• 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

AVKS

Active Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
215
Likes
287
Been lurking for a good while but this review prompted account creation, as I own some M16s and have been wondering what they might look like here. They can be had for notably less than retail and several reviews now, including Amir's, show that they offer great performance and visual appeal to those looking ng for this type of finish.

In a real-world use case I used (past tense since I've since upgraded to F35s and put the M16s on the desk) mine in a tight space where they have to be near walls and the focus on reflection quality makes a significant difference. Everyone may not agree on some of the Harman methodologies, such as the veracity of the double-blind testing, but the philosophy definitely shines through in speakers like these.

I also have JBL Studio 530s and found them of similar quality and soundstage in my tight space. Would be interesting to see those measured given their reputation among users and frequent value price.
 

ElNino

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
557
Likes
722
These look like a home run! I suspect the differences in the top octave between Amir and Harman's measurements are due to a manufacturing improvement, rather than anything related to Amir's Klippel system. If the top octave rise on the Concerta2 series was a mild tweeter resonance, that's the sort of thing that can presumably be better controlled through small design improvements.
 

BurgerCheese

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2020
Messages
37
Likes
49
I don't get why they would use this woofer for this application. The bass peak is typical for a woofer in a too small enclosure and it looks like it has a generic aluminum cone with quite bad cone breakup around 5-5.5 khz. It would be better suited for a 3 way floor standing speaker.

That being said, the rest of the speaker seems excellent and the issues are likely not very audible. Maybe we can't expect any better for this price.
 

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
Not quite as linear as I was expecting thanks to the <200hz bump but still pretty decent.


I would personally be interested in knowing what causes the 5khz bump; if it's something caused by the geometry of the tweeter/waveguide or there’s something in the woofer here (doubtful unless the crossover slope is shallow).


Something I find intriguing here is how the tweeter’s waveguide is cut to allow the woofer to mate close to the tweeter and decrease the Center-to-Center spacing by about ¼ to ½ inch (eyeballing the flange size) whereas some companies will cut the flange on the woofer instead. Probably not a huge difference either way but I would be interested to know if there is a legitimate “better” method: cutting the tweeter/waveguide flange or cutting the woofer flange.

(note: yes, I realize in this case the waveguide is flattened at the point it is notched for the woofer; cutting in to the actual waveguide itself would provide a detriment to the response I would presume but that’s not really my concern with this post)



Also, I understand you folks are tired of the “bookshelf” speakers but I think this is a great choice for testing. The price is nearly perfect for a moderate budget once you factor in amp and source. I, personally, am curious how the $500-1000 bookshelf speakers perform because that’s where I expect you really are getting the better bang for the buck in bookshelf speakers. I would expect that for floorstanders you’re looking at the $2k range for this threshold. That’s why I sent Amir a set of the Elac DBR62 bookshelf speakers because they look to be like solid winners at $600/pair but I have yet to see measurements anywhere for them and I want to see just if these Elacs are one of the better bangs for the buck.
 

BurgerCheese

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2020
Messages
37
Likes
49
It's unfortunate that bass hump doesn't start just a little bit lower, so it could be avoided via ~80Hz crossover. When used without a subwoofer, I imagine these sound great for their size, and that hump probably helps compensate for lack of true low end response.
If you are going to crossover at 80hz you might as well stuff the port, then the hump would probably go away.
 

Russ_L

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
100
Likes
86
Location
Long Island
Understood.
A wild idea: maybe you can make a list of top5 most promising speakers that you think are a really good investment of your time and money and allow members to chip in with cash for those that they'd like to see bought & tested. Given that you need only a single speaker and even a single tower can have a good resell value, it would probably take just 10-20 members with $50 each to cover the majority of the cost for a good mid-tier speaker. I'm definitely in for 2-3 speakers now and more later. As a side benefit you'll know what your audience really wants to see the most. Voting with money is the best voting. Cheers.

Vovgan - nice idea but as a fairly new member to this forum I’ve noticed that most of the hey Amir measure this, hey Amir do that, etc, etc., are NOT forum donors! :oops: What gives with that?

