Revel F35 Speaker Review

[MZKM]

You have the 'breakdown' view for that, showing the 4 variables of the formula in a radar plot (including low frequency extension). @MZKM maybe you could include these plots in your preference rating posts on each speaker review thread?

Then there's the 'w/ subwoofer' score, which gives a good guide of relative performance of the speakers when used with a sub.

The radar chart? Sure.

 

[SmackDaddies]

I have an issue that you EQ'd these speakers and you have not with others. Goose, Gander, etc. If your going to make a subjective listening test, you need to treat each speaker equally. EQ none, EQ all

 

[QMuse]

I have an issue that you EQ'd these speakers and you have not with others. Goose, Gander, etc. If your going to make a subjective listening test, you need to treat each speaker equally. EQ none, EQ all

That simple filter Amir made in Roon is not a proper room EQ. I suggest a proper EQ for the LP where speakers are being listened is done with Dirac (or whatever tool is available) and that it is checked with control measurement. After that same set of room EQ filters can be used for every speaker in test as long as the same LP is used for listening. I really see no other way to do listening tests properly. I am also in favor of reading such listening tests as they will be done by trained listener.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Amir has also said though that he's working on trying his subjective impressions to the measurements, so it's a learning process for all of us.

Imo the measurements are useful for purchasing decisions. It's a vote of confidence you'll enjoy a speaker, similar to what @MZKM said about rotten tomatoes scores. Of course, the highest scoring speakers are also likely to sound best.



I wouldn't say you're moving towards a more subjectivist viewpoint, you just have a better understanding of the science. Remember, blind tests are king. The scores attempt to model/predict blind test results. So of course, listen blind when you can, or listen sighted with a healthy understanding of the measurements and where the flaws lie.

For making purchasing decisions without the luxury of listening, measurements are the most reliable source of information should the reader know how to interpret them.

Not to be a pest but blind tests are not king, more like very worthy princess's and princesses. DOUBLE BLIND tests are king. Anyone who has even touched on the bias that can creep into a blind test would likely agree. Additionally running a blind test, let alone a double blind is very tough, if we could do that then all of this testing would be irrelevant. Most of the blind tests I have read about that well meaning people have tried to run, are with filled with serious flaws, flaws that essentially invalidate the results entirely (but they do not invalidate the fun!!)

 

[Xulonn]

I have an issue that you EQ'd these speakers and you have not with others. Goose, Gander, etc. If your going to make a subjective listening test, you need to treat each speaker equally. EQ none, EQ all

I see it as an attempt to expand the value of testing. Unfortunately, Amir's good-intentioned impulses to try things and publish the results that cannot be applied to previous reviews after the speakers are gone will upset some people.

I see this as educational - all speakers can be EQ'd, but the results will be better for some than others due to room interactions. Those expecting to be able to change the past will be disappointed.

 

[QMuse]

I see this as educational - all speakers can be EQ'd, but the results will be better for some than others due to room interactions.

Let me rephrase your statement a little: all speakers can be room-EQ'd, but the results will be better for some than others due to differences in speaker's quality (uniform response and dispersion expressed via spinorama charts, better THD, etc.).

 

[Xulonn]

Let me rephrase your statement a little: all speakers can be room-EQ'd, but the results will be better for some than others due to differences in speaker's quality (uniform response and dispersion expressed via spinorama charts, better THD, etc.).

LOL - That's just the kind of "upgrading" of my primitive observations that I expect here at ASR. Thank you for adding the details.

 

[QMuse]

LOL - That's just the kind of "upgrading" of my primitive observations that I expect here at ASR. Thank you for adding the details.

I would never call your observation "primitive", I only slightly EQ'd it.

 

[napilopez]

The crux of the matter is in your first sentence: "Perhaps more important to me personally, the preference scores correlate quite closely with my interpretations of the data."

As for the Harbeth, one can argue that many people disagree with your assessment that their Spinorama performance is not representative of their success appeal (see below).



