-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Revel Salon2 vs Genelec 8351B - Blind Test Preparations
- Thread starter echopraxia
- Start date
Verrrry impressive! Looks to me like Apple put some serious acoustic and psychoustic horsepower into their design effort. Their response curve is remarkably smooth over the region where Sausalito claims to gather good data. Also, there are three frequency regions where ime a little bit of dippage is arguably beneficial, and Apple is dipping just a little bit in two of those three regions.
I bet it sounds pretty darn good for what it is.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
THAT is scary!!
KaiserSoze
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2020
- Messages
- 699
- Likes
- 592
Dispersion is a well-defined, fully substantive concept that is readily quantifiable. Measurements of dispersion are readily reproducible. You say in effect that the Quad is not excessively directional because when used in stereo paired configuration it isn't so obvious that the dispersion is poor, and that instead, the inherently poor dispersion is perceived as enhanced imaging. Perhaps, but I would not be inclined to look at things this way. I suppose that the superior imaging would be due to the fact that the early reflections are weaker, in relation to the direct sound of course. Perhaps this is desirable, i.e., perhaps it is desirable for the sound to sound as though it is all coming directly from the speaker, but to my experience nearly all speakers sound like this no matter how strong the early reflections. (Anyone who takes exception to my take on imaging is asked to explain to me how to measure imaging, and how to do it in a manner such that the results are inherently reproducible.) The effect that I'm certain I'd more likely notice is that whenever my listening location is directly in front of one speaker and off to the side from the other one, the mismatch in tonality for the two speakers will be blatant. This effect will be conspicuous throughout much of the room, pretty much everywhere except for the "sweet spot" which isn't gonna be big. I remember the first time I ever heard a pair of Quads, in the '80s, and what I remember about the experience is that I noticed this effect immediately and was taken by surprise. I was so surprised by it (and bothered by it) that I walked in circles around the speakers for a while.
Last edited:
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Indeed.
It's interesting what economies of scale + Apple R&D budget + superior software can do.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
More info:
In the garage gym, I used to use 2 x Genelec 8330A, a Focusrite interface, and a Raspberry Pi for streaming.
Replaced all of that with a Home Pod.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #228
Some more subjective impressions (again I’m just posting these because the actual blind test won’t likely happen for a while, since when I do it I will want to do it as correctly as possible, informed also by the discussions here):
Subjectively and in sighted comparisons, it is honestly really hard to choose a winner now as I branch out to more modern and synthetic music. I think the soundstage width/depth advantage of the Revels give them a clear advantage on some songs, but with more modern music and EDM style tracks, I am finding the Genelec are more often preferred.
On some songs with a lot of environmental spaciousness built into the recording, I think the Genelecs comes close to the soundstage size of the Revel Salon2’s, but while maintaining more precise pinpoint imaging and perhaps a more crystal clear sound in general.
My current impression is that the Genelec’s are more versatile, and superior in most ways aside from the soundstage and obviously bass extension. But the latter (bass extension) doesn’t entirely count as a victory, since you can buy a matching Genelec sub and still be under budget vs the Salon2’s. And I think one could argue that the Salon2’s soundstage is almost artificially enlarged to create a width and depth not necessarily accurate to the recording (though in practice, this may be preferred regardless, depending on the content and listener preference), although it doesn’t really lose much if anything in the process so I definitely consider it an advantage.
Bottom line is, if someone asked me right now which of these speakers to buy, and I knew nothing else about their situation, room, music preferences, etc. I would recommend the Genelec 8351B without hesitation over the Salon2. Part of this is because they’re better value per dollar, but also I think they’re a bit more versatile and universally likely to get great results, in addition to the convenience of relative compactness despite so much power capability.
Of course this doesn’t change what I said about the Salon2 sounding better on some songs, however as I listen more and more I start to think that over a wide diversity of music, the Genelec probably pulls ahead overall.
Take this all with a grain of salt since these are all sighted impressions. However, I also do see just how important music selection is on the outcome of tests. I understand also the criticisms of blind tests in general given that they are necessarily using a small set of test tracks. That can vary the results quite a lot depending on which tracks are chosen, perhaps more so than any other factor. What I am learning about these over time as I listen in the same room would be very hard to capture in any arbitrary blind test, because of the diversity and sheer volume of music you have to go through to get the full picture of how versatile each speaker is.
Subjectively and in sighted comparisons, it is honestly really hard to choose a winner now as I branch out to more modern and synthetic music. I think the soundstage width/depth advantage of the Revels give them a clear advantage on some songs, but with more modern music and EDM style tracks, I am finding the Genelec are more often preferred.
On some songs with a lot of environmental spaciousness built into the recording, I think the Genelecs comes close to the soundstage size of the Revel Salon2’s, but while maintaining more precise pinpoint imaging and perhaps a more crystal clear sound in general.
My current impression is that the Genelec’s are more versatile, and superior in most ways aside from the soundstage and obviously bass extension. But the latter (bass extension) doesn’t entirely count as a victory, since you can buy a matching Genelec sub and still be under budget vs the Salon2’s. And I think one could argue that the Salon2’s soundstage is almost artificially enlarged to create a width and depth not necessarily accurate to the recording (though in practice, this may be preferred regardless, depending on the content and listener preference), although it doesn’t really lose much if anything in the process so I definitely consider it an advantage.
Bottom line is, if someone asked me right now which of these speakers to buy, and I knew nothing else about their situation, room, music preferences, etc. I would recommend the Genelec 8351B without hesitation over the Salon2. Part of this is because they’re better value per dollar, but also I think they’re a bit more versatile and universally likely to get great results, in addition to the convenience of relative compactness despite so much power capability.
