Revel M16 Speaker Review

[YSC]

M16 came in from Crutchfield. First impressions:

Interesting sounding speaker. I will preface this with the fact I have sensitive ears when it comes to treble. Reminds me a little of the Genelecs I've auditioned briefly in a studio & B&H. It's playing all genres pretty well. In comparison to my DBR62's I've owned for over a year now, they sound a little leaner, more technical, and offer much more treble detail while not being too fatiguing. Got them for $700/pr, these are the most expensive speakers I have owned. Soundstage is pretty big and has some depth, good height and width.

One track I'm pretty familiar with has a piano panned left and I swear I heard it coming three feet away + left from the left side of the speaker. In comparison I don't remember the DBR62, RP-600M, and Q150 doing it that way.

DBR62's ($530/pr) sound slightly veiled in comparison, sound thicker and buttery, much more laid back. They sometimes make recordings sound better than they are if they're not the greatest. Rarely is anything harsh or has sibilance unless the track is really bad. The DBR62's are best played at loud volumes, while I can listen to the M16 at any volume just fine.

M16 has way less bass quantity than the DBR62's, and for me these need a sub for full range. I could use my DBR62's without one, but again the bass quality is not as good. They're flat, not in a bad way, detailed sparkly treble, but not really overdoing it. They will reveal if your source tracks aren't the best. They keep up with tracks that are very layered, and the treble is very.. fast? There is a hint of sibilance depending on the track for me.

Fun speaker, definitely sound expensive, they're performers, not sure if I'll be keeping it though as it's not really the sound I was aiming for. These speakers are great but I'm not sure if I'd pay more than what I just paid for. Also, these require way more juice from my receiver than the DBR62's and I thought those were power hungry.

I also have the Polk R200 to compare next.

impression wise I think you might need some in room measurement for verification if there's any placement issue related for the apparent sound. bass wise it should be only less than the DBR62 by a bit but if there's some room boost in DBR and the Revel not so it can make a huge apparnet difference. changing speakers that are well designed and built scientifically with similar budget don't sounded like a good choice personally if the sound is your final goal, they more than likely are more similar than different

 

[Fuzziekiwi]

impression wise I think you might need some in room measurement for verification if there's any placement issue related for the apparent sound. bass wise it should be only less than the DBR62 by a bit but if there's some room boost in DBR and the Revel not so it can make a huge apparnet difference. changing speakers that are well designed and built scientifically with similar budget don't sounded like a good choice personally if the sound is your final goal, they more than likely are more similar than different

I don't always think measurements tell the whole story. They can point out certain things. They are similar in the fact they are warm tilting but they definitely sound like different speakers. Different tonality. To compensate for less bass in the M16 I had to raise the crossover point slightly and add a little volume to my sub. I would say I know the DBR62 pretty well and have tried them in 4 different sized rooms. The M16 is NOT a bad speaker by any means, comes down to personal preference as to what kind of sound you like.

Yes these beat the DBR62 in technicality all the way.

 

[YSC]

I don't always think measurements tell the whole story. They can point out certain things. They are similar in the fact they are warm tilting but they definitely sound like different speakers. Different tonality. To compensate for less bass in the M16 I had to raise the crossover point slightly and add a little volume to my sub. I would say I know the DBR62 pretty well and have tried them in 4 different sized rooms. The M16 is NOT a bad speaker by any means, comes down to personal preference.

I mean it's not an absolute thing to do measurement and call it a day. the trend is obvious and that we know the dispersion pattern caused a lot of in room effects, thing is to see if there's a obvious placement issue resulted and sub integration needs some measurement to do really well and make it sound like a single speaker. that aside we have the adaptation effect where one need to adapt to a new sound for a while.

Surely personal preference is a very true thing but when getting a new speaker, especially with a sub, measurement did help a lot of level matching both and minimize phase issues so you don't mess up that part to get a true evaluation of whether you like it or not.

 

[Fuzziekiwi]

I just hooked up the R200's. These are exactly what I was looking for. Unfortunately the M16's are going back. I'll still hook them up one more time but.. the R200 gets rid of the issues I had with the DBR62 while sounding better.

Those wanting to pick up an M16 might wanna keep an eye on the openbox/scratch and dent section..

