Revel M22 Speaker Review

[leeroy 85032]

What i see on the m22 vs dbr 62 graph is a lot of different in the 2khz thru about 6 khz region... That's going to, imo make a big difference in perceived brightness... Per my experience brightness lives in that area ...

 

[eddantes]

I suppose my question is not about brightness. @amirm had a clearly different experience re: the bass. So I only really considered that in my initial reaction. However, as it has been pointed out - if on balance the speaker is "bright" it may make one perceive that the bass is lacking. I never really considered that POV, so it's a new data point for me to digest in my growing understanding of speaker performance.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I suppose my question is not about brightness. @amirm had a clearly different experience re: the bass. So I only really considered that in my initial reaction. However, as it has been pointed out - if on balance the speaker is "bright" it may make one perceive that the bass is lacking. I never really considered that POV, so it's a new data point for me to digest in my growing understanding of speaker performance.

I think you're on the right track

Another thing to keep in mind is that bass is highly room-dependent. And memory is very fallible. So unless Amir set each speaker up in the same position in the listening room and switched between them very quickly, there's every chance that (a) his internal benchmark when assessing the speakers was not the same and (b) the speakers interacted with the room differently to produce objectively different levels/qualities of bass.

 

[eddantes]

Sorry guys. I'm still on this train of thought. I compared the 4 Revel bookshelves again. This time I'm interested in seeing the M22 vs M105 (arguably one of the best measuring bookshelves here) and it spurred on more questions about intepreting the In-room Response chart. See the graphic:

 

[BYRTT]

Sorry guys. I'm still on this train of thought. I compared the 4 Revel bookshelves again. This time I'm interested in seeing the M22 vs M105 (arguably one of the best measuring bookshelves here) and it spurred on more questions about intepreting the In-room Response chart.....

Hi sure M105 is good measuring and you picked some of the better performers be it objective or Amir's listening test, myself have a eye on M16 run over most the other in directivity index curve so made below overlaid animations, normalized polars confirm the smoother directivity index curve for M16 and so do the lower four graphs that consentrate on the 9x directivities that form the listening window curve and note they are normalized relative to on axis so as to please the eye read the differences there and where DBR62 is close to look perfect smooth as long we below 2kHz, all graphs are based on Amir's Klippel data and hope input helps and have fun down the road whatever speaker system you end up with.

 

[eddantes]

Thank you for sharing this! It's hard for me to understand these charts. I can say that the most obvious thing I notice is that M16 does not genereally go above 0 in directivity charts, whereas the others do. Also it appears that the MAX - MAX delta of the M16 is narrowest compared to the others (~4ish vs ~6ish). If I understand correctly - optimal is for the signal to remain on 0 and then it is "the lower the MAX - MAX delta the better"? If so - then in these charts M16 is the closest to optimal and the M22 is the least (it seems to have the widest travel from 0). Would calculating the area occupied by the various ranges be useful as a representation of deviation from 0? An area of 0 is ideal, and then the lower the positive number the better? Or is there a "value" to being on the positive or negative side (+db vs -db) of the axis?

 

[BYRTT]

Thank you for sharing this! It's hard for me to understand these charts. I can say that the most obvious thing I notice is that M16 doers not genereally go above 0 in directivity charts, whereas the others do. Also it appears that the MAX - MAX delta of the M16 is narrowest compared to the others (~4ish vs ~6ish). If I understand correctly - optimal is for the signal to remain on 0 and then it is "the lower the MAX - MAX delta the better"? If so - then in these charts M16 is the closest to optimal and the M22 is the least (it seems to have the widest travel from 0). Would calculating the area occupied by the various ranges be useful as a representation of deviation from 0? An area of 0 at is ideal, and the lower the positive number the better? Or is there a "value" to being on the positive or negative side (+db vs -db) of the axis?

