Revel F35 Speaker Review

[Fastfwd]

I just spent a really beautiful spring afternoon indoors fascinated with running sweeps with REW. I know my initial measurements looked pretty bad at the top end and it left me with questions as to why. So, I reran Audyssey (twice) to be sure I had an accurate capture with it. I used 6 instead of my usual 3 locations.

What I found seems to be to be in conflict with how I believed Audyssey to function with the 'Reference Level Offset' setting. I believe the manual references it to be used with incremental increases for various material. Here's a screenshot:



So, what I found I would interpret to be the opposite. The +15 setting actually produces the flattest curve from my measurements. The 0db setting is the most boost at around 50/60hz and 15khz or so. That's not how I interpreted the description. I would believe 0db for movies would keep it the closest to the intention of the movie makers and compressed music would get the highest boost in the lows and highs to make it sound more dynamic than it is.

To the contrary - I got my best curve of the day (IMO) from running my Revel F35s full range with the Flat profile and Dynamic EQ on with +15db Reference Level Offset and without the sub. I tried almost every combination including running them full range plus LFE and Left Right Bypass. I attempted to set my sub (phase dial, placement) the best it could be according to measurements. I got better results without it unfortunately. It probably could be better placed, but my space is limited.

These were the fullest sweeps of left and right speakers from center listening position and about 6" left and right from center. I then merged those measurements. I don't yet know how it will sound. The big dip at 110hz is still there, but maybe a few db less severe. Its a couple db hot up top, but ends up basically flat to the rest of the curve at 20k. The extension looks pretty impressive to me compared to the rated specs of 55Hz, 46Hz, 35Hz (-3 dB, -6 dB, -10 dB).



Anyway, in case those previous measurements put anyone off I wanted to share this new best curve imo from my personal space setup. It might not sound the best, but it gets the flattest curve and now I know what I'm hearing when I tinker with the settings in the Denon AVR app and what is actually the 'flattest' that it can be (so far).

 

[rynberg]

I just spent a really beautiful spring afternoon indoors fascinated with running sweeps with REW. I know my initial measurements looked pretty bad at the top end and it left me with questions as to why. So, I reran Audyssey (twice) to be sure I had an accurate capture with it. I used 6 instead of my usual 3 locations.

What I found seems to be to be in conflict with how I believed Audyssey to function with the 'Reference Level Offset' setting. I believe the manual references it to be used with incremental increases for various material. Here's a screenshot:

View attachment 123872

So, what I found I would interpret to be the opposite. The +15 setting actually produces the flattest curve from my measurements. The 0db setting is the most boost at around 50/60hz and 15khz or so. That's not how I interpreted the description. I would believe 0db for movies would keep it the closest to the intention of the movie makers and compressed music would get the highest boost in the lows and highs to make it sound more dynamic than it is.

To the contrary - I got my best curve of the day (IMO) from running my Revel F35s full range with the Flat profile and Dynamic EQ on with +15db Reference Level Offset and without the sub. I tried almost every combination including running them full range plus LFE and Left Right Bypass. I attempted to set my sub (phase dial, placement) the best it could be according to measurements. I got better results without it unfortunately. It probably could be better placed, but my space is limited.

These were the fullest sweeps of left and right speakers from center listening position and about 6" left and right from center. I then merged those measurements. I don't yet know how it will sound. The big dip at 110hz is still there, but maybe a few db less severe. Its a couple db hot up top, but ends up basically flat to the rest of the curve at 20k. The extension looks pretty impressive to me compared to the rated specs of 55Hz, 46Hz, 35Hz (-3 dB, -6 dB, -10 dB).

View attachment 123873

Anyway, in case those previous measurements put anyone off I wanted to share this new best curve imo from my personal space setup. It might not sound the best, but it gets the flattest curve and now I know what I'm hearing when I tinker with the settings in the Denon AVR app and what is actually the 'flattest' that it can be (so far).

