Revel Concerta C10 Review (center speaker)

[amirm]

For that particular use, is the target curve different then ?

No. The Predicted-in-room response is excellent above bass.

Think of it this way. Take a perfect speaker that has 20 to 20 kHz response. Then high pass it at 200 Hz. Does it become a terrible speaker?

 

[TeeMann]

But the Polk was Terrible???? bruh.....smh.....

 

[amirm]

But the Polk was Terrible????

For a center speaker, yes:

That is laser focused beam. The Revel is much better in this regard:

 

[Rja4000]

No. Just shelve down everything above 85 dB (flat attenuation).

Yes, thats what I meant

 

[TeeMann]

Its a pretty (and likely expensive) Squawk Box that has No Place in a HiFi arena. Mate it to your favorite CB radio and have at it. But PLEASE kick it out of your living room!

 

[Rja4000]

No. The Predicted-in-room response is excellent above bass.

Think of it this way. Take a perfect speaker that has 20 to 20 kHz response. Then high pass it at 200 Hz. Does it become a terrible speaker?

True.
But did you try to listen to it this way ?

 

[GaryH]

The mean narrow band deviations in the on-axis curve contribute a significant amount (31.5%) to the predicted preference rating. The narrow band deviation (NBD) and smoothness (SM) of the predicted in-room response (PIR) contributes a combined 38%, with low frequency extension contributing 30.5%.

 

[Beershaun]

Still giving a headless panther due to insufficient horizontal directivity. I don't think anyone should buy a center channel with such a narrow beam width even if the response is great.

 

[amirm]

But did you try to listen to it this way ?

Which way?

 

[respice finem]

"Horses for courses". IMHO nobody in his right mind will buy mini-speakers for a big home cinema. But, some people have "home cinema" setups on 15 m2. Such a mini-center for a mini-system should be judged in its intended context, for which it isn't bad.
The other question, if such a system could be better off with a "phantom center" - I think it is sometimes the case, at least when correct center placement is also problematic.

 

[Dj7675]

Still giving a headless panther due to insufficient horizontal directivity. I don't think anyone should buy a center channel with such a narrow beam width even if the response is great

Shouldn’t buyers consider the directivity width (in this case 40 degrees) and their listening distance, and how many seats they want to sound good? And sometimes it is about TV speakers or something this size... You could get a pretty nice sounding system with this C10 and the M10s (vertical counterparts) for LR mounted on a wall and a small sub on the front wall. I agree that if you can fit a larger alternative it opens up a lot of other options that wouldn’t compromise directivity...

 

[TeeMann]

For a center speaker, yes:

That is laser focused beam. The Revel is much better in this regard:

The tradeoff for the Polk is a small sweet spot. At least it aims to be a full-range speaker, and does so with relatively low distortion Many of us covet the center seat anyhow, so would be a a non issue for small sitting areas and/or small audiences. This Revel unit, on the other hand, has no obvious redeemable quality...that I would value. Narrow bandwidth and high distortion are immediate disqualifications in my book.

 

[ROOSKIE]

The purpose of this speaker a supplement to help center voices, is it not? So there is no need for much energy below 300 Hz, which is realistically where the rolloff is. By eye the -6 point is about 140 Hz.

Plentry of human of voices go below 300hrz. Many/most.

 

[Dj7675]

The tradeoff for the Polk is a small sweet spot. At least it aims to be a full-range speaker, and does so with relatively low distortion Many of us covet the center seat anyhow, so would be a a non issue for small sitting areas and/or small audiences. This Revel unit, on the other hand, has no obvious redeemable quality...that I would value. Narrow bandwidth and high distortion are immediate disqualifications in my book

Funny, that is what I thought about the Polk....Revel C10 PIR shows a much totally better speaker in my opinion as well. In addition, I actually thought the distortion was better on the Revel as well. Both are full of compromises due to their size but I don’t see anything the Polk does better than the revel except for playing lower which can be mitigated with a small sub up front in such a system.

 

[Beershaun]

Shouldn’t buyers consider the directivity width (in this case 40 degrees) and their listening distance, and how many seats they want to sound good? And sometimes it is about TV speakers or something this size... You could get a pretty nice sounding system with this C10 and the M10s (vertical counterparts) for LR mounted on a wall and a small sub on the front wall. I agree that if you can fit a larger alternative it opens up a lot of other options that wouldn’t compromise directivity...

I don't think the acceptable criteria change because it's a center channel. The preference score equation still holds for this type of speaker. People should realize the severe sound quality compromise inherent in this type of design. I never realized until Amir's measurements the impact on directivity with these middle tweeter designs. Most of us buying home theater systems think this is how center channels are supposed to be designed. That now needs to be aggressively challenged to break that long held belief.

 

[H-713]

Why is that? It comes with brackets that let you wall mount them vertically.

Okay, didn't realize it came with brackets. If you mentioned that in the review, forgive me, I'm sleepy.

That said, this thing rolls off pretty early... subwoofer integration isn't going to be the easiest with this one.

 

[Dj7675]

Also, as this speaker for many would be mounted on wall with the bracket, it is important to note the affect on frequency response when mounted on the wall. Below is from the spec sheet of the JBL Control 25av (small 5 inch woofer) that can be mounted on wall with included bracket. Note the added bass starting at around 700hz which is in the ball park of where this speaker rolls off. I don’t think that is a coincidence. When installed on wall as intended, it can have a pretty dramatic affect on the bass.

 

[GWolfman]

Mni, yet compotent (considering its size).

 

[DanTheMan]

Wall mounting is why I voted “not terrible”. That said, since my first home theater I’ve used 3 identical speakers across the front. That’s why I settled for 5” speakers crossed over at180Hz. There’s always compromises and money can be spent to minimize them. you can’t locate my subs using your ears Which has been a criticism of such an approach. The sideways MTM or MMTMM wouldn’t work well at my viewing distance.

 

[FeddyLost]

This speaker again relies on wall gain and it can't be evaluated correctly when measured in free field. Obviously it's a good example of speaker engineering, but applying metrics made for standard stereo speakers is just useless.