Think you read them right its best they fall off smooth as possible as frequency increase because most transducer get directive up there and also best they never cross each other relative to design axis and other axis and thats a field where M16 win in its of axis curves nearly never cross over the on axis curve as the other three competitors do, there is zoomed into the band of 300Hz-7kHz for those 9 directivities that when avaraged form the listening window seen in spinorama plot, so talking direct sound they important because we probably sit or move around within that window when serious listening our most loved track materials, there is really 36 times horizontal and 36 times vertical directivities (one per 10º 360º around) that form the spinorama and polar plots but the most important ones for the direct sound most be those inside the listening window. Personal havent heard any of these four competitors but in they score very close they probably is good enough to live with for most, but theorectical based objective data will think M16 could score highest of the four if we EQed them because the smoother directivity index curve tell avarage of all the 72 directivity sectors measured better than the other competitors and also its not worst M16 looks have relative fair low costs.

 

[EL_PW]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Revel M22 Stand-mount speaker. It is on kind loan from a member who I think was the second person to send me a speaker. The M22 is long discontinued. It cost I think US $2,000 when new but I see it on used market for around US $600. As such, it may make an alternative to buying something new now at $600 price point.

The M22 enclosure is extremely solid and finished well:

View attachment 56066​

While the grill was a bit frayed, the rest of the speaker has endured the years very well, something that you may not be able to say about a vinyl wrapped budget speaker you buy today.

The back panel shows not only the binding posts but also a set of useful controls (if you don't use electronic EQ):

View attachment 56067​

I measured the unit as seen. For listening tests however, I also used the tweeter control (see later in this review).

Love the fact that the binding posts are far apart, making it easy to screw and unscrew them.

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

All measurements are reference to tweeter axis with the grill removed. Frequency resolution is 2.7 Hz. Over 700 measurement points were used to assure high precision in higher frequencies, resulting in well under 1% error. I am also using averaging to lower noise in bass frequencies. I also doubled the drive voltage (for spinorama) to overcome low frequency noise in my setting.

All measurements are with no grill and on tweeter axis.

Spinorama Audio Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker can be used. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 56068

Well, you really have to squint to see any flaws. On-axis response is quite flat as it should be. And directivity (difference between direct sound coming at you and those reflected) is quite good as well. There is a dip in low frequencies and when combined with the peaking at higher ones, it may make the speaker sound light.

Predicted in-room response tells you that depending on where you draw the linear prediction line:

View attachment 56069

Impedance is typical of small speakers with a difficult combination of 60 Hz phase shift around 100 Hz:

View attachment 56070

This means the amplifier needs to be able to handle more current than it would otherwise. Don't make the mistake of thinking a small speaker needs a small amplifier. They rarely do.

Distortion graph shows the typical low frequency peaks and some woofer struggle in the crossover region before it is retired:

View attachment 56073

Eye-candy Speaker Measurements

View attachment 56074

As usual with non-coaxial drivers, the vertical dispersion is not nearly as good as horizontal so absorption on the floor (rug) and ceiling is advised:
View attachment 56075

View attachment 56076

Speaker Listening Tests
I pluck down the Revel M22 on the same stand in my listening room I have used for other speaker tests. Starting listening with just a single filter at 102 Hz or so to dial out a room mode. First reaction was a clean sound that was a bit bright with little "bottom end." With tons of power on tap, I could drive it hard with nary any distortion but the bass while present, was not making an impact. This made vocals less exciting. The highs were present and clean so not jarring but too much in the context of low bass response.

So I resorted to dialing in a shelf boost in Roon player I was using:

View attachment 56077

Credit to the nice woofer, while I could see it moving substantially back and forth now, distortion not present. The sound was now warmer but still not quite there so I dialed in the treble two notches on the back of the speaker. This made the overall experience much more positive.

Knowing you all would ask, I swapped in the Elac DBR-62 speaker which I reviewed recently. The subjective experience was definitely better with the Elac. Warm, nice sound that was a delight. I then put in the Revel M16. Here, the M16 sounded cleaner but didn't quite have the bass that the Elac had. It did sound a lot better than the M22 however.

