Revel M105 Bookshelf Speaker Review

[amirm]

I'm a little concerned about the bass in the M105 blooming on and on.)

Bass response in your room will have nothing to do with what I am showing. The Room will massively modify them. I hope you are planning on using EQ for them (for these or any other speaker).

 

[laudio]

Nice review, and very good preference score. After reading - thought these Revels might be the ticket in the future for an upgrade over my 530s. Then I looked at the curves. Think the 530s nail the in room response as well and have a better low end rolloff for a 2 channel stand mounter setup with no EQ in the loop - depends on your preference. I'll pass - and some money saved. Keep up the good work.

 

[nm4711]

First of all: Great review and great speaker! I really enjoy the speaker reviews in general and also, that you dig down in the speaker distortions with the AP in the latest reviews.

I refined my speaker linearity test, reducing the output frequency to 80 Hz (from 200 Hz) and measured the speakers that are still sitting around my lab:

I have mixed feelings about the change from 200 Hz to 80 Hz in the compression test. 80 Hz is in a region, where a higher or lower port tuning frequency could have a major influence on the execursion of the woofer. This could be one reason, that the M105 plays louder than the M106.

You can see this in the distortion graphs:

At 80 Hz the THD is lower than at 95 Hz. This is likely due to the lowered execursion in the region of the port tuning. So at a 95 Hz the M105 would probably compress earlier. If you look into the distortion graphs of the M106 (not referenced here) you can see, that it has the highest distortion (and probably the highest execursion) at exactly 80 Hz (I only argue above the port tuning frequency). On the other hand the M106 is cleaner above 90 Hz.
So at 80 Hz it is likely, that you measure not only the capability of the woofer, but also an influence of the port. Just my two cents.

 

[F1308]

Measurement location is at sea level so you compute the pressure.

Ph=Pr*(1-6.875585632/1000000*H)^5.25587611

Ph= pressure at H feet over reference r

Pr=1013.25 hPa or 760 mm Hg or 29.92 PSI at sea level, International Standard Atmosphere (ISA). True value changes.
Find it in weather maps, as it could go from as low as 860 hPa to as high as 1084 hPa [as recorded so far].

H in feet.
If H known in meters then make H=H/0.3048

If you are at 3000 ft [H] and sea level pressure is 1018 hPa [Pr], then your pressure is 912.37383 hPa [pH]

If still at 3000 ft [H] and sea level pressure goes to1030 hPa [Pr], then your pressure is 923.12873 [pH]

If still at 3000 ft [H] and sea level pressure drops to1000 hPa [Pr], then your pressure is 896.24149 hPa [pH]

No wind currents are accounted for, since those will change actual pressure on the basis of a new pressure amounting static and dynamic pressures. See Venturi effects.

Lots of gadgets out there [be careful] provide you barometric pressure at the touch of a button.

 

[Hidde]

Does this mean that using multiple smaller woofers would require less displacement and hence produce lower distortion?

Having a larger Sd will result in lower excursion. Using multiple of the same drivers will have larger Sd and thus lower excursion and thus lower non linear distortion.
You are making compromises though. More drivers tend to have directivity issues, because you can't place them all closely together. It's also more expensive and requires a larger enclosure.
Large drivers have earlier cone breakup and require a larger enclosure.

Solutions to the problem exist. Most common ones are ports and passive radiators. Another solution that, unfortunately, isn't used as often is motional feedback (also known as servo). There's also mechanisms like field coil drivers that try to correct for the BL using a magnetic mounting system similar to field coil drivers. Though they are unnecessarily expensive.

 

[YSC]

Looks nice but with the measurement isn’t we better treated with the Neumann KH80 DSP with flatter response, similar bass extension and no need for an amp? Seems by measurements alone those good actives are way to go

 

[Koeitje]

Great review @amirm

I find it strange that most every picture I see of Revel products, their badges and stickers are not straight. (I think the person who applies the badges in the Chinese factory needs their eyes checking)

View attachment 73686

You should see the ugly drill holes on the bottom for their stand...it's that my M106 sound amazing otherwise I would be complaining.

