Revel M106 Bookshelf Speaker Review

[MZKM]

@MZKM I like that you now post the fr response +/-. This is very helpful. It is probably additional work to do these for the old reviews but please continue posting that info for all the future reviews. We really appreciate those

For older models, it‘s in the full datafile for each under SPL Specs. Just click on my signature and click on the speaker you want.

 

[MZKM]

Hi MZKM, I wonder if this ties into what I referenced in the IL10 discussion regarding bumps being more audible than dips, as well as wider more than narrow. The NBD and SM would not seem to take that into account, the R3 has extremely broad deviations in the PIR compared with the M106. Would it be possible for you to list the individual components of the preference score for the R3, M106, and/or others?

Young-Ho

Those are pretty meaningless numbers on their own. You can click on my signature, click on the speaker you want, and go to Breakdown where it shows the radar plot of the score components.

However, for many old ones I had an error for the LFX (wrong worse possible result), so they were closer to 100% than actual. The R3 & M16 are fixed though.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I don't disagree, but again, 9 dB below reference at 1m without any eq. This equates to 15-17 dB below reference with the 96 dB distortion sweep shown. With 3-6 dB of eq added below 3 dB, which will be nearly guaranteed, distortion will be much higher than the graph above, and we are still 15 dB or more below reference level.

Again, I think a lot of this is perspective. For example, my previous setup consisted of Hsu HB1 MK2 L/R with HC2 center. channel, powered by Yamaha RXV-375 AVR. By -10 MV, it was painfully loud and would run you out of the room. Upgrading the AVR to Denon X3300 seemed to raise the loudest comfortable listening level by a few dB, likely due to a fair bit more power.

After the Hsu, I ran a pair of 94 dB 8 ohm horn loaded compression driver speakers. At -5 MV, listening levels were quite comfortable even for my wife who is more sensitive to loudness. I now have 91 dB towers and its enough capability for things to sound good up to my loudest listening levels. But I have no doubt that when things start to sound too loud, it is in part due to lack of clean output capability, whether it be distortion from the speakers, compression, clipping, or some combination of all three. I would never have thought so had I not experienced first hand how much more tolerable things are with more capable equipment.

That's one of the reasons I'm not totally ruling out the option of a good 3/5/7 channel amp like the Monoprice Monolith, just to get a few more dB of clean output capability for those very spirited listening sessions.

Good thoughts, though who is trying to use these for reference level listening by themselves?
At least subwoofers and a high pass filter around 90hrz to cut bass from the m106s would be in play if going for very loud levels.
Then along with room gain no bass boost on the m106s is in play.
Plus I anticipate someone who listens loudly using these in a smaller or smallish room. Likely 6-9 feet away at most. In a larger room you cross them at 250 to stereo powered mid basses and then have a couple enormous subs.
Anyway be interesting to see what a 80-90hrz 24db high pass on the m106 does to all the distortion. I bet/guess it is much lower across the mid bass.

Of course I have been wondering how these fair. More designed for what I described...
https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=34188

 

[_Bass]

For older models, it‘s in the full datafile for each under SPL Specs. Just click on my signature and click on the speaker you want.

Oh, did not not realize that! Thank you again.

 

[Bear123]

Good thoughts, though who is trying to use these for reference level listening by themselves?
At least subwoofers and a high pass filter around 90hrz to cut bass from the m106s would be in play if going for very loud levels.
Then along with room gain no bass boost on the m106s is in play.
Plus I anticipate someone who listens loudly using these in a smaller or smallish room. Likely 6-9 feet away at most. In a larger room you cross them at 250 to stereo powered mid basses and then have a couple enormous subs.
Anyway be interesting to see what a 80-90hrz 24db high pass on the m106 does to all the distortion. I bet/guess it is much lower across the mid bass.

Oh, Im fully talking about *with* subs in all discussions. Unless someone had a gun to my head, I wouldn't dream of not using subs, not when the goal is high fidelity. I don't think crossing to mid bass at 250 makes much sense..at that point just do away with bookshelves balancing precariously on stands and just get normal speakers(towers).

IMO, unless forced to do so due to apartment living or such, using these without subs would be worse than using low fidelity gear like tube amps, vinyl, etc. Sort of defeats the purpose of springing for high fidelity speakers.