Overall, the sound from M22 is screaming for a sub to supplement it where as with the more modern speakers (ELAC DBR-62 and Revel M16) you could easily live without.

Conclusions
The Revel M22 measures well and has low distortion, clean sound in a very sturdy cabinet. The tonality however is too light for my taste to be used as is. While new 2-way speakers try hard to replace a full sized speaker, the M22 seems to have set it sight on the classic bookshelf that produces just enough bass but not more. Equalization helps and maybe that is enough for you. It is not enough for me to recommend it over the Elac even though the build quality of Elac is substantially lower.

I have a pair of even older Revel M20s that I use for our TV sound. They are fine for that purpose and hugely better than anything a soundbar can produce. The M22s could work just as well in that application.

Given the rather strong objective performance, I can recommend the Revel M22 but not wholeheartedly.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Got my paperwork together for my accountant to do our taxes. Depressed that good chunk of everything you all donated is taxable and I need to cough that up by mid-year. There is a relief plan from the government due to the pandemic and I am hoping that I can count the pink panthers as "children." If that fails, I would appreciate a few more dollars donated using : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

I own these, bought new in 2006 and it took a number of years to get them to sound their best. Near-field monitors they are not. They need a tall, wide room to really do their thing, at least 3 feet from back and side walls. Running them with a Rotel RB-1070 SS amp they sounded best at loud to very loud volumes and they will pin you to the wall with a front row center stadium show experience, reminiscent of that JBL ad from a number of years ago with the person sitting facing the speakers and a gale force coming out of the speakers. So not great for an apartment or condo, as my neighbors will attest, but excellent in a big space that is all your own. Switched to wall mount on the back they also make excellent home theater speakers with frightening sound effects as a number of friends have told me.

 

[AdamG]

I own these, bought new in 2006 and it took a number of years to get them to sound their best. Near-field monitors they are not. They need a tall, wide room to really do their thing, at least 3 feet from back and side walls. Running them with a Rotel RB-1070 SS amp they sounded best at loud to very loud volumes and they will pin you to the wall with a front row center stadium show experience, reminiscent of that JBL ad from a number of years ago with the person sitting facing the speakers and a gale force coming out of the speakers. So not great for an apartment or condo, as my neighbors will attest, but excellent in a big space that is all your own. Switched to wall mount on the back they also make excellent home theater speakers with frightening sound effects as a number of friends have told me.

Welcome Aboard @EL_PW.

 

[EL_PW]

Thanks! I've enjoyed and learned a lot from the website and now Amir's yt videos really add a lot of clarity to the concepts.

 

[LightninBoy]

I own these, bought new in 2006 and it took a number of years to get them to sound their best. Near-field monitors they are not. They need a tall, wide room to really do their thing, at least 3 feet from back and side walls. Running them with a Rotel RB-1070 SS amp they sounded best at loud to very loud volumes and they will pin you to the wall with a front row center stadium show experience, reminiscent of that JBL ad from a number of years ago with the person sitting facing the speakers and a gale force coming out of the speakers. So not great for an apartment or condo, as my neighbors will attest, but excellent in a big space that is all your own. Switched to wall mount on the back they also make excellent home theater speakers with frightening sound effects as a number of friends have told me.

Welcome and great comment. Agree that these would be wasted as nearfields. They can get loud and power a room.

 

[hyfynut]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Revel M22 Stand-mount speaker. It is on kind loan from a member who I think was the second person to send me a speaker. The M22 is long discontinued. It cost I think US $2,000 when new but I see it on used market for around US $600. As such, it may make an alternative to buying something new now at $600 price point.

The M22 enclosure is extremely solid and finished well:

View attachment 56066​

While the grill was a bit frayed, the rest of the speaker has endured the years very well, something that you may not be able to say about a vinyl wrapped budget speaker you buy today.

