Same tests are used for all speakers, and despite not including bass boost from mounted on a wall, it was still recommended. So it seems the tests and process do seem to work. It would be helpful for speakers that are designed for wall mounting to see what the frequency response would be but we would be asking for more tests and more work from Amir. Not sure it is fair to ask for much more. We already get enough data to make educated decisions. It would be interesting if there is a way to calculate expected bass response mathmatically and show that projection maybe?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Revel Concerta C10 Review (center speaker)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
This speaker has a -3dB rating of 110hz. I am guessing that is when wall mounting. Instead of crossing at 180 to 200hz, crossing over around 110 does not seem too bad to me at all. Crossing over at 180 to 200hz, that might cause some issue.
ArchAcoustics
New Member
This figure would suggest you should absorb the side wall reflections, which goes against the grain of current thinking on room treatment.
As far as the poor bass response, while you could apply an EQ that would get the response down to 200 Hz, you'd be sacrificing sensitivity which is one of the main things going for this speaker. Then again, 85 dB sensitivity isn't bad.
I could see this being used in a living room if there's a dedicated home theater somewhere else. The listening window results are really impressive. The engineers at Revel clearly know what they're doing given the smooth on-axis response and relative lack of resonances. But it's clear from the horizontal off-axis response and bass that physics always wins.
Tom C
Major Contributor
I thought there was no such animal. Diagrams of Dolby systems do not have center heights, or at least the ones I’ve seen. Same with DTS:X. Is that backwards thinking?
Auro 3D uses a voice of god channel.
Center height is part of DTS Speaker layout. Dolby does not include it. With the Stormaudio processor I have, center height would be used both with DTSX movies And the Neural X upmixer. In the case of the StormAudio the center height speaker will also be active with Atmos and the Dolby Surround Upmixer via the Storm XD feature which pulls audio from nearby speakers.
Tom C
Major Contributor
I see now. Thank you.
For sure, this thing is for casual TV-use, and only if you don't already have reasonably good front speakers. And dividing a center at 200Hz or higher to avoid their low-end "issues"?? Yeah sure, that will really bring out those powerful centerstage voices and effects
For tiny systems which will sound bad no matter what, it is an okay solution... But I personally prefer close to full range centers that are just as powerful and equal quality to the mains. Or else, just use a "phantom center" instead of this puny thing Can't imagine why this is recommended for anything actually, except as I said, for casual TV-use.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,874
- Likes
- 4,674
Here it seems to me the bigger problem than narrow pattern is the large dispersion disruption at the mid-tweeter crossover. That’s not hifi.
Still, I think it’s hard to judge a speaker like this one without thinking about what else is in that market. Many of us (self included) don’t have a good sense of how the direct competitors perform. I would think the closest current direct competitors are KEF E305 and Paradigm Cinema/Millenia, and maybe Tannoy Revolution XT.
I have not heard the Paradigms. KEF is smaller but competitive. I have (not Klippel-grade, obviously) measurements of E305 somewhere that I should dig up when I evaluated them as potential Auro/Atmos heights.
Tannoy has a very different look, and I don’t think the short and wide center designed for wall mounting. But if the speaker is going on a cabinet or shelf it’s a competitor. Or because it’s a coax, the XT Mini bookshelf model can be wall mounted horizontally.
Expanding to other discontinued speakers to consider... NHT, for example, had a wide speaker of better design - vertical MT flanked by woofers - called L5, but I think it was a couple inches taller. KEFs old KHT3005 is another. They were in some ways better than the current model: center was wider, and had two mini woofers supporting the coax, and all the drive units had compact neo motors that KEF downgraded to ceramic in E305.
Though generally I think soundbars killed this niche of speakers. Honestly, if I had placement constraints that required a very short speaker for “home theater” I’d probably give up on separates and pick up a Sennheiser Ambio soundbar, which appears to use very similar drive units as Neumann KH 80. Cost is likely similar to three of these plus AVR, but there’s much less mess.
Still, I think it’s hard to judge a speaker like this one without thinking about what else is in that market. Many of us (self included) don’t have a good sense of how the direct competitors perform. I would think the closest current direct competitors are KEF E305 and Paradigm Cinema/Millenia, and maybe Tannoy Revolution XT.
I have not heard the Paradigms. KEF is smaller but competitive. I have (not Klippel-grade, obviously) measurements of E305 somewhere that I should dig up when I evaluated them as potential Auro/Atmos heights.
Tannoy has a very different look, and I don’t think the short and wide center designed for wall mounting. But if the speaker is going on a cabinet or shelf it’s a competitor. Or because it’s a coax, the XT Mini bookshelf model can be wall mounted horizontally.