Similarly, I also wouldn't purchase a Porsche 911 Turbo and put white wall bias ply tires on it.

Your right, I doubt many people buy these for the purpose of approaching reference level movie viewing. I was more so addressing the general premise that 88 dB bookshelves were capable of accurate high level home theater playback with modest power, or any amount of power truthfully.

I do agree however that crossing at 80-90 Hz will certainly make a big impact on their performance capability. When I finalize my subwoofer changes, I plan to do some experimenting with my crossovers between 80 and 120 Hz to see what works best both in terms of frequency response, but also distortion and SPL capability. 120 Hz setting should start to relieve the speakers up as high as 150 Hz I would think. Heck, I might even experiment higher than that...if I end up with pro drivers, I might try as high as 150 or so(due to exceptional capability to well above this point).

 

[ROOSKIE]

Oh, Im fully talking about *with* subs in all discussions. Unless someone had a gun to my head, I wouldn't dream of not using subs, not when the goal is high fidelity. I don't think crossing to mid bass at 250 makes much sense..at that point just do away with bookshelves balancing precariously on stands and just get normal speakers(towers).

IMO, unless forced to do so due to apartment living or such, using these without subs would be worse than using low fidelity gear like tube amps, vinyl, etc. Sort of defeats the purpose of springing for high fidelity speakers.

Similarly, I also wouldn't purchase a Porsche 911 Turbo and put white wall bias ply tires on it.

Your right, I doubt many people buy these for the purpose of approaching reference level movie viewing. I was more so addressing the general premise that 88 dB bookshelves were capable of accurate high level home theater playback with modest power, or any amount of power truthfully.

Yah, I get it. These are not a good choice really for super loud.
The reason for the separate powered mid basses is so they can be on the floor and near the front wall to avoid nearly all the nulls/bass cancelations that kill your speakers when pulled out and on stands.
Especially if your speakers mid bass is say 24-26" from the floor & pulled out that far from the front wall and even maybe nearly the same from the side wall.(all of this is common placement) Could end up with massive nulls around 100-150 hrz. If they are pulled out 3feet you going to get nulls in the 80hrz range. That powered mid bass placed where those nulls are not created seems smart to me. (Would Likely need to time align them)

 

[Bear123]

Personally, one of the questions I found myself asking was, if the Revel M16 is so good, does it make sense to spend double for the M106? IMO, this review reveals that you do indeed get a good return on your investment for those willing to pony up for what, although into the point of diminishing returns, appears to be a solid improvement over their cheaper siblings. Really seems to close the gap on the advantages apparent in the KEF R3 in terms of lower distortion and such.

I'm really happy with my F36 towers for the time being, especially for the $1400 or so I paid for them brand new, shipped. But the reviews from this site have made it apparent that upgrading someday to something like the Revel F208 would provide some clear benefits, as marginal as they may be in the grand scheme of things. But between my Revel F36, Denon X330, and a good pair of subs, I'm content that I've got some pretty darn good bang for my buck. Reinforced by a lot of what I'm seeing on ASR, including my choice of electronics. I really need to get off my ass and become a contributing member. Amir's work is definitely worth supporting.

 

[Bear123]

Yah, I get it. These are not a good choice really for super loud.
The reason for the separate powered mid basses is so they can be on the floor and near the front wall to avoid nearly all the nulls/bass cancelations that kill your speakers when pulled out and on stands.
Especially if your speakers mid bass is say 24-26" from the floor & pulled out that far from the front wall and even maybe nearly the same from the side wall.(all of this is common placement) Could end up with massive nulls around 100-150 hrz. If they are pulled out 3feet you going to get nulls in the 80hrz range. That powered mid bass placed where those nulls are not created seems smart to me. (Would Likely need to time align them)

I keep my speakers pushed back as close to the wall as possible. I kind of feel like the whole "pull your speakers out half way into the room" thing comes from a bit of outdated audiophile beliefs i.e. no eq, no subs, pure signal yada yada. Packing them close to the wall moves SBIR up higher in frequency, and gives additional free efficiency that room eq flattens out, resulting in more capability with lower distortion. Much of the argument or reasoning I see for this placement revolves around boominess from having speakers too close to walls. But again, crossing to subs along with room eq completely eliminates this issue.