The back panel shows not only the binding posts but also a set of useful controls (if you don't use electronic EQ):

View attachment 56067​

I measured the unit as seen. For listening tests however, I also used the tweeter control (see later in this review).

Love the fact that the binding posts are far apart, making it easy to screw and unscrew them.

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

All measurements are reference to tweeter axis with the grill removed. Frequency resolution is 2.7 Hz. Over 700 measurement points were used to assure high precision in higher frequencies, resulting in well under 1% error. I am also using averaging to lower noise in bass frequencies. I also doubled the drive voltage (for spinorama) to overcome low frequency noise in my setting.

All measurements are with no grill and on tweeter axis.

Spinorama Audio Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker can be used. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 56068

Well, you really have to squint to see any flaws. On-axis response is quite flat as it should be. And directivity (difference between direct sound coming at you and those reflected) is quite good as well. There is a dip in low frequencies and when combined with the peaking at higher ones, it may make the speaker sound light.

Predicted in-room response tells you that depending on where you draw the linear prediction line:

View attachment 56069

Impedance is typical of small speakers with a difficult combination of 60 Hz phase shift around 100 Hz:

View attachment 56070

This means the amplifier needs to be able to handle more current than it would otherwise. Don't make the mistake of thinking a small speaker needs a small amplifier. They rarely do.

Distortion graph shows the typical low frequency peaks and some woofer struggle in the crossover region before it is retired:

View attachment 56073

Eye-candy Speaker Measurements

View attachment 56074

As usual with non-coaxial drivers, the vertical dispersion is not nearly as good as horizontal so absorption on the floor (rug) and ceiling is advised:
View attachment 56075

View attachment 56076

Speaker Listening Tests
I pluck down the Revel M22 on the same stand in my listening room I have used for other speaker tests. Starting listening with just a single filter at 102 Hz or so to dial out a room mode. First reaction was a clean sound that was a bit bright with little "bottom end." With tons of power on tap, I could drive it hard with nary any distortion but the bass while present, was not making an impact. This made vocals less exciting. The highs were present and clean so not jarring but too much in the context of low bass response.

So I resorted to dialing in a shelf boost in Roon player I was using:

View attachment 56077

Credit to the nice woofer, while I could see it moving substantially back and forth now, distortion not present. The sound was now warmer but still not quite there so I dialed in the treble two notches on the back of the speaker. This made the overall experience much more positive.

Knowing you all would ask, I swapped in the Elac DBR-62 speaker which I reviewed recently. The subjective experience was definitely better with the Elac. Warm, nice sound that was a delight. I then put in the Revel M16. Here, the M16 sounded cleaner but didn't quite have the bass that the Elac had. It did sound a lot better than the M22 however.

Overall, the sound from M22 is screaming for a sub to supplement it where as with the more modern speakers (ELAC DBR-62 and Revel M16) you could easily live without.

Conclusions
The Revel M22 measures well and has low distortion, clean sound in a very sturdy cabinet. The tonality however is too light for my taste to be used as is. While new 2-way speakers try hard to replace a full sized speaker, the M22 seems to have set it sight on the classic bookshelf that produces just enough bass but not more. Equalization helps and maybe that is enough for you. It is not enough for me to recommend it over the Elac even though the build quality of Elac is substantially lower.

I have a pair of even older Revel M20s that I use for our TV sound. They are fine for that purpose and hugely better than anything a soundbar can produce. The M22s could work just as well in that application.

Given the rather strong objective performance, I can recommend the Revel M22 but not wholeheartedly.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Got my paperwork together for my accountant to do our taxes. Depressed that good chunk of everything you all donated is taxable and I need to cough that up by mid-year. There is a relief plan from the government due to the pandemic and I am hoping that I can count the pink panthers as "children." If that fails, I would appreciate a few more dollars donated using : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

I'm curious how tall your stands are? Need to be at least 24 inches high. Also how far from the rear and side wall you placed the speaker? Needs to be at least 2 feet. After living with these speakers for years I found your description of the sound to be spot on with them too close to the wall and too low below ear level.

