Revel M22 Speaker Review

[jonfitch]

Thanks for the review, and the measurements make sense to my personal experience as a former M20 and M22 owner. The Many Revel owners feel the M20 was the much better speaker as the M22 sounded a bit on the brighter side due the 4K peak. There was definitely some regression in tonality from Perfoma to Performa2, in addition to Performa2 being lighter in general in construction.

 

[Haint]

The subjective listening tests seem to suffer from undamped / strong side reflections and possibly cancellation in the bass and low mids from the front wall, this in combination with no backwall / open to a large space can easily give a bright sound it seems to me (hence the subjective preference for waveguided speakers which have a dark off-axis) that is not representative of an average listening room, let alone a quality dedicated audio room. Do you by any chance have an unsmoothed not eq-ed measurement at listening position?

With that said, I'm still at loss why this Revel speaker would get a recomendation and no negative annotations while the very similar (and perhaps slightly better overall) Zaph Audio ZA5.2 gets a bad review / annotations / recomendation.

Beyond the subjective listening impressions, low sensitivity, and logistical issues of building the speaker (which I believe factor into Amirm's reviews), the M16 is still an objectively better speaker. Note the DI's, Reflection, and SP curves. The M16's preference score is probably dragged down quite a bit by the seemingly intentional (but easily correctable) bass hump. Correcting the bass hump and slightly adjusting the axis to improve the 5Khz hump would likely make it near an 8.0 or higher speaker in the preference scale w/Sub.

*Edit* My mistake JustIntonation, disregard, I thought I was in the M16 thread.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Sure, but the choice of vertical plane is arbitrary. Rotate the circle along any axis and you will have precisely the same mess

Might be some of the wording here, but the CBTs we see implemented today are an approximation. The CBT arc is a slice of a sphere and is really the sphere soundfield that is being emulated.

If any of you are really interested in the details, check out Keele's CBT Chronicles on youtube:

 

[Rick Sykora]

Beyond the subjective listening impressions, low sensitivity, and logistical issues of building the speaker (which I believe factor into Amirm's reviews), the M16 is still an objectively better speaker. Note the DI's, Reflection, and SP curves. The M16's preference score is probably dragged down quite a bit by the seemingly intentional (but easily correctable) bass hump. Correcting the bass hump and slightly adjusting the axis to improve the 5Khz hump would likely make it near an 8.0 or higher speaker in the preference scale w/Sub.

There are some context issues with your post...

@JustIntonation refers to "this" speaker (presumably the M22 as this is the review thread for it) and you are talking about the M16. In any case, I think the comments are more about the comparable measurements. Much more than that and should really consider whether there is a value proposition that comes into play?

 

[Haint]

There are some context issues with your post...

@JustIntonation refers to "this" speaker (presumably the M22 as this is the review thread for it) and you are talking about the M16. In any case, I think the comments are more about the comparable measurements. Much more than that and should really consider whether there is a value proposition that comes into play.

Oh that was my mistake, I lost track of which thread I was in.

 

[McFly]

This thread derailed

 

[Rick Sykora]

"This" speaker is not only discontinued, but seemingly disowned? Am not that familiar with Revel, but my impression was that it is a premier speaker brand. If I got a reasonable discount when bought new, would expect that I could go somewhere to get factory service?

If I go to the current website, there is no mention that the m22 was ever produced. Is this a channel to market difference or something else that explains why such a pricey speaker appears orphaned by the manufacturer?

 

[BYRTT]

Comparison charts below of these discussed 2-way 6,5 inchers stand mount/bookshelf speakers, including impedance curves and some say ideal target curves ...

 

[andreasmaaan]

Might be some of the wording here, but the CBTs we see implemented today are an approximation. The CBT arc is a slice of a sphere and is really the sphere soundfield that is being emulated.

The CBT arc is a slice of a spherical cap, not a whole sphere.

See: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9122

Or, to put it in more pragmatic terms, how could one implement Legendre shading over the surface of a whole sphere?

 

[andreasmaaan]

With that said, I'm still at loss why this Revel speaker would get a recomendation and no negative annotations while the very similar (and perhaps slightly better overall) Zaph Audio ZA5.2 gets a bad review / annotations / recomendation.

Completely agree with you there. The Zaph speaker costs less, measures better, and gets a higher preference rating, yet gets a more critical/negative review.

 

[amirm]

"This" speaker is not only discontinued, but seemingly disowned? Am not that familiar with Revel, but my impression was that it is a premier speaker brand. If I got a reasonable discount when bought new, would expect that I could go somewhere to get factory service?

If I go to the current website, there is no mention that the m22 was ever produced. Is this a channel to market difference or something else that explains why such a pricey speaker appears orphaned by the manufacturer?

Nah. It is just the terrible Harman website at fault.

 

[Rick Sykora]

The CBT arc is a slice of a spherical cap, not a whole sphere.

See: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9122

Or, to put it in more pragmatic terms, how could one implement Legendre shading over the surface of a whole sphere?

Just a matter of how you slice it...

Have not seen, but suspect the navy research folks implemented over a larger surface area. From Keele, I understood there was a point of diminishing returns, so more sphere may not equate to better sound. In any case, if we want to continue, there is a thread for CBT stuff here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/constant-beamwidth-transducer-cbt-speakers.12060

 

[Rick Sykora]

Nah. It is just the terrible Harman website at fault.

ok, but looked at the m16 as it is current Revel product and saw no mention of warranty coverage. Is this because it is sold through custom installers or ?

