Revel F208 Tower Speaker Review

[Deleted member 94338]

Here's my f208 FR using a graphic EQ, and traps. No Dirac. No digital. ML #27 power amp. 19.5' x 14.5' room firing into the short dimension.

So who needs digital correction? My system is all analog up to the Benchmark ADC1 I use for data entry to REW.

My room is extensively trapped; sides, front and back and corners. Room resonances are shown on the graph.

 

[Dj7675]

Here's my f208 FR using a graphic EQ, and traps. No Dirac. No digital. ML #27 power amp. 19.5' x 14.5' room firing into the short dimension.

View attachment 514483

So who needs digital correction? My system is all analog up to the Benchmark ADC1 I use for data entry to REW.

My room is extensively trapped; sides, front and back and corners. Room resonances are shown on the graph.

The scale of your graph I think isn’t helping show issues. The Y axis should show 50dB range. Yours is set around 140dB. To change to 50dB range…. click the "Limits" button and set the Y-axis range to 50dB. This will make it easier to see issues.
For example, the area circuses looks like a small dip but it is pretty wide and 10-12dB deep, which is an issue which could be mitigated with EQ.

 

[Oddball]

Agreed. The other dip around 80hz is not looking great either.

Also not sure why people expect a badge of honour for not using EQ? One would think that we evolve as a spices, but apparently that is a slow process.

 

[a4eaudio]

...ons would think that we evolve as a spices, but apparently that is a slow process.

Based on what I see, we are in a period of devolution.

 

[Sal1950]

Agreed. The other dip around 80hz is not looking great either.

Also not sure why people expect a badge of honour for not using EQ? One would think that we evolve as a spices, but apparently that is a slow process.

He is using EQ, a graphic equalizer and believes staying "all analog" makes his system sound better.

 

[Oddball]

He is using EQ, a graphic equalizer and believes staying "all analog" makes his system sound better.

Indeed evolution is slow and selective .

 

[Deleted member 94338]

Agreed. The other dip around 80hz is not looking great either.

Also not sure why people expect a badge of honour for not using EQ? One would think that we evolve as a spices, but apparently that is a slow process.

I do this to counteract the notion that one must use digital to EQ. Those dips are room modes. No amount of EQ either analog or digital will do anything but stress or rail an amp.
To correct those dips, one must move the speakers or the listening position. I have done this extensively. What you see is the best I've been able to achieve.

By the way, I did try a minidsp. I couldn't achieve anything close to the results I get with my GEQ. And don't assume that I don't know what I'm doing. I've spent 35+ years of my life developing sophisticated electronic equipment. I know my way around equipment, thank you.

 

[kyuu]

Here's my f208 FR using a graphic EQ, and traps. No Dirac. No digital. ML #27 power amp. 19.5' x 14.5' room firing into the short dimension.

View attachment 514483

So who needs digital correction? My system is all analog up to the Benchmark ADC1 I use for data entry to REW.

My room is extensively trapped; sides, front and back and corners. Room resonances are shown on the graph.

I'm not sure why we should be impressed that you got a somewhat decent response with "extensive trapping" and apparently some sort of analog EQ when one can do as well or better without the trapping and half-decent room correction software.

 

[Buckchester]

I do this to counteract the notion that one must use digital to EQ. Those dips are room modes. No amount of EQ either analog or digital will do anything but stress or rail an amp.
To correct those dips, one must move the speakers or the listening position. I have done this extensively. What you see is the best I've been able to achieve.

By the way, I did try a minidsp. I couldn't achieve anything close to the results I get with my GEQ. And don't assume that I don't know what I'm doing. I've spent 35+ years of my life developing sophisticated electronic equipment. I know my way around equipment, thank you.

Digital EQ below the room transition frequency would most definitely improve your sound. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

 

[Oddball]

I do this to counteract the notion that one must use digital to EQ. Those dips are room modes. No amount of EQ either analog or digital will do anything but stress or rail an amp.
To correct those dips, one must move the speakers or the listening position. I have done this extensively. What you see is the best I've been able to achieve.

By the way, I did try a minidsp. I couldn't achieve anything close to the results I get with my GEQ. And don't assume that I don't know what I'm doing. I've spent 35+ years of my life developing sophisticated electronic equipment. I know my way around equipment, thank you.

