Revel M16 Speaker Review

[rynberg]

Am I reading the specs right on these versus the S16 speakers in the same lineup. These obviously go lower by an octave so in situations without a subwoofer these would be preference. But the S16 is several decibels more sensitive and has slightly higher power handling, so in theory could get notably louder without distress?

I would not use the S16s as mains...they are tuned to roll off higher in the bass. The cabinet and design is a compromise to achieve a low-profile on wall configuration and I would never get them over the M16 for mains. I say this as someone who uses the S16 as surrounds in conjunction with F206 and C208 mains.

 

[nathan]

Good to know. I don't need bass. In fact I prefer sealed speakers that roll off a little below 80hz, to comply with the THX approach to bass management with the right kind of controlled roll off. And the fact they don't go so low means they can have higher output for their size, as well.

I would love to see someone do a compression comparison between the two. Seems a reasonable assumption the S16 will compress less than the M16, so if the M16 was enough in my space, replacement them with the S16 (space is at a premium) should work just fine?

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Good to know. I don't need bass. In fact I prefer sealed speakers that roll off a little below 80hz, to comply with the THX approach to bass management with the right kind of controlled roll off. And the fact they don't go so low means they can have higher output for their size, as well.

I would love to see someone do a compression comparison between the two. Seems a reasonable assumption the S16 will compress less than the M16, so if the M16 was enough in my space, replacement them with the S16 (space is at a premium) should work just fine?

Use S16 only for surround. No comparison to M16.

 

[Laserjock]

Plus you could use the bungs and make the M16 sealed if preferred

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Also, don't fixate on THX and sealed speakers. Ultra expensive speakers have ports. I prefer sealed subs only because don't like the additional output. I'm in the minority.

 

[nathan]

Use S16 only for surround. No comparison to M16.

Why? The S16 has more output, higher sensitivity and higher power handling, and the same wave guide and directivity. Seems like in every way they are superior other than bass extension (which in my use case I do not need or want).

 

[nathan]

Plus you could use the bungs and make the M16 sealed if preferred

I don't know if that would help with the output, power handling or sensitivity, but I could probably live without those. The deal breaker: If the bungs would make the speaker six inches deep, that could work (and I already own three, which is what I need for LCR speakers behind a screen).

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Why? The S16 has more output, higher sensitivity and higher power handling, and the same wave guide and directivity. Seems like in every way they are superior other than bass extension (which in my use case I do not need or want).

Mid bass is very difficult to produce accurately. M16 possesses superb mid bass. Will also more accurately integrate with sub.

 

[nathan]

Mid bass is very difficult to produce accurately. M16 possesses superb mid bass. Will also more accurately integrate with sub.

Okay, fair enough. I cannot find any measurements that show the M16 has any advantage in the 80 hz and above region. Can you help me find some?

 

[Laserjock]

I don't know if that would help with the output, power handling or sensitivity, but I could probably live without those. The deal breaker: If the bungs would make the speaker six inches deep, that could work (and I already own three, which is what I need for LCR speakers behind a screen).

What’s max depth you could do?

 

[A Surfer]

Mid bass is very difficult to produce accurately. M16 possesses superb mid bass. Will also more accurately integrate with sub.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Okay, fair enough. I cannot find any measurements that show the M16 has any advantage in the 80 hz and above region. Can you help me find some?

It will. Nature of Revel speakers. Low distortion and directivity. You should step up to Performa series.

 

[Chromatischism]

Use S16 only for surround. No comparison to M16.

M16s all around would sound better if you had the space.

 

[nathan]

What’s max depth you could do?

Six inches is pushing it. Basically, I built a screen wall designed to house "in wall" depth speakers.....but I miss using my M16 in the room. They will end up as Atmos speakers in this room, I suspect. That's overkill but since I have them already.....

Anyway, the closest "fit" both physically and acoustically and financially for the LCR would be some S16, as best as I can tell. At first I didn't believe the Revel specs, but the more I look at them, the more they appear to have better output, sensitivity, the same linearity and directivity as the M16, and a response curve suited to a bass managed system.