Expanding to other discontinued speakers to consider... NHT, for example, had a wide speaker of better design - vertical MT flanked by woofers - called L5, but I think it was a couple inches taller. KEFs old KHT3005 is another. They were in some ways better than the current model: center was wider, and had two mini woofers supporting the coax, and all the drive units had compact neo motors that KEF downgraded to ceramic in E305.
Though generally I think soundbars killed this niche of speakers. Honestly, if I had placement constraints that required a very short speaker for “home theater” I’d probably give up on separates and pick up a Sennheiser Ambio soundbar, which appears to use very similar drive units as Neumann KH 80. Cost is likely similar to three of these plus AVR, but there’s much less mess.
Last edited:
Please excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean by 2.5-way? Are the outer two mid-woofers low-passed lower than the inner two?This is a review and detailed measurements of the Revel C10. It was kindly purchased used by a member and sent in for testing. It is discontinued (released in 2008):
View attachment 171646
As you see, the C10 is quite small. It is a 2.5-way design with four mid-woofers, tweeter in the center and dual ports one at each end. I could not easily take the grill off so I did not attempt to do so. Even using a flashlight all I could identify was the tweeter. The grill is solid rather than being soft fabric you push in to find the drivers by feel.
It comes with brackets for wall mounting. Here is the back side:
View attachment 171647
Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.
Measurements are compliant with latest speaker research into what can predict the speaker preference and is standardized in CEA/CTA-2034 ANSI specifications. Likewise listening tests are performed per research that shows mono listening is much more revealing of differences between speakers than stereo or multichannel.
Reference axis was the center of the tweeter (aligned by eye). It is getting colder with the measurement room temp at 14 degrees C. Accuracy is better than 1% for almost entire audio spectrum indicating a well designed speaker.
NOTE: our company, Madrona Digital is a dealer for Harman products which includes Revel. So feel free to read whatever bias you like in my subjective remarks.
Revel C10 Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:
View attachment 171648
As you will see later, there is a built-in high pass filter so there is not much bass to speak of. The rest of the response is well behaved though with a slight slope down. There is some disturbance between 1 and 2 khz which is likely interference from the ports. As noted before, I could not identify the location of said ports or midrange drivers so I have no near field measurements to confirm that. Impact on frequency response is very modest though so should not mess up tonality.
The good directivity gives almost textbook early window and predicted in-room responses:
View attachment 171649
View attachment 171650
2-way versions of these speakers has had horribly narrow horizontal beam width. The 2.5-way approach helps some here but doesn't solve the problem:
View attachment 171652
View attachment 171651
You see the choke point around 1 to 2 kHz but it is twice as wide as competing speakers we have tested.
Vertical directivity naturally is much better than most 2-way speakers:
View attachment 171653
Impedance measurements show the high-pass filter with the way impedance shoots up as we get down to DC:
View attachment 171654
That high pass filter pays dividends in keeping bass notes from causing a lot of distortion:
View attachment 171656
It does make the relative amount look worse though but that is because there is essentially no response at lower range:
View attachment 171657
I could feel the cabinet resonating strongly so we see that indicated in the waterfall display:
View attachment 171659
Remember that I noted cabinet/port resonances between 1 and 2 kHz. That is where we are seeing the bulk of resonances above.
Finally, here is the impulse response for fans of this graph:
View attachment 171660
Revel C10 Listening Tests
As soon as I started to play the C10, it sounded horrible. Quick confirmation showed that I had the EQ on from last speaker test.
On dynamics ability, this was excellent due to not having any deep bass to bottom out the drivers. I could get it loud enough to create some physical sensation in my belly and sudden notes were surprisingly impactful. There is a lesson here is designing a speaker that is allowed to play only what it can do well.
On directivity, changing one seat over caused a slight tonal shift in vocals but it was not at severe.
Conclusions
The Revel C10 gets us closer to what a tiny center speaker with multiple drivers should be. Despite its budget class, clearly a lot of engineering has gone into making it deliver excellently smooth off-axis response (which summed). High pass filter is smart although it makes it less than a full (spectrum) speaker. If it had more bass, it would be a knock out. But it doesn't.
As a bonus, it is also quite small. I put it in front of our flat panel and it disappeared below its standard stand.
I am going to recommend the Revel C10. If you can find it on the used market, it can be a great option compared to a lot of junk designs out there.
----------
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/
beagleman
Major Contributor
No, the purpose is meant to be a wall mounted Center speaker. Voices go far below 300 Hz normally.
