Revel C783 In-Ceiling Speaker Review

[Blumlein 88]

Birds, bugs, howling winds, lightning, thunder, caves, aerial vehicles, missiles.
I can't think of many other sound-effects in movies that would require down-firing speakers... even if perfectly executed!
Yeah, I know! I must be an outlier.

Oh I can think of a few more. The bigger issue is the need for Atmos (or whatever the next big thing gets called) to add in those below speakers. You'll need at least 4 channels embedded in the floor for true 360 sound. Hey maybe that is it, Atmos 360.

 

[hyfynut]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Revel C783 in-ceiling speaker. Was kindly sent to me new by a member and costs US $ 660 each.
View attachment 313919
You are seeing the speaker as mounted in my temporary MDF baffle for measurements. There are two switches to control level of bass and treble (I measured the former). It said tweeter is adjustable but I did not try and tested it head on.

Usually the mounting screws are threaded to the tab behind so relatively easy to tighten. Not here. They were thread forming (into plastic) so took fair bit of power to screw them in. That by itself is not a big deal but there is always the danger of the screwdriver slipping and tearing up the woofer. And it is not fun doing this on while working on the ceiling., I had to find the right phillips screwdriver so that it would not slip. Otherwise, speaker seems well made and comes with magnetic grills.

Making anechoic measurements requires special mode of Klippel NFS system where the back wave and boundary response of the artificial baffle are excluded. System only accepts the center as the reference so that is what I picked (of the woofer) as opposed to the tweeter that I normally pick. Fortunately they are close enough to each other than measurement accuracy was pretty high. Note that all axis are referencing the speaker being vertical as you see in the picture as opposed to its normal mounting position of on ceiling. So you have to perform some mental gymnastics to understand the measurements.

NOTE: Our company Madrona Digital is a dealer for Revel speakers and we likely have installed a lot of these in custom installations. My measurements are not subject to bias as they are standardized but you may feel fee to read such into my subjective remarks.

Revel C783 Speaker Measurements
As usual we start with our anechoic response of the speaker. I chose to not use the grill (impact is usually fairly small). I started measuring with the boundary compensation on thinking that meant it is mounted on-wall which it is. But the manual talked about proximity to a "wall." Not sure what that meant as speaker is always on a wall but I assume they mean a secondary boundary. For that reason I made the anechoic measurements with boundary compensation turned off:
View attachment 313920

Speaker is doing well until about 700 Hz where it experiences wide dip. Near-field measurement seems to indicate that tweeter is crossed too high:
View attachment 313921
I can't imagine a company like Revel making a simple mistake here. I looked up company spinorama and it mirrors mine (but with lower resolution) so this is what it is meant to be. Why, I don't know.

Our models of reflections don't work for in-ceiling speakers but they do indicate the level of "goodness" in speaker off-axis response:
View attachment 313922

The averaging works here to smooth out the curve and we are just left with some shortfall in energy from 1 to 1.8 kHz. A single PEQ filter should fill that in at the potential cost of more distortion (woofer is unhappy in that region). Here is our predicted-in-room response which again doesn't apply to this class of speakers:
View attachment 313924

Directivity narrows so point the tweeter at your listening position as company recommends:
View attachment 313925
View attachment 313926

View attachment 313927

Power handling is very good at 86 dBSPL:
View attachment 313928

View attachment 313929

Above I have shown the effect of the boundary compensation which cuts the bass. Turning it on lowers the distortion in bass naturally.

Note that both of these measurements are made with the backside open.

Waterfall shows resonances some of which I am sure is from the woofer but there may be some magnifications of it due to my baffle that is standing on its edge:
View attachment 313930

Finally, the step response shows two disjointed responses from woofer and tweeter which is odd:
View attachment 313931

I don't have a ceiling to put the speaker in so no listening tests.

Conclusions
Compared to some of the other in-ceiling speakers we have measured with angled drivers and such, the C783's standard configuration actually does much better with far less interference between drivers. The only odd thing about its design is the crossover region where the two drivers don't seem to meet.

Since I can't listen to the Revel C783, I don't have a recommendation one way or the other forum. Personally I would choose it though over some of the other funky configurations if I had to live with in-ceiling speaker and would take a shot at modifying the crossover.