Am I missing anything on why else people desire to pull the speakers way out into the room? I do agree its common....

 

[napilopez]

Seriously, though, that stood out to me, too. I would be curious if there is an explanation as to why we see such differences. But it would take someone at Harman getting involved in the discussion to find out.


Also the ~2dB difference between 200-400Hz would be nice to solve because that can be the difference in fullness of a female voice or kickdrum.

Yeah definitely. We've known about some bass differences before, but I'm waiting for the results of the latest Neumann test to figure those out.

I keep my speakers pushed back as close to the wall as possible. I kind of feel like the whole "pull your speakers out half way into the room" thing comes from a bit of outdated audiophile beliefs i.e. no eq, no subs, pure signal yada yada. Packing them close to the wall moves SBIR up higher in frequency, and gives additional free efficiency that room eq flattens out, resulting in more capability with lower distortion. Much of the argument or reasoning I see for this placement revolves around boomings from having speakers too close to walls. But again, crossing to subs along with room eq completely eliminates this issue.

Am I missing anything on why else people desire to pull the speakers way out into the room? I do agree its common....

As far as I know it is definitely a concept for people who don't plan on using room EQ. I agree, close to the wall is better otherwise. It's what Genelec recommends for the reasons you stated. And it's part of the reason why the D&D 8c sounds so darn good.

The only other time I think it makes sense is if you have a very large room and can pull the speakers out far enough to contribute to a real sense of depth, since I believe that is often largely a function of how far the speakers are to the wall behind them.

 

[Laserjock]

Not sure why, but I tend to like front ported speakers. (Well designed)

 

[ROOSKIE]

Yeah definitely. We've known about some bass differences before, but I'm waiting for the results of the latest Neumann test to figure those out.


As far as I know it is definitely a concept for people who don't plan on using room EQ. I agree, close to the wall is better otherwise. It's what Genelec recommends for the reasons you stated. And it's part of the reason why the D&D 8c sounds so darn good.

The only other time I think it makes sense is if you have a very large room and can pull the speakers out far enough to contribute to a real sense of depth, since I believe that is often largely a function of how far the speakers are to the wall behind them.

With monitors that have one mid bass/bass you still have cancelations from the floor that are strong due to driver height (multiple drivers in towers help, plus some towers have bass driver near the floor)
So if you are 26" off the floor and 26" from the nearest side wall you will still get a -15/-20db null. Now what if you tower are 20" deep? You still may also get a further null.
Again a likely testament toward shallow towers or the separate midbass on the floor.
With the separate mid basses then monitors can be pulled out. Pulled out for those who find better imaging and soundstage this way.

This speaker has the woofers on the floor but man it is pretty deep.

 

[patate91]

With monitors that have one mid bass/bass you still have cancelations from the floor that are strong due to driver height (multiple drivers in towers help, plus some towers have bass driver near the floor)
So if you are 26" off the floor and 26" from the nearest side wall you will still get a -15/-20db null. Now what if you tower are 20" deep? You still may also get a further null.
Again a likely testament toward shallow towers or the separate midbass on the floor.
With the separate mid basses then monitors can be pulled out. Pulled out for those who find better imaging and soundstage this way.

This speaker has the woofers on the floor but man it is pretty deep.

I guess monitors are rarely on the flour or near the floor.

 

[dwkdnvr]

Well as I said a selection of folks and to wit not all agree and would never expect or wish for that. Just to many different needs out there.
And thanks I had not heard of BlieSma.
Not sure if I like beryllium yet though.
I am looking for a tweeter that has no or very minimal breakup. Even well past hearing thresh-holds. As strange as it may seem, I am becoming aware that possibly those breakup modes are part of what doesn't work for me in a long term speaker.
Anecdotally, as an example... My Gf starting to feel sick on the couch while I did some ultra sonic testing (20k+), she had no idea what I doing and there where no audible sounds. Took all of 1 minute for this to happen and I also did not feel so hot. I have noticed some speakers I feel really good listening to (like a sound bath) and others, while I might enjoy them sonically I don't get that same good feeling and even sometime start to feel agitated.
Who knows, total conjecture right now.