If you are happy that's what matters. But what you have is definitely not a showcase scenario.

With only 2 speakers you are cutting your options in the low end greatly so they end up where they did. Adding subwoofers would make the whole story much flatter and for that matter immensely more exciting, but you would need to integrate them which used to be difficult aka Mini DSP.

Times have moved on, lots of new stuff around.

Without the desire to impose, this is one of the worst response graphs I get from my system, but still good enough to keep it. Can iron the response a bit more but for whatever reason I like this one, including a hump on the back. Green are the subs, yellow average and below are other 7 bed channels.

EDIT: Zero intentional room treatment.

 

[Miguelón]

Digital EQ below the room transition frequency would most definitely improve your sound. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

I find my digital room compensation system very helpful in FQ, but if I let the app to decide the amplitudes I dislike the result.

Is use to be more happy when smoothing the corrections to a half or even less, but I don’t know why.

The mic shows all is flat, but when doing full correction my ears say they disagree…

The lower the frequency, the more I tend to be happy with the digital (around 30-40 Hz I correct barely all, around 80 Hz 2/3 of the correction and at 150-160 only half, and so forth…), are there any technical explanation to that or is just me?

 

[Buckchester]

I find my digital room compensation system very helpful in FQ, but if I let the app to decide the amplitudes I dislike the result.

Is use to be more happy when smoothing the corrections to a half or even less, but I don’t know why.

The mic shows all is flat, but when doing full correction my ears say they disagree…

The lower the frequency, the more I tend to be happy with the digital (around 30-40 Hz I correct barely all, around 80 Hz 2/3 of the correction and at 150-160 only half, and so forth…), are there any technical explanation to that or is just me?

Well, at low frequencies, the room dominates our perception of the sound. At higher frequencies, it’s the speaker that dominates our perception of the sound.

This change occurs at the room transition frequency, usually around 200hz.

When we take a measurement with a mic, it sums the direct and reflected sounds. Below the room transition frequency, it’s this combination of sounds that we hear. But the further you go above this frequency, the more our ears and brain perceive the direct speaker sound as the dominant form of sound. Our brain can separate the direct sound from the reflected sound. This is why if we EQ above the room transition frequency, it must be based on the anechoic response, not the in room response.

 

[Miguelón]

Well, at low frequencies, the room dominates our perception of the sound. At higher frequencies, it’s the speaker that dominates our perception of the sound.

This change occurs at the room transition frequency, usually around 200hz.

When we take a measurement with a mic, it sums the direct and reflected sounds. Below the room transition frequency, it’s this combination of sounds that we hear. But the further you go above this frequency, the more our ears and brain perceive the direct speaker sound as the dominant form of sound. Our brain can separate the direct sound from the reflected sound. This is why if we EQ above the room transition frequency, it must be based on the anechoic response, not the in room response.

My question concerns more the low end below transition zone.

Do full correction provide a better perceived sound on spikes and dips in the low end? I have a little and very reflective room (allergy, so no carpets, curtains…), probably 300 Hz maybe the lower bound of transition zone.

According to physics, if I don’t move at all from the sweet spot, it should be the way to go.

But I tend to not full correct, possible explanation is that I’m not using a proper calibration mic that overestimates low end…

See the 12 dB bump around 70 Hz. -12 dB in this zone leave that frequencies too weak according to my ears (classical musician, I know well how should be because all are acoustic recordings). -5 to -6 dB give a more accurate sound.

I’m using the iphone mic, may be deviating so high from the mid line?

 

[Oddball]

Not sure how good is the iphone mic for the job. Usually people use UMIC 1 and REW. Most common use of UMIC 1 is pointing vertically to the ceiling - which has its separate calibration file vs when used e.g. nearfield and pointed at the speaker.

Full vs limited range EQ has been debated to death. Seems like most people use it up to room transition frequency, but there could be legitimate cases of wanting to use it full range or at least to some higher cut-off frequency. Having speakers that need correction above transition frequency would be one of them. I also consider preference as a valid reason - if it sounds better (and will likely mesure better) then why not?

 

[testp]

Not sure how good is the iphone mic for the job. Usually people use UMIC 1 and REW. Most common use of UMIC 1 is pointing vertically to the ceiling - which has its separate calibration file vs when used e.g. nearfield and pointed at the speaker.