 

[Chromatischism]

Still a great speaker but the M16 is much more detailed up high, has a bigger soundstage, and better bass quality to my ears (although much less bass than the DBR62).

The DBR62 is laid back, a little bassy, with some treble roll off- I could listen to these 8+ hours a day blasting without fatigue (I WFM so sometimes I'll be listening to music all day).

The M16 is flatter and more exciting to listen to with far more treble detail/overall, & soundstage. I can see these as being slightly fatiguing after a few hours, though nowhere near the RP600M that I had tried before.

Out of the two, DBR62 can be used without a sub IMO, the M16 not as much.

Different instruments sounds better on one speaker than the other to me.

You'll probably be happy with either one unless you don't like warmer sounding speakers.

Great insights you're providing.

Revel (and other waveguided speakers) provide the ability to attenuate the tweeter off-axis without coloring the sound. Did you try aiming the M16s straight into the room instead of directly at you?

 

[Chromatischism]

I just hooked up the R200's. These are exactly what I was looking for. Unfortunately the M16's are going back. I'll still hook them up one more time but.. the R200 gets rid of the issues I had with the DBR62 while sounding better.

Those wanting to pick up an M16 might wanna keep an eye on the openbox/scratch and dent section..

Interesting. I regard those as good speakers but I hate the idea of the narrow dispersion of the ring tweeter. Can you try them off axis and see how much the sound changes?*

*Yes I know the effect is in play at all times with less tweeter energy in the wall reflections which will skew the sound profile, but it's still important to understand what other listeners will hear if you have a group over.

 

[Fuzziekiwi]

Great insights you're providing.

Revel (and other waveguided speakers) provide the ability to attenuate the tweeter off-axis without coloring the sound. Did you try aiming the M16s straight into the room instead of directly at you?

I always play with placement.

 

[theyellowspecial]

How would you compare the two? My current setup is the DBR62. Mine are coming soon but I didn't realize that the Revel were not sold in pairs sooo I just ordered the second speaker and my wallet hurts lol.

I thought they were similar, but the DBR62's deeper midrange dip was noticeable (which you seemed to pick up on in your later review being more laid back). Also, as mentioned previously the DBR62's increased sidewall reflections in my narrow room resulted in a "hazy" presentation. Anyone can experience this for themselves with any speaker by testing large ranges of toe-in with speakers near a wall.

No comments on bass as I crossover at 100Hz to stereo subwoofers and run Dirac to ~300Hz.

Now that my ear EQ has settled in after a few weeks, the M16s sound very balanced.

Those free side reflexions exists any way.

Yes, but with speakers close to the sidewalls, there's a big difference in how late the reflections arrive at the ear when toeing in speakers crossing the listening position. In my 20ft long room, those sidewall reflections become rear-wall reflections and are delayed significantly to the listening position. This makes all the difference in the world to fidelity, including music and movie dialogue (I don't use a center channel).

 

[Fuzziekiwi]

I thought they were similar, but the DBR62's deeper midrange dip was noticeable (which you seemed to pick up on in your later review being more laid back). Also, as mentioned previously the DBR62's increased sidewall reflections in my narrow room resulted in a "hazy" presentation. Anyone can experience this for themselves with any speaker by testing large ranges of toe-in with speakers near a wall.

No comments on bass as I crossover at 100Hz to stereo subwoofers and run Dirac to ~300Hz.

Now that my ear EQ has settled in after a few weeks, the M16s sound very balanced.

Yes, but with speakers close to the sidewalls, there's a big difference in how late the reflections arrive at the ear when toeing in speakers crossing the listening position. In my 20ft long room, those sidewall reflections become rear-wall reflections and are delayed significantly to the listening position. This makes all the difference in the world to fidelity, including music and movie dialogue (I don't use a center channel).

I agree the DBR62's dip is noticeable but it does take the edge off certain artist's recordings, and pairs better with a lot of the music I listen to although there is a downgrade in soundstage/imaging. I listened to the M16 with and without a sub but I still couldn't convince myself to keep it, some vocals for me sound really off (but the dbr has that issue sometimes too) and I'm pretty confident it's not the recording. Looking in the graphs it looks like the peak at 5k? bothers my ears as well as the slight rise near 1k.