I'm not saying they would be my first choice for a system of any configuration, especially one without multiple subwoofers. For two channel listening, I'm prefer a pair of M16 on stands. But that's not this particular use case.

However, if there is something similar (in terms of depth) with good linearity and directivity in the same general cost bracket, I'm all ears (pun?). I don't need a ton of output. I'm just sitting 8 feet from the speakers. But being able to play up to 100db peaks without compression would be nice.

 

[AVKS]

Six inches is pushing it. Basically, I built a screen wall designed to house "in wall" depth speakers.....but I miss using my M16 in the room. They will end up as Atmos speakers in this room, I suspect. That's overkill but since I have them already.....

Anyway, the closest "fit" both physically and acoustically and financially for the LCR would be some S16, as best as I can tell. At first I didn't believe the Revel specs, but the more I look at them, the more they appear to have better output, sensitivity, the same linearity and directivity as the M16, and a response curve suited to a bass managed system.

I'm not saying they would be my first choice for a system of any configuration, especially one without multiple subwoofers. For two channel listening, I'm prefer a pair of M16 on stands. But that's not this particular use case.

However, if there is something similar (in terms of depth) with good linearity and directivity in the same general cost bracket, I'm all ears (pun?). I don't need a ton of output. I'm just sitting 8 feet from the speakers. But being able to play up to 100db peaks without compression would be nice.

Unless you want the M16's small midbass hump for integration purposes, there don't appear to be many advantages if you're crossing over at a typical 80 Hz. Revel's frequency specs for the S16 and M16 respectively are 70 Hz/53 Hz -3, 58 Hz/50 Hz -6, and 46 Hz/43 Hz -10 db, and having them on-wall seemingly provides great opportunity for boundary reinforcement near the crossover point. The M16s may be a bit easier to integrate if your sub struggles a bit around the crossover point due to placement, but since many folks are going to EQ down that midbass hump anyway either intentionally or as a part of room correction then that will be moot.

I say this as a longtime owner of M16s - they were in my theater for almost a year and then on my desk for several more. I recently replaced them with Ascend Acoustics Sierra-LXs, in part because the midbass hump annoyed at times even with EQ, and do not miss the M16s. Since the form factor carries high value for you, I can easily see why the S16 is the better selection for you. You could buy them from a place like Crutchfield or a dealer with a generous trial policy to try them in your space, and if they don't work then return them and know you have to go another direction.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Talking of which, what peq settings would you use to fix the 100hz hump?

And where would you set the crossover to a sub to avoid the peq interfering with your sub’s output?

 

[AVKS]

Talking of which, what peq settings would you use to fix the 100hz hump?

And where would you set the crossover to a sub to avoid the peq interfering with your sub’s output?

That really can depend as much on your room and placement as the speaker itself. A Q of 2 or so at 110 Hz seems a reasonable starting point based on the measurements though, with tweaks from there on the fringes as you see fit/as your room calls for.

 

[nathan]

Unless you want the M16's small midbass hump for integration purposes, there don't appear to be many advantages if you're crossing over at a typical 80 Hz. Revel's frequency specs for the S16 and M16 respectively are 70 Hz/53 Hz -3, 58 Hz/50 Hz -6, and 46 Hz/43 Hz -10 db, and having them on-wall seemingly provides great opportunity for boundary reinforcement near the crossover point. The M16s may be a bit easier to integrate if your sub struggles a bit around the crossover point due to placement, but since many folks are going to EQ down that midbass hump anyway either intentionally or as a part of room correction then that will be moot.

I say this as a longtime owner of M16s - they were in my theater for almost a year and then on my desk for several more. I recently replaced them with Ascend Acoustics Sierra-LXs, in part because the midbass hump annoyed at times even with EQ, and do not miss the M16s. Since the form factor carries high value for you, I can easily see why the S16 is the better selection for you. You could buy them from a place like Crutchfield or a dealer with a generous trial policy to try them in your space, and if they don't work then return them and know you have to go another direction.