 

[EL_PW]

I'm curious how tall your stands are? Need to be at least 24 inches high. Also how far from the rear and side wall you placed the speaker? Needs to be at least 2 feet. After living with these speakers for years I found your description of the sound to be spot on with them too close to the wall and too low below ear level.

I have the matching Revel stands which are 25" inches high. In the big & tall room I had them 3 feet out from the back wall and over 10 feet out from the sidewalls. Ceiling was A-frame about 20 feet high with the speakers arranged symmetrically in the geometry of the room. Carpeted floor with upholstered furniture and no wall or ceiling treatments. Room itself was about a 20 X 30 rectangle, so it was big enough and soft enough with the carpet and furniture to really crank the speakers up loud with no distortion though ears were always ringing afterwards. Filled the entire house with great sound. Now they sit under cover in my condo bedroom waiting for their chance to performa-gain one day.

 

[formula 977]

It is an extra cost license. I can do it with REW but that is a lot of hassle right now when I have so much more to test.

Is the IMD license purchase on the horizon? Something many would surely appreciate and even better-multitone.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Sorry guys. I'm still on this train of thought. I compared the 4 Revel bookshelves again. This time I'm interested in seeing the M22 vs M105 (arguably one of the best measuring bookshelves here) and it spurred on more questions about intepreting the In-room Response chart. See the graphic:
View attachment 89123

Howdy. The in room measure is not microscopic, it quite vague.
According to Toole's book it is for gauging general tonal trends and not super useful, he even goes so far as to suggest looking at in 1/1 full octave smoothing.
It contains almost no useful information and is the rough equivalent of the oversimplification that the old "40hrz-20khrz +-3db" type of spec provides.
It is also a prediction and not an actual measurement. There are detailed and actual measurements in spades in all of the reviews.

Anyway.
All other things being equal (room, placement, and so forth)Perceived neutral bass response is heavily influenced by playback SPL, dynamics, distortion characteristics and user preferences.
At lower and Medium SPL, the preferred balance ought to be different from high SPL.
Generally 10db increases in the Mid-band sounds twice as loud vs a 5db increase in bass sounding twice as loud. There some deviations in the highs as well.

In terms of your chart, 3db of extra bass at 50hrz is twice as much power and is easy to test out yourself if you have DSP. I find 3db down there very noticeable if one speaker has enough and one is lacking. I think the M22 actually has more like 6db over the M105 at 50hrz and 8-9db at 40hrz. I think this would be so obviously different nearly anyone would notice it unless your musical tastes are without bass content. (remember 5db down here is perceived as about TWICE as much bass - a lot more!
I have the M16 and the M126be. In my opinion and room and at the SPL I use for dedicated listening sessions, the M16 does sound a bit thick, it does not sound boomy. Maybe with a further boost in bass it could get to boomy but it is not there yet. The thickness is likely due to both the elevated response there and the fact that I don't think the woofer it uses can handle the same dynamic attack the woofer in the M126be can.
There is no question in my mind that the M126be 's woofer is superior to the M16's both by simply being a better driver and by being implimented in a superior design.
Bear in mind I like louder playback levels than some folks. At lower levels the M16 sounds super for what it is and bass wise and the boost does help balance the sound a little for background levels.
If a speaker is balanced just right at 80db average playback levels and it is turned up 10db, the mid-band is now about twice as loud and yet the bass would have been perceived as about twice as loud when turned up by only 5db.

