Revel M16 Speaker Review

[BurgerCheese]

You keep bubbling about that small peak in on-axis response at 5.1kHz without providing any proof that it is coming from cone break up.

Are you really trying to say that Harman engineers choosed a woofer which experiences cone breakeup at 1800Hz and letting it run up to the 2100Hz XO point? Were they drunk, high or both?

The cone does not break up at 1800 Hz. There is an increase in 3rd order distortion around 1800 Hz because the cone breaks up at 5400 Hz and this has not been attenuated "perfectly".

Harman engineers are likely not to blame, probably the marketing/management that insisted on using a metal cone with a limited budget for parts. In the end it probably doesn't matter much as the speaker overall performs good at this price point.

 

[Andreas007]

In my country, a price of the pair starts at 29 900,- CZK, which is the equivalent of $1329 at the moment. This is quite a lot of money for a bookshelf small speakers.

I also don't get the pink panther, though I think the review itself is unbiased. However, I still don't like the listening tests (it is same BS as in audio magazines). For this money you can buy Neumann KH120.

 

[QMuse]

The cone does not break up at 1800 Hz. There is an increase in 3rd order distortion around 1800 Hz because the cone breaks up at 5400 Hz and this has not been attenuated "perfectly".

Assuming LR4 at 2100Hz woofer is attenuated by app 35dB at 5400Hz. Are you saying that is not enough?

 

[BurgerCheese]

Did I really claim that? Or I said I doubt they wouldn't make such beginers mistake that even DIY-ers rarely make these days?

Most DIY-ers will use much more expensive parts than in this speaker as it is way more difficult to create a good result with cheaper parts. Harman engineers are excellent at what they do, but they can't magically improve the quality of the parts, instead they implement them as best they can given their budget.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

5.4 kHz has a wavelength of 6cm. That of the same order as the woofer radius. Cone breakup means the cone is vibrating in one of a range of modes across its surface. It is quite consistent that radiation from such a mode, and with a wavelength of similar or larger size relative to the mode, has less off axis energy. It is not behaving as a piston. That is essentially by definition.

 

[YSDR]

Assuming LR4 at 2100Hz woofer is attenuated by app 35dB at 5400Hz. Are you saying that is not enough?

We do not know the individual driver slopes, we do not know how big is the cone breakup peak, so we do not how much lower in level compared to the summed response. But we see that peak about 5 kHz, so ...

 

[QMuse]

5.4 kHz has a wavelength of 6cm. That of the same order as the woofer radius. Cone breakup means the cone is vibrating in one of a range of modes across its surface. It is quite consistent that radiation from such a mode, and with a wavelength of similar or larger size relative to the mode, has less off axis energy. It is not behaving as a piston. That is essentially by definition.

None of the measurements in LW are really off-axis. I remind you they are average of measurements taken at 10, 20 and 30 deg horizontally and 10deg vertically + 0 deg on-axis.

 

[Count Arthur]

I also don't get the pink panther, though I think the review itself is unbiased. However, I still don't like the listening tests (it is same BS as in audio magazines). For this money you can buy Neumann KH120.

That's a very different sort of speaker though, isn't it. Personally, I rather like the "industrial" appearance of pro audio gear, but I imagine a lot of people favour equipment with more living room appeal, especially for speakers where they might want a more "furniture" like appearance, with a wood finish, that sort of thing.

 

[YSDR]

The problem with hard-cone (especially metal) breakup is not only the frequency response peak but the ringing in the time domain, which is visible in the waterfall for this speaker. Here is a metal cone on and off-axis response from the SEAS L18.
You can check the L18 distortion wich correlates with the breakup at Zaph's site.

http://zaphaudio.com/6.5test/compare.html

 

[BurgerCheese]

None of the measurements in LW are really off-axis. I remind you they are average of measurements taken at 10, 20 and 30 deg horizontally and 10deg vertically + 0 deg on-axis.

Uhm, one measurement on-axis vs four off-axis?

I guess you are trying to say that it's not very far off-axis but it's far enough for the bump to go way. Look at the Seas L18 graph provided by YSDR, the 30 degree off-axis is 15dB down compared to the breakup peak. This is obviously more than enough to average out any small 1-3dB peak in the on-axis and 10 degree off-axis measurements.

And yes, I know the M16 does not use the Seas L18, but the size and cone material is similar. The results will be similar for the woofer in M16.

 

[QMuse]

Uhm, one measurement on-axis vs four off-axis?

I guess you are trying to say that it's not very far off-axis but it's far enough for the bump to go way. Look at the Seas L18 graph provided by YSDR, the 30 degree off-axis is 15dB down compared to the breakup peak. This is obviously more than enough to average out any small 1-3dB peak in the on-axis and 10 degree off-axis measurements.

I though you are familiar with how LW calculated. Let me be more precise: it's 1 measurement on-axis vs 9 measurements within LW - 1 on axis, 2 at +/-10deg, 2 at +/- 20 deg, 2 at +/- 30deg horizontally and 2 at +/- 10 deg vertically.

So, LW is basically 1 on axis, 4 at 10deg, 2 at 20deg and 2 at 30deg. And yes, I think it is on average very close to on-axis.

And why would resonance freq start to fade more than surrounding freqs when measured off-axis? Why would cone breakup resonant beaming be concentrated to on-axis? One wouldl expect it is spatially spread in a same manner as surrounding freqs.

