Revel Performa 3 vs ML Electromotion ESL - comparative measurements

[amirm]

From the dictionary:
data
/ˈdeɪtə/
noun
Facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

What you shared wass neither fact nor stastics but a "hear say" from a Harman employee/company. As I created this topic allow me to say this is not what I had in mind to be shared here.

That comment had nothing to do with your thread. It was a discussion of which Revel speaker sounded better and I happen to know the person who had double blind listening tests of the same. Your flippant answer was rude, unhelpful and not data. If you care about your thread, stay professional, think if every post has meaningful data to membership and above all, don't piss on your host's food.

 

[Krunok]

That comment had nothing to do with your thread. It was a discussion of which Revel speaker sounded better and I happen to know the person who had double blind listening tests of the same. Your flippant answer was rude, unhelpful and not data. If you care about your thread, stay professional, think if every post has meaningful data to membership and above all, don't piss on your host's food.

As that person was Technical Director at Harman I am pretty sure he is not in a position to claim anything else but that flagship model would "smoke" midrange model otherwise he would loose his job in a moment. And again, what he told you is "hear say", not facts, so not data.

I also don't think it is fair from you, as a Harman dealer, to post any Harman's data about MLs in this topic. The same would go for a ML dealer.

As we obviously stated our opinions I believe there is no need to repeat ourselves, so, if you don't mind, let us all continue discussion on topic as I'm pretty sure nobody here is interested to read further discussion between you and me, nor I have anything more to say about your posts of Harman "data".

 

[amirm]

As that person was Technical Director at Harman I am pretty sure he is not in a position to claim anything else but that flagship model would "smoke" midrange model otherwise he would loose his job in a moment. And again, what he told you is "hear say", not facts, so not data.

That is your pessimistic view which you can hold not knowing me, or Kevin. I have participated in Harman's double blind tests twice and could at any time ask to do it again with any choice of speakers. On top of my personal relationship with Kevin and the fact that he knows I know this field well, it would make your assertion very unlikely. But yes, you can hold that view. You just can't be rude and flippant about it. It is not like you have any data of your own. All you are presenting is FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

It is also unlikely that Harman would build a $10,000 speaker which would obsolete their $22,000 one.

All of this is information for members to consider. What you have presented is nothing in regards to sound of F208 relative to Salon 2. This is a problem especially in this context:

Unfortunately I never had a chance to listen Revels, but I have to admit they measure really well and they have been appraised by many reviewers, surely for good reasons.

Then stand back and listen to people who not only have heard these speakers, but have studied the research, talked to designers, attended blind tests, know the researchers, etc.

 

[Krunok]

That is your pessimistic view which you can hold not knowing me, or Kevin. I have participated in Harman's double blind tests twice and could at any time ask to do it again with any choice of speakers. On top of my personal relationship with Kevin and the fact that he knows I know this field well, it would make your assertion very unlikely. But yes, you can hold that view. You just can't be rude and flippant about it. It is not like you have any data of your own. All you are presenting is FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

It is also unlikely that Harman would build a $10,000 speaker which would obsolete their $22,000 one.

All of this is information for members to consider. What you have presented is nothing in regards to sound of F208 relative to Salon 2. This is a problem especially in this context:



Then stand back and listen to people who not only have heard these speakers, but have studied the research, talked to designers, attended blind tests, know the researchers, etc.

This sounds really funny coming from an "expert" who never posted a single measurements of his Harman speakers. I remember seeing numerous measurements of MLs posted by @RayDunzl , more than a few of JLBs posted by @mitchco and @dallasjustice, but none of you and your Harmans. Which doesn't really surprise me as you admitted you have no idea how to check the correction effects of Dirac Live.

Ok, you managed to ruin ths thread instead of moderating/developing the discussion further, but then, considering that enormous ego of yours that also comes as no surprise. Enjoy yourself and your forum..

 

[Juhazi]

Do the curved ML have different dispersion front and rear? That's the point of the curved panel isn't it.

Perhaps not the point of design, but for sure backside dispersion is different (might be better!) I haven't seen measurements anywhere.

I spent half an hour to make a collasche of Stereophile's in-room measurements of Revels and Martin Logans. This is what I found - and looks like ML's room response is smoother than quasi-anechoic and for Revels it is vice versa! Just pick your poison!

We can't generalize ML's response and impression to all dipole panels or all dipoles! And same for Revels!

 

[andreasmaaan]

This is what I found - and looks like ML's room response is smoother than quasi-anechoic and for Revels it is vice versa! Just pick your poison!

I think it's also worth noting though that the Revels' responses are generally smoother than the MLs both quasi-anechoically and in-room. Not sure I'd call that picking a poison...

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Re: the discussion of F208Be vs Salon 2, if there is any department in which the Salon is likely to be audibly superior, I'd say it's in the 1.5-2KHz region, where the F208 (and presumably the F208Be, which to my knowledge uses the same cone midrange) exhibits a 2-3dB dip on-axis, which is there to compensate for the driver's off-axis peak in the same frequency range. Not a huge flaw, but one that may be audible IMO.

The midrange drivers in the Salon2, the F208 and the F228Be are all quite different in cone material and in most other design specs. They also measure differently but more subtly so.

 

[andreasmaaan]

The midrange drivers in the Salon2, the F208 and the F228Be are all quite different in cone material and in most other design specs. They also measure differently but more subtly so.

Thanks. I was aware it was a different cone on the Salon 2, but had thought the 208 and 208Be shared the same one as they are described identically on the Revel website.

Good to know.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Thanks. I was aware it was a different cone on the Salon 2, but had thought the 208 and 208Be shared the same one as they are described identically on the Revel website.

First, there is no 208Be, only a 208 and a 228Be. Why that is so, I do not know.
Second, the cone materials are titanium in the Salon2, aluminum in the F208 and Ceramic Composite Aluminum in the F228Be. Descriptions taken from the Revel website.

 

[Blumlein 88]

A stupid human tricks kind of experiment I've done. Using Tact REQ I used a Soundlab Aura (like an A3) on one channel and a Hales System Two Signature speaker on the other. The Hales is a MTM sealed box speaker. This was in a long narrow room. 12 ft (3.7 m) x 28ft (8.5 m) room.

Surprisingly, it sounded just fine. Imaging was good at least in when near the sweet spot. I thought it didn't sound quite like either speaker, but I used them this way for a couple weeks. Others didn't notice any glaring mismatch either, and were surprised.

Measurements of the Hales.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/hales-audio-system-two-signature-loudspeaker-measurements

Measurements of an A1 which is slightly larger than the Aura.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/sound-lab-1-electrostatic-loudspeaker-measurements

Hales horizontal dispersion.

Soundlab A1 horizontal dispersion.

So not sure what this tells us. But it is interesting.

BTW here is a Tact in room Quasi-anechoic type measurement of the Soundlab. This is prior to correction.

 

[Juhazi]

Now that other panels have been mentioned, I must say that I have heard a pair of Soundlab 845 panels in a rather narrow and well damped room. Balance was good and soundstage, imaging good and airy despite the backwave was practically blocked. One special feature was that when I stood up, sound image rose accordingly, which was a bit strange. I guess ML panels have this same feature. It is not disturbing, just special. I took quickie spot measurements too, but didn't save them.

 

[andreasmaaan]

First, there is no 208Be, only a 208 and a 228Be. Why that is so, I do not know.
Second, the cone materials are titanium in the Salon2, aluminum in the F208 and Ceramic Composite Aluminum in the F228Be. Descriptions taken from the Revel website.

God knows what I was looking at when I reached my previous conclusion