General Specifications​

Height	Cutout dimensions (dia.) 9.6" (24.4 cm) Square grille finished Height 10.7" (27.2 cm)
Width	Square grille finished Width 10.7" (27.2 cm)
Depth	Mounting depth 5.2" (13.2 cm)
Weight	Weight 3.1 lb (1.4 kg) / Shipping weight 4.1 lb (1.9 kg)
Features	Includes both round and square zero-bezel magnetic grilles • Round grille finished dimension (dia.) 10.7" (27.2 cm)
High Frequency Driver Components	1" aluminum dome swiveling high-output tweeter with waveguide
Low Frequency Extension	High Frequency Extension 3-position HF level control / Low Frequency Extension LF boundary compensation
Low Frequency Driver Components	8" Micro-Ceramic Composite (MCC) Cone, Cast-Aluminum Frame High-Output Woofer
Mounting	C-2 fastening mechanism • Compatible with wall material thickness range 0.5" – 2.0" (1.3 cm – 5.0 cm)
Recommended Amplifier Power	10 - 150 Watts RMS

-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Why wouldn't you just listen to these speakers as they are, in the baffle you've built? It just seems a bit odd to go to all this trouble and not listen to the speaker.

 

[musicforcities]

I can’t understand paying $600 per speaker for ceiling speakers.

One can get fine performing in ceiling speakers for $80-$200 each for such uses. Sure there are trash ones as well at the low end of that range but there are good ones as well.

Like center channel—intended to be used with surround and mostly for speaking voices in films/tv—I think ceiling and wall speakers need to be evaluated based on their intended use. And how basic physics and design choice work for and against them in that regard (like how common MTM arrangement on center channels is inherently problematic).

In ceiling and in wall, I would argue, are typically for casual or ambient listening, and surround/atmos use. For such use, I would argue the primary consideration should be wide dispersion at a and even off axis response from about 250hz to 6-8000hz, in other words, where most of the music or film effects will be. And at a range of 6 to 7 ft (for ear at sitting position and a 10 foot ceiling). Fine to have ones you can “aim” towards the listening area and away from walls, but dispersion still needs to be wide and even.

In my non scientific experience, I have found almost all 2 way ceiling speakers have an issue in that regard: the mid woofer is made to go deep at the expense of dispersion of mids. 6 inch in ceilings almost always start beaming ; 8” in ceiling are worse of course: the better lows come at the cost of even worse beaming. Dual mid woofers do t help due to combing effects. . thus, in room and off axis, there is usually a hole frequency response, often in the crossover range of 2500-4000hz. I have heard some that try to compensate by boosting the mids (mono price calibre) but the inverse smile curve result sounds hollow and harsh if you have hard floors, and is bizarre for music. Anyway, the crossover is crucial on in ceilings as is the tweeter, and many companies seem to put the same tweeter in all sizes of speaker, and those drivers tend to have small motors and can’t really be crossed as low as the mid woofer needs.

I have had better experiences with three way designs. The midway driver solves a lot of the the dispersion issues by allowing the midwooofer to cross lower and thus not beam, and the tweeter to not be overly distorted due to a lower than optimal crossover point. And the tweeter can be smaller (1/2 - 3/4”) and thus have more even dispersion at upper end.

I found the Polk 70rt and 90rt to by rather great. They are real three way with an elipseoid shaped woofer mounted at an angle within a chamber, such that one can get a larger woofer diameter than normally possible for the cut out (the 90rt has an 8” woofer but uses the same diameter cut out as a typical 6” speaker). And the chamber provides some horn loading effect and mitigates the unknown of the ceiling. The tweeter sits in a wave guide, as does the mid, in the center of the woofer chamber. The woofer sets back behind them. As a result, the speaker seems much more balanced and smooth in transitions between low, mid and high frequencies than the two ways I have tried. And the mid driver allows better dispersion of the mids and highs through the room.

Is it accurate when measured? I have no idea. But in room and in many different positions in that room it sure sounds more “normal” and neutral than others I have tried. They can be had on sale or from certified outlet for under $200 each.

