• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Revel M16 Speaker Review

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!
Click to expand...

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

Loudspeaker Explorer has a chart for that:

visualization(109).png


This shows that yes, tweeter axis is the optimal angle.
 
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."
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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."
Click to expand...
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...
 
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

20200717 Revel M16 QMuse EQ.png


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
 

Attachments

  • 20200717 Revel M16 vs all-out Score Optimial Complete Data.png
    20200717 Revel M16 vs all-out Score Optimial Complete Data.png
    240.5 KB · Views: 150
  • 20200717 Revel M16 QMuse EQ vs Score Optimial Complete Data.png
    20200717 Revel M16 QMuse EQ vs Score Optimial Complete Data.png
    236.1 KB · Views: 153
  • 20200717 Revel M16 QMuse EQ Complete Data.png
    20200717 Revel M16 QMuse EQ Complete Data.png
    225.3 KB · Views: 143
  • Corrected Spininorama.png
    Corrected Spininorama.png
    236.6 KB · Views: 147
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.
 
BingaMoon said:
Why the Q150 over the Q350?
Click to expand...

Short answer: KEF's 5.25" coaxials are state of the art.

The larger ones are more suitable for multimedia and today's lousy recordings, with synthesized instrumentation and autotune manipulated vocals. To very good music recordings better loudspeakers with the 5.25".

Magic is only achieved with the little ones.

Bring reference recordings and listen to them. For example, Hotel California.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

amirm
  • Poll
Revel F206 Tower Speaker Review
13 14 15
Replies
289
Views
64K
JohnnyNG
J
amirm
  • Poll
Revel W228Be In-Wall Speaker Review
2 3
Replies
42
Views
13K
Descartes
D
Ageve
XTZ Spirit 4 Spinorama measurements (CTA-2034)
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
kniff
kniff
amirm
  • Poll
Theory Audio SB25 Speaker System Review
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
20K
Brucemck2
B
Cecill
Revel M16 or Neumann KH150
Replies
5
Views
502
Cecill
Cecill
Back
Top Bottom