Yes, I'm solely interested in how they compare when high pass filtered at 80 hz or even 100hz.

I realize that is not the way to compare if using them for two channel listening, especially without a sub.

But my use case is different. And from what I can see, the biggest difference is that S16 can play louder.

So far the only measurements I have seen (from:https://www.soundandvision.com/content/revel-concerta2-m16-speaker-system-review-test-bench and quoted below) are manipulated/adjusted in room close mike setups. That's not a horrible starting point, but I'd like to see more controlled repeatable data, if I can find it. This data makes it seem like the main frequency response difference may be a bit more of a downward in room slope on the S16 but I am dubious that that is real since there doesn't appear to be an engineering difference for it to exist.

Revel Concerta2 M16 Speaker System Review Test Bench

Test Bench

L/R Sensitivity: 85.5 dB from 500 Hz to 2 kHz

Center Sensitivity: 90.5 dB from 500 Hz to 2 kHz

Surround Sensitivity: 89.5 dB from 500 Hz to 2 kHz

This graph shows the quasi-anechoic (employing close-miking of all woofers) frequency response of the M16 L/R (purple trace), B10 subwoofer (blue trace), C25 center channel (green trace, corrected for boundary gain), and S16 surround (red trace, corrected for boundary gain). All passive loudspeakers were measured with grilles at a distance of 1 meter with a 2.83-volt input and scaled for display purposes.

The M16 listening-window response (a five-point average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal and vertical responses) measures +0.73/–2.33 decibels from 200 hertz to 10 kilohertz. The –3dB point is at 57 Hz, and the –6dB point is at 50 Hz. Impedance reaches a minimum of 5.05 ohms at 160 Hz and a phase angle of –41.51 degrees at 96 Hz.

The C25’s listening-window response measures +0.73/–3.93 dB from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. An average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal responses measures +1.17/–4.14 dB from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. The –3dB point is at 86 Hz, and the –6dB point is at 67 Hz. Impedance reaches a minimum of 4.79 ohms at 200 Hz and a phase angle of –47.18 degrees at 98 Hz.

The S16’s listening-window response measures +0.85/–3.91 dB from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. The –3dB point is at 71 Hz, and the –6dB point is at 59 Hz. Impedance reaches a minimum of 4.91 ohms at 179 Hz and a phase angle of –45.91 degrees at 98 Hz.

The B10’s close-miked response, normalized to the level at 80 Hz, indicates that the lower –3dB point is at 31 Hz and the –6dB point is at 29 Hz. The upper –3dB point is at 145 Hz with the Low Pass Crossover control set to maximum.—MJP

 

[nathan]

This user did their own measurements. Sure wish Revel would publish the spins on these. These user measurements simply show the S16 relative tot he LS50 from KEF....so, just sort of confirming what we would already suspect about the frequency response, I guess.

 

[AVKS]

Yes, I'm solely interested in how they compare when high pass filtered at 80 hz or even 100hz.

I realize that is not the way to compare if using them for two channel listening, especially without a sub.

But my use case is different. And from what I can see, the biggest difference is that S16 can play louder.

So far the only measurements I have seen (from:https://www.soundandvision.com/content/revel-concerta2-m16-speaker-system-review-test-bench and quoted below) are manipulated/adjusted in room close mike setups. That's not a horrible starting point, but I'd like to see more controlled repeatable data, if I can find it. This data makes it seem like the main frequency response difference may be a bit more of a downward in room slope on the S16 but I am dubious that that is real since there doesn't appear to be an engineering difference for it to exist.

​

Given the S16s intended use as surrounds, I'm not sure that extensive measurement was/is a priority relative to L/C/R-type speakers. Given Revel's reputaiton and focus, the couple of measurements out there, and the overal design philosophy of the Concerta 2 series, it seems a safe bet that the speakers will perform similarly to it's more thoroughly-evaluated M16 cousin.