I’d send one to Amir but don’t want a hole in my ceiling for a couple months.

PS I can’t imagine a AMT tweeter is a great idea in a ceiling speaker given how the radiate relatively poorly vertically.

 

[musicforcities]

I suspect that if the woofer was tamed for lower kHz resonances, it could be crossed over a little higher to meet the tweeter better. Just a guess though but I'm sure it 'sounds' just fine in its intended non critical? role.

For $600 i want a three way and more than just fine See my post above. “Just fine” 2 way ceiling speakers can be found for 1/6 of price than this.

 

[restorer-john]

You'll need at least 4 channels embedded in the floor for true 360 sound.

Speakers embedded in the floor. That's got to be the latest thing going forward!

You can imagine the audio consultants liasing with the architects and engineers, ensuring the conduit was laid correctly and the loudspeaker cavity voids were formed-up in the rebar before the slab pour. And the inevitable re-works would require concrete saws. What a nightmare.

Home theatre has thankfully mostly died over here. It was an abomination of early 2000s conspicuous western over consumption and utter tackiness. If I never see another wall of framed movie posters, some pathetic blue LED floor strip lights, and a few rows of plush recliners with cup holders all stuffed in an airless room, I will be a very happy man.

 

[amirm]

Why wouldn't you just listen to these speakers as they are, in the baffle you've built? It just seems a bit odd to go to all this trouble and not listen to the speaker.

You get large interference from the back side in addition to diffraction on the edges -- neither of which would be present in real installations. You also get a baffle step. It just won't sound the same.

 

[IamJF]

That's pretty expensive for what it is. And I would prefer the KEF Ci200RR-THX - which is also pretty expensive for what it is
Just for the raw drivers without any cabinet - these are WAY overpriced, they will earn good money with these.

 

[MacCali]

Think the KEF Ci200RR THX, even at twice the price, seems to be the preferred choice for this kind of application.

I got the Kef on walls, R8a. Which Erin had reviewed and measured. They are excellent and I got both, 4 ch, for 1100 brand new since they got discontinued.

I believe there’s one pitfall if you put them hanging on a wall vs on top of a speaker shooting up. Boundary reflection or interference, can’t recall the proper terminology. Not noticing any type of issues, but it could be present

 

[nathan]

So a sealed bookshelf in the ceiling. Difficult to mount and would look stupid. With the sparse info sent to ceiling speakers, I am resigned to cheapos. Probably couldn't tell the difference anyway.

Or

Revel M55XC Outdoor Speaker Review - Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

 

[nathan]

Birds, bugs, howling winds, lightning, thunder, caves, aerial vehicles, missiles.
I can't think of many other sound-effects in movies that would require down-firing speakers... even if perfectly executed!
Yeah, I know! I must be an outlier.

Every room with a ceiling in a movie or TV show should have height information, since it occurs in the real world in such rooms, if the soundtrack is trying to capture realism. It doesn't have to be the point sources you list. For example, a human talking in a room has a refection of their speach off the ceiling of the room. The overhead speakers can generate an accurate version of that reflection, true to the height and character of the ceiling in the movie/TV show. In fact, every sound would have a reflection off the ceiling that adds to the realism and sense that "you are there" and not in your own room with its characteristic sound and size.

 

[Head_Unit]

Do you really think she could take up residence in an enclosure? I'm going to prepare a rental lease for him and ask for a three-month deposit: times are tough.

Please PM me, your spider has retained me as her real estate attorney. We are requesting a royalty of €0.50 per insect captured. We will agree to an up-front deposit of 6 webs dispersed in your patio to catch troublesome flies.

Meanwhile @Amir does the Klippel NFS has a mode to simulate how the speakers sound to a spider?

 

[hyfynut]

Or

Revel M55XC Outdoor Speaker Review - Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

The response is not as good as their typical in-home models but I'm using these with great effect as at most speakers in a drop ceiling

 

[Sal1950]

I just don’t understand how they can’t build and design a half way decent ceiling speaker? Where a minor Train Wreck is considered not bad. Thanks for the Review and work Amir. Someday you are going to give one of these speakers your approval. I just hope to live long enough to be here for it!