Of course this doesn’t change what I said about the Salon2 sounding better on some songs, however as I listen more and more I start to think that over a wide diversity of music, the Genelec probably pulls ahead overall.
Take this all with a grain of salt since these are all sighted impressions. However, I also do see just how important music selection is on the outcome of tests. I understand also the criticisms of blind tests in general given that they are necessarily using a small set of test tracks. That can vary the results quite a lot depending on which tracks are chosen, perhaps more so than any other factor. What I am learning about these over time as I listen in the same room would be very hard to capture in any arbitrary blind test, because of the diversity and sheer volume of music you have to go through to get the full picture of how versatile each speaker is.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
- Messages
- 4,337
- Likes
- 6,709
Wow. This really clicks with me. Perhaps there is an optimal amount of reflections. I've always read the Toole science and interpreted it to believe that wider is better. But, that's always led me to wonder why omni speakers like those from Ohm or MBL aren't preferred over Revel. Perhaps there is an optimal amount of reflections, and more is not always better.
Assuming there is an optimal amount of spaciousness(regardless of the number of channels), it would make sense that the widest dispersion designs would be preferred in mono, as no mono speaker could reach the spaciousness "limit". But, in a 7(or 11) channel system, the widest dispersion designs may be well beyond the optimal amount of reflections, while the narrow dispersion designs may be still very close.
Last edited:
Unfortunately if there is an optimum amount of reflections, I don't think it's "one size fits all". I think the "optimum" depends on the room acoustics and varies with the time interval between the direct sound and the "center of gravity" of the reflections, or maybe between the direct sound and the "strong onset" of reflections. These in turn vary with room size and (to a certain extent) with listener and speaker placement. That being said, I still think loudspeaker radiation patterns are the place to start.
The (in)famous shoot-out where the Salon2 beat the M2 was mono-a-mono. Might the result have been different in stereo? I don't know... I haven't actually heard the M2 but its curve LOOKS to me like it has a little bit more top-end energy than I like, while I don't think the Revel does, and my recollection is that some listeners were apparently picking up on this.
Last edited:
KaiserSoze
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2020
- Messages
- 699
- Likes
- 592
I can't see how it makes good fundamental sense to compare two speakers that are vastly different in terms of displaced volume at low bass frequency. The total woofer diaphragm area of the Genelec is roughly comparable to one of the Revel's three 8" woofers. Given that these two speakers both have extremely flat frequency responses from mid-bass all the way up, there can be little doubt that the most noticeable difference by far will be the difference in deep bass. You'll probably end up contrasting them by way of a bunch of nebulous, subjective whatever that isn't reproducible because it isn't properly quantified. Seems like the makings of a good article for the Journal of Irreproducible Results.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Well...
Once you get to a certain level of engineering excellence, it's mostly about preference as opposed to clear cut winners or good vs bad.
There is no perfect speaker, so at some point of high quality it just becomes a matter of picking your compromises.
I wouldn't expect a listening test to change that outcome much.
Does anyone have the reference for the original paper on this (not a textbook excerpt)? This does not make intuitive sense to me. A surrogate test cannot be more accurate than the gold standard, by definition. So I'd like to read it for myself to learn.
I wonder what an active/DSP/Powered Salon2 would sound like ?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #235
Why do you think blind tests, e.g. such as those performed by Harman, are ”nebulous subjective whatever” good for “the Journal of Irreproducible Results”? It seems you are confused about something. Either way, this is not the place for that discussion, unless you have something specifically constructive to add.
Last edited:
I think the textbook excerpt is from one of these papers, but my AES membership is expired so I can't tell you which one.
Toole, F. E. (1985). “Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener Preferences,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., 33, pp. 2–31.
Toole, F. E. (1986). “Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., 34, pt. 1, pp. 227–235; pt. 2, pp. 323–348.
If you are able to take a look, I'd be interested in your analysis.
It's not a surrogate test. It's just the order of speaker preference remains whether the test is performed mono or stereo.
Again this video encompasses much of the fundamentals of the research. Tooles book obviously goes into more detail.
Last edited:
Are you SURE about that?
I think I can show at least one change in the order of speaker preference, within the extremely limited data we have access to:
On the Rega, Sound Quality stays the same and Spatial Quality goes up in Stereo.
On the KEF, Sound Quality goes down very slightly in Stereo, look very closely at the relative height of its black block compared to the Rega's, though I doubt this is statistically significant. But now look at Spatial Quality: In Stereo, the KEF overtakes the Rega in Spatial Quality. So there we have an example of a change in the order of speaker preference.
On the Quad, the Sound Quality score improves greatly and the Spatial Quality score improves enormously in Stereo, though not enough to overtake either the Rega or the KEF. Would the Quad have passed up speakers whose Mono scores were lower than those of the Rega and KEF? Without more data, we don't know. I think it is possible, and I think you disagree, but I could be wrong on both counts.
Finally, let's go back to Rega and KEF. If the overall ranking is based on the sum of Sound Quality and Spatial Quality (as is suggested by Klippel, whose paper is cited in Toole's book), again we see a change in the order of speaker preference: In Mono the Rega's combined score clearly exceeds that of second-place KEF, but in Stereo the combined scores for Rega and KEF are TIED.
In the category of Sound Quality, there is no change in ranking from Mono to Stereo within this sample size of three. I speculate that this sample size is too small to reliably conclude that the order of speaker preference does not change from Mono to Stereo in this category, and too small to conclude that it sometimes does.
Last edited:
Similar threads