Full vs limited range EQ has been debated to death. Seems like most people use it up to room transition frequency, but there could be legitimate cases of wanting to use it full range or at least to some higher cut-off frequency. Having speakers that need correction above transition frequency would be one of them. I also consider preference as a valid reason - if it sounds better (and will likely mesure better) then why not?

i've read from minidsp dirac, point forward if stereo, upward if multichannel. but i do not own umik yet, nor am i an expert on it

 

[Miguelón]

Not sure how good is the iphone mic for the job. Usually people use UMIC 1 and REW. Most common use of UMIC 1 is pointing vertically to the ceiling - which has its separate calibration file vs when used e.g. nearfield and pointed at the speaker.

Full vs limited range EQ has been debated to death. Seems like most people use it up to room transition frequency, but there could be legitimate cases of wanting to use it full range or at least to some higher cut-off frequency. Having speakers that need correction above transition frequency would be one of them. I also consider preference as a valid reason - if it sounds better (and will likely mesure better) then why not?

Thanks for your answer; I appreciate both possibilities. Other can be that the monitor has a quite horizontal predicted in room response (Genelec G Three), may I prefer warmer target curve.

I should get an UMIK 1, apparently is not expensive and easy to use, otherwise I will never know if the measurements are trustable.

 

[jwdevos]

I’ve found a pair of second hand F208’s that I can pick up in a couple of weeks. They’re not easy to find in Europe anymore, neither new nor second hand. They’ll be placed on rough tiles in my living room, because I like to have some distance between the floor and the actual bottom of expensive speakers. Mostly due to mopping, vacuum cleaning, and the dog hanging around.

Can anybody tell me the type of thread which the spikes use? I’m expecting M6 or M8. I’d like to score some rugged rubbed feet, or maybe just bolts with a rounded edge. Something that will be easier on the rough tiles that I have than spikes.

 

[Oddball]

I’ve found a pair of second hand F208’s that I can pick up in a couple of weeks. They’re not easy to find in Europe anymore, neither new nor second hand. They’ll be placed on rough tiles in my living room, because I like to have some distance between the floor and the actual bottom of expensive speakers. Mostly due to mopping, vacuum cleaning, and the dog hanging around.

Can anybody tell me the type of thread which the spikes use? I’m expecting M6 or M8. I’d like to score some rugged rubbed feet, or maybe just bolts with a rounded edge. Something that will be easier on the rough tiles that I have than spikes.

What I used to have were metal plates with hole in the center to take the spike and then a simple rubber pad from the home improvement store below. It makes it well grounded and can rest assure it works to keep speakers in force if no major force is applied. So proof to occasional and soft bumps at the speaker.

 

[Kblade]

Just out of curiosity, how many people still have their F208. I just found a brand new pair about two months ago for $3200 and free shipping. I’m just giddy. They look so beautiful and sound fabulous. Be really interesting if they can top it definitely not for $3200, man what a steal for a fabulous speaker.

 

[Laserjock]

I’ve found a pair of second hand F208’s that I can pick up in a couple of weeks. They’re not easy to find in Europe anymore, neither new nor second hand. They’ll be placed on rough tiles in my living room, because I like to have some distance between the floor and the actual bottom of expensive speakers. Mostly due to mopping, vacuum cleaning, and the dog hanging around.

Can anybody tell me the type of thread which the spikes use? I’m expecting M6 or M8. I’d like to score some rugged rubbed feet, or maybe just bolts with a rounded edge. Something that will be easier on the rough tiles that I have than spikes.

From the IsoAcoustics website calculator

Category	Floor Standing Speaker
Make	Revel
Model	F208
Dimensions	11.8 x 46 x 14.8 inches (W x H x D)30 x 116.8 x 37.6 cm
Weight	80 lbs (36.3 kg)
Threaded	Yes
Thread Size	M8-1.25

IsoAcoustics | Wizard

IsoAcoustics - Product Selection Wizard

calculator.isoacoustics.com

Personally, I have mine with the spike reversed and the rounded side on the ceramic tile.

I’ve seen a simple nylon cap nut threaded to the bottom as well for a cheap fix?