1. You appear to be using the wrong target of a flat in-room response. Those measurements would indicate a system that was quite bright, not at all neutral. You should be using Reference, not Flat. Better yet, you should be stopping the correction at a much lower frequency (<500Hz).
2. You should not be taking REW measurements with Dynamic EQ engaged unless you want to see how it affects the signal as a curiosity -- the EQ will change the amounts of EQ with the volume setting!
3. You can't really use the same Reference Level Offset for all material, that's why Denon provides such a large range. Using the +15dB setting is indeed the least aggressive EQ algorithm. I personally can't stand Dynamic EQ, much simpler to bump the bass tone control by a dB or two as needed with the source.

 

[Fastfwd]

1. You appear to be using the wrong target of a flat in-room response. Those measurements would indicate a system that was quite bright, not at all neutral. You should be using Reference, not Flat. Better yet, you should be stopping the correction at a much lower frequency (<500Hz).
2. You should not be taking REW measurements with Dynamic EQ engaged unless you want to see how it affects the signal as a curiosity -- the EQ will change the amounts of EQ with the volume setting!
3. You can't really use the same Reference Level Offset for all material, that's why Denon provides such a large range. Using the +15dB setting is indeed the least aggressive EQ algorithm. I personally can't stand Dynamic EQ, much simpler to bump the bass tone control by a dB or two as needed with the source.

Like I said, I'm not sure how it would sound, but that was to my eyes the most 'flat' curve I could squeeze out of it. It's only hot by about +2/3db in the top end and that gets it finished up at what I might call about flat at 20k compared to the rest of the measurement. Compared to what I originally measured falling off at 15khz 5db or more to 20khz. It concerned me that my system just wouldn't get out to 20khz relatively flat. I also didn't like giving the impression that it was the fault of the Revels or any other component in the system I mentioned.

I tried having correction set to 800hz. That's what my original measurements captured. I tried multiple cut-off points and ended up just leaving it going all the way out to 20khz. I was trying to avoid that built in roll off that Audyssey looks like it bakes in, but I never really saw evidence that it mattered what I set the cuttoff to avoid the roll off. I also took measurements with both roll off profiles.

I ran it every way I could think of. Reference, Flat, Left/Right Bypass, Pure Direct, with EQ on/off and various bumps with Reference Level Offset. Here's an example of one of the final runs with the bigger more accurate sweeps.



Reference *might* sound great, but it's going to roll off pretty hard at 15khz by +5db to 20khz. Flat with no EQ is a little more subtle roll off with less bump around 15khz, but not quite as good extension down low. I've even been listening to Pure Direct with SACD recently and enjoying it frankly. It has the 'worst' curve of them all by a long shot, but it is easy on the ears.

I'm not sure why I wouldn't take REW measurements with every available option to see where it lands at the same relative volume. It might be interesting to see what that flattest curve looks like at various volume levels too though. I'm not sure I'm really nailing the 'reference volume' level at 75db as I've seen it described to be measured with the built in db meter and signal generator. I leaned toward just measuring at the closest to my usual listening volume level that was getting a 75db reading. It looks like it's hitting way over that in those measurements and I'm not exactly sure why that is. More like 80db or so.

I usually listen to music with Flat and Dynamic EQ set to either 5db or 10db if I think the material needs extra help. I try to keep my volume under 80db as much as possible. I've got neighbors that seem to believe they can hear a pin drop inside my house. So, Dynamic EQ is a nice option to have.

I'm really surprised to see that the +15db setting is actually the most flat. I almost never use it. I've used the 0db setting for lots of very dynamic material believing it was the most accurate playback and now I'm finding out that is the most exaggerated setting which probably just lent to me believing it was the material itself having a very dynamic nature. Nope. It was getting bloated with boost.

 

[rynberg]

Like I said, I'm not sure how it would sound, but that was to my eyes the most 'flat' curve I could squeeze out of it.

That's what I'm talking about. Your goal shouldn't be a flat response in room. The response should roll off! I suggest you look at any of the Revel speaker reviews on this site for a good example of what an in-room response should look like. You can also look up the "Harman curve".

Also, the Audyssey mic will become very inaccurate above 10 kHz. That big hump in your response above 10kHz isn't real, it's a frequency response error of the measurement.