Most average center speakers need do go down to about 80 Hz to ensure good voice reproduction, and localization.
Otherwise, sounds below 200 or so hertz will be localized TO the subwoofer.
Similar to the Bose Sub/sat design that is almost universally bashed. Any time a male speaks with a deep voice, you hear it from the sub mostly.
This speakers suffers the same negatives. Although the response is fairly smooth with mids and highs, the same can be said of the Bose sats from a set I saw tested recently.
Last edited:
On wall install will be more like 110hz as noted in Revel specs., not 200hz. I think that is a big difference. Crossovers set at 110 really should be that bad, should it?
beagleman
Major Contributor
I was going by the first response graph.
It is relatively flat to 400 hz and about 3 db down at 300 Hz, not sure just wall mounting would bring the -3 db figure down to 110hz really.
Maybe more like 200hz at best.
I have one center,(of several) a similar design, with multiple 3" "Woofers" and it struggles to TRULY do even about 160-180 hz, equally as loud as 200 and above....
sam_adams
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2019
- Messages
- 1,000
- Likes
- 2,435
What the C10 looks like nekkid:
Polk has similar product offerings (not an endorsement):
Signature S35 (recently discontinued):
Signature Elite ES35:
Monitor XT35 Slim:
The MXT35 comes closest in physical design to the Revel. The S35's are rear port designs. All are low-profile center speakers as per marketing. Could be used in vertical LCR configuration. Mounting on-wall would give the small 'woofers' a bass boost.
One other thing to note is the orientation/design of the waveguide on the tweeter and how would this would effect both the horizontal and vertical dispersion for the driver.
Polk has similar product offerings (not an endorsement):
Signature S35 (recently discontinued):
Signature Elite ES35:
Monitor XT35 Slim:
The MXT35 comes closest in physical design to the Revel. The S35's are rear port designs. All are low-profile center speakers as per marketing. Could be used in vertical LCR configuration. Mounting on-wall would give the small 'woofers' a bass boost.
One other thing to note is the orientation/design of the waveguide on the tweeter and how would this would effect both the horizontal and vertical dispersion for the driver.
Last edited:
Remember also that this thing will already strugle at 110Hz (down 15dB) and drops down to almost dead silent one octave lower 110Hz/2 = 55Hz. With a second order highpass at 110Hz it should be down by only 12 dB at 55Hz to blend seamlessly with a similar low-pass filter in the sub, not down 45+15+12dB... I cannot find any solid argument for why this should be a recommended center speaker, in any kind of bass managed system or otherwise, unless it had a dedicated woofer covering below 200Hz right below it... and as @beagleman said
Last edited:
I think there is more than one elephant in the ASR center speaker topic discussions.
By itself, I presume, a center speaker tested and even listened to (again; by itself) does NOT tell us [me?] the whole truth about the impact of the environment that it will be used in. Nor does it tell us what impact it has on that same environment. N'est ce pas?
I think that this center speaker (or any center) needs to be closely matched to other speakers in the system (<< 'impact OF the environment')
I also think [maybe a bit too much], using a center speaker means the use of 3+ total # of speakers, but a DSP (Dolby?) is used to distribute (dice and splice) the audio frequency into compartments. These 'dice-n-splice' bits that are sent to different speakers in the environment, that can potentially mess up which portions of the "compartmented" audio spectrum the Left/Right speakers are getting or not getting (<< 'impact OF the center').
I may see elephants where others see flies or ticks.
By itself, I presume, a center speaker tested and even listened to (again; by itself) does NOT tell us [me?] the whole truth about the impact of the environment that it will be used in. Nor does it tell us what impact it has on that same environment. N'est ce pas?
I think that this center speaker (or any center) needs to be closely matched to other speakers in the system (<< 'impact OF the environment')
I also think [maybe a bit too much], using a center speaker means the use of 3+ total # of speakers, but a DSP (Dolby?) is used to distribute (dice and splice) the audio frequency into compartments. These 'dice-n-splice' bits that are sent to different speakers in the environment, that can potentially mess up which portions of the "compartmented" audio spectrum the Left/Right speakers are getting or not getting (<< 'impact OF the center').
I may see elephants where others see flies or ticks.
Last edited:
I personally think what is outrageous is your comparison.Here is a proper surround setup. Sure it is outrageous but giving the C10 a "Fine" or "Great" score (42% of the voters) is more outrageous
Yes I deserved that
Come, come! Tell the truth now @sarumbear: which setup would you rather be in or want to possess?
Similar threads
- Poll
