• 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 F328Be Speaker Review

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
That is very interesting! I wonder how they achieved this too.

I have also often wondered if directivity of bass is much more important than it’s currently thought to be in terms of bass sound quality and tactile “impact”. Perhaps it explains why many bookshelf speakers with deep bass response often still do not sound “big” like these big towers often do, and as you say could explain the purpose of products like W371 and D&D 8C reportedly sounding amazing.

You need to try a D&D 8C.
 

BrokenEnglishGuy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,914
Likes
1,147
No matter how amazing the Revel Beryllium speakers may sound and no matter what Revel says in their marketing spiel, it is exceedingly unlikely that the sound quality is influenced to any significant degree by the use of beryllium for the tweeter dome. Substantive differences in sound quality, for the beryllium speaker vs. a similar speaker in the Performa3 line, are the cumulative effect of numerous design differences between the two speakers. With respect to the F328Be this is obviously true given that in the Performa3 line there aren't any speakers with three 8" woofers. But even if you compare the F228Be to the F208, various differences will be found that will be much better explanations for any differences in how they sound, vs. the difference in the metal used for the tweeter dome.

The use of ultra-exotic materials in loudspeaker design has long been a successful practice, but more from a marketing perspective than an engineering perspective. Revel is no more and no less prone to this successful marketing practice than any other loudspeaker manufacturer. People (audiophiles especially) are impressed by the use of exotic aerospace materials in loudspeakers. Relative to a given stiffness, a dome made of beryllium will be less massive than an aluminum dome. A somewhat more powerful motor is therefore needed with an aluminum dome. This implies either a stronger Bl value or else greater wire length in the gap, either of which also provides the additional damping required by the more massive aluminum dome. All in all the aluminum dome tweeter will be slightly lower in efficiency and sensitivity. Beyond this, there is not likely any significant difference between beryllium and aluminum, as it applies to loudspeaker tweeters. I doubt whether anyone designing a speaker has encountered any difficulty finding tweeters with adequate efficiency and sensitivity. In general, tweeters are several dB more sensitive than the other drivers and need to be padded to bring their sensitivity in line with the other drivers. This is typically true even for tweeters that use non-metallic domes.

As to the question of whether there is any moral dilemma over the use of beryllium, the best answer is simply "no". The use of beryllium in aerospace and other industries is nowadays fairly common. And even if the use of beryllium weren't common, there are lots of other commonly used materials that are vastly more hazardous, that most everyone simply accepts as a fact of modern life. The common and unavoidable practice of storing fuel and highly toxic chemicals in facilities located within reach of urban centers poses a vastly greater risk to public health.

If what you really want in a speaker is for it to sound as correct as possible, objective measurements are the only way. Something that isn't pointed out nearly as often as it should be is that whenever there is a debate over which speaker (among several) is more correct, there is just one way that a debate of this sort can be settled, which is by comparing the objective measurements. Even if 90% of listeners prefer the sound of speaker A over the sound of speaker B, the only way to ascertain which speaker is more correct is by comparing objective measurements. If the objective measurements are so similar that it isn't apparent which speaker is more correct, then there isn't any genuine reason to think that either of them is more correct than the other.
i saw some paper from focal showing the be is much faster in sound than others
 

Jbrunwa

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
301
Likes
339
Location
Seattle
Then they should be nowhere near the speaker industry. I’ve owned the F206, and sold it shortly after because it is a much more flawed speaker than their higher end lines, and even more flawed than some of their 'lower end' products like the M16 and F36. The F206 treble is not so great, and this not only very audible but shows up in spins I’ve seen. Anyone (from Harman or otherwise) saying the F206 is the “sweet spot” from Revel either should get their hearing checked, or their sight checked (and their ability to read spin charts). Are you sure they didn’t say F226Be? That would make much more sense.

I think you could far more easily argue that the M106 is a better price/performance “sweet spot” than the F206, since it’s measurements show it doesn’t have the treble problems the F206 has, and in fact measures overall much better than the F206 aside from bass power.

But the fact that anyone thinks the F206 with its flaws could be a “sweet spot” is a perfect example of why there is no such thing as a “sweet spot”. It depends on how sensitive your ears are to subtle flaws, how perfect you really want your speakers to get, how much dynamic range you want your speakers to be able to effortlessly express without compression, how large your room is you want to fill with music, etc.

Maybe sweet spot referred to number sold x markup for return on development, but if so it would be hard to justify as marketing depends a lot on brand reputation which in turn is heavily influenced by top of line products. I haven’t heard F206 but I own both M106s, used in a smaller room and F328Bes, used in a large room. We are biased, but the M106s in the small room blow us away and high frequencies are very smooth, while the F328Bes even in the large room are superior, especially in transients like snare and rim hits, as well as in the ability to pick out individual instruments in orchestras. We attribute this, right or wrong, to the tweeter design.
 

Lsc

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
406
Likes
383
The F208 definitely looks like the real "sweat spot" to me.
For me it’s the F226Be, although it’s a lot of $$ for a medium sized speaker you do get the beryllium tweeter along with the other improved drivers. The baffle is narrow enough so there is no diffraction issues like the F208/F228Be which improves imaging.

