Revel M106 Bookshelf Speaker Review

[Todd74]

Those Hecos are about a thousand times better looking than the Revel M106s, too.

They are pretty… and they offer a +2 dB treble terminal if you have a good room and want a little more detail.

 

[witwald]

Crossover frequency of 2.8 kHz is on the higher end for a 6.5" cone / 1" dome speaker.

The HECO Celan Revolution 3 loudspeakers use a 30-mm tweeter according to the manufacturer's specifications. It's an interesting choice compared to the usual 19-mm or 25-mm dome tweeters that are often paired with a 6.5" driver.

And I am incredulous as I read the specs. They claim 90 dB sensitivity yet 30 Hz on the low end.

And if the sensitivity really is 90 dB, they probably roll off soon and are meant to work with a sub.

A review that contains some test measurements can be found here. The HECO specifications don't seem to specify any dB limits, just quoting a frequency range of 30 Hz to 52 kHz. That upper limit seems to be very high for a 30-mm tweeter. We could possibly assume that they represent –10dB limits. The measured vented-box tuning frequency appears to be at about 51 Hz or so, which seems more in keeping with the enclosure size and specified sensitivity.

 

[Todd74]

They look great and at a great price. Maybe @amirm will agree to do an express review if you send one in.

IMO they’re pretty close to giant killers. I sold my Dynaudio Contour 20’s bc I flat out thought these were better in all facets above let’s say 50-60 hz. A different member here did the same, as well as his Special 40’s I believe. I made one of the most respected members of the Dynaudio forum on AVS order a pair to demo. He used to work for a high end store in San Fran and has some crazy gear. He was amazed what he was hearing. Totally understood why people could like the Celans more than C20 & S40, thought they were maybe the best speaker under 3500k, and said they were even with his Harbeth S400 SE’s which thoroughly surprised him.
I had a friend over who has PSB Imagine T3’s and was floored at the Celans. After 5 minutes of listening he was already thinking about making the switch and wanted me to go with him to demo their Celan 9 towers if available.

In our opinions you shouldn’t be able to get a speaker that sounds this great for under 2k, let alone $1150 on sale. They offer the level of 3D holographic imaging typically reserved for much more expensive speakers and that makes everything else under 2 grand sound 2-dimensional by comparison. The sound stage is massive, open, and airy… the biggest of all the bookshelfs on display there w/o getting into the oversized stuff. OMG the Heco Belladonna bookshelfs [$5k] sounded like there was a pair of 12” subs in the room, if not a single 15. Those things were IN-SANE!! I listened to them for probably an hour, being teased and tormented w/ a speaker I can’t buy, lol.

Have no idea what Heco is doing with their soft-dome Fluktus tweeter but it’s special and every bit as good & refined as Dynaudio’s Esotar2 but with more detail/clarity. Beautiful fun lively highs for anyone who has an average to treated room [definitely not lots of reflective surfaces]. Very clear/clean/transparent. Will definitely reward great recordings and punish bad ones. In my treated room, I have the speakers set to +2 dB treble and they’re forward, open, airy, and lively but w/o hard edges or sibilance and can handle even the most demanding female vocals like Cloves, Freya Ridings, Eva Cassidy, or Halie Loren w/o any harshness.

They were as detailed as the B&W 606 S2’s next to them but more refined and notably better balanced [much better low end on the Celans] and thus made the 606’s sound thin/harsh by comparison. The tweeter is like a premium metal dome but that maintains the richness, texture, and organic goodness of a soft dome… so maybe closer to a Focal Be? Gorgeous vocals! Fantastic job of placing the singer “in the room” with you. One of the best I’ve heard. Even better than Contour 20. Love hearing all the changes in inflection & whatnot in the voices that I didn’t hear on the C20’s. Unlike the KEF Reference 1’s I listened to there, the Celan’s vocals were pushed further into the room, while the KEF’s seemed recessed, which made me prefer the Celan’s overall TBH, especially since mine double as HT mains, even though the Ref1’s were slightly more refined.

These are absolutely fantastic for HT by the way. Besides the above stuff, their special in-house paper come woofer is really agile & accurate. Just a dynamic speaker that plays larger than most bookshelfs. They’ll handle the final 2 demanding percussion minutes of “Jazz Variants” by Ozone Percussion Group w/ complete ease and fine detail/separation.

