Fair point. But that use case is handled already in the dashboard: just use the Speaker Type filter. (In your example, you would filter out "Tower" speakers.)
-
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 M105 Bookshelf Speaker Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Fair point. But that use case is handled already in the dashboard: just use the Speaker Type filter. (In your example, you would filter out "Tower" speakers.)
Can anyone who owns the M105 please tell me if its front-heavy, back-heavy or balanced? I am considering it for my surrounds but my shelves are tilted with 1/2" lip. I had to return the S16 speakers because they would just fall off.
Edit: @amirm just noticed you are going to test them again, so if you could check this while you fondle this amazing speaker again, that would be very helpful
Thank you!
Edit: @amirm just noticed you are going to test them again, so if you could check this while you fondle this amazing speaker again, that would be very helpful
Thank you!Why does size have a consequence for performance? Does it matter if a speaker is large but doesn’t have bass if it’s cheap?
In terms of constraints, that’s usually only if you have like a built-in shelf that the speakers have to go in.
In my speaker selector spreadsheet, I added if it’s a stand mount or floorstanding, but only because that tells you whether you need to buy stands or if you need to use a shelf and a tower wouldn’t be sane (well, tell that to Dr. Toole).
It might. For people with limited room to place speakers then they will generally want the best performance from the smallest box.
Which is exacltly the constraints many people have to live with. A cm more or less in height may be the deciding factor ...
oldsysop
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
- Messages
- 384
- Likes
- 658
They are the only speakers that really matter. The rest are toys.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Take a look at Audio's equipment comparison tables from the 1980s. That was the annual industry bible for comparisons of specifications. Every parameter of importance is listed.
Dimensions and the finish (colours etc) of a speaker are pretty much the most important considerations for most normal people. So yes, it does matter. A lot.
Audiophiles design their rooms around the HiFi- normal people want the HiFi to fit into their room.
Hide it behind a spoiler?
Real estate prices (and all assets) have been on an upward trajectory as a percentage of wages starting from around the 1980s globally due to central bank printing and the wealth effect policy. I think some older folks just don't understand because they've bought their house from the 1930-1980s period when the average house was only 2-2.5x years annual salary. Now the average house is closer to 8-8.5x years annual salary. People have a preference for smaller size simply because living space is so expense historically.
Last edited:
Interesting choice of -50 dB as an informal limit for THD from a speaker, and at the same time decrying "only" -91 dB SINAD due to 3rd harmonic distortion in the Parasound JC2.
Our expectations of objective performance from transducers are so much lower than for electronics.
But can a -91 dB SINAD from the preamp be audible under typical playback conditions through a speaker with a -50 dB THD level?
I think the answer is "no." What WOULD be audible is the pitiful crying sound my wallet would be making if I paid $4,000 for a JC2 preamp whose measured performance is inferior to a Schiit Freya that cost $600. And I think there lies the usefulness of these measurements - finding good VALUE in electronics.
Audiophilia Nervosa might drive some to replace a DAC with a 110 dB SINAD when a DAC that measures 113 dB comes along- but I doubt anyone could hear the difference. For me, the measurements show that I can buy a Topping E3 for $120 that beats some of the $5,000+ DACs measured here, and that allows me to spend $120 instead of buying into marketing blather and forum nonsense that hype up the imaginary wonders of some of these expensive DACs.
Speaker measurements are much more complex but the Klippel analyzer and the spinorama concept help ferret out the well designed speakers among the offerings on the market, even though no speaker yet approaches the transparency of the electronics available today.
Our expectations of objective performance from transducers are so much lower than for electronics.
But can a -91 dB SINAD from the preamp be audible under typical playback conditions through a speaker with a -50 dB THD level?
I think the answer is "no." What WOULD be audible is the pitiful crying sound my wallet would be making if I paid $4,000 for a JC2 preamp whose measured performance is inferior to a Schiit Freya that cost $600. And I think there lies the usefulness of these measurements - finding good VALUE in electronics.
Audiophilia Nervosa might drive some to replace a DAC with a 110 dB SINAD when a DAC that measures 113 dB comes along- but I doubt anyone could hear the difference. For me, the measurements show that I can buy a Topping E3 for $120 that beats some of the $5,000+ DACs measured here, and that allows me to spend $120 instead of buying into marketing blather and forum nonsense that hype up the imaginary wonders of some of these expensive DACs.
Speaker measurements are much more complex but the Klippel analyzer and the spinorama concept help ferret out the well designed speakers among the offerings on the market, even though no speaker yet approaches the transparency of the electronics available today.
I'd love to build myself something like Troels' The Loudspeaker II but I'd have to find a way to install bunk beds in the right speaker and a fully plumbed cooking and bathing facilities in the left ...
Nice. Though I'd prefer dimensions to nearest millimetre rather than nearest inch. Inches are big.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2019
- Messages
- 1,198
- Likes
- 2,646
One vote against posting physical measurements. Simply due to the already vast amount of time (and increasing it seems) each speaker review is taking on behalf of Amir. I'm here to learn and read about matters which are difficult or impossible to research on my own. Anything more would be a waste of time, imo. YMMV.