Russ
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,078
Likes
8,914
"I first started testing the M16 on my desktop in near-field listening, comparing it to cheap Pioneer SB-22 speaker (levels matched, one speaker at a time). The Pioneer just wasn't in the same class. It sounded tinny and small compared to Revel. Pushing the M16 hard, I could get the small woofer to distort. " From the OP.

This says volumes. The research provides a foundation for speaker design, but there is a lot more to it than flat frequency response and proper dispersion.
 
Last edited:

BYRTT

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
956
Likes
2,452
Location
Denmark (Jutland)
At first I thought it was a clear case of bias, but after going back to the Genelec review I realised that the lack of dynamic capability in the Genelecs is holding it back....

Only in the deep bass, above that the Genelec distortion behaviour is significantly superior as it can be seen from both distortion plots.

A speaker can be spl limited by other things than out of distortion considerations. Amplifier power, thermal limiting, thermal compression, excursion protection etc.

I agree about distortion superiority, but I don't know if/how relevant that is to sound quality in an absolute sense. My guess is that it's far down the list of important things, but frequency response and dynamic capability is up there imo.

Think cant know for 100% in we into speakers acoustics spray including location/enviroment spray back but the few times myself heard a warm speaker distortion free and smooth one instant needs more SPL and often so overmuch it starts distort, then one get disapointed and start tell about it just to discover its so loud no one can hear what you say, thats my experience for warm smooth sound that IIRC was exactly words amirm used for Genelec 8341A listening test for the first time and i think for that class of sound problem is we cant get enough of that nice drug and have tendency overload system to more than the recommended SPL of 84-86dB because stream of track material is close to be too good, know M16 here got the swinging golf Panther and listening test sounded be a pleasure plus a high score on preference rating just below 8341, but without really knowing but based above experience think there's a chance listning test for 8341 was bit better that anounced.

That said those two have a common in that smooth DI curve, upper Spinorama plot below is amirm's M16 analyze (thanks) including a dirty quick model of HRTF that show few on axis peaks are not bad alligned relative to HRTF in 2ch stereo sytems, also plot is animation that toggle at every 1500mS to a smooth EQed PIR curve where it get closer to look alike of 8341 and also not far from the overlaid trained listener curve from Toole study, for comparison lower plot is non animation Spinorama plot of ASR analyze for Genelec 8341A.
1_1500mS_toggle.gif

4.png
 
Last edited:

goldark

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
204
Likes
352
"I first started testing the M16 on my desktop in near-field listening, comparing it to cheap Pioneer SB-22 speaker (levels matched, one speaker at a time). The Pioneer just wasn't in the same class. It sounded tinny and small compared to Revel. Pushing the M16 hard, I could get the small woofer to distort. " From the OP.

This says volumes. The research provides a foundation for speaker design, but there is a lot more to than flat frequency response and proper dispersion.

Their preference scores are only separated by .29, but the subjective comments would lead one to believe the difference should be much greater.
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,915
Likes
3,394
Location
Minneapolis
Been lurking for a good while but this review prompted account creation, as I own some M16s and have been wondering what they might look like here. They can be had for notably less than retail and several reviews now, including Amir's, show that they offer great performance and visual appeal to those looking ng for this type of finish.

In a real-world use case I used (past tense since I've since upgraded to F35s and put the M16s on the desk) mine in a tight space where they have to be near walls and the focus on reflection quality makes a significant difference. Everyone may not agree on some of the Harman methodologies, such as the veracity of the double-blind testing, but the philosophy definitely shines through in speakers like these.

I also have JBL Studio 530s and found them of similar quality and soundstage in my tight space. Would be interesting to see those measured given their reputation among users and frequent value price.