Your response shown would sound very bright, which is undoubtedly why you are trying to use Dynamic EQ to get some bass to balance the sound.

 

[Fastfwd]

That's what I'm talking about. Your goal shouldn't be a flat response in room. The response should roll off! I suggest you look at any of the Revel speaker reviews on this site for a good example of what an in-room response should look like. You can also look up the "Harman curve".

Also, the Audyssey mic will become very inaccurate above 10 kHz. That big hump in your response above 10kHz isn't real, it's a frequency response error of the measurement.

Your response shown would sound very bright, which is undoubtedly why you are trying to use Dynamic EQ to get some bass to balance the sound.

I'm not sure we are on the same page and I understand how it might be confusing. For starters, I bought the MiniDSP calibrated mic. I paid the $100 so I could see a pretty accurate picture of what my system is actually doing. I had almost purchased some room treatment panels and I got an earful in another forum for just tossing money away without knowing what my room needed. If you look at my left speaker curve you can see that it does have issues at 70/80hz the right speaker doesn't. So, I sort of just knew it wouldn't hurt to give it some help with the wall/door/corner surfaces behind it. I wasn't wrong in that. I would bet that some room treatment on that left side would help smooth that out, but would I actually hear a difference? IDK.

I might also interject here that the Denon App which I use A LOT represents the Dynamic Level Offset as +5, +10, +15db and I'm not so sure those aren't -5, -10, and -15db (From 'Reference' Curve)? I think the confusion on my end with that might be contributed to by how it is depicted in the app. IDK, I'll look into it later possibly.



I just watched the most recent Youtube video from Amir about volume levels and he mentions some of that sound curve vs human hearing study. I've never really personally agreed that the Reference curve is better for music, but I have seen it represented as such on here many times. Maybe it's just my personal taste that I like the Flat and Dynamic Volume turned on with a 0db, 5db, or 10db Reference Level Offset applied for the lower volumes that I try to keep my system at. I'm frankly not sure how accurately my phone is telling me what the volume is that I'm listening at, but when I place it next to the MiniDSP mic it is stunningly accurate with the same settings.

I will admit that I have believed some material does sound especially 'bright.' Miles Davis. Phew. That trumpet is obnoxious and it might sound better with a Reference curve. My Miles Davis SACD's are much easier to listen to in Pure Direct mode which rolls off really hard at the volumes that I measured it at anyway.

I just followed up with what produced the nearly 'flattest' curve for the sake of showing that the system is capable of being 'flat' which I suppose is a benchmark of sorts for system quality and/or where room treatment might need to be applied. I probably will try listening to it as flat as it gets and maybe even give Reference another listen too. It actually gets worse overall bass extension, but maybe that hump at 50/60hz is in a beneficial range to help them sound better overall with the hard top end roll off. IDK. I know way more about what these settings are doing in my room with my system now though that is for certain.

I had Ascend CBM-170s prior to these Revels and I presume they were very flat. I had to use the more aggressive Audyssey roll off profile on them to make them easier to listen to. I understand what bright is and these Revels are far more easy listening than what I had previously.

 

[Denon545]

Just looking at how these measure, it would almost seem like the cheaper JBL Stage series measures about as good and for a lot less money. Am I missing something?

 

[Haint]

Just looking at how these measure, it would almost seem like the cheaper JBL Stage series measures about as good and for a lot less money. Am I missing something?

The F35 measurements improved slightly when @amirm reran them (after better tuning the Klippel/process for towers), but he hasn't posted them yet (the OP is still the old ones). He hasn't measured any of the JBL Stage towers, but I would expect they'd perform well based on the bookshelf. There may or may not be a performance benefit to the Revel, but they do have a much nicer finish.

 

[amirm]

The F35 measurements improved slightly when @amirm reran them (after better tuning the Klippel/process for towers), but he hasn't posted them yet (the OP is still the old ones).

I am going to post them shortly (likely tonight).

 

[AVKS]

Just looking at how these measure, it would almost seem like the cheaper JBL Stage series measures about as good and for a lot less money. Am I missing something?