So for anyone who wants a FUN speaker rather than clinical or laid back, with fantastic crisp highs & outstanding lows/mids, a real focus on gorgeous vocals & holographic presentation, this may be the speaker to beat. I could easily see it becoming a Speaker of the Year type speaker as popularity grows. They’ve destroyed my desire for constant upgraditis or constant change for experiment sake. Its baby brother Aurora has received lots of praise, and the Celan wipes the floor with it. Demolished my Dyn Excite X18’s and Emit M20’s… which I thought would be impossible to do the M20’s.

For a $20 restocking fee, these are a no brainer must-demo IMO. Cost me more in gas to drive to Raleigh to hear them, lol.

 

[Todd74]

Crossover frequency of 2.8 kHz is on the higher end for a 6.5" cone / 1" dome speaker.

And I am incredulous as I read the specs.

They claim 90 dB sensitivity yet 30 Hz on the low end.

And if the sensitivity really is 90 dB, they probably roll off soon and are meant to work with a sub. They have some very suspect specs.

Regarding sensitivity— it has to be close to accurate, as they were the loudest speaker I heard at Audio Advice w/o any attempt at level matching.

Not sure about rolling off. They were the biggest sounding bookshelf there sans the oversized stuff. They sound like small towers, and in an A/B with some of the small towers, picking which one is the tower, you would’ve chosen the Celan bookshelfs a few times. Definitely sounded larger than the SF Lumina 3 and Aurora 700. I think the 30 Hz is stretching it though, but still impressive nonetheless. Definitely a punchy speaker! They’re not going to match the low end of Contour 20, but what does.

 

[Todd74]

The HECO Celan Revolution 3 loudspeakers use a 30-mm tweeter according to the manufacturer's specifications. It's an interesting choice compared to the usual 19-mm or 25-mm dome tweeters that are often paired with a 6.5" driver.

A review that contains some test measurements can be found here. The HECO specifications don't seem to specify any dB limits, just quoting a frequency range of 30 Hz to 52 kHz. That upper limit seems to be very high for a 30-mm tweeter. We could possibly assume that they represent –10dB limits. The measured vented-box tuning frequency appears to be at about 51 Hz or so, which seems more in keeping with the enclosure size and specified sensitivity.

All I can say is their Fluktus tweeter design isn’t marketing gibberish. This 65 yr old company apparently knows what they’re doing. It may be 30mm but due to the design it’s as detailed/transparent as many metal-domed stuff and may even sound bright in a bad room. The Celans place me in say row 10 of 30, exactly where I personally want to be— lively, forward, detailed, and toe-tapping but not in your face. My Contour 20’s felt like maybe row 18-20. Celan makes C20 sound like it has a veil lifted. I had to notably bump up the Contour’s highs on my curve to get them to match the Celans. Actually, the Celans seem more like a slightly poorer man’s version of Heritage Special…. like, if Dynaudio made these and sold them as a special edition between S40 and Heritage Special, boosted the aesthetics a little & slapped on a $5k sticker, I would believe it.

 

[ronnzi]

I liked this speaker the first time I heard it, compared only vs M16…. but then when I demoed it at Audio Advice against Heco Celan Revolution 3’s [which I now own and love to death], the Celans made M106 sound boring. I guess I’m the type of person who gets in a car and can’t stand having EQ or tone controls set to 0 across the board and would rather have the presentation be a bit more fun, open, and lively but w/o losing refinement.

The problem with taking the “livelier” demo speaker is that if it’s not presenting material in a neutral manner, it won’t sound great across all sources. It’s much better IMO to have a slightly “boring” speaker with good linearity/dispersion, that way you can adjust with tone controls if necessary to bring the fun back when it makes sense too. Otherwise, certain tracks just won’t sound right.

 

[Todd74]

The problem with taking the “livelier” demo speaker is that if it’s not presenting material in a neutral manner, it won’t sound great across all sources. It’s much better IMO to have a slightly “boring” speaker with good linearity/dispersion, that way you can adjust with tone controls if necessary to bring the fun back when it makes sense too. Otherwise, certain tracks just won’t sound right.

