Revel F328be

[echopraxia]

The real danger in blind testing speakers comes from two things imo;

1. Comparing just two or three speakers will exaggerate the good/bad and those differences will most likely be instantly recognizable across songs, making it somewhat biased depending on what you preferred early in the test.

2. Assuming that whatever sounds the most impressive during short stints will translate to what is preferred over time without switching/comparing to something different enough to create doubts.

The first point is adressed by Toole in his book and acknowledged by Kevin Voecks at Harman in one of the interviews posted here on a thread the other day.

The second is a difficult one and I'm not sure how we can reliably test for that.

What's the solution for #1? I don't have access to Toole's book, but I should if it speaks to blind tests if I'm going to some day do a big one involving Revel vs Genelec vs others.

I could involve four speakers for example, but then what's the best methodology to test those? For example: Play the same track on "Speaker ID" #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 (with the actual speakers assigned to these IDs being randomly sampled from the set of e.g. 4 speakers, so we can measure false positives/negatives), and have listeners write down their ratings?

My only worry here is that the sheer number of speakers here would be overwhelming to the listener. Even if preference differences are heard, it may be difficult for the listener to generate a signal much more reliable than "This speaker sounds better/worse/same than the previous one you played."

 

[waynel]

What's the solution for #1? I don't have access to Toole's book, but I should if it speaks to blind tests if I'm going to some day do a big one involving Revel vs Genelec vs others.

I could involve four speakers for example, but then what's the best methodology to test those? For example: Play the same track on "Speaker ID" #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 (with the actual speakers assigned to these IDs being randomly sampled from the set of e.g. 4 speakers, so we can measure false positives/negatives), and have listeners write down their ratings?

My only worry here is that the sheer number of speakers here would be overwhelming to the listener. Even if preference differences are heard, it may be difficult for the listener to generate a signal much more reliable than "This speaker sounds better/worse/same than the previous one you played."

https://www.amazon.com/dp/113892136X/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_Y7K8EbDEY7QGZ

 

[MattHooper]

That said, I still point to extra-wide directivity being the Salon2's claim to fame. Compare the directivity plots from Stereophile of the F228Be (which should have the a very similar waveguide to the 328be, if not identical) and the Salon2.

F228Be:
View attachment 69802

This is a very well controlled speaker with a particularly wide listening window. There's a bit of unevenness and a slight dip in the midrange. The directivity narrows at further angles and higher frequencies noticeably, but the lines are evenly changed and smoothly changing. You can't complain about it much... until you look at the Salon2's horizontal directivity:

Salon2:
View attachment 69804

It's so much wider throughout the crucial upper midrange to lower treble for soundstage performance. On the F228Be you're down about 20dB at 90 degrees and 9kHz. On the Salon2, you're only down about 12dB. And beyond 10k, there's not much content in neither music nor our ability to hear, plus the direct sound matters more anyway, so I don't consider the big dip there to be an issue.

In a direct comparison, assuming equal bass performance, I cannot imagine the former having better spatial qualities than the latter. Not only does the Salon2 have wider directivity, it's significantly more even up to 9-10kHz.

Interesting stuff.

One of the characteristics I like in my Joseph speakers is the perception of wide, even dispersion (often remarked upon by people listening to Joseph speakers). I'm not a fan of head-in-a-vice sound, and there is something more natural about a presentation that doesn't obviously change for the worse with small movements of the listener.

FWIW, Stereophile's lateral response measurement. Not perfect, but pretty good:

 

[richard12511]

I don't think blind testing of speakers is really feasible under any circumstances. Beside the bass profile, the rest of the sonic signature will make each speaker readily distinguishable to anyone familiar with the sound of both speakers. There are simply too many variables (polar pattern, FR over the entire sonic spectrum, cabinet resonnances, phases anomalies) to ever render such a trial as anything other than sighted for all intents and purposes.

This is the problem I've had with the past couple of blinds I've done. I was (almost)instantaneously able to identify what I was listening. I think you can mitigate this somewhat by having maybe 4 or 5 speakers in the blind, with someone else(not listening) responsible for (randomly?)deciding which 3 do battle against each other. Do several blinds with 3 at a time drawing from a 5 speaker pool, and it might be able to cast enough doubt.

Also, the blind should still be more valid for the other participants not familiar with the speakers(especially so if you don't even tell them the speakers under test).

 

[richard12511]

The real danger in blind testing speakers comes from two things imo;

1. Comparing just two or three speakers will exaggerate the good/bad and those differences will most likely be instantly recognizable across songs, making it somewhat biased depending on what you preferred early in the test.

2. Assuming that whatever sounds the most impressive during short stints will translate to what is preferred over time without switching/comparing to something different enough to create doubts.

The first point is adressed by Toole in his book and acknowledged by Kevin Voecks at Harman in one of the interviews posted here on a thread the other day.

The second is a difficult one and I'm not sure how we can reliably test for that.

The second problem is probably addressed by much longer listening sessions. You're right though, it is a problem. It took me a few hundred blind taste tests with beers(and analyzing the data) to realize that I was often preferring the "bolder" flavor, and not the beer I actually preferred to drink. Examples included Karbach "Rodeo Clown" over Dogfish Head "90 Minute IPA"(3 separate times), and Boulevard "The Sixth Glass" over St. Bernardus "ABT 12"(2 separate times), but there were many more.