But we are discussing preference, not quality.
I think that here, in my view, is where the problem lies. Preference is what people like and choose, not what people should be buying.

I also find it unacceptable that speakers with very different SPL and LF extension capabilities all be put in the same baskest. The smallest Genelec may perform admirably in all parameters but it just can't be used without subs in typical domestic circunstances and thus cannot be compared with a large standmount or small floorstander with larger cone surface and cabinet volume.

Finally, even though the rather limited research in regard to driver + cabinet resonances and harmonic + intermodulation distortion might indicate a very crude audibility threshold perhaps too much emphasis is being given to directivity comparatively.

Either way, I really don't think that the preference rating is of any use; fortunately I'm able to interpret the measurements and draw my own conclusions.

You misunderstood my comment about the Harbeths, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough; I meant that I didn't expect it to score as well as it did, though now that I understand the formula better I see why. I get your point though.

I definitely agree that it's great many of us here can come to our own conclusions about the data, but I would contest that anyone is really putting speakers like the Genelec in the same basket as larger speakes. I would imagine most buyers, at least the ones visiting this site, would know they need to buy a speaker that fits their needs and that active speakers especially are limited in output capability.

It's pretty clear to me that the preference score denotes preference within a speaker's comfortable output capability. If you exceed output capability, the speaker distorts or compresses, and that's a change in frequency response. I'd expect the Genelecs to win a double blind-test in a small room or studio setting against a mid-ranked speaker. I would not expect the same in a large living room or auditorium. And in any case, I feel most of us here primarily look at the with subwoofer score, as most ASR readers use a sub (at least based on a poll a while back). That opens up SPL capabilities for a whole lot of speakers. It would be good to be able to test output capability more systematically though.

I also disagree about directivity; I think not quite enough emphasis has been placed on it in the reviews so far and in general in forum discussions. To that point...

I very much agree with this. Narrow dispersion means that the room has less impact on the reproduction and in my view should be considered more accurate. Wide-dispersion may sound nice to some people (as does a pinch of 2nd harmonic) but it's the result of room-induced "colouration".

And this is why we should be talking about directivity more; it's one of the areas where it seems people have the most subjective preference (as opposed to frequency response and smooth off axis in general) even among good-measuring speakers. Some people have very strong feelings about narrow directivity, but based on the research I've read, it seems most (including yours truly) prefers speakers on the wide camp.

My arguments for wide: While intuitively I see your point on narrow directivity, part of the Toole research is that people are good at separating the room from the speakers (above the transition frequency). So unless there are some egregious colorations in the room, I wouldn't say it's less accurate. It's also worth considering that the narrower the directivity, the more you will exacerbate the interaural crosstalk dip in the upper mids inherent to stereo. Admittedly, I can't quantify how much worse it is with stereo, but subjectively it's something I've noticed in my own evaluations.



On the other hand, narrow directivity speakers let you adjust perceptions of spaciousness more via toe-in, which can be nice, though usually at the expense of having a smaller sweetspot.

The way I always view narrow vs wide directivity when it comes to stereo playback is that the latter transports you to the recording space, while the former invites musicians into your home. Problem is, I rarely find the former illusion convincing because the room is already so present - so my preference is for the wide camp. Things can vary significantly from recording to recording though, and multi-channel changes everything.

Of course, it's not black or white. There's a lot more nuance to it than just "wide" or "narrow." It depends on the frequencies and angles we're talking about, and I can't even really say where the cutoff is between wide or narrow, only in larger contexts or in direct comparisons. And heck, sometimes I prefer narrow directivity speakers to wider ones. But increasingly I find, not usually.