Not all of us want a neutral speaker that we have to EQ up to taste in a manner that may not be fitting of the original engineering of the speaker.
For me there is no “bringing the fun back when it makes sense to”, as I would be bored to death with a speaker that spends the majority of its time in a neutral state. The M1016 would frequently remind me that they’re there, whereas my Celans completely & always disappear in my room.

For myself and others like me, I/we want a speaker that plays the way we want it to, in its natural state, and then for the rare times that we may want it more neutral or warm [which is never for me], we can tone it down if needed, but I have never needed to with the Celans. They play everything fantastically. To me, they’re just as comfortable in a tux as they are letting their hair down & rocking out. They kill it on jazz & blues, demanding female vocals, and also more energetic stuff like electronic & rock.

Now, I didn’t say livelier as in “showroom-fun speaker” like a B&W or Klipsch that soon becomes fatiguing in your home after longer sessions. They’re lively in the sense of being more enjoyably detailed, energetic, airy, forward, and toe-tapping but stopping before the point of reaching harshness, distortion, and imbalance. I’ve listened for hours straight w/ zero fatigue. They just impress me every time. I love hearing the micro details that I would if they were in the room w/ me— the subtle inflections & breathings of singers, cymbals that you hear the shimmy of, distinct separation of fervent drum beats, faint sound affects that are meant to be heard but are frequently missed… plus fantastic placement & separation of instruments across the stage, hearing the kick drum down low, vocals at standing height… and then the forward presentation providing wonderful & immersive 3D holographic imaging, with listeners convinced my side surrounds are on, as well as my front heights. Personally I’m not sacrificing any of that for a speaker that I have to spend time tuning to my preferences but w/o knowing how it’ll actual respond. Just their special paper-cone woofer alone was engineered to play & excel in the manner that they wanted the speaker to play, so it’s naturally faster, more agile, and livelier. Can you say a neutral speaker will respond the same way when asked to become something different?

There’s also the Celan’s low end that’s designed to be more punchy & present [which it is], so that’s another thing on the 106 I’d have to tweak, w/o knowing how it responds to the increased demands.

To me it’s like a Marantz receiver that’s already warmed the sound or Audyssey w/ Midrange Compensation on and us being unable to disable it— sure, you can try to EQ it to correct the issue, but that’s not the same result as not having the issue present in the first place. I’d place money that if I tried to make M106 sound like Celan Rev 3, it would fail. Heck, I tried to do it with my Dyn Contour 20’s which are closer in personality with the Esotar2 tweeter and still couldn’t accomplish it, as the C20’s were designed to be a certain way, and trying to make them something they weren’t just didn’t work out. It reached the point where trying to pry that last bit of detail out of them to match the Celans, they began sounding unnatural and introduced some hard edges & sibilance.

So yeah, the Celans are everything I could ever ask for in a speaker while my budget is limited to under 3k. If that ever expands to 5k I’ll get their Belladonnas, even if the flagship stuff of other manufacturers were the same price.

Obviously to each his own though.
Like I said, the Celans are for people who prefer a more fun, forward, dynamic, holographic, toe-tapping, but still refined speaker and especially if it’s pulling double duty as HT mains where those traits make the experience more enjoyable/immersive. I thought my 7.2.4 Dynaudio HT sounded awesome… until I switched the entire thing over to Heco Celan & Heco Ambient 22F/44F, and now the Hecos make the old Dyn HT sound veiled, bland, and a touch lifeless. Now it’s a 9.2.13 w/ all Heco but that’s another story, lol.

 

[Chromatischism]

It just sounds like too much. And no measurements yet. Could they really be just as good or better than Ascend or even Buchardt in the $1-2k range? Let me borrow them so I can compare to my S400 MKII's.

 

[mj30250]

I guess I don't understand the assertion that neutral speakers must be boring/unlively/clinical/etc. If a given speaker has audible deficiencies outside of its flat frequency response (poor bass extension / output is probably one of the bigger offenders, unless you have proper subwoofers to take care of that), then sure, it's certainly possible to ascribe such traits - but that's not the fault of its neutrality.

When using neutral speakers that are otherwise competent, lively material should sound perfectly lively, fun material should sound perfectly fun, etc. Potential acoustic issues with your room aside, they should simply sound transparent to the source. I similarly don't understand people who buy high-end displays and run them in "Dynamic" mode or similar. Is a football game boring because the grass isn't glowing as if it's been swimming in a radioactive spill? Or is your favorite show too "clinical" looking because the characters don't look like they got severe sunburns earlier in the day?

