Revel M106 vs. stock Linn Katan

[NiagaraPete]

Just like a piano or a guitar thats in the room will vibrate when you play music from your loudspeakers and blur the perceived pitch somewhat, a passive loudspeaker in the room will do the same. Its made to vibrate. Its very easy to hear the effect of it, but you must try it for yourself.

This is one of the true things that Linn discovered in the seventies.
But you have to listen to the melodies and the pitch of each note to recognise the effect. Not the ”sound” or stereoimage and other hifi-jargongs.

This was originally found in the 70's by Paul Barton of PSB speakers. His tests at the National Research Labs in Ottawa Canada proved as much. There is a much longer story that I won't go into.

 

[NiagaraPete]

As only a layman but one that did work in hi fi with a single speaker demo room. The logic or my reasoning was that if the active drivers are pushing air the inactive drivers are doing the opposite. Thus cause and effect which effects the original sound.

I would like to see this tested here though for some sort of proof either way.

 

[Thomas_A]

I would not ask for such an experiment due to @amirm precious time, but measuring a speaker with and without another passive speaker in his garage is at least doable to test the claim.

 

[Tangband]

I would not ask for such an experiment due to @amirm precious time, but measuring a speaker with and without another passive speaker in his garage is at least doable to test the claim.

The trouble is : how would you do such a test, and how do you test perceived pitch?

You cant use sine sweep or pulse because music is something entirely different .

The ear/brain is the only instrument that can give you results regarding perceived pitch- just because its in the brain the perception is done if the pitch sound correct or not.

Edit: You can always just bring a passive extra loudspeaker in the room and listen a couple of days on your stereo-speakers and then take the extra passive loudspeaker out of the room and listen to the music again .

To find out when it was most fun to listen to the music. Trust your ears - if the difference is very small then maybe it dont matter , for you.

 

[NiagaraPete]

The trouble is : how would you do such a test, and how do you test perceived pitch?

You cant use sine sweep or pulse because music is something entirely different .

The ear/brain is the only instrument that can give you results regarding perceived pitch- just because its in the brain the perception is done if the pitch sound correct or not.

Edit: You can always just bring a passive extra loudspeaker in the room and listen a couple of days on your stereo-speakers and then take the extra passive loudspeaker out of the room and listen to the music again .

To find out when it was most fun to listen to the music.

There is an awful lot of brain power on this site. I know I can smell it every time I visit . That said your example is something most of us can test but maybe the aforementioned brains have another solution.

 

[Thomas_A]

The trouble is : how would you do such a test, and how do you test perceived pitch?

You cant use sine sweep or pulse because music is something entirely different .

The ear/brain is the only instrument that can give you results regarding perceived pitch- just because its in the brain the perception is done if the pitch sound correct or not.

Edit: You can always just bring a passive extra loudspeaker in the room and listen a couple of days on your stereo-speakers and then take the extra passive loudspeaker out of the room and listen to the music again .

To find out when it was most fun to listen to the music. Trust your ears - if the difference is very small then maybe it dont matter , for you.

If it is tartini tones you would need two strong tones to generate the unmeasurble difference tone. I highly doubt that the signal from the passive speaker is strong enough and also playing at another frequency. Changing percieved pitch would in other cases be measurable.

 

[MarkS]

You can begin taking out all other loudspeakers in the room. It will then be more fun to listen to your records.

Then you can put an acoustical guitar in the room next to one loudspeaker. This will blur the perceived pitch somewhat, making it less fun to listen to music.

Have you tested this by listening blind?

 

[DSJR]

Its so difficult to discuss 'tune dem' and 'tapping your feet' on a site such as this as it's SO EASILY misinterpreted and pulled apart - certain reviewers have taken and exaggerated the pr@t thing to the point one reviewer in particular is a prize pr@t himself in my eyes who really should know a hell of a lot better (he knows or knew where his income-bread was buttered though and played it to the gallery). I shan't say more as I can't articulate it properly and it'd be pulled apart here anyway, but just to say I always loved humming along with the tune and learning lyrics to songs LONG before any involvement with Linn, so I find the oft misquoted 'tune dem' very important to me and it's stood me in good stead listening to all manner of gear as well as helping to appreciate how musicians are playing and reacting to each other (or not), whether recorded AND live in front of me!

 

[DSJR]

Have you tested this by listening blind?

YES!!!

Do remember what Amir has said so often - many 'differences' can be exaggerated when listening like this as the brain gets switched on to the tiniest things. These days, I have a TV between the speakers and just acquired a little sound bar to try to make TV sound a bit better hopefully to slightly flesh out the tinny peaky noise these modern sets all too often give out. I don't listen to music like an audiophile any more anyway, but I cannot deny what I heard in the past....

