.7 (7.2)
frequency range, +- 6 dB	54 Hz to 40 kHz	56 Hz to ? kHz

The crossover and impedance are lower on the new model.

Handles the same power, can use a smaller amp, has the ~same impedance and frequency range, and is the first of the new speakers charted that weighs ~the same as the older model.

The new one has "a hidden mounting system."

The larger M146/R25 is bi-wire-able. This feature is not mentioned on the Arcam website for this smaller speaker, nor is there a photo of the back to be able to verify.

The Arcam site has no photos of the smaller bookshelf, and the only photo I found online showed the front with the grill attached, and looked ~identical to the larger bookshelf.

M105 is OK speaker for a small room or used as a height speaker, but it's awful below 80Hz. Any comparison between M105 and it's replacement should focus on how the low end performs below 100Hz.

 

[MoreWatts]

M105 is OK speaker for a small room or used as a height speaker, but it's awful below 80Hz. Any comparison between M105 and it's replacement should focus on how the low end performs below 100Hz.

I used satellite + sub systems from M&K (MKSound, Miller & Kreisel) for alotta years. The reality is that small speakers have no bass, so use a subwoofer. I have never understood the obsession with output below 80 Hz from small speakers that occurs on this site.

 

[amper42]

Once you listen to a BMR Monitor your expectation for a bookshelf speaker changes dramatically. BMR monitor bass is gorgeous. Makes my M105 sound like a toy. They were both about the same price but the sound reproduction is totally different.

 

[kyuu]

Once you listen to a BMR Monitor your expectation for a bookshelf speaker changes dramatically. BMR monitor bass is gorgeous. Makes my M105 sound like a toy. They were both about the same price but the sound reproduction is totally different.

View attachment 510809

Ignoring that you're comparing a much larger 3-way speaker with a 6" woofer against a 2-way with a 5" woofer, I still wouldn't use the BMR without a subwoofer except for low level listening. At higher levels, that speaker will distort and compress pretty heavily under 100Hz. If you're okay with that, you could easily extend the Revel's bass response with some EQ and get pretty similar results. You could also get better bass performance than either for cheaper if you got the Revel F35 (with a bit of EQ), if we aren't concerned about comparing like-for-like.

(Disclaimer: I'm not saying that BMR isn't a great speaker. It plainly is, if you're the sort that's okay with low sensitivity. That's clearly not the point.)

 

[amper42]

Ignoring that you're comparing a much larger 3-way speaker with a 6" woofer against a 2-way with a 5" woofer, I still wouldn't use the BMR without a subwoofer except for low level listening. At higher levels, that speaker will distort and compress pretty heavily under 100Hz. If you're okay with that, you could easily extend the Revel's bass response with some EQ and get pretty similar results. You could also get better bass performance than either for cheaper if you got the Revel F35 (with a bit of EQ), if we aren't concerned about comparing like-for-like.

(Disclaimer: I'm not saying that BMR isn't a great speaker. It plainly is, if you're the sort that's okay with low sensitivity. That's clearly not the point.)

I have both and the M105 my friend is absolutely NO BMR MONITOR, no matter what EQ is applied. lol
I tried EQ with M105 and it was a waste of time. The only EQ that worked well with M105 is a shelf that stops it from playing below 70Hz.

The BMR sounds fantastic at 85dB and bass is full and strong. The M105 switched in for an identical listening comparison test sounds puny and the bass distortion is horrible. They are nothing alike.

In fact, the BMR Monitor at medium listening levels (85dB area) and appropriate EQ can sound much closer to the Revel F228BE, leaving the M105 in the dust.