Maybe someone will ship Amirm a pair of "The Loudspeaker II" to hoist on his Klippel machine. Or maybe a pair of Eggleston Andra II's or big WIlson or Magico speakers? Could he even do it- lift the speaker up onto the platform?
Or how about Soundlab Ultimate 745's or Magnepan 30.7's? Could the Klippel method even produce meaningful measurements from such large planar dipoles? (I dislike box speakers myself; as good as the biggest Magicos and Revels sound, the **BEST** sound I ever heard came from a Magneplanar 30.7 setup)
I much more prefer mm in a science oriented forum.
Completely agree, let Amir focus on the things only he can do. Anyone that thinks other basic info is important can volunteer to add it to the thread themselves, similar to how the preference score is computed and posted by others.
@Thomas savage I regret my selfish error adding the dimension request to a review. I think Amir has expressed his feelings and we have a plan to move forward. At your discretion, please move any of this content over to Amir's speaker measurement complaint thread. Thanks!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2019
- Messages
- 1,198
- Likes
- 2,646
*Somewhat* front-heavy.
Does this work?
I have the Revel MX55 (outdoor speaker) sent in for Amir to measure. While designed for outdoor use, I got 6 to install for atmos because of the great mounting system so they can be aimed. I have 4 installed now and they work very well. It will be interesting to see how they measure. They might be an option instead of on a shelf.Can anyone who owns the M105 please tell me if its front-heavy, back-heavy or balanced? I am considering it for my surrounds but my shelves are tilted with 1/2" lip. I had to return the S16 speakers because they would just fall off.
Edit: @amirm just noticed you are going to test them again, so if you could check this while you fondle this amazing speaker again, that would be very helpful
The other night in bed came to think about a slope variant called eleptic, and after a check today think it can look M105/M106/M16 use some variant of this filter type, there is signs below for that into impedance curve and directivity index (DI) and it looks woofer is bleeding that on axis spike around 5kHz and cause DI take a blib for M105 and M106, plots below from upper left is M105 / eleptic 3-way example / M106 / M16..
Took me together set dimensions on baffle and model baffle step loss/diffraction for M105, suggest @5th element and @GelbeMusik should lookup below graphs of printed data before their next discussions of M105 is good enough build or not not that i have this little beauty physical but its possible use a ruler on a flat panel because Amir is so kind take his picture from front without much distortion in angle, printed XO slope is not any high precision calculation but probably thereabout, its created from Amir's nearfield measurement times baffle step loss/diffraction and in CAD software one is told for a 107mm piston max microphone distance is 5,9mm and max frequency is 1023Hz, for 25mm piston numbers are max 1,4mm mic distance and max frequency is 4380Hz but good enough it looks circa a 6th order roll off slope and practical view overlaid to DI and impedance..
Below plot was for fun and own curiousity and maybe some can enjoy it too but notice its not the 100% reality because Amir's nearfield measurement is not a precision of slope for woofer and tweeter, exercise was try calgulate a inverting curve for sum (not printed) of the two passbands red/green minus orange anechoic on axis then we get the port curve and any other interference that when inverted and summed to red/green curves output the orange curve, the lower red curve is DI and the difference to the black one symbolize two summing omni transducers spaced 143mm apart using below particular slopes so had M105 had no vertical spacing as a coxial DI had looked like the black curve. In exercise was using linear phase for all curves, and woofer plus tweeter passbands was in same polarity, in reality it can be tweeter is flipped polarity and acoustic center is offset relative to woofer, also using real world minimum phase will change a bit on how for example port curve looks but in Amir's spindata is linear phase used that default.
Took me together set dimensions on baffle and model baffle step loss/diffraction for M105, suggest @5th element and @GelbeMusik should lookup below graphs of printed data before their next discussions of M105 is good enough build or not
not that i have this little beauty physical but its possible use a ruler on a flat panel because Amir is so kind take his picture from front without much distortion in angle, printed XO slope is not any high precision calculation but probably thereabout, its created from Amir's nearfield measurement times baffle step loss/diffraction and in CAD software one is told for a 107mm piston max microphone distance is 5,9mm and max frequency is 1023Hz, for 25mm piston numbers are max 1,4mm mic distance and max frequency is 4380Hz but good enough it looks circa a 6th order roll off slope and practical view overlaid to DI and impedance..Below plot was for fun and own curiousity and maybe some can enjoy it too but notice its not the 100% reality because Amir's nearfield measurement is not a precision of slope for woofer and tweeter, exercise was try calgulate a inverting curve for sum (not printed) of the two passbands red/green minus orange anechoic on axis then we get the port curve and any other interference that when inverted and summed to red/green curves output the orange curve, the lower red curve is DI and the difference to the black one symbolize two summing omni transducers spaced 143mm apart using below particular slopes so had M105 had no vertical spacing as a coxial DI had looked like the black curve. In exercise was using linear phase for all curves, and woofer plus tweeter passbands was in same polarity, in reality it can be tweeter is flipped polarity and acoustic center is offset relative to woofer, also using real world minimum phase will change a bit on how for example port curve looks but in Amir's spindata is linear phase used that default.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