FWIW I own the F35s and JBL Arena 170s, the Stage series predecessor. The Arenas are good speakers and the DNA is similar in terms of even tonality but there is no contest in terms of detail resolution, imaging, and smoothness at higher volumes. Some subjective things there but poor my been ng that the Revels sound notably and obviously better.

 

[rynberg]

I just followed up with what produced the nearly 'flattest' curve for the sake of showing that the system is capable of being 'flat' which I suppose is a benchmark of sorts for system quality and/or where room treatment might need to be applied.

I'm not sure you're getting it. The in-room response should not be flat. Flat is not a benchmark. Flat in-room means the sound is too bright. An anechoically flat loudspeaker with good off-axis response (this is what you want) will result in a downward sloping in-room response. You do not want a flat in-room response.

 

[Fastfwd]

I'm not sure you're getting it. The in-room response should not be flat. Flat is not a benchmark. Flat in-room means the sound is too bright. An anechoically flat loudspeaker with good off-axis response (this is what you want) will result in a downward sloping in-room response. You do not want a flat in-room response.

O K

 

[Descartes]

When will Revel refresh the Concerta 2 line to Concerta3?

It has been six years since they launched!

 

[MrPeabody]

When will Revel refresh the Concerta 2 line to Concerta3?

It has been six years since they launched!

I think the F35 and F36 are both very nice speakers that I would very definitely consider purchasing. Although, I don't know of any compelling reason to think that either of them is a better speaker than the F12. Because the F12 was a true 3-way speaker with a pair of larger woofers, my inclination, absent objective evidence to the contrary, is that the F12 was a better speaker than either the F35 or the F36.

 

[Haint]

When will Revel refresh the Concerta 2 line to Concerta3?

It has been six years since they launched!

The Performa3's are much older aren't they? Presumably they'd be due a refresh before the Concerta's. The BE's are well over double the price with the cheapest bookshelf at $5000, so I don't think they're considered/intended to be a Performa replacement/successor.

 

[dftkell]

When will Revel refresh the Concerta 2 line to Concerta3?

It has been six years since they launched!

I've been waiting too. The only reason I don't buy the current line is that I don't want to buy an MTM center speaker. I was surprised Revel didn't offer a three way center like they did in the original Concerta 1's.

 

[Descartes]

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.

How loud can the F35 play without distortion?

 

[Sluraad]

How big of a deal is the rear port for near front wall setups? My home theater setup is quite close to the wall and I think I'm only going to have a max of 14-16"? Both the M16 and F35 are rear ported which are the speakers I am considering upgrading to for my mains for my home theater setup. My room isn't huge but I'm looking at these as 10+ year speakers for me. Does the F206 with its front port perform better in these circumstances or is it a non issue? They are a bit spendier but I might be able to swing it.

 

[NTK]

How big of a deal is the rear port for near front wall setups? My home theater setup is quite close to the wall and I think I'm only going to have a max of 14-16"? Both the M16 and F35 are rear ported which are the speakers I am considering upgrading to for my mains for my home theater setup. My room isn't huge but I'm looking at these as 10+ year speakers for me. Does the F206 with its front port perform better in these circumstances or is it a non issue? They are a bit spendier but I might be able to swing it.

Not a problem. As long as the distance between the port opening and the wall is >2X the port diameter, the port will function as intended.

 

[AdamG]

How big of a deal is the rear port for near front wall setups? My home theater setup is quite close to the wall and I think I'm only going to have a max of 14-16"? Both the M16 and F35 are rear ported which are the speakers I am considering upgrading to for my mains for my home theater setup. My room isn't huge but I'm looking at these as 10+ year speakers for me. Does the F206 with its front port perform better in these circumstances or is it a non issue? They are a bit spendier but I might be able to swing it.

Welcome Aboard @Sluraad.

 

[Sluraad]

Welcome Aboard @Sluraad.

Thanks! Recently pulled the trigger on upgrading my TV area, new couch, TV, entertainment console, AVR. Now I've got the itch to tackle the speakers which I've had for ~12 years so I've been reading this forum for weeks debating over what to do. Revel is becoming the clear leader in what I'm interested in and some of the deals I've seen on F35s are making it hard to ignore.