Sure, poor source material can be tweaked to taste, but we have things like EQ and tone controls for that. And starting with a neutral baseline with your speakers typically makes implementing those adjustments easier.

 

[ronnzi]

Not all of us want a neutral speaker that we have to EQ up to taste in a manner that may not be fitting of the original engineering of the speaker.
For me there is no “bringing the fun back when it makes sense to”, as I would be bored to death with a speaker that spends the majority of its time in a neutral state. The M1016 would frequently remind me that they’re there, whereas my Celans completely & always disappear in my room.

For myself and others like me, I/we want a speaker that plays the way we want it to, in its natural state, and then for the rare times that we may want it more neutral or warm [which is never for me], we can tone it down if needed, but I have never needed to with the Celans. They play everything fantastically. To me, they’re just as comfortable in a tux as they are letting their hair down & rocking out. They kill it on jazz & blues, demanding female vocals, and also more energetic stuff like electronic & rock.

Now, I didn’t say livelier as in “showroom-fun speaker” like a B&W or Klipsch that soon becomes fatiguing in your home after longer sessions. They’re lively in the sense of being more enjoyably detailed, energetic, airy, forward, and toe-tapping but stopping before the point of reaching harshness. distortion, and imbalance. I’ve listened for hours straight w/ zero fatigue. They just impress me every time. I love hearing the micro details that I would if they were in the room w/ me— the subtle inflections & breathings of singers, cymbals that you hear the shimmy of, distinct separation of fervent drum beats, faint sound affects that are meant to be heard but are frequently missed… plus fantastic placement & separation of instruments across the stage, hearing the kick drum down low, vocals at standing height… and then the forward presentation providing wonderful & immersive 3D holographic imaging, with listeners convinced my side surrounds are on, as well as my front heights. Personally I’m not sacrificing any of that for a speaker that I have to spend time tuning to my preferences but w/o knowing how it’ll actual respond. Just their special paper-cone woofer alone was engineered to play & excel in the manner that they wanted the speaker to play, so it’s naturally faster, more agile, and livelier. Can you say a neutral speaker will respond the same way when asked to become something different?

There’s also the Celan’s low end that’s designed to be more punchy & present [which it is], so that’s another thing on the 106 I’d have to tweak, w/o knowing how it responds to the increased demands.

To me it’s like a Marantz receiver that’s already warmed the sound or Audyssey w/ Midrange Compensation on and us being unable to disable it— sure, you can try to EQ it to correct the issue, but that’s not the same result as not having the issue present in the first place. I’d place money that if I tried to make M106 sound like Celan Rev 3, it would fail. Heck, I tried to do it with my Dyn Contour 20’s which are closer in personality with the Esotar2 tweeter and still couldn’t accomplish it, as the C20’s were designed to be a certain way, and trying to make them something they were just didn’t work out. It reached the point where trying to pry that last bit of detail out of them to match the Celans, they began sounding unnatural and introduced some hard edges & sibilance.

So yeah, the Celans are everything I could ever ask for in a speaker while my budget is limited to under 3k. If that ever expands to 5k I’ll get their Belladonnas, even if the flagship stuff of other manufacturers were the same price.

Obviously to each his own though.
Like I said, the Celans are for people who prefer a more fun, forward, dynamic, holographic, toe-tapping, but still refined speaker and especially if it’s pulling double duty as HT mains where those traits make the experience more enjoyable/immersive. I thought my 7.2.4 Dynaudio HT sounded awesome… until I switched the entire thing over to Heco Celan & Heco Ambient 22F/44F, and now the Hecos make the old Dyn HT sound veiled, bland, and a touch lifeless. Now it’s a 9.2.13 w/ all Heco but that’s another story, lol.

All well put. And I’m with you, for what it’s worth based on your explanation. If the Celans sound better to you in a wide range of content, then they’re the right speaker for you!

 

[tw 2022]

I guess I don't understand the assertion that neutral speakers must be boring/unlively/clinical/etc. If a given speaker has audible deficiencies outside of its flat frequency response (poor bass extension / output is probably one of the bigger offenders, unless you have proper subwoofers to take care of that), then sure, it's certainly possible to ascribe such traits - but that's not the fault of its neutrality.

