Revel M16 Speaker Review

Gatordaddy · Jun 13, 2020

richard12511 said:
Interesting. I've never heard the M106, but I bought the M105 over it due to the superior spin. Seems kinda normal in the industry that the cheaper and smaller models often measure better than their bigger and more expensive brethren. Examples include M105 > M106, Genelec 8351b > 8361a, JBL 705 > 708, JBL HDI 1600 > 3600. Often times the bigger models are way more expensive, too(like 2x). For twice the price, you get a little more max output, a little more extension, and a little worse sound.

It just seems like it's easier to integrate a smaller driver with a tweeter. The F208 has some of the best spins in the group, for instance. Interestingly, i know the M106 has similar (and maybe better) spins than the M16, but I strongly preferred the M16. Voicing still counts. The M105 had the most neutral treble i've ever heard, but didn't do well in the large-ish room i was auditioning in (with the clerk standing over my back making sure i wasn't going to blow their speakers). It would probably kill in a real room, especially with a subwoofer. How do you like yours?

I wonder if i need to build a pair of Philharmonic BMRs for "science."

OP1M.DR3M · Jun 14, 2020

Any suggestions on an appropriate tweeter height range relative to your ears with the M16? I'm not seeing any information about this in the owner's manual online..

My room set-up is kind of weird in that the woofer would likely barely have a clear path firing over my bed to my listening position if tweeter height is set at ear level. These will likely be my next speakers after a somewhat disappointing past couple weeks of LS50 ownership.. Really appreciating this forum, thanks y'all!

AVKS · Jun 14, 2020

OP1M.DR3M said:
Any suggestions on an appropriate tweeter height range relative to your ears with the M16? I'm not seeing any information about this in the owner's manual online..

My room set-up is kind of weird in that the woofer would likely barely have a clear path firing over my bed to my listening position if tweeter height is set at ear level. These will likely be my next speakers after a somewhat disappointing past couple weeks of LS50 ownership.. Really appreciating this forum, thanks y'all!

From the review, vertical dispersion isn't the greatest (as is typical) so ear-level or near to it seems ideal. My M16s were slightly above and sounded fine.

edechamps · Jun 14, 2020

OP1M.DR3M said:
Any suggestions on an appropriate tweeter height range relative to your ears with the M16?

Loudspeaker Explorer has a chart for that:

This shows that yes, tweeter axis is the optimal angle.

aarons915 · Jun 15, 2020

Gatordaddy said:
It just seems like it's easier to integrate a smaller driver with a tweeter. The F208 has some of the best spins in the group, for instance. Interestingly, i know the M106 has similar (and maybe better) spins than the M16, but I strongly preferred the M16. Voicing still counts. The M105 had the most neutral treble i've ever heard, but didn't do well in the large-ish room i was auditioning in (with the clerk standing over my back making sure i wasn't going to blow their speakers). It would probably kill in a real room, especially with a subwoofer. How do you like yours?

I wonder if i need to build a pair of Philharmonic BMRs for "science."

I've agreed with this for a long time, you can always add a sub to augment the bass but there is nothing you can do about inadequate midrange performance. I feel like the M16 offers great performance for the money and the integration is very good for a 6.5" woofer and 1" tweeter. I think the M16 compared to the BMR or even the Sierra 2 EX would be a good comparison to really test the M16's price to performance ratio.

OP1M.DR3M · Jun 24, 2020

Is the M16 cone break-up something that can be addressed via eq? Say, with an RME ADI-2 DAC FS?

QMuse · Jun 26, 2020

franspambot said:
Hey @QMuse, would we be able to have one of your patented eq settings for this speaker, please?

Sure, have fun!

Music1969 · Jul 2, 2020

amirm said:
Pushing the M16 hard, I could get the small woofer to distort. Since this is not a near field monitor, I decided to test it in my 2-channel system as I have tested other hi-fi speakers.

HI @amirm , what parts of it's measurements make it not suitable for near-field use?

I know it may not have been intended for that use but is there anything about measured performance that makes it not suitable?