 

[amirm]

ok, but looked at the m16 as it is current Revel product and saw no mention of warranty coverage. Is this because it is sold through custom installers or ?

Nah. It is just the terrible Harman website at fault.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Just a matter of how you slice it...

Have not seen, but suspect the navy research folks implemented over a larger surface area. From Keele, I understood there was a point of diminishing returns, so more sphere may not equate to better sound. In any case, if we want to continue, there is a thread for CBT stuff here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/constant-beamwidth-transducer-cbt-speakers.12060

CBT can be implemented over a large surface area, sure

But the arc can be no greater than 180° in order for it to function (although functioning begins to deteriorate well before 180° is reached). This is not a case of diminishing returns, but rather a case of the CBT's ability to function at all.

 

[vkvedam]

@amirm Thanks for the review! What do you drive the speakers with in general for the subjective tests? Care to share your chain? Regards, Ven

 

[eddantes]

@amirm I'm sorry I'm waking up an ancient thread but I am wondering how to interpret estimated in-room response charts. So i was messing around with speaker explorer when I noticed that DBR62 and M22 are pretty darn close on the chart, but your subjective impression was very different. So it leads me to ask - is the in-room chart not a good comparitor?

And yet you subjectively felt the DBR was: "Balanced sound with tons of detail. Bass output was impressive."

Whilst, the M22 was: "First reaction was a clean sound that was a bit bright with little "bottom end.""

Should I focus on other charts instead, cause after being here for a while it seemed to me that this was a chart that was most meaningful. Or am I missing something else. Thanks in advance - just learning.

PS forgot to add - does it matter about absolute DBs in the spin chart? I figured if one was 85ish and the other 83ish - it just means one needs to turn up the volume a bit, right? Or is it a variable thing where at low volume one speaker is more bassy and at high volume - the other is.

 

[jonfitch]

@amirm I'm sorry I'm waking up an ancient thread but I am wondering how to interpret estimated in-room response charts. So i was messing around with speaker explorer when I noticed that DBR62 and M22 are pretty darn close on the chart, but your subjective impression was very different. So it leads me to ask - is the in-room chart not a good comparitor?

View attachment 89049

And yet you subjectively felt the DBR was: "Balanced sound with tons of detail. Bass output was impressive."

Whilst, the M22 was: "First reaction was a clean sound that was a bit bright with little "bottom end.""

Should I focus on other charts instead, cause after being here for a while it seemed to me that this was a chart that was most meaningful. Or am I missing something else. Thanks in advance - just learning.

PS forgot to add - does it matter about absolute DBs in the spin chart? I figured if one was 85ish and the other 83ish - it just means one needs to turn up the volume a bit, right? Or is it a variable thing where at low volume one speaker is more bassy and at high volume - the other is.

The sound power and reflections all have that rising treble response on the M22, which will contribute to the sense of brighter sound. Also apparent bass extension can be masked by brightness. Speakers with narrower dispersion tend to sound punchier in the bass even if the amplitude and extension is inferior to a brighter speaker. A good example is KEF speakers with the Uni-Q tend to sound punchier in the bass even compared to speakers with deeper extension and bass amplitude, like Revel, in the classic LS50 vs M105 comparison, pretty much everyone I know thinks the LS50 (blue) is a bassier, punchier speaker, in direct head to head blind tests, even though all the measurements support the M105 (red) with deeper extension.

I recently did a h2h matchup between Revel Gem2, Revel M105, and LS50 with some friends. Even though the bass extension looked like this Gem 2 > M105 > LS50, the participants all seemed to think the actual bass performance was LS50 > M105 > Gem 2, the opposite order, but also in reverse order of the brightness of the speakers. That makes me think speakers with wider dispersion and flatter treble response (instead of declining) tend to mask bass performance relative narrower directivity and/or more laid back speakers.

 

[andreasmaaan]

@eddantes, it's the on-axis response that is most important to perceived tonal balance in the midrange and treble, although in-room response is also very important.

Anyway, it's this part of the chart where there are the most differences and which clearly would account for differences in perceived "brightness".

That's also the region in which our hearing is most sensitive, i.e. relatively small differences in the mid-treble tend to make a big subjective difference.

The differences in perceived bass are a bit harder to explain, although one possible explanation may be the relatively elevated treble of the M22 meant that Amir was locking onto the treble as the reference and perceiving the bass and lower midrange to be recessed in relation to it.

Also ofc, keep in mind that the listening impressions are sighted - not only with the speakers in sight, but also their measurements

Should I focus on other charts instead, cause after being here for a while it seemed to me that this was a chart that was most meaningful.

Absolutely!

 

[eddantes]

I see. So an important aspect to consider when using the speaker explorer is to imagine the overall sound balance of the speaker? So an M16 which has a pronounced slope (100hz to 20khz) will sound (be perceived) even MORE bassier than a m106 for example, and MUCH MORE than the m22. Is that correct?

BTW - i thought of another thing... M22s have a switch on the back to adjust tweeter level. So does that mean that at -1db for the tweeter they'd sound bassier?