Revel M106 vs. stock Linn Katan

[richard12511]

My guess is like you say its on purpose, high beaming of the large mid(woofer) reduces reflections on usual highly reflective modern rooms and too large listening distances at the upper mids and presence (kind of BBC dip in the sound power) followed by some shiny highs due to the wide radiation of the tweeter. It is their signature voicing and in my experience makes poorer recordings sound more pleasant and impressive, kind of audio Glutamate.

TBH, I've only heard the 800D one time, and I found that it sounded good. Didn't have anything to really compare to at the time, though. Bass was very impressive. I do think it's possible they have some internal listening data to justify their preference target, but I wish they'd say that(instead of talking about "accuracy").

 

[Thomas_A]

Due to the large dip or the Linns 3-4 kHz the obvious relative difference would be a more laid-back, less offensive, and more distant sound, pushing the soundstage behind the speakers. In stereo mode.

 

[thewas]

Revel uses waveguides. Therefore it has to be the superior solution.

I know you are being sarcastic, but still would like to comment that personally I would prefer a Nautilus to most Revels, as its a 30 year old legend which looks like a piece of art and even sounds and measures very well even with today's standards.

 

[preload]

I know you are being sarcastic, but still would like to comment that personally I would prefer a Nautilus to most Revels, as its a 30 year old legend which looks like a piece of art and even sounds and measures very well even with today's standards.

Are you sure the Nautilus wouldn't sound better if we added waveguides to those HF drivers? It's the belt and suspenders approach.

 

[nerdoldnerdith]

Are you sure the Nautilus wouldn't sound better if we added waveguides to those HF drivers? It's the belt and suspenders approach.

Waveguides are used to match the directivity of the tweeter with the midrange or woofer at the crossover point. If the drivers are already directivity matched at the crossover point, using a waveguide may not improve the sound. All it would do is narrow directivity, which isn't always desirable and not the acoustic profile Bowers and Wilkins is trying to achieve. With a 4-way design like the Nautilus has, the drivers are close enough in size and limited enough in bandwidth that they can get away with not using waveguides. I've never seen any measurements, though, so I don't know if they managed to do this.

 

[thewas]

Waveguides are used to match the directivity of the tweeter with the midrange or woofer at the crossover point. If the drivers are already directivity matched at the crossover point, using a waveguide may not improve the sound. All it would do is narrow directivity, which isn't always desirable and not the acoustic profile Bowers and Wilkins is trying to achieve. With a 4-way design like the Nautilus has, the drivers are close enough in size and limited enough in bandwidth that they can get away with not using waveguides.waveguide. I've never seen any measurements, though, so I don't know if they managed to do this.

Exactly, I also haven't seen angle measurements of it, but there are quite some measurements of Vivid Audio loudspeakers which are engineered by the same person (Laurence Dickie, who left B&W a few years after the Nautilus design) and have very similar acoustic and optical designs, for example https://www.stereophile.com/content/vivid-audio-giya-g3-loudspeaker-measurements and confirm such a design can work very well.

 

[Tangband]

Due to the large dip or the Linns 3-4 kHz the obvious relative difference would be a more laid-back, less offensive, and more distant sound, pushing the soundstage behind the speakers. In stereo mode.

True for the Linns that measures in that way. Not true for Keltik, active tukan and Akudorik exakt .
They are flat without bbc dip .

 

[Digital_Thor]

It sounds like you are hearing the difference between the aluminum tweeter of the Revel M106 and the soft-dome tweeter of the Linn Katan. Aluminum is not the best material for tweeters and is notorious for sounding metallic and ringing.

Wait what? In my experience, you have to be absolutely sure, that you are not listening to the breakup of the midrange in the 2-5kHz area - rather than giving the tweeter the blame. I use the Seas DXT in my DIY speakers - love it. I liked it in Kii3, but in Grimm the large 8" midrange ruined it for me. Same tweeter but problematic midrange/filter/integration.
What I have heard and read.... Linn is just not good speakers - no matter the price - compared to so many others.
I fully agree that we can easily adapt and enjoy music on many different speakers. But big suckouts og simply lack of energy in the important area between 2-5kHz, like on B&W, simply never cut it for me... too much "personality" or "character" - please give me the recording as it was intended

 

[preload]

Waveguides are used to match the directivity of the tweeter with the midrange or woofer at the crossover point. If the drivers are already directivity matched at the crossover point, using a waveguide may not improve the sound.

For additional assistance interpreting the post of mine that you are responding to, please see post #83 in this thread.