 

[jhaider]

Assuming LR4 at 2100Hz woofer is attenuated by app 35dB at 5400Hz. Are you saying that is not enough?

Note that the crossover slope and the electrical filter are necessarily different. The crossover slope is the combination of the drivers' respective inherent responses and the electrical filter. So the electrical attenuation is less than the acoustic slope, and a large breakup can still have a measured and audible effect.

We do not know the individual driver slopes, we do not know how big is the cone breakup peak, so we do not how much lower in level compared to the summed response. But we see that peak about 5 kHz, so ...

I noticed similar behavior in a competitor, Monitor Audio Silver 1. This speaker has a similarly sized woofer and nominally 4th order crossover. It also had buywire/buyamp terminals, so I could measure the woofer and tweeter separately. The figure won't show if I paste it here , but see "Acoustic Crossover..." here: https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...-audio-silver-1-bookshelf-loudspeaker-review/

For this money you can buy Neumann KH120.

While in terms of sound quality per dollar I think it's agreed that studio monitors from companies such as Neumann usually top hifi speakers, sound quality per dollar is not the only metric by which one should judge speakers.

These Revels are finished very nicely. When this series first came out I attended a demo set up by Kevin Voecks. He was showing Salon2 and the then new F36. Both were piano black. The finish quality was surprisingly close. Not identical, but I'm also not sure the differences would be apparent if they were in adjacent rooms instead of side by side.

By contrast, while Neumann uses quality materials, their industrial design is more utilitarian than luxury. If that appeals to someone and works with their decor, then they are excellent options. But fancier cabinetry has a place too, and may be the difference.

Revel should also have greater output capability, though Neumann may perceptually match that to some degree with creative use of limiters in their tightly integrated package.

 

[QMuse]

Note that the crossover slope and the electrical filter are necessarily different. The crossover slope is the combination of the drivers' respective inherent responses and the electrical filter. So the electrical attenuation is less than the acoustic slope, and a large breakup can still have a measured and audible effect.

Sure, it can, just not with significant probability.

Problem with this speaker is with distorion, not with that insignificant peak around 5100Hz at on-axis response. Can there be any other explanation apart from cone breakup for narrow THD peak at 320Hz and that nasty raise in 3rd harmonic that starts at 1500 and peaks at app 1800?

 

[jhaider]

Sure, it can, just not with significant probability.

I'm coming from a position closer to certainty than probability here

Problem with this speaker is with distorion, not with that insignificant peak around 5100Hz at on-axis response. Can there be any other explanation apart from cone breakup for narrow THD peak at 320Hz and that nasty raise in 3rd harmonic that starts at 1500 and peaks at app 1800?

Calling distortion a "problem" here is vastly overstating the case.

As others have written, the midrange peak is a result of cone breakup. I have no insight about the upper bass peak.

 

[QMuse]

I'm coming from a position closer to certainty than probability here

Without providing any actual arguments to support that certainty.

Calling distortion a "problem" here is vastly overstating the case.

When a distortion of $1000 speaker reaches THD of 3% in the region north of 100Hz in my book that is certainly called a problem.

 

[YSDR]

Sure, it can, just not with significant probability.

Problem with this speaker is with distorion, not with that insignificant peak around 5100Hz at on-axis response.

The problem is both, plus the ringing. Both because a 3rd hd peak at 1800 Hz means you hear a 5400 Hz tone additionally to the original content plus additionally from the frequency response peak exactly at 5400 Hz, the latter is just the icing on the cake with the ringing.

 

[maty]

I hear you:
A bit OT:
I recently replaced the stock AC power cord of my JBL LSR308 with a Zybagrev AC Power cord. The difference was astounding! Night and Day!!

My second audio equipment, with which I experiment, has a very contained cost. Amplifier (second-hand € 115) + bookshelves (€ 398) + DAC + cables + improvements in that hard < € 700 € 750

Updated: and about € 300 more to mitigate the terrible power grid that I suffer in my area thanks to the electric company, the biggest / worst bottleneck I have in my two systems.

 

[QMuse]

My second audio equipment, with which I experiment, has a very contained cost. Amplifier (second-hand € 115) + bookshelves (€ 398) + DAC + cables + improvements in that hard < € 700

Wow - let's have some more details about your second audio equipment!

After all, this is what this thread is about, isn't it?

 

[BurgerCheese]

I though you are familiar with how LW calculated. Let me be more precise: it's 1 measurement on-axis vs 9 measurements within LW - 1 on axis, 2 at +/-10deg, 2 at +/- 20 deg, 2 at +/- 30deg horizontally and 2 at +/- 10 deg vertically.

Ah, yes I forgot it's to both sides. My bad, even less on-axis then, thanks for the correction.

So, LW is basically 1 on axis, 4 at 10deg, 2 at 20deg and 2 at 30deg. And yes, I think it is on average very close to on-axis.

If we could assume the LW to be very close to on-axis measurement it would be a rather pointless metric. At the same time you complain that the on-axis peak is not visible in the LW.

And why would resonance freq start to fade more than surrounding freqs when measured off-axis? Why would cone breakup resonant beaming be concentrated to on-axis? One wouldl expect it is spatially spread in a same manner as surrounding freqs.

Multiple people has explained this already. Did you forget or ignore?

 

[hardisj]

Pretty sure this horse is glue now.