Which is why I prefer the on-ceiling approach such as my SVS Elevations. Not saying mine are the cream of crop but the design does avoid all the typical issues of in-ceiling. Of course they have some drawbacks in the WAF but once your willing to cross the line of having 5-9 base speakers and 1-6 subwoofers, it's way past time to stop worrying over WAF (wife acceptance factor) LOL

So a sealed bookshelf in the ceiling. Difficult to mount and would look stupid. With the sparse info sent to ceiling speakers,

There are many out there like my SVS that aren't at all difficult to mount, they're designed to be so.
Info sent to overheads is far from sparse with some Atmos mixes.

 

[AdamG]

Which is why I prefer the on-ceiling approach such as my SVS Elevations. Not saying mine are the cream of crop but the design does avoid all the typical issues of in-ceiling. Of course they have some drawbacks in the WAF but once your willing to cross the line of having 5-9 base speakers and 1-6 subwoofers, it's way past time to stop worrying over WAF (wife acceptance factor) LOL


There are many out there like my SVS that aren't at all difficult to mount, they're designed to be so.
Info sent to overheads is far from sparse with some Atmos mixes.


View attachment 329864

No words needed to explain my feelings about this when a picture will elucidate:

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Which is why I prefer the on-ceiling approach such as my SVS Elevations. Not saying mine are the cream of crop but the design does avoid all the typical issues of in-ceiling. Of course they have some drawbacks in the WAF but once your willing to cross the line of having 5-9 base speakers and 1-6 subwoofers, it's way past time to stop worrying over WAF (wife acceptance factor) LOL


There are many out there like my SVS that aren't at all difficult to mount, they're designed to be so.
Info sent to overheads is far from sparse with some Atmos mixes.


View attachment 329864Other. Haven't seen those. Are they designed for ceiling?

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Are they designed for ceiling mount?

 

[AdamG]

Are they designed for ceiling mount?

The speakers @Sal1950 is showing can be mounted in many orientations and on wall and abutment to the ceiling is one of the mounting options.

Here is a link to the brochure.

SVS Prime Elevation Speaker | Speakers for Dolby Atmos & Home Theater

Best sounding home audio elevation speaker for Dolby Atmos, DTS:X and Auro-3D. Endless versatility as front, surround, center and/or LCR home theater speaker.

www.svsound.com

 

[Sal1950]

No words needed to explain my feelings about this when a picture will elucidate:

Looks like you have some serious Atmos muscle. wOOt.

 

[AdamG]

Looks like you have some serious Atmos muscle. wOOt.

Yeah I have six overhead Atmos/DTS-X channels about the cabin. Wife has grumbled about an “Intervention”. I always welcome outside advice and who knows maybe I need to add another set? Can’t wait to hear all the great advice to come.

Why listen to music on 2 channels when 15 channels are possible with my current AVR. There are worse things to spend money on. I love my Audio system and use it on a daily basis at least 8/10 hours a day. Making Uncle Eddie proud is a respectable goal.

Your system looks pretty sweet too Brother. Multichannel Music and Tv Show availability is growing more expensive every day on most streaming services. Someone has to use it and I have always been an early adapter. It’s not all perfect and some content has been militated by overzealous mixing engineers. However, it has been my experience that the content mixing skill is improving and getting more consistent. Apple Music and Apple TV is making great strides to deliver well mixed multichannel content and soon it will be the new standard. New methods to enjoy our shared passion is a good thing.

 

[Sal1950]

Yeah I have six overhead Atmos/DTS-X channels about the cabin. Wife has grumbled about an “Intervention”. I always welcome outside advice and who knows maybe I need to add another set? Can’t wait to hear all the great advice to come.

I yearn badly for a way to upgrade my rig to 7 base channels but just don't have the room to incorporate 2 more rear channels and 2 more "front wides" are out of the question in this space.

Why listen to music on 2 channels when 15 channels are possible with my current AVR.

For sure, anything 2 channels can do, can be done X times better with more channels. LOL

I love my Audio system and use it on a daily basis at least 8/10 hours a day.

Same here, probably 20% of my power bill is due to my music system, but that's OK, it's worth every penny.