I preferred the sound of my JBL 530's to the Revel M105. I expected to like the Revel more and even with a biased feeling toward that speaker I did prefer the JBL. It just has a magical sound for me. It may or may not be as accurate but the sound just calls to me. FWIIW my girlfriend had the same feelings. That said the Revel is a fantastic speaker, it sounds superb (so clean, and with such a smooth metal tweeter & I love metal tweeters done right) I can see why it so well received. I have a dozen monitors here now and I prefer the JBL set to all of them without a doubt. There are speakers that are better for certain moods but if I kept one set it would be the 530's.
 
Last edited:

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,915
Likes
3,394
Location
Minneapolis
Their preference scores are only separated by .29, but the subjective comments would lead one to believe the difference should be much greater.

Yah, some people are going to come here and get the wrong idea about these ratings. I had the pioneers at one point and the infinity R162. Pioneers were so outclassed it was silly, totally different sound signature as well. I am assuming the M16 is at least as good as the R162.
 

goldark

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
204
Likes
352
Yah, some people are going to come here and get the wrong idea about these ratings. I had the pioneers at one point and the infinity R162. Pioneers were so outclassed it was silly, totally different sound signature as well. I am assuming the M16 is at least as good as the R162.

I own the R152 and like I mentioned previously, they're dangerously close in sound quality to my Revel F206 (when accounting for bass/output differences)
 

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,404
Likes
5,296
Location
Somerville, MA
Not quite as linear as I was expecting thanks to the <200hz bump but still pretty decent.


I would personally be interested in knowing what causes the 5khz bump; if it's something caused by the geometry of the tweeter/waveguide or there’s something in the woofer here (doubtful unless the crossover slope is shallow).


Something I find intriguing here is how the tweeter’s waveguide is cut to allow the woofer to mate close to the tweeter and decrease the Center-to-Center spacing by about ¼ to ½ inch (eyeballing the flange size) whereas some companies will cut the flange on the woofer instead. Probably not a huge difference either way but I would be interested to know if there is a legitimate “better” method: cutting the tweeter/waveguide flange or cutting the woofer flange.

(note: yes, I realize in this case the waveguide is flattened at the point it is notched for the woofer; cutting in to the actual waveguide itself would provide a detriment to the response I would presume but that’s not really my concern with this post)



Also, I understand you folks are tired of the “bookshelf” speakers but I think this is a great choice for testing. The price is nearly perfect for a moderate budget once you factor in amp and source. I, personally, am curious how the $500-1000 bookshelf speakers perform because that’s where I expect you really are getting the better bang for the buck in bookshelf speakers. I would expect that for floorstanders you’re looking at the $2k range for this threshold. That’s why I sent Amir a set of the Elac DBR62 bookshelf speakers because they look to be like solid winners at $600/pair but I have yet to see measurements anywhere for them and I want to see just if these Elacs are one of the better bangs for the buck.

The part of the woofer you're seeing isn't really the flange, it's a trim ring which is probably snapped or glued on to the woofer. These have become pretty common.

The waveguide is shallow elliptical type which people in the DIY community have replicated somewhat.
https://www.somasonus.net/waveguides

This 'demi-waveguide' gives you a lot of directivity control in a small form factor without changing the tweeter response so much that network design is dramatically different from a flat baffle. Almost all speakers of this form factor would benefit from a waveguide like this.

Thanks for sending in the ELACs, that should be interesting to see.

@amirm thanks for this review, this price class is where things get interesting. This is an excellent speaker for a lot of people, and gives high end sound for a modest cost.
 

goldark

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
204
Likes
352
I preferred the sound of my JBL 530's to the Revel M105. I expected to like the Revel more and even with a biased feeling toward that speaker I did prefer the JBL. It just has a magical sound for me. It may or may not be as accurate but the sound just calls to me. FWIIW my girlfriend had the same feelings. That said the Revel is a fantastic speaker, it sounds superb (so clean, and with such a smooth metal tweeter & I love metal tweeters done right) I can see why it so well received. I have a dozen monitors here now and I prefer the JBL set to all of them without a doubt. There are speakers that are better for certain moods but if I kept one set it would be the 530's.