 

[enioentity]

Wow, good comparison between speakers Fuzziekiwi, lots of good info, just what i was looking for!

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Wow, good comparison between speakers Fuzziekiwi, lots of good info, just what i was looking for!

Revel thread turning subjective.

 

[Dimitrov]

Are there any links to where this speaker is on clearance? Most places I see have it for $450-490 each. I see some people buying them for $700 for a pair and I can't them anywhere listed at that price.

 

[nathan]

Are there any links to where this speaker is on clearance? Most places I see have it for $450-490 each. I see some people buying them for $700 for a pair and I can't them anywhere listed at that price.

On a regular basis (a couple times a year) it appears Revel/harman authorize dealers to list them below MSRP. Crutchfield is one place where this is visible when it happens.

That being said, that "sale" price is actually the price that a dealer will give you if you contact them directly most of the time (assuming Harman/Revel has them in stock at the time) and ask them for their best price (and like you might suspect, they will give you the best price for a larger order so be sure to ask about the full number you are interested in).

 

[Gatordaddy]

Are there any links to where this speaker is on clearance? Most places I see have it for $450-490 each. I see some people buying them for $700 for a pair and I can't them anywhere listed at that price.

Most local dealers will sell below MSRP but are unable to advertise below MSRP. Try calling.

 

[AVKS]

Are there any links to where this speaker is on clearance? Most places I see have it for $450-490 each. I see some people buying them for $700 for a pair and I can't them anywhere listed at that price.

While it was a couple of years ago now, I got my pair new from a dealer for $400. Definitely call/visit in person if you can.

 

[Dimitrov]

I've contacted Amirm on the website who has a company that sells them. I'm not actually based in the States, I'm from South Africa but the pricing there is horrendous and my local distributor (who used to be an actual distributor) is now selling direct to end users which doesn't help me at all. I'm better off importing it and saving

 

[Chromatischism]

I had the same misunderstanding you're demonstrating at one point. The following exchange may be illuminating for you.

View attachment 53074

Put another way, the third harmonic is a signal. That signal is then amplified by the breakup. The resulting distortion at H1 thus appears to be higher.

To put it simply, to reduce the 5.4 kHz bump, we must EQ at 1.8 kHz? In fact the whole 1-2 kHz level should be brought down per QMuse's EQ, but then maybe another dB or two at the distortion peak around 1.8 kHz and another dB or two at 5.4 kHz.

 

[dominikz]

To put it simply, to reduce the 5.4 kHz bump, we must EQ at 1.8 kHz? In fact the whole 1-2 kHz level should be brought down per QMuse's EQ, but then maybe another dB or two at the distortion peak around 1.8 kHz and another dB or two at 5.4 kHz.

Personally I'm not convinced that the 5,4kHz resonance is a result of the M16 THD increase between 1,5-2kHz. I'd say this resonance is more likely the effect of the physical design of the loudspeaker - perhaps due to waveguide and acoustic lense?

Here's why:

1. The similar M106 and M105 don't have the 1,5-2kHz distortion increase but show a similar on-axis resonance at 5,4kHz:
   
   
   
   (Source 1)
   
   
   
   (Source 2)
2. The on-axis frequency response is measured with a sweep, which means that at any single point in time only one frequency is generated at the input, and the same frequency is then measured and plotted at the output. I.e. when measuring the response at 5,4kHz there is no simultaneous 1,8kHz input signal that could generate the H3 distortion component and cause an increase of the response at 5,4kHz.
3. If the THD peak is 2% that is approximately -34dB vs fundamental. If we measure at 85dB SPL that means that the H3 of the 1,8kHz would be at approximately 51dB SPL. So the total signal at 5,4kHz is: 85 dB SPL + 51 dB = 85,172 dB SPL (if both signals are fully in phase - worst case; see e.g. this dB calculator); i.e. an irrelevant contribution. The M16 5,4kHz resonance is around 2dB vs the on-axis slope - which is a lot more. Actually at 85dB SPL, the 1,8kHz H3 would need to be close to 30% to result in 2dB boost at 5,4kHz.

 

[Chromatischism]

Nice. So EQ can just target the resonance directly.

 

[abdo123]

There is no way the resonance is second harmonic or any distortion at all. That's not how sine sweep measurements work at all.