 

[Alexanderc]

In a scientific test as might be reported in a published study, I think one would have to worry more about the number of listeners than the number of speakers. If you have a few friends over for an evening of blind testing, even if all the proper procedures and controls are in place, it won't tell an outsider enough to reach a conclusion about which speaker is "best." On the other hand, it will be substantially more enlightening (probably) for those who participated than reading a study where 500 people listened to a few different speakers. I think both are great, but I would rather listen to the speakers than read about them myself.

 

[richard12511]

Even if preference differences are heard, it may be difficult for the listener to generate a signal much more reliable than "This speaker sounds better/worse/same than the previous one you played."

IMO, scoring is hard to do in blinds unless you're really trained. My scale always tends to change over the course of the test.

 

[amirm]

What's the solution for #1? I don't have access to Toole's book, but I should if it speaks to blind tests if I'm going to some day do a big one involving Revel vs Genelec vs others.

Don't tell people in advance what speakers are being tested. That is how I took the Harman tests. Yes, I detected one speaker as outlier but for the rest that were close, I could not game the system and fix my votes.

 

[amirm]

IMO, scoring is hard to do in blinds unless you're really trained. My scale always tends to change over the course of the test.

Indeed. When I first took the Harman test, I started scoring only to regret what I had done in earlier parts of the test. Practice is mandatory in any controlled testing of this sort.

 

[Valentin R]

Here's their spin

View attachment 69722

So a very typical revel speaker. Pretty good on axis, very good listening window, and this time around an extremely good early reflections curve. Weird that the sound power is elevated so much over the axial data. But as there are two bass ports on the rear, it is more representative of real world performance.

Edit: Revel sent that to me but it's also up on speakerdata2034.

I think this is at the diminishing returns point for what the spinorama can tell us. The spin is better than the Revel Salon2, for instance, with similar bass performance:

But if it follows the performance of others in the Be line, it likely has narrower horizontal directivity which could give the Salon2 a bit of an edge.

Here the predicted in room response for the F328Be
Excellent bass response

 

[paddycrow]

This seems like a good thread for me to ask for opinions. I am pretty enamored with the F328Be, but the $6K price difference to the F228Be makes me wonder if I wouldn't be better off with the 228 and a good subwoofer (Revel's B110v2 or B112v2 for example).

I currently have a fairly large listening area at >400 sq ft. I am planning to move in the near future, however.

 

[CDMC]

This seems like a good thread for me to ask for opinions. I am pretty enamored with the F328Be, but the $6K price difference to the F228Be makes me wonder if I wouldn't be better off with the 228 and a good subwoofer (Revel's B110v2 or B112v2 for example).

I currently have a fairly large listening area at >400 sq ft. I am planning to move in the near future, however.

If it were me, I would get the 228s, two good subwoofers, a way to equalize the subs, and high pass the Revels at 70-80 hz. Revel subwoofers don’t offer the same performance as their speakers and cost a lot for what you get. I would instead look at a pair of Rythmik F15 or F18, or Hsu ULS-15 subs. The smoothing in the bass with multiple subs plus eq, plus the addition low distortion at higher volumes makes a huge difference.

 

[paddycrow]

If it were me, I would get the 228s, two good subwoofers, a way to equalize the subs, and high pass the Revels at 70-80 hz. Revel subwoofers don’t offer the same performance as their speakers and cost a lot for what you get. I would instead look at a pair of Rythmik F15 or F18, or Hsu ULS-15 subs. The smoothing in the bass with multiple subs plus eq, plus the addition low distortion at higher volumes makes a huge difference.

My preamp has a capable subwoofer circuit. I have a pair of Polk DSW PRO 660s in my home theater system, I can play with them while I'm making up my mind.

 

[Valentin R]

If your going the sub way I would go with F226be

The F328be are 2.0 fullrage solution

 

[echopraxia]

If your going the sub way I would go with F226be

The F328be are 2.0 fullrage solution

The F328Be has the latest generation waveguide, tweeter, and woofers — all of which are different than any of the other speakers in the PerformaBe line. As for how much that improves the sound quality, I do not know.

 

[stunta]

The F328be are 2.0 fullrage solution

Frequency response: 26Hz - 40kHz (-6dB) Low-frequency extension: 24Hz (-10dB); 26Hz (-6dB); 35Hz (-3dB)

How so?

 

[paddycrow]

I do have a pair of 300 watt mono amps. LOL

 

[Valentin R]

Frequency response: 26Hz - 40kHz (-6dB) Low-frequency extension: 24Hz (-10dB); 26Hz (-6dB); 35Hz (-3dB)

How so?

They are more linear
It’s one thing to measure @ 1w then @ 100w
A lot less power compresión
The woofers on the F328be have been improved + the 3 woofer and more internal volume
Add the incredible tweeter with smoother and wider frequency response in the top octave

Revel F328Be is the best speaker created to date

 

[echopraxia]

Revel F328Be is the best speaker created to date

What is your evidence for saying this (other than the fact that it’s just their latest release)? Didn’t someone say Kevin Voecks said the Salon2’s are still better?

This isn’t even counting other speakers like the Genelec 8351B etc. which are strong contenders for world’s best speakers. Have you heard the Genelecs? So what’s your evidence for claiming the F328be are better?

 

[fredoamigo]

Revel F328Be is the best speaker created to date

yes it's possible, but let's wait to have much more data (objective and subjective)...for the moment nothing allows us to assert it as we can do it for example for the D&D 8C.