When using neutral speakers that are otherwise competent, lively material should sound perfectly lively, fun material should sound perfectly fun, etc. Potential acoustic issues with your room aside, they should simply sound transparent to the source. I similarly don't understand people who buy high-end displays and run them in "Dynamic" mode or similar. Is a football game boring because the grass isn't glowing as if it's been swimming in a radioactive spill? Or is your favorite show too "clinical" looking because the characters don't look like they got severe sunburns earlier in the day?

Sure, poor source material can be tweaked to taste, but we have things like EQ and tone controls for that. And starting with a neutral baseline with your speakers typically makes implementing those adjustments easier.

One of the silliest ideas ever is neutral speakers are boring...

 

[Todd74]

It just sounds like too much. And no measurements yet. Could they really be just as good or better than Ascend or even Buchardt in the $1-2k range? Let me borrow them so I can compare to my S400 MKII's.

A member here did a home shootout of Ascend Sierra 2 RAAL, Revel Performa3, Focal Aria, Dynaudio Excite X18, and Dynaudio Emit M20. He found Emit M20 to be the most enjoyable, which didn’t surprise me the least. Since he liked Emit so much, I told him to find some Contour 20’s, use the Audyssey app to bump up their highs, and they would blow away that group. He did, and they did. He also bought Special 40’s, which he felt also whipped the group.

About a week later is when I spontaneously bought the Hecos. Told him he HAS to demo a pair! He did, then proceeded to gush huge praise, saying they killed the previous list of participants [including Ascend], and stated the Celans exposed the flaws of Contour 20 & Special 40, which I believed bc I already experienced it myself.

My friend in the Dynaudio forum is highly respected and used to work for Audio Vision San Fran. He has Buchardt S400 SE, among others [Dyn Confidence, huge Maggie towers, Dyn Special 25]. He loved his S400SE’s [think he sold them though after buying SF Olympica Nova iii]. I made him demo the Celan Rev 3. He said they were equal to his S400SE, better than Special 40, better than anything under 3k [or was it 3500, I forget which], and said that he understands why I liked them more than Contour 20. Keep in mind also that his room wasn’t treated at the time and has hardwood floors with only a large rug. He found the highs to be crisp & detailed. He sent me multiple random texts just to say he’s sitting listening to the Celans right now and is amazed at what he’s hearing, amazed at how they sound for a $1500 speaker, amazing how they sound with vocals, and maybe one other amazed/amazing adjectives that I forget.

Don’t need to borrow them. Just order a pair and use the $20 restocking fee like my friend did.

 

[Todd74]

One of the silliest ideas ever is neutral speakers are boring...

Silly to you maybe bc you like a neutral speaker.. but there’s a reason why not every manufacturer makes a neutral speaker and actually has sales from those speakers, and that’s bc not everyone enjoys a neutral speaker. I think I explained my own opinion perfectly well. There’s a reason why cars have tone controls or EQ. I find a neutral speaker to be more boring/bland/clinical, and I know others do as well.

 

[Chromatischism]

Silly to you maybe bc you like a neutral speaker.. but there’s a reason why not every manufacturer makes a neutral speaker and actually has sales from those speakers, and that’s bc not everyone enjoys a neutral speaker.

Because:

1. Most people haven't heard one
2. Most people aren't critical listeners and like the wow factor of a boom-tiss speaker for a song or two

 

[Todd74]

I guess I don't understand the assertion that neutral speakers must be boring/unlively/clinical/etc. If a given speaker has audible deficiencies outside of its flat frequency response (poor bass extension / output is probably one of the bigger offenders, unless you have proper subwoofers to take care of that), then sure, it's certainly possible to ascribe such traits - but that's not the fault of its neutrality.

When using neutral speakers that are otherwise competent, lively material should sound perfectly lively, fun material should sound perfectly fun, etc. Potential acoustic issues with your room aside, they should simply sound transparent to the source. I similarly don't understand people who buy high-end displays and run them in "Dynamic" mode or similar. Is a football game boring because the grass isn't glowing as if it's been swimming in a radioactive spill? Or is your favorite show too "clinical" looking because the characters don't look like they got severe sunburns earlier in the day?