But that's just my, ahem, preference.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Even the manual for this series of speakers shows that there is not a huge amount of variation in LF response from M16 to F35 to F36:

 

[tuga]

Even the manual for this series of speakers shows that there is not a huge amount of variation in LF response from M16 to F35 to F36:

View attachment 54562

But it specs the M16 as having the steeper roll-off of the two speakers, and that is the opposite of Amir's measurements:

 

[Haint]

For comparison, here is my F36 full range with no eq, in room. I'll run another sweep and make sure I didn't have DEQ on.View attachment 54506

Easiest way is to just put it in "Pure Direct" mode, it bypasses the Subs and all EQ.

 

[tuga]

The way I always view narrow vs wide directivity when it comes to stereo playback is that the latter transports you to the recording space, while the former invites musicians into your home.

For me it's the exact opposite.
When I listen to a recording of classical music with lots of ambience cues (i.e. Morales: Missa Mille Regretz by the Hilliard Ensemble) I am transported to the venue where the musical event was recorded. Wide-dispersion (as well as far-field listening) adds more of my room's acoustic footprint and that to my ears interferes with the illusion of "being there", but I see why perhaps most people prefer this because it does have the advantage of making the presentation more enveloping and the perceived soundstage wider, and it helps the speakers "disapear" as sources (particularly important with lesser speakers and electronics).

But as you've said, it is a matter of preference.

 

[Haint]

FWIW, I have also previously tested the F35 and M16 in a long but rather narrow den. This den is untreated and puts the speakers around 2.5 feet from the side wall and inches from the front wall (maybe 6-8" at most). Without EQ, the F35 is unusuable in that room/position, the bass is massively overpowering, boomy, and muddy sounding. Puzzlingly, the M16 in the same spot sounds great, also without EQ. Not really sure what differences that might point to, or what to make of it. As I pointed out last night, well away from front and side walls in my treated room, I can't really tell them apart.

 

[HammerSandwich]

I see it as an attempt to expand the value of testing. Unfortunately, Amir's good-intentioned impulses to try things and publish the results that cannot be applied to previous reviews after the speakers are gone will upset some people.

Which leaves @amirm to choose between using better test methods or leaving things alone to avoid disruption. We have ~10 weeks of historical results with years more to come. He made the correct choice.

 

[HammerSandwich]

Even the manual for this series of speakers shows that there is not a huge amount of variation in LF response from M16 to F35 to F36:

But that's just 2.8V FR. With +4dB sensitivity and 50% more power handling, the F35 can play ~6dB louder than the M16. Add another 1-2dB for the F36.

 

[amirm]

Without EQ, the F35 is unusuable in that room, the bass is massively overpowering, boomy, and muddy sounding. Puzzlingly, the M16 in the same spot sounds great, also without EQ. Not really sure what differences that might point to, or what to make of it.

That was precisely the problem I was chasing. When there are room resonances, if the speaker doesn't have much energy there, then all is well. But the moment you push on that frequency, it because much higher level and causes that boominess that obscures the rest of the spectrum. In that sense, the bookshelf speakers with less bass get a pass with respect to room modes that are low. Solution is to dial in at least one or two filters to calm those resonances as I reported in the review.

 

[infinitesymphony]

But it specs the M16 as having the steeper roll-off of the two speakers, and that is the opposite of Amir's measurements.

Certainly. My only point is that if someone were to buy the F35 for lower frequency extension than the M16, they would likely be disappointed.

But that's just 2.8V FR. With +4dB sensitivity and 50% more power handling, the F35 can play ~6dB louder than the M16. Add another 1-2dB for the F36.

Definitely, and arguably this is the only real reason to choose the floorstanders over the bookshelf beyond the extra 10 Hz of extension at -10 dB (which we don't even see occurring in Amir's measurements).

 

[tuga]

Certainly. My only point is that if someone were to buy the F35 for lower frequency extension than the M16, they would likely be disappointed.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The truth is that room affects speaker's response up to the 900Hz and that can be seen from this graph as it is very typical.

It is room-based but choosing a transition should also include examination of the in-room FR. Last time that I did this, I ran tests with limiting the EQ to below each of a range of frequencies (300-600Hz at 50Hz intervals) to find one that would provide the smoothest transition between the ranges.