The F208 does have the much larger cabinet at a lower price point tho…
 

Bear123

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 27, 2019
Messages
796
Likes
1,370
What's with the cheap, super budget looking exposed screws on these $16,000 speakers?
Here's the baffle on their cheapest, entry level floorstander:
917revel.lige.jpg

$5 for trim rings was out of budget?
 

amper42

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
1,583
Likes
2,287
What's with the cheap, super budget looking exposed screws on these $16,000 speakers?
Here's the baffle on their cheapest, entry level floorstander:
917revel.lige.jpg

$5 for trim rings was out of budget?

It's funny what some see as important. The last thing I would ever notice on my Revel F328Be is the black hex screws holding the three eight-inch deep ceramic composite aluminum cones in place. Those three 8" drivers make a big difference in the sound.
 

Bear123

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 27, 2019
Messages
796
Likes
1,370
Yeah, if I spent $16k on speakers, appearance would certainly be important. Exposed screws is a finish detail that I would expect on a $200 speaker. Just my opinion. F328Be would probably be the speaker I'd wish for as a cost no object, end game passive speaker. But I'd still wish Revel would have spent the $5 needed to cover the screws.
 

Bear123

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 27, 2019
Messages
796
Likes
1,370
I don't like trim rings. Just another part to deal with and that makes no contribution to performance.
I don't think it would be a deal breaker either way for many people…maybe anyone lol. I certianly wouldn't exclude them from consideration because they cheaped out and left screws exposed. A flawless, high gloss finish has no effect on performance, yet high finish quality is probably quite high on the priority list for those purchasing a flagship model. Just seems odd to skimp on a cheap aesthetic improvement. I don't take the drivers in and out of speakers very often, so easy access to screws doesn't seem terribly important either. It seems almost equivalent to using plastic grille pegs on the baffle instead of magnetic attachment. Probably a more costly option.

Wonder if it is difficult to avoid possible rattling or buzzing with trim rings, especially given the high SPL capability of this speaker?
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,762
Likes
16,228
I don't like trim rings. Just another part to deal with and that makes no contribution to performance.
Ideally it even has a (usually rather small) positive contribution on performance, so you rarely will see loudspeakers without them from brands with optimised baffles like Genelec, Neumann, KEF etc.:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...imulation-analysis-screws-in-waveguide.22985/
Of course the benefit is usually rather very small but it shows the strive for perfection while not having it rather the lack of understanding or care about it.
 

Lsc

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
406
Likes
383
What's with the cheap, super budget looking exposed screws on these $16,000 speakers?
Here's the baffle on their cheapest, entry level floorstander:
917revel.lige.jpg

$5 for trim rings was out of budget?
The trim rings on the Concerta2 is probably used to cover the cheap screws they used.

It’s a hit or miss. Wilson has exposed screws on their $329,000 speakers while Bowers and Wilkins uses trim rings. Who knows maybe Revel will start using them in their next generation speakers but these companies usually don’t alter their designs after they hit production and the cabinet design is from 2013.

The exposed screws on my F228Be don’t bother me at all and I didn’t even notice until you pointed it out. The fact that they used the same cabinet as the performa3 is a bigger deal to me but hey, I just listened to music for 3 hours so I can’t complain much anymore (as I’ve complained enough about it).

Maybe if I had the F328Be, since it’s more expensive it would have bothered me :).
 

Vhond

Active Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
127
Likes
23
I am not impressed with the quality of the foam and speaker filter either...
image


(F226Be above, but I think the F228Be would not be much better)
 

Martini

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 13, 2020
Messages
288
Likes
292
I am not impressed with the quality of the foam and speaker filter either...


(F226Be above, but I think the F228Be would not be much better)

Rather have that, than this complicated cross-over

Cross-over.jpg
 

Vhond

Active Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
127
Likes
23
I'm not talking about complexity but about quality of components...
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,794
Location
NYC
Ideally it even has a (usually rather small) positive contribution on performance, so you rarely will see loudspeakers without them from brands with optimised baffles like Genelec, Neumann, KEF etc.:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...imulation-analysis-screws-in-waveguide.22985/
Of course the benefit is usually rather very small but it shows the strive for perfection while not having it rather the lack of understanding or care about it.
Interesting but, in the context of room acoustics and DSP, not a biggie. Grilles and, particularly, grille-frame designs, are bigger concerns.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,762
Likes
16,228
Interesting but, in the context of room acoustics and DSP, not a biggie. Grilles and, particularly, grille-frame designs, are bigger concerns.
A perfectionist won't use the grilles anyway and DSP cannot correct any diffraction issues, that's why all good loudspeaker engineers strive for a smooth and continuous baffle surfaces a possible. As said its not a biggie but rather the icing on the cake but many hobbyists like to strive for perfection if its something which can be implemented easily and even looks better. That doesn't mean that I would not take a loudspeaker with visible screws but if I had the choice of two being otherwise identical I would take the one without them.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,794
Location
NYC
A perfectionist won't use the grilles anyway and DSP cannot correct any diffraction issues, that's why all good loudspeaker engineers strive for a smooth and continuous baffle surfaces a possible. As said its not a biggie but rather the icing on the cake but many hobbyists like to strive for perfection if its something which can be implemented easily and even looks better. That doesn't mean that I would not take a loudspeaker with visible screws but if I had the choice of two being otherwise identical I would take the one without them.
Understood. Note, too, that there are other ways to avoid visible screws aside from a trim ring.
 
Top Bottom