You can also see how a speaker capable of very dynamic bass could be perceived as having more bass than a speaker that measures with "more" bass in a sweep. (provided you have the amp power available to feed dynamic passages, get big wattage amps)
This is especially true at higher volume listening if one driver not only has lower dynamic ability but is also reaching the point where it begins to compress or bottom out or exceed power handling ability and the other driver is not. Not to mention how well behaved the port is at high SPL, of which nothing in any of the published test here can demonstrate yet can be a real factor in a great enough vs stunning design.

In my space the tonal balance of the M16 is "thicker" than the M126be, yet the M126be has substantially more powerful sounding bass and much more dynamic sounding bass. It is not close.

It terms of details, I suspect many folks attach their perception of what is detailed to various traits hard to clump. It will be in the areas you pay the most attention to and may vary from session to session or with different speakers. Some will find the dip in the 2k area helps them relax and may make the overall sound more detailed as they can listen in, other will find it sounds distant and so for on and on with many variations of slight preferences revealed. Much of this is also very content dependent.
It will also depend on the person's mind processing the direct and reflected energy and we all likely do this a bit differently. The direct sound of the M22 does not have the dip. Plus the Floor and ceiling reflections have a very debatable influence. The sidewalls and front wall have a less debatable influence.
So
For example in my room my KEF R3's have a similar dip in the in room energy capture, yet they sound quite detailed in their own way as they are very easy to listen deeply into. The M16's don't have the dip but they also sound very detailed as there is something about the way they spread the high frequencies in the space that draws my attention there.

 

[hyfynut]

I have the matching Revel stands which are 25" inches high. In the big & tall room I had them 3 feet out from the back wall and over 10 feet out from the sidewalls. Ceiling was A-frame about 20 feet high with the speakers arranged symmetrically in the geometry of the room. Carpeted floor with upholstered furniture and no wall or ceiling treatments. Room itself was about a 20 X 30 rectangle, so it was big enough and soft enough with the carpet and furniture to really crank the speakers up loud with no distortion though ears were always ringing afterwards. Filled the entire house with great sound. Now they sit under cover in my condo bedroom waiting for their chance to performa-gain one day.

That's the experience I had with the speakers once well placed however my question was directed at Amirm.

 

[eddantes]

Howdy. The in room measure is not microscopic, it quite vague.
According to Toole's book it is for gauging general tonal trends and not super useful, he even goes so far as to suggest looking at in 1/1 full octave smoothing.
It contains almost no useful information and is the rough equivalent of the oversimplification that the old "40hrz-20khrz +-3db" type of spec provides.
It is also a prediction and not an actual measurement. There are detailed and actual measurements in spades in all of the reviews.

Anyway.
All other things being equal (room, placement, and so forth)Perceived neutral bass response is heavily influenced by playback SPL, dynamics, distortion characteristics and user preferences.
At lower and Medium SPL, the preferred balance ought to be different from high SPL.
Generally 10db increases in the Mid-band sounds twice as loud vs a 5db increase in bass sounding twice as loud. There some deviations in the highs as well.

In terms of your chart, 3db of extra bass at 50hrz is twice as much power and is easy to test out yourself if you have DSP. I find 3db down there very noticeable if one speaker has enough and one is lacking. I think the M22 actually has more like 6db over the M105 at 50hrz and 8-9db at 40hrz. I think this would be so obviously different nearly anyone would notice it unless your musical tastes are without bass content. (remember 5db down here is perceived as about TWICE as much bass - a lot more!
I have the M16 and the M126be. In my opinion and room and at the SPL I use for dedicated listening sessions, the M16 does sound a bit thick, it does not sound boomy. Maybe with a further boost in bass it could get to boomy but it is not there yet. The thickness is likely due to both the elevated response there and the fact that I don't think the woofer it uses can handle the same dynamic attack the woofer in the M126be can.
There is no question in my mind that the M126be 's woofer is superior to the M16's both by simply being a better driver and by being implimented in a superior design.
Bear in mind I like louder playback levels than some folks. At lower levels the M16 sounds super for what it is and bass wise and the boost does help balance the sound a little for background levels.
If a speaker is balanced just right at 80db average playback levels and it is turned up 10db, the mid-band is now about twice as loud and yet the bass would have been perceived as about twice as loud when turned up by only 5db.