 

[SEKLEM]

It sounds like you are hearing the difference between the aluminum tweeter of the Revel M106 and the soft-dome tweeter of the Linn Katan. Aluminum is not the best material for tweeters and is notorious for sounding metallic and ringing.

I can unequivocally say that's not correct. Driver material is one facet. In fact I find the Revel's upper frequency reproduction very smooth. The peakiness is occurring below the tweeter's operating range.

 

[DSJR]

I was shown how to ruin an otherwise sweet sounding metal dome tweeter - simply bring the crossover frequency down too far. The same usually sweet sounding driver went coarse and harsh and well, metallic sounding! This was to prove a point to me (long story no longer needing to be told) and it helped explain why I thought a competing model sounded the way it did. No lab testing here, so I kind of wonder if dispersion differences had some say in the subjective results too? My ears the way they are now, I'm beginning to think a wider dispersion speaker with flat lower kHz region (rather than the 3dB dip I'm currently living with) may be the way for me to go.

 

[SEKLEM]

Due to the large dip or the Linns 3-4 kHz the obvious relative difference would be a more laid-back, less offensive, and more distant sound, pushing the soundstage behind the speakers. In stereo mode.

I would describe the sound signature of the Katan as more forward and bright in comparison to the M106. The sweet spot is narrower, but once you're in the center image is more "holographic" than the M106, in so far as it's more believable that there's someone standing between the speakers singing in my room. Definitely wouldn't say it sounds like the soundstage is pushed back.

The M106 is gentler on high frequency detail without losing it except when the peakiness over powers it. The M106 sounds very similar to my much older Infinity IL10s, but does away with some of the middling annoyances I had with that speaker (buzzing terminal, somewhat courser highs, and a little less control on peakiness).

I'm coming to realize I'm not patient or comfortable enough with computers, manual measurements, and manual adjustments of PEQs to tailor the M106 to suite my listening preferences. I may require another solution that might cost me more money, but causes me less grief.

 

[Thomas_A]

I would describe the sound signature of the Katan as more forward and bright in comparison to the M106. The sweet spot is narrower, but once you're in the center image is more "holographic" than the M106, in so far as it's more believable that there's someone standing between the speakers singing in my room. Definitely wouldn't say it sounds like the soundstage is pushed back.

The M106 is gentler on high frequency detail without losing it except when the peakiness over powers it. The M106 sounds very similar to my much older Infinity IL10s, but does away with some of the middling annoyances I had with that speaker (buzzing terminal, somewhat courser highs, and a little less control on peakiness).

I'm coming to realize I'm not patient or comfortable enough with computers, manual measurements, and manual adjustments of PEQs to tailor the M106 to suite my listening preferences. I may require another solution that might cost me more money, but causes me less grief.

Interesting. My experience with large dips in the 3 kHz range is the opposite. Must be some other things that push the image forward. Perhaps too much energy above 3-4 kHz.

 

[nerdoldnerdith]

I can unequivocally say that's not correct. Driver material is one facet. In fact I find the Revel's upper frequency reproduction very smooth. The peakiness is occurring below the tweeter's operating range.

Gotcha. However, there is most certainly a difference between aluminum and soft dome tweeters that people can hear. Many prefer the sound of soft domes because of their smoother breakup. The same is true for aluminum vs. paper woofers. Otherwise, why would Revel have another line of speakers using the same cabinets and design of the Performa3 with the main difference being driver material?

It may have something to do with the music to which you are listening. If the music was mastered on speakers with the BBC dip others have mentioned, then the music probably sounds best on speakers like those on which it was mastered. There are no measurements of the Linn Katan that I see, but just looking at its design it would make sense that there would be excess energy around the crossover region from a directivity mismatch between the woofer and the tweeter without waveguide. The BBC dip compensates for this by lowering energy around that region overall. It's a cheap fix for this speaker design, and if music was designed to sound good on such speakers it probably won't sound as good on speakers that are flat on and off axis.

 

[witwald]

The BBC dip is mainly about trying to compensate the on axis response with a dip to get the power response right because of a loudspeaker that has bad directivity ...
The whole idea with the BBC dip came alive in the seventies when no loudspeaker manufacturer knew anything about the importance of good directivity.

According to the Harwood, the reason for the BBC dip is quite simple, and appears to have not much to do with power response and/or directivity.