Well, if you're looking at the SB26ADC or SB26CAC, both have the typical ultrasonic break-up that you say you're trying to avoid. The SB datasheets for the CAC version are misleading - they show a suppression of the break-up on-axis,but it's still there off-axis. And if you look at the graphs that Augerpro has from his waveguide testing, they clearly show that the ADC and CAC versions are very very similar in their behavior. So, either the datasheets are being deliberately misleading, or there is a new phase shield design that redirects the energy from the break-up mode.

Not to say they aren't great tweeters, but if you're specifically looking to avoid an ultrasonic break-up mode, look elsewhere. Beryllium is the best game in town on that front, and is pretty much the primary reason you see it being used. Or the new Textreme satori tweeters, although I don't think they're available yet. Or, a ribbon.

Having said all the above, a DIY version of this speaker using the SB15NBAC and the SB26ADC on one of Augerpro's waveguides might actually have a shot at measuring even better than the M106 does - he did an absolutely amazing job on those waveguides.

 

[youngho]

I keep my speakers pushed back as close to the wall as possible. I kind of feel like the whole "pull your speakers out half way into the room" thing comes from a bit of outdated audiophile beliefs i.e. no eq, no subs, pure signal yada yada. Packing them close to the wall moves SBIR up higher in frequency, and gives additional free efficiency that room eq flattens out, resulting in more capability with lower distortion. Much of the argument or reasoning I see for this placement revolves around boomings from having speakers too close to walls. But again, crossing to subs along with room eq completely eliminates this issue.

Am I missing anything on why else people desire to pull the speakers way out into the room? I do agree its common....

These do not directly address your question, but...

From Floyd Toole (http://s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-docume...138921368/designing_home_theaters_part_2.docx): "As discussed in Section 9.3, p. 269, mounting “bookshelf” loudspeakers on or near a wall has an adjacent-boundary effect (Chapter 9). There will be a narrow acoustical interference dip in the direct sound (Figure 9.8, p. 271) but only a shallow, broad dip in the overall spatially averaged room sound (Figure 9.10, p. 273). It may or may not be an audible problem because there are other room effects in that frequency range that can compensate for, mask, or confuse what a listener hears. Equalization will be necessary to compensate for the boundary-induced bass boost, but it may be unwise to try to fill the narrow-band interference dip in the direct sound (a non-minimum-phase effect) that changes with microphone/listener position. The shallow broadband dip will be part of steady-state measurements in the room, appearing as an energy deficiency that can be compensated for using low-Q filters (Section 9.2.1, p. 267)."

Here are some examples. As you can see, there is a definite tilt up of the sound power below 1 kHz.



From Kevin Voecks (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-s...aster-reference-monitor-135.html#post56214612): "
Unsurprisingly, Floyd's explanation matches my experience. Loudspeakers that were designed for 4-pi installations sound best when used that way, with some exceptions in cases of unusual rooms. Think of how you would place 2-channels speakers for best imaging, especially with respect to how to create a sense of depth. The same thing applies to a surround system, especially if the system is intended for high-quality two-channel music reproduction (even if up-mixed). That typically means placing any L/R speakers that are designed for 4-pi applications at least around a meter away from the front wall. They were designed with their diffraction as a known quantity. There are however instances in which it is more like a cavity than just the typical open front of a room in which utilizing a baffle wall is indicated.

Speakers that are designed for 2-pi installation must be installed in a wall while avoiding gaps or discontinuities between the speaker baffles and the wall."

Young-Ho

 

[youngho]

Those are pretty meaningless numbers on their own. You can click on my signature, click on the speaker you want, and go to Breakdown where it shows the radar plot of the score components.

However, for many old ones I had an error for the LFX (wrong worse possible result), so they were closer to 100% than actual. The R3 & M16 are fixed though.

Thank you. The smoothness scores were actually quite similar, but again, I don't think the way that it's calculated reflects the audibility of the deviations. I also suspect that subsequent work at Harman is not reflected in the Olive preference score.

From Kevin Voecks (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/710918-revel-owners-thread-408.html#post56177990): "As our research has long indicated, the listening window is a far better indicator of direct sound quality than is any on-axis curve. On-axis curves measured from just slightly different microphone locations will yield different results at high frequencies due to trivial local diffraction, making them misleading. The listening window greatly mitigates this problem."