 

[Sancus]

Looks nice but with the measurement isn’t we better treated with the Neumann KH80 DSP with flatter response, similar bass extension and no need for an amp? Seems by measurements alone those good actives are way to go

I love the KH80s but they only have a 4" woofer. It's going to give up well before the 5" one in these, even if you have a sub. See KH80 vs KH120.

The Revels also have somewhat wider dispersion.

 

[TimVG]

EQ for smooth Estimated In-Room

For a flat LW we have to add an additional shelf filter (HS12, @2000Hz, +1,6dB) but this gives a rise to the on-axis response so I would personally leave this out.

@BYRTT - Would you do me the honor again of producing the interactive thingy

 

[q3cpma]

Very nice, but I expected more on the distorsion side from these supposedly godly woofers. 1% at 300 Hz at 96 dB seems a bit high to me, but it's not like we have enough references.
Still quite nice, and I love the looks; but let's be real, not made in the USA at this price?

 

[BYRTT]

what surprises me:
- how similar it is above 100Hz compared to the f208 (it should be afterall, but things don't often work out that way)
- how similar the estimated bass response of the f208 is despite two large 8" woofers, i.e. -6dB is at 45Hz vs 55Hz for the M105.

Note that the M105 is specced for -6dB at 56Hz (close match to the EIRR), while the F208 is specced at 27Hz (really far off).

Overlaid animation but notice for cleaner comparison purpose F208 is offset -2,7dB..

Thanks review it was a pleasure to read Amir and enjoy more listening sessions now that it sounds so good and not need shipped back to another owner ..

 

[edechamps]

I have added the Revel M105 to Loudspeaker Explorer where it can be compared to other speakers.

Good consistency within the listening window, but keep these at or above ear height:

 

[BYRTT]

EQ for smooth Estimated In-Room... ...@BYRTT - Would you do me the honor again of producing the interactive thingy

Sure, on paper some good work numbers the 5x PEQ 1x HS used is listed into TimVG post 54..

 

[Koeitje]

What effect does plugging the ports will have on distortion? Because from what I understand port tuning has influence on distortion.

 

[Soniclife]

Here is the same but at the extremes of SPL:

Once again we see that the distortion generator is the woofer with its larger displacement.

This is great. Is it possible to run it with a simulated 80hz high pass, e.g. a default sub crossover, I'm interested in how the midrange changes when no longer asked to do as much low down. I'm hoping it cleans up a lot, it's my impression from trying such things.

 

[edechamps]

@amirm: would it be possible to give the numbers for total Multi-Tone Distortion (MTD)? That would make it easier to compare. Eyeballing it off the graph is fraught with peril because the apparent level of noise between the tones can be affected by FFT resolution.

 

[vkvedam]

Revel has been a revelation to me, I never looked into their offerings before. Being in the UK I prefer KEF though, pricing isn't justified for Revel charging more than what you could buy these for in the US.

 

[NoAudiophile]

I'd set these things on fire for that blip at 5kHz. Looks like poor quality control on the tweeter variation, or maybe waveguide bloom that was overlooked in the crossover design. How much do these things cost?

 

[Thomas_A]

The similarity of the Revels tested so far are striking. More energy of the direct sound at 1-2 kHz vs. 2-4 kHz, and also lower at 7-8 kHz.

Comparing that to the curve published by Shirley et al, you get an approximate inverted shape of that in the Revels. Coincidence or deliberate design?

 

[audio_tony]

Does this mean that using multiple smaller woofers would require less displacement and hence produce lower distortion?

My understanding was that the change to multiple smaller woofers and narrower cabinets was to both improve imaging and reduce distortion, as multiple smaller woofers performed better than a single large woofer in this respect.