Alice of Old Vincennes
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,600
- Likes
- 1,047
Ohhh come on.
-
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
Meaning what exactly?
Which test parameters do you feel prevent the recent lower priced amps from performing well with the M16?
Alice of Old Vincennes
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,600
- Likes
- 1,047
Bookshelves are I efficient and need more current. Makes no sense to mate Revel with $100 amp.
The recent chip amps are cranking out 150 watts of clean power (Fosi V3 for example).
I could be convinced however to quintuple the amp budget to get a Topping PA7. A little cleaner, a little more power, and much classier appearance, more befitting of a Revel. In practice there would be very little difference, but I would feel better.
I could be convinced however to quintuple the amp budget to get a Topping PA7. A little cleaner, a little more power, and much classier appearance, more befitting of a Revel. In practice there would be very little difference, but I would feel better.
I've got a pair of Revel M16s....they are a fine speaker. I use them in a nearfield position to stream Tidal....they do have a huge soundstage, great mids and non-fatiguing highs.....however I find the bass to be over accentuated and not especially tight. As a result I think they were probably designed to be a home theatre speaker....seeing the frequency response chart aligns with my experience....
I drive them with an old pioneer 50 watts Class A/B amp.....I do notice the amp struggles with bass heavy tracks....but I think that probably has to due with the limited amount of capacitance (2x 10k uf) the amp has to offer.
I drive them with an old pioneer 50 watts Class A/B amp.....I do notice the amp struggles with bass heavy tracks....but I think that probably has to due with the limited amount of capacitance (2x 10k uf) the amp has to offer.
Did you try plugging the ports?
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2020
- Messages
- 895
- Likes
- 2,895
I'd suggest to try room EQ - a few bands of subtractive PEQ should solve the issue and in general greatly improve sound quality (with any loudspeakers).
Alice of Old Vincennes
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,600
- Likes
- 1,047
M16 is designed to sound good for music or home theater. Bass issues are most likely placement. Also, small speakers are inherently inefficient and need lot of power.
Alice of Old Vincennes
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,600
- Likes
- 1,047
What is obvious? You mean the bump from 50 to 100? That was intentional and is easily eq'd.
JLGF1
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2023
- Messages
- 201
- Likes
- 149
Because it was intentional doesn't make it accurate. It's still exaggerated FR.
Alice of Old Vincennes
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,600
- Likes
- 1,047
I agree. 106 in different league.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2020
- Messages
- 895
- Likes
- 2,895
On the other hand I now see the M16 bass hump as free headroom for subtractive room EQ
Alice of Old Vincennes
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,600
- Likes
- 1,047
Bass hump isn't causing bloat. Some other reason.
I've been using RoomEQ wizard to calibrate the FR via EQ APO.....I've had great success with this in the past, but it hasn't helped with my m16s on this occasion.
However, I'd like try these speakers in a bigger room to see how much my current listening room is a factor...
However, I'd like try these speakers in a bigger room to see how much my current listening room is a factor...
interesting, could you show the before and after EQ results?
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2020
- Messages
- 895
- Likes
- 2,895
The measurement looks a bit strange to me (I also own and use the M16), may I ask:
- This is a single sweep measurement, right? (I.e. not a moving microphone method (MMM) measurement or a spatial average of multiple sweeps?)
With such measurements I'd strongly advise against doing full-range correction, as that will try to fix comb-filtering effects typical for the measurement method, which will cause irregularities to the on-axis response and will surely sound worse.
Even in general I'd advise to only do below ~300Hz correction for well-measuring loudspeakers (such as M16) rather than full-range correction. I'd only try correcting above ~300Hz based on anechoic measurements (and not based on the in-room measurement like you show above). - How far is your listening position from the loudspeakers? The target seems too flat to me (no slope), and IME that can only work in the very nearfield.
- You seem to have significant suckout in the 80-200Hz range; have you tried to push the loudspeakers closer to the back wall to address this?
- Due to suckout the PEQ correction you did seems to have significant boost filters. This can cause issues (bass bloat) at other listening positions - personally I prefer to optimize the loudspeaker position to reduce suckout as much as possible (or better yet: use a subwoofer to significantly reduce SBIR) and then only use subtractive PEQ to bring down peaks. That IMHO works much better and results in less issues in other listening positions.
- Lastly, I'd strongly suggest to use MMM and the REW "variable" smoothing as basis for PEQ, with a sloped target that approximates the natural slope of the loudspeaker >500Hz. Perhaps these short instructions may be of help (note that this was for a desktop system so I also used a flat target; for listening from further away a sloped target is more appropriate).
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