Dzhaughn · Jul 9, 2020

OP1M.DR3M said:
Any thoughts on driving the Revel M16 with a SMSL DA-8S? Rated 40wpc @ 8ohms/ 80wpc @ 4ohms.

I'm wondering if this will be enough for these speakers in my 10'x13'x9' room. I generally don't listen much past 70-80db (according to db meter phone app). Your feedback is greatly appreciated, thanks!

I've given this a try, and it seems okay. Taking some measurement with REW (Umik-1, SMSL Sanskrit 10 v2 DAC) I can't see any difference between a DA-8s and my old Rotel RB-951 Class A/B amp. Frequency response looks the same at various volumes. Distortion curves look the same at a given volumes, I think the speaker dominates. (And samilar results with a KEF q100.)

It was loud enough for my room, which is bigger than yours but the ceiling is lower.

The power brick makes a tiny sound -- sort of like the ghosts in PacMan -- which I suppose is a defect in my sample, so I'll have to send it back. The display is very small, hard to read from any distance. It's hard to gauge how much background hiss there is because it shuts off entirely after about a second; but it wasn't awful.

ROOSKIE · Jul 15, 2020

Gatordaddy said:
It just seems like it's easier to integrate a smaller driver with a tweeter. The F208 has some of the best spins in the group, for instance. Interestingly, i know the M106 has similar (and maybe better) spins than the M16, but I strongly preferred the M16. Voicing still counts. The M105 had the most neutral treble i've ever heard, but didn't do well in the large-ish room i was auditioning in (with the clerk standing over my back making sure i wasn't going to blow their speakers). It would probably kill in a real room, especially with a subwoofer. How do you like yours?

I wonder if i need to build a pair of Philharmonic BMRs for "science."

Interesting take on all the speakers you have tried.
I sold my Revel M105's due to preferring the JBL 530. The revel M105 couldn't really fill a large room well and the 530's sounded much bigger. Both really need subs and need to be high passed for real bass and very high level playback.
I did find that I could appreciate the M105's treble, just very clean and detailed without a hint of that "crispness" that defines a fake hifi speaker. Truly smooth highs.
That "strange" treble of the 530 that you didn't like is what hooked me, just something magical about if for me. It gave me a taste of that original sin that had me hooked on good audio long ago. I am all for a big dose of accuracy and love measurements but in the end it better still have enough magic left for me to actually love music on it.
That M105 was close, just such a small sounding speaker though that it wouldn't really work for me, I would consider the M106 if I get a deal though. I have so many speakers though, prolly better just to keep working on my DIY actives. I have a few different ones I am brewing up and 1 is already way to many. Oh well...

Maiky76 · Jul 17, 2020

Hi,

@franspambot asked me to calculate the Predicted Preference Rating of the M16 with the @QMuse EQ after I did it for the M105 here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...shelf-speaker-review.14745/page-2#post-458448
No EQ: 5.54

Here it is: 6.09

Since i was at it I run my optimizer with a similar EQ structure: 6.46

20200717 Revel M16 Score Optimial EQ.png

And with an All-Out structure (no bass boost though)

20200717 Revel M16 all-out Score Optimial EQ.png

Here are the EQs

Code:

QMuse =[
    62.5 ,     0.30,   3.00,...
    108.0,    -0.89,   2.00,...
    116.0,    -1.93,   1.00,...
    300.0,    +1.33,   4.00,...
    323.0,     0.66,   12.0,...
    358.0,    -0.83,   12.0,...
    397.0,     0.00,   2.00,...
    405.0,     0.81,   12.0,...
    465.0,    -0.97,   12.0,...
    635.0,     1.00,   4.00,...
   1150.0,    -1.26,   1.00,...
   2530.0,     1.00,   4.00,...
   2590.0,     0.66,   4.00,...
   3500.0,    -0.00,   5.00,...
   4800.0,    -0.00,   5.00,...
   9600.0,    -1.10,   3.00,...
  15000.0,     2.89,   1.50];