From the comments from Sean Olive in the other thread I started regarding the preference rating, there is strong evidence to suggest that once a speaker is "neutral enough" and "well behaved enough," subjective preferences will determine which one a listener like better, ie., preference isn't as scientifically predetermined as once thought. Another user in that thread chose the LS50 in a blind test against the Revel M105, which has better objective measurements.
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,915
Likes
3,394
Location
Minneapolis
From the comments from Sean Olive in the other thread I started regarding the preference rating, there is strong evidence to suggest that once a speaker is "neutral enough" and "well behaved enough," subjective preferences will determine which one a listener like better, ie., preference isn't as scientifically predetermined as once thought. Another user in that thread chose the LS50 in a blind test against the Revel M105, which has better objective measurements.

I have never owned the LS50, I have owned the Q150 and that speaker doesn't sound anything like the Revel in the top end. I found the Q150 was a fantastic sounding midpriced speaker and tried really hard to like it. In the end something in that tweeter doesn't truly agree with me, it has a sharp quality. This is subtle stuff. The Revel has a smooth high end and yet retains that "metal" sound that I like in some metal tweets. I am certain I would take the M105 over the Q150, that said I could see why many others would take the Q150, especially factoring in price. ($600 vs $1500)
I am not sure what of this would show up in measurements. It may or may not.
So much of this only important for short periods of time. I have owned many speakers that sounded good enough for me to fully enjoy my music on. Any further gains would not really increase the enjoyment of listening and yet for some reason I just like trying new ones out.
 

Ilkless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
1,757
Likes
3,437
Location
Singapore
Ripply on-axis is a consequence of benign interference effects on the waveguide that do not accurately reflect the direct sound because it exists on only a single plane - the vertical plane perpendicular to the centre of the waveguide.

It was decided to depart from this convention because it is often found that because of symmetry in the layout of transducers on baffles, the on-axis frequency response contains acoustical interference artifacts, due to diffraction, that do not appear in any other measurement. It seems fundamentally wrong to burden the directivity index with irregularities that can have no consequential effects in real listening circumstances. Therefore, the DI has been redefined as the difference between the listening window curve and the sound power. In most loudspeakers, the effect of this choice is negligible, but in highly directional systems it is significant because the listening window curve is lower than the on-axis curve. In any event, for the curious, the raw evidence is there to inspect. Obviously, a DI of 0 dB indicates omnidirectional radiation. The larger the DI, the more directional the loudspeaker in the direction of the reference axis.

We see this on the Performa series too, as well as other speakers like the Kali IN-8 coaxials (and pretty much most coaxials beyond KEF).
 

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,616
Likes
6,086
Location
.de, DE, DEU
I would personally be interested in knowing what causes the 5khz bump; if it's something caused by the geometry of the tweeter/waveguide or there’s something in the woofer here (doubtful unless the crossover slope is shallow).

Despite your doubts, I suspect that the bump is coming from the woofer cone-breakup.
This also corresponds very well with the increased third order harmonic distortion HD3 at 1.5-1.8kHz.

With cone-breakup the bump can be 10-15dB and depending on the driver it can even increase under angle.
That's probably the reason why the bump under angle hardly gets weaker.

This bump must be specially treated during crossover to avoid negative effects.

Don't say that this chassis was used, but the Dayton DSA175 is a good example of such a case:

1583431059944.png


The increased HD3, caused by the heavy cone-breakup, is the reason why metal cone chassis have such a bad reputation. All too often, the crossover is too high, causing high HD3 - as in this case.

https://www.parts-express.com/dayto...designer-series-aluminum-cone-woofer--295-528
https://audioxpress.com/article/test-bench-dayton-audio-dsa175-designer-series-6-5-woofer
 

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
Despite your doubts, I suspect that the bump is coming from the woofer cone-breakup.
This also corresponds very well with the increased third order harmonic distortion HD3 at 1.5-1.8kHz.

Oh.. So Harman engineers made a beginners mistake which most DIY manage to avoid by choosing a woofer that would experience cone breakup within it's working range? Is that really what you believe is the case?
 
Top Bottom