"The usual conclusion is that the loudspeaker should also have a uniform axial frequency response but this is precisely what is being challenged. Not even in stereo reproduction are the sound wave-fronts produced in a listening room similar to those heard in the studio or concert hall and it therefore seems clear that if by 'bending' the axial response curve of the loudspeaker a more realistic psychological impression is obtained, then this is entirely justified. Thus, for example, if a uniform output is maintained at all frequencies an orchestra sounds extremely close. This condition is quite unnatural and a much better sense of perspective is obtained if a slight dip in the 1 to 3kHz region is applied. About 2dB is sufficient to provide the more distant perspective without destroying the sound quality. It may well be that as techniques progress other such tricks will follow. All that is intended at this stage is to get away from the rigid idea that a uniform axial response is necessarily the best." [Emphasis added to highlight what appears to be a definition of the "BBC dip".]

From: Harwood, H. D. (BBC Research Department). Some factors in loudspeaker quality. Wireless World, May 1976, pp. 45–54.

 

[Tangband]

According to the Harwood, the reason for the BBC dip is quite simple, and appears to have not much to do with power response and/or directivity.

"The usual conclusion is that the loudspeaker should also have a uniform axial frequency response but this is precisely what is being challenged. Not even in stereo reproduction are the sound wave-fronts produced in a listening room similar to those heard in the studio or concert hall and it therefore seems clear that if by 'bending' the axial response curve of the loudspeaker a more realistic psychological impression is obtained, then this is entirely justified. Thus, for example, if a uniform output is maintained at all frequencies an orchestra sounds extremely close. This condition is quite unnatural and a much better sense of perspective is obtained if a slight dip in the 1 to 3kHz region is applied. About 2dB is sufficient to provide the more distant perspective without destroying the sound quality. It may well be that as techniques progress other such tricks will follow. All that is intended at this stage is to get away from the rigid idea that a uniform axial response is necessarily the best." [Emphasis added to highlight what appears to be a definition of the "BBC dip".]

From: Harwood, H. D. (BBC Research Department). Some factors in loudspeaker quality. Wireless World, May 1976, pp. 45–54.

Yes, this is what he wrote 1976. No one knew then about the importance of good directivity and no one had ever heard such a speaker. During my construction with dsp HYBRID, I tried the BBC dip , but as the loudspeaker had very good directivity, no gain were to be had with such a dip. In a loudspeaker with good directivity , such BBC-dip are gonna sound dull and unexiting. The frequency response should be flat if the directivity is good. This is in line with Kevin Voecks ( Revel) , Genelecs, Amirms and Tooles investigations.

I have constructed some other DIY passive loudspeakers in the 90-:s, with bad directivity and no waveguide used, and they all sounded better with a small dip at 3 kHz , ie at the crossover frequency.

You must experiment for yourself with a dsp to hear and understand how it all connects.

 

[Tangband]

Interesting. My experience with large dips in the 3 kHz range is the opposite. Must be some other things that push the image forward. Perhaps too much energy above 3-4 kHz.

My guess - bad power response in katan and less good directivity at the crossover region.
Linn has tried to compensate for the bad directivity and power response by changing the on axis response.

 

[Thomas_A]

Just a note that the ”BBC dip” is basically opposite that of the stereo system error compensation dip which also is dependent on the setup angle. A stereo system compensation should have a bit more energy in the 2 kHz range on and off-axis, and dip in the 3-4 kHz and 7-8 kHz range. A BBC dip in the 1-3 kHz range is thus opposite.

 

[mgood]

Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but I hope OP doesn't mind. I have a pair of Majik 109s that I feel don't perform that well. Without eq I find them to be too polite, without any heft to their sound.

I use the Majiks with a Denon X4500 and an Elac SUB 2030. Without the sub they sound anemic. I've heard the Majiks ”aktiv” with expensive Akurate amps. Still far from impressed with the bass output.

The Elac takes care of the lacking bass output and integrates well with the Majiks due to Audyssey. I've previously limited Audyssey to 300hz. Now I've tried to mitigate the Majik's massive bbc dip by extending the Audyssey range to 6khz, and first impressions are that the speakers became more enganging and that the vocals have more ”bite” to them.

Has anyone else tried to cancel out bbc dips with room correction software? If so, what were the results?

 

[DSJR]

From tweaks I've done in the past, it just pushes the presence band forward a little (in the very non-flat LS5/8 and smaller 5/9, the dip was upper mids rather than lower top and put there for near-field listening comfort I gather). In-room, a shallow crossover dip is the LEAST of the problems to be honest. With my so-called 'corrected hearing now, I'm not aware of it at all, but of course the mics in the 'aids' may be not 'good enough' to justify any form of subjective comment.