There’s context & interpretation to this though. What actually IS “normal”? What is “sounding like it was meant to sound”?

You and others claim “neutral” is how it should sound bc that’s how it was recorded. Well, respectfully, let me debunk that notion. Have you ever been to a concert? I assume the answer is yes. No matter where anyone is sitting, are they all listening to the same concert? Obviously that’s a yes. If you’re sitting dead middle of the concert [call it neutral], is the sound being presented differently than if you’re a little closer to the stage? Obviously yes as well. Was the sound altered to give the change in presentation? We already answered that one- no. So, it’s exactly the same material, with no changes to it whatsoever, yet entirely different presentations based on where you’re sitting. Guess what, some people actually like to sit a little closer to the stage, some right up next to it, some relaxed in the back, and some right in the middle where the sound doesn’t venture to either end of the spectrum. I like to see a little closer to the stage. I won’t blame you for preferring that bland boring middle area. For all intents & purposes there’s no such thing as how a song was “intended to be played”. There’s only playing it the way you want it to sound. If you want to be a purist, have at it. If you want speakers that place you a little closer to or further from the stage, that’s your prerogative. I’d personally rather buy a speaker from a manufacturer that specializes at it than one that doesn’t and me being left having to tweak it, not even getting into stuff like preferences of soft dome over metal/ribbon/horn and vice versa.

Sure, poor source material can be tweaked to taste, but we have things like EQ and tone controls for that. And starting with a neutral baseline with your speakers typically makes implementing those adjustments easier.

Respectfully, I feel like I explained myself well as to why I prefer not do it the way you suggest. If Celan 3 [or insert other name] sounds brilliant to me as is, why would I take a risky, circuitous, more expensive, and more time-consuming route in attempt to achieve exactly what Celan 3 already provides me in its natural state?

 

[Chromatischism]

You and others claim “neutral” is how it should sound bc that’s how it was recorded. Well, respectfully, let me debunk that notion. Have you ever been to a concert?

There is no debunking this and concerts have nothing to do with studio recordings. The point is that a loudspeaker is a playback device, just like a television. When calibrated to a standard, it outputs a signal as faithfully as its designers could get it to do without adding color or artifacts. That mostly means low distortion and a smooth and flat frequency response at all angles, with enough output to please.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Respectfully, I feel like I explained myself well as to why I prefer not do it the way you suggest. If Celan 3 [or insert other name] sounds brilliant to me as is, why would I take a risky, circuitous, more expensive, and more time-consuming route in attempt to achieve exactly what Celan 3 already provides me in its natural state?

[Sigh. I suppose we must have this tired conversation yet again, as if it is somehow novel, and completely derail a largely unrelated thread at the same time.]

Against my better judgement, I will bite on the last point. What you do not realize you are suggesting is a cycle of trading speakers in and out until brilliance is finally achieved, which is time consuming and expensive. Buying a neutral speaker with dispersion matched to your room and EQing it to your liking is a much more direct, and less expensive, path to achieving a setup that sounds "brilliant" to you.

If you want to have this discussion, please start a new thread and stop confusing this one with unrelated material.

 

[Todd74]

Because:

1. Most people haven't heard one
2. Most people aren't critical listeners and like the wow factor of a boom-tiss speaker for a song or two

So arrogant and condescending. So you’re suggesting there are few “critical listeners” among the abundance of people who buy speakers, expensive ones to boot, that don’t measure dead neutral? That’s one of the most absurd statements I’ve ever heard. You actually think people who own 2k, 5k, 10k, 50k speakers that aren’t neutral just randomly picked them out of a hat, never auditioned or went through a plethora of other speakers, other styles, on the journey that led them there, just a bunch a darn clueless idiots? I think you’ve been on ASR [emphasis on scientific measurements & neutrality] for so long that you forgot how the rest of the world operates and that people and especially peoples’ ears aren’t all the same.

And WTH exactly IS a critical listener? Are they doing something SPECIAL that thousands upon thousands of owners of non-neutral speakers aren’t while sitting there for hours enjoying their music? Guess I just answered my own question— they want to sit back and just ENJOY the music, forget that the speakers are even there, instead of critically listening to them, I mean analyzing what they’re hearing. I guess “critical listening” is the term neutral-loving fans use to turn their noses up at everyone else who apparently can’t enjoy their music as much bc it’s not coming through the speakers exactly as it was recorded in the studio, even though I just dispelled that insulting notion w/ my concert example. But hey, you go do your critical listening.