EQ1=[
    96.8,     -1.00,   2.00,...
    119.0,    -2.72,   1.27,...
    308.0,     1.00,   2.84,...
    325.0,     1.00,   18.0,...
    355.0,    -0.61,   16.0,...
    397.0,     0.00,   2.00,...
    407.0,     0.90,   12.0,...
    457.0,    -1.35,   9.00,...
    642.5,     1.25,   2.70,...
    864.0,    -0.82,   1.00,...
   2509.0,     1.33,   3.37,...
   1455.0,     0.66,   5.39,...
   4965.0,    -1.53,   5.00,...
   7000.0,    -0.00,   4.00,...
   8500.0 ,   -0.00,   4.00,...
  10183.0,    -1.25,   3.00,...
  13960.0,     2.00,   1.00];

All-Out EQ = [
    96.8,     -1.00,   2.00,...
    119.0,    -2.72,   1.27,...
    308.0,     1.00,   2.84,...
    325.0,     1.00,   18.0,...
    355.0,    -0.61,   16.0,...
    397.0,     0.00,   2.00,...
    407.0,     0.90,   12.0,...
    457.0,    -1.35,   9.00,...
    642.5,     1.25,   2.70,...
    864.0,    -0.82,   1.00,...
   2509.0,     1.33,   3.37,...
   1455.0,     0.66,   5.39,...
   4965.0,    -2.00,   5.25,...
   6580.0,    -1.00,   8.75,...
   8500.0 ,   -1.00,   9.00,...
  10183.0,    -1.55,   4.40,...
  13960.0,     1.00,   1.50];

Some PEQ are vey sharp so they probably better left out in favor of room EQ and the tolerance between the different speakers across the production may render the second EQ useless but I just made it for the fun of it.
Also the amount of bass removal EQing is left at the discretion of the user...

Use the caution!

Cheers

M

BingaMoon · Aug 9, 2020

Is there anything in the around $1000 range any of you have heard and think is much better than the M16's? I've heard around 14 speakers in the under $1300 price bracket and none of them have come close to the M16 imo.

Chromatischism · Aug 9, 2020

BingaMoon said:
Is there anything in the around $1000 range any of you have heard and think is much better than the M16's? I've heard around 14 speakers in the under $1300 price bracket and none of them have come close to the M16 imo.

Can you list them for us? Thanks!

BingaMoon · Aug 9, 2020

Chromatischism said:
Can you list them for us? Thanks!

Focal Aria 906
NHT C3
Dynaudio Emit M20
Dali Oberon 5
Wharfedale Evo 4.2
Revel M105
Elac DBR62
Neumann KH80
APS Klasik

maty · Aug 9, 2020

Wharfedale Evo 4.2 too?

Your experience with KEF R3 is...

BingaMoon · Aug 9, 2020

maty said:
Wharfedale Evo 4.2 too?

Your experience with KEF R3 is...

Only ever heard them at Bestbuy so it's not a good measure. Pretty expensive though

maty · Aug 9, 2020

KEF Q150? With one or two subs...

I know, only 5.25", up to 3 meters to each loudspeaker.

BingaMoon · Aug 9, 2020

maty said:
KEF Q150? With one or two subs...

I know, only 5.25", up to 3 meters to each loudspeaker.

Why the Q150 over the Q350?

Chromatischism · Aug 9, 2020

BingaMoon said:
Focal Aria 906
NHT C3
Dynaudio Emit M20
Dali Oberon 5
Wharfedale Evo 4.2
Revel M105
Elac DBR62
Neumann KH80
APS Klasik

Revel M105 didn't sound as good as M16? It's also not in that price range.

BingaMoon · Aug 9, 2020

Chromatischism said:
Revel M105 didn't sound as good as M16? It's also not in that price range.

It couldn't go very loud without sounding much worse where I can kick the M16 as loud as I wanted and it still sounded good. Also I had it open box for only $1000

Revel M16 Speaker Review

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Addicted to Fun and Learning

Addicted to Fun and Learning

Member

Major Contributor

Attachments

Major Contributor

Active Member

Major Contributor

Senior Member

Attachments

Member

Major Contributor

Member

Major Contributor

Member

Major Contributor

Member

Major Contributor

Member

Similar threads