You can also see how a speaker capable of very dynamic bass could be perceived as having more bass than a speaker that measures with "more" bass in a sweep. (provided you have the amp power available to feed dynamic passages, get big wattage amps)
This is especially true at higher volume listening if one driver not only has lower dynamic ability but is also reaching the point where it begins to compress or bottom out or exceed power handling ability and the other driver is not. Not to mention how well behaved the port is at high SPL, of which nothing in any of the published test here can demonstrate yet can be a real factor in a great enough vs stunning design.

In my space the tonal balance of the M16 is "thicker" than the M126be, yet the M126be has substantially more powerful sounding bass and much more dynamic sounding bass. It is not close.

It terms of details, I suspect many folks attach their perception of what is detailed to various traits hard to clump. It will be in the areas you pay the most attention to and may vary from session to session or with different speakers. Some will find the dip in the 2k area helps them relax and may make the overall sound more detailed as they can listen in, other will find it sounds distant and so for on and on with many variations of slight preferences revealed. Much of this is also very content dependent.
It will also depend on the person's mind processing the direct and reflected energy and we all likely do this a bit differently. The direct sound of the M22 does not have the dip. Plus the Floor and ceiling reflections have a very debatable influence. The sidewalls and front wall have a less debatable influence.
So
For example in my room my KEF R3's have a similar dip in the in room energy capture, yet they sound quite detailed in their own way as they are very easy to listen deeply into. The M16's don't have the dip but they also sound very detailed as there is something about the way they spread the high frequencies in the space that draws my attention there.

I think the brightness of a speaker has to do with the "fitted trend line" of the curve. Looking at the old charts (fitted quickly by eye - but the gist is probably OK)

M22 is the flatest (brightest), M16 steepest (thickest), and M105 (...just riiiight?)... The rest of the curve features, I'm not sure I'm able to hear anyways (not too resolving an ear).

So since posting these questions, I've come to the conclusion that the PIR slope (and the low-end extension) is all I (me) can reliably take from these charts. Also, since then I've picked up F35s and I much prefer them to M22s... So... In the end - all this finesse is lost on this barbarian.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I think the brightness of a speaker has to do with the "fitted trend line" of the curve. Looking at the old charts (fitted quickly by eye - but the gist is probably OK)

View attachment 203925

M22 is the flatest (brightest), M16 steepest (thickest), and M105 (...just riiiight?)... The rest of the curve features, I'm not sure I'm able to hear anyways (not too resolving an ear).

So since posting these questions, I've come to the conclusion that the PIR slope (and the low-end extension) is all I (me) can reliably take from these charts. Also, since then I've picked up F35s and I much prefer them to M22s... So... In the end - all this finesse is lost on this barbarian.

No the brightness of the speaker is dependent on several variables and the PIR simply can not answer that question with good speakers.
All of the speakers listed here have the potential not to sound bright not to mention the M22 has adjustable treble.

This PIR on shows you the predicted Steady State Sound equilibrium. That is all.
This was discussed as well in the other Revel thread so check those replies out again if you want.
All we really know about PIR/or actual in room measurements, is that some amount of downward slope from the bass toward treble is usually desirable as speakers that measure well in Anechoic conditions have a downward Steady State energy slope in typical rooms.
Well measuring speakers might fall at 0.4db/octave or 1.2db/octave and yet either speaker might sound just right.
There are many contributing factors, the PIR chart itself is not a contributing factor merely a way to show that perhaps a speaker has good anechoic measurements, but since we have those measurements then looking at the PIR becomes a novelty.
Of all the things to look at here the PIR is bottom of the barrel stuff. Not saying I don't look, but it is a novelty chart and not a heavyweight contender chart.

This is a forest for the trees situation.