However, LW does not factor into either of the Olive preference scores at all.

Young-Ho

 

[ROOSKIE]

Well, if you're looking at the SB26ADC or SB26CAC, both have the typical ultrasonic break-up that you say you're trying to avoid. The SB datasheets for the CAC version are misleading - they show a suppression of the break-up on-axis,but it's still there off-axis. And if you look at the graphs that Augerpro has from his waveguide testing, they clearly show that the ADC and CAC versions are very very similar in their behavior. So, either the datasheets are being deliberately misleading, or there is a new phase shield design that redirects the energy from the break-up mode.

Not to say they aren't great tweeters, but if you're specifically looking to avoid an ultrasonic break-up mode, look elsewhere. Beryllium is the best game in town on that front, and is pretty much the primary reason you see it being used. Or the new Textreme satori tweeters, although I don't think they're available yet. Or, a ribbon.

Having said all the above, a DIY version of this speaker using the SB15NBAC and the SB26ADC on one of Augerpro's waveguides might actually have a shot at measuring even better than the M106 does - he did an absolutely amazing job on those waveguides.

Thanks very much all very useful info for me. This site is awesome.

 

[MZKM]

Thank you. The smoothness scores were actually quite similar, but again, I don't think the way that it's calculated reflects the audibility of the deviations. I also suspect that subsequent work at Harman is not reflected in the Olive preference score.

From Kevin Voecks (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/710918-revel-owners-thread-408.html#post56177990): "As our research has long indicated, the listening window is a far better indicator of direct sound quality than is any on-axis curve. On-axis curves measured from just slightly different microphone locations will yield different results at high frequencies due to trivial local diffraction, making them misleading. The listening window greatly mitigates this problem."

However, LW does not factor into either of the Olive preference scores at all.

Young-Ho

I calculate another score which replaces the On-axis with the Listening Window for the Narrow Band Deviation component.

 

[Chromatischism]

I keep my speakers pushed back as close to the wall as possible. I kind of feel like the whole "pull your speakers out half way into the room" thing comes from a bit of outdated audiophile beliefs i.e. no eq, no subs, pure signal yada yada. Packing them close to the wall moves SBIR up higher in frequency, and gives additional free efficiency that room eq flattens out, resulting in more capability with lower distortion. Much of the argument or reasoning I see for this placement revolves around boominess from having speakers too close to walls. But again, crossing to subs along with room eq completely eliminates this issue.

Am I missing anything on why else people desire to pull the speakers way out into the room? I do agree its common....

I was tempted to buy the M106 to test against the S400, but the rear ports are stopping me. I don't think I'll be able to do an equal comparison since I run the S400's close to the wall, taking advantage of the passive radiators.

 

[tuga]

That distortion isn’t really audible, the average person needs the THD to be around 20% at 100Hz.

The very high levels of harmonic distortion measured at 96dB/1m are only a symptom of the speaker's inability to reproduce the signal with accuracy. At that level the speaker is producing other artefacts and probably sounding quite badly.

 

[Xyrium]

Oh, Im fully talking about *with* subs in all discussions. Unless someone had a gun to my head, I wouldn't dream of not using subs, not when the goal is high fidelity. SNIP

I do agree however that crossing at 80-90 Hz will certainly make a big impact on their performance capability. When I finalize my subwoofer changes, I plan to do some experimenting with my crossovers between 80 and 120 Hz to see what works best both in terms of frequency response, but also distortion and SPL capability. 120 Hz setting should start to relieve the speakers up as high as 150 Hz I would think. Heck, I might even experiment higher than that...if I end up with pro drivers, I might try as high as 150 or so(due to exceptional capability to well above this point).

I'm reading more and more articles on how folks are favoring crossing over the subs at 150Hz. I'd say, it's become prevalent in the past 5-7 years due to most folks coming to the realization that bookshelves are terrible below 100Hz, and most systems now use multiple subs. So, localization is not a problem.

I love the dispersion of a 5" mid, give it room to breathe by crossing over at 150Hz/12dB down to subs beneath the stands, etc, acting like a 3 way, and the sound improves dramatically. I agree, subs are a requirement in most systems, IMVHO.