 

[Thomas_A]

With respect to OP post, I think the comparison of the speakers is the main topic. An interesting experiment would be if the OP compared the speakers in mono, playing in front of the listener. Is the impression still the same?

 

[Digital_Thor]

I've never enjoyed speakers with abrupt changes in FR and big shifts in FR because of bad integration between midrange and tweeter - like B&W - sounds dull to me.
Also - if you can - try any proper dedicated stereo amplifier instead of a surround product. I still don't know exactly why...but I have NEVER heard a surround product that plays stereo well. Maybe it's because of the audio circuitry or the lack of ability to avoid the surround-chip - in some way... which in some way degrades performance in comparison to a dedicated stereo product.

 

[richard12511]

Of course there is, for example using smaller mid(woofers) and/or lower crossover frequencies, B&W loudspeakers had quite good directivity till the late 90s buy using a small waveguide and lower crossover frequency:

View attachment 147100
source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-dm603-s3-loudspeaker-measurements

After they changed their strategy and voicing but it seems they are still very successful with that. I actually think its also a clever strategy, because why try to engineering a loudspeaker with the neutral voicing of a Revel, people looking for such would rather still by the "original".

I wish they still measured like that , but I prefer the looks of the new models by far.

I do think they are voicing these speakers with that batman response on purpose. Perhaps they have internal blind listening data to justify it. What I find harder to justify is the bad directivity, seemingly caused by lack of waveguide on tweeter combined with midwoofer that's too large. I'd be really surprised if anyone really prefers mismatched directivity under blind conditions. Speakers like the Philharmonic BMR show that it's possible to get good directivity without a waveguide, but it requires at least 3 way, and with properly sized drivers. If you had to guess, what is their reason for using a 6" midwoofer crossed to a 1" tweeter? Better dynamics? Aesthetic decision? D&D show that you can still have good directivity with a large midrange, so it seems like you either need a small midrange(BMR) or a waveguide(8C)

 

[preload]

Of course there is, for example using smaller mid(woofers) and/or lower crossover frequencies,

Oh thank goodness. I thought I would have to install a waveguide on my “nautilus tube” tweeter.

 

[thewas]

I wish they still measured like that , but I prefer the looks of the new models by far.

I do think they are voicing these speakers with that batman response on purpose. Perhaps they have internal blind listening data to justify it. What I find harder to justify is the bad directivity, seemingly caused by lack of waveguide on tweeter combined with midwoofer that's too large. I'd be really surprised if anyone really prefers mismatched directivity under blind conditions. Speakers like the Philharmonic BMR show that it's possible to get good directivity without a waveguide, but it requires at least 3 way, and with properly sized drivers. If you had to guess, what is their reason for using a 6" midwoofer crossed to a 1" tweeter? Better dynamics? Aesthetic decision? D&D show that you can still have good directivity with a large midrange, so it seems like you either need a small midrange(BMR) or a waveguide(8C)

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.

 

[thewas]

Oh thank goodness. I thought I would have to install a waveguide on my “nautilus tube” tweeter.

Luckily no need for add, just add smaller rest drivers like also B&W did with their 90s reference which is still their TOTL reference today

https://www.bowerswilkins.com/en-gb/home-audio/nautilus

 

[SEKLEM]

With respect to OP post, I think the comparison of the speakers is the main topic. An interesting experiment would be if the OP compared the speakers in mono, playing in front of the listener. Is the impression still the same?

I might try this, don't know exactly when, but it's worth investigating. Level matched and blind of course.

 

[preload]

Luckily no need for add, just add smaller rest drivers like also B&W did with their 90s reference which is still their TOTL reference today

View attachment 147253

View attachment 147254

https://www.bowerswilkins.com/en-gb/home-audio/nautilus

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

 

[Colonel7]

As only a layman but one that did work in hi fi with a single speaker demo room. The logic or my reasoning was that if the active drivers are pushing air the inactive drivers are doing the opposite. Thus cause and effect which effects the original sound.

I would like to see this tested here though for some sort of proof either way.

I don't understand this logic. Drivers are transducers. Where is the electricity to move the motor and cone?

 

[NiagaraPete]

I don't understand this logic. Drivers are transducers. Where is the electricity to move the motor and cone?

That is correct. To answer your question with a small test. Turn your balance control to left, turn up your volume, then touch the bass driver on the right channel. I believe its called kinetic energy but I'm not sure.

 

[nerdoldnerdith]

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.