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:
-
Welcome to ASR. 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
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
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.
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?
Sure, have fun!
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?
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
Major Contributor
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
Addicted to Fun and Learning
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
And with an All-Out structure (no bass boost though)
Here are the EQs
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
@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
And with an All-Out structure (no bass boost though)
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
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 5,091
- Likes
- 4,017
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
Major Contributor
Wharfedale Evo 4.2 too?
Your experience with KEF R3 is...
Your experience with KEF R3 is...
Only ever heard them at Bestbuy so it's not a good measure. Pretty expensive though
maty
Major Contributor
KEF Q150? With one or two subs...
I know, only 5.25", up to 3 meters to each loudspeaker.
I know, only 5.25", up to 3 meters to each loudspeaker.
Why the Q150 over the Q350?
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 5,091
- Likes
- 4,017
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 $1000Revel M105 didn't sound as good as M16? It's also not in that price range.
maty
Major Contributor
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.
maty
Major Contributor
With movies, series ... the distortion of the M16 and others loudspeakers will not matter much. Try with (high) quality music recordings, with acoustic and / or electric instruments and tell us.
Similar threads
- Poll