 

[Todd74]

[Sigh. I suppose we must have this tired conversation yet again, as if it is somehow novel, and completely derail a largely unrelated thread at the same time.]

Against my better judgement, I will bite on the last point. What you do not realize you are suggesting is a cycle of trading speakers in and out until brilliance is finally achieved, which is time consuming and expensive. Buying a neutral speaker with dispersion matched to your room and EQing it to your liking is a much more direct, and less expensive, path to achieving a setup that sounds "brilliant" to you.

If you want to have this discussion, please start a new thread and stop confusing this one with unrelated material.

Sorry, didn’t realize every neutral speaker sounds exactly the same as each other to begin with.

I’ll cease further posts. Apologies to everyone for the accidental derailment.

 

[mj30250]

There’s context & interpretation to this though. What actually IS “normal”? What is “sounding like it was meant to sound”?

You and others claim “neutral” is how it should sound bc that’s how it was recorded. Well, respectfully, let me debunk that notion. Have you ever been to a concert?

Yes, a ton of them, but...huh? A live concert that you are attending is not a recording (well, I suppose lip synching is an exception...half a point awarded to you).

I assume the answer is yes. No matter where anyone is sitting, are they all listening to the same concert? Obviously that’s a yes. If you’re sitting dead middle of the concert [call it neutral], is the sound being presented differently than if you’re a little closer to the stage? Obviously yes as well. Was the sound altered to give the change in presentation? We already answered that one- no. So, it’s exactly the same material, with no changes to it whatsoever, yet entirely different presentations based on where you’re sitting. Guess what, some people actually like to sit a little closer to the stage, some right up next to it, some relaxed in the back, and some right in the middle where the sound doesn’t venture to either end of the spectrum. I like to see a little closer to the stage.

Live concerts, especially large amplified ones that involve a screaming audience, can often be acoustic messes (exceptions can more often be made for things like symphonic music in the better concert halls as well as small / intimate acoustic performances). You've just mentioned some reasons why they can be problematic. I don't attend them to be blown away by sound quality (the visceral impact of raw volume can be another matter), I attend them to see artists I like and admire in the flesh and often to have an enjoyable social experience with friends / family. I have very different goals around listening for enjoyment at home.

I won’t blame you for preferring that bland boring middle area.

I don't prefer boring musical experiences either live or at home, but thank you for the gesture.

For all intents & purposes there’s no such thing as how a song was “intended to be played”.

There are quite literally thousands of song writers, vocalists, instrumentalists, recording engineers, mixing engineers, etc, who would strongly disagree with this statement.

There’s only playing it the way you want it to sound.

For high quality program material, I want it to sound as close to the source recording as possible. What I don't want is for a rock drummer's repeating cymbal crashes to mask and smear the vocalist because my treble is shelved up and my mids are recessed. If the recording is bad or simply not to my tastes, I have options to adjust it via electronics. Swapping out speakers to accomplish similar seems quite cumbersome (not to mention expensive). Bad recordings can be bad in a variety of different ways from each other. No single set of speakers can account for and address all of these differences by themselves, particularly not passives.

If you want to be a purist, have at it. If you want speakers that place you a little closer to or further from the stage, that’s your prerogative. I’d personally rather buy a speaker from a manufacturer that specializes at it than one that doesn’t and me being left having to tweak it, not even getting into stuff like preferences of soft dome over metal/ribbon/horn and vice versa.


Respectfully, I feel like I explained myself well as to why I prefer not do it the way you suggest. If Celan 3 [or insert other name] sounds brilliant to me as is, why would I take a risky, circuitous, more expensive, and more time-consuming route in attempt to achieve exactly what Celan 3 already provides me in its natural state?

If you're quite happy with your speakers then you should keep them. No one is suggesting otherwise.

Sorry, didn’t realize every neutral speaker sounds exactly the same as each other to begin with.

They don't, which is why there is virtually no reason to assume that a neutral speaker must sound "boring" or "clinical" based only on the flatness of its frequency response.