Revel M16 vs M106 recommendations, physical construction / drivers?

[beren777]

I'm looking at whether to consider replacing some Revel M16 speakers with M106. I've seen the reviews here, and some of the discussions, but I haven't seen what goes into the M106 to make it cost so much more than the M16. Is it a beefier construction? Better crossover? Better drivers? All of the above? Is there difference in distortion and frequency response noticeable when driven to 75-85 db at 6-10 feet?

 

[Raul Nicconti]

I'm looking at whether to consider replacing some Revel M16 speakers with M106. I've seen the reviews here, and some of the discussions, but I haven't seen what goes into the M106 to make it cost so much more than the M16. Is it a beefier construction? Better crossover? Better drivers? All of the above? Is there difference in distortion and frequency response noticeable when driven to 75-85 db at 6-10 feet?

I have the same question.

 

[Roland]

Posh cabinet?

 

[nathan]

I'm looking at whether to consider replacing some Revel M16 speakers with M106. I've seen the reviews here, and some of the discussions, but I haven't seen what goes into the M106 to make it cost so much more than the M16. Is it a beefier construction? Better crossover? Better drivers? All of the above? Is there difference in distortion and frequency response noticeable when driven to 75-85 db at 6-10 feet?

What did you end up going with?

I infer the answer to all your questions is yes, with the possible exception of distortion at that listening level and distance.

 

[beren777]

What did you end up going with?

I infer the answer to all your questions is yes, with the possible exception of distortion at that listening level and distance.

As sad as it may sound, I went with both for now. Got the M16's on sale, then found a decent deal on a pair of used M106. I "think" the M106 sound better and clearer, but that's as likely to be sighted listening bias as anything else right now. The only firm finding thus far is that the M16 will extend down to ~26Hz in my small listening room when calibrated with Dirac Live, and the M106 goes down to ~31Hz. That surprised me a bit. I plan to add a small subwoofer in either case to take over the lower frequencies.

I may end up keeping both and use the M16's for surrounds or even mains in a home theater setup.

I did find references to a talk given by a Revel engineer describing the differences in the product lines but the actual paper seems to have vanished from the Internet.

 

[nathan]

Well that’s not sad. That’s the ultimate way to test. It is super interesting that if you had not heard them both either would be very good. And maybe even after hearing both that might be the conclusion. (Maybe in a larger room when driven harder they would begin to sound different when one started to struggle?)

I think a sub makes any speaker sound better especially using something like Dirac. Even with so-called full range speakers I find a sub works miracles and sometimes even crossing over above the standard 80hz is where things sound best. Usually that means 100 or 120hz but I have one situation where 150hz ended up being best in the room.

Thanks for sharing your insight. Congrats on the purchase!

 

[mgood]

Very interested to hear your impressions now that a couple of months have passed!

 

[beren777]

Well, I still have both models here but have left the M106's in place. I futzed around with trying a pair of subs but for most practical listening I couldn't notice any improvement. Also, both tinnitus and hearing loss are issues for me and I'm trying to accept that for me, anything over 10 Khz is moot because I will never hear it. Enjoy music while you're young - responsibly at a safe SPL - and hope your family has good genes. (Age related in my case, nothing to do with recent speaker testing.)

 

[nathan]

Don't worry. There is only one octave above 10k and it has no musical notes in it.

And if you can't hear up there from recordings you also can't hear up there in real life, so a symphony orchestra won't sound better in person than on a good recording on good gear etc etc. to the extent a recording and playback can ever sound good.

----

There is OTHER stuff with hearing loss (being able to discern details in a complex sound field) not related to frequency loss per se that matter, of course, hence why some people like more and more damped rooms as they get older (less complex sound field for the mind/ear combo).

But again, that deficit exists for "real life" and "recordings/playback" so realistic becomes a relative term, and fidelity still matters.

 

[beren777]

One of my past fancies was to use DSP along with a recent audiogram to try to offset HF hearing loss and get closer to hearing what there is to hear. I became concerned that I might end up boosting HF so much I'd risk blowing a tweeter so I didn't try it.

 

[nathan]

One of my past fancies was to use DSP along with a recent audiogram to try to offset HF hearing loss and get closer to hearing what there is to hear. I became concerned that I might end up boosting HF so much I'd risk blowing a tweeter so I didn't try it.

Of course then the recording sounds even less like real life because in real life you can't hear things that you are boosting in the recording playback...... and while blowing a tweeter would be a drag, it would actually be worsening my hearing loss by blasting certain frequencies that I would be more concerned about!