Which Revel Speakers to Choose

[echopraxia]

It's interesting that some here have indicated treble differences between the various Revel models.

This really shouldn't be the case since they all use the same tweeter and midrange (M106 aside).

There might be a difference in performance around the xover point with M106 due to the bigger mid driver, but the others seem to measure identically except in the bass.

No, I’m speaking purely of measurements. Revel F206 seems to be an outlier in the Performa3 line, and measures worse than all of them:

F206:

vs F208:

In fact, everything throughout the mids and treble on the F208 are exceptionally flat, whereas on the F206 there are a lot of peaks and valleys. Nothing I would call bad, of course, but still not on par with the others including the M105.

I cannot say how the others sound, but all I can say is the F206 treble and upper mids were underwhelming, when compared against my Neumann and Ascend speakers at the time. And this seems to be backed up by measurements.

 

[edechamps]

There is nothing inherently wrong with towers in a small room.

Other than cost optimization, there are little to no inherent advantages to bookshelves.

I don't think that's true in general. Tower speakers are larger. Simply due their size, they require a longer listening distance for proper far-field integration. (That's true even if the drivers are close together, because the enclosure itself is also a sound source.) See Toole, 3rd edition, section 10.5.1 (page 295). This leads to the conclusion that, far-field response being equal, when sitting close to the speakers (say, less than 3 meters), it is quite possible for a given bookshelf speaker to have a better perceived response than a tower simply because it is smaller.

I currently listen ~1 meter away from my Genelec 8030 speakers. I would actively resist replacing these speakers with significantly larger ones because that would make me anxious that I would not get the proper intended far-field response of the speaker anymore.

 

[echopraxia]

I don't think that's true in general. Tower speakers are larger. Simply due their size, they require a longer listening distance for proper far-field integration. (That's true even if the drivers are close together, because the enclosure itself is also a sound source.) See Toole, 3rd edition, section 10.5.1 (page 295). This leads to the conclusion that, far-field response being equal, when sitting close to the speakers (say, less than 3 meters), it is quite possible for a given bookshelf speaker to have a better perceived response than a tower simply because it is smaller.

I currently listen ~1 meter away from my Genelec 8030 speakers. I would actively resist replacing these speakers with significantly larger ones because that would make me anxious that I would not get the proper intended far-field response of the speaker anymore.

Along these lines, I think the height adjustability point can also be considered an inherent sound quality advantage of bookshelf speakers in the near field as well, since you can adjust the tweeter axis to be the optimal height — which matters a lot for near field. So I do concede this point regarding near-field listening.

For far field listening though, I’m still not convinced there are any inherent sound quality advantages to bookshelf speakers other than the cost optimization advantages mentioned above. I do agree that other than sound quality advantages, there are a number of practical advantages (e.g. easier to carry, sell, transport, etc.)

To clarify the logical point I was thinking, let me give you an example: Imagine we have Genelec 8351B’s stacked on W371A’s. When the W371A’s are running, we can consider this effectively a tower speaker. When the W371A’s are bypassed, we have effectively a bookshelf on large rectangular block stands. Is there any sound quality advantage to deactivating the W371A like this? If not, then we have shown that there is no advantage here to bookshelf vs tower. But if there happened to be some sound quality advantage to turning the W371A’s off, we can do that too... and now we still have no sound quality disadvantage vs just bookshelves, by technicality (i.e. towers in this sense can be considered a superset of a bookshelf speaker’s functionality).

I suppose the only exception to this would be if 8351B’s would sound better when on thin pole stands vs W371A cabinets. I don’t know whether this is the case. I do understand that you point out that some towers will radiate sound throughout even if the lower woofer aren’t active, but I’m posing the theoretical question of: is this always inherently the case, or just an implementation detail of most (but not all) towers?

 

[Chromatischism]

Anyway, to your point, if most towers perform poorly in the near field, then I agree that the above is mostly just theoretical and in practice this is a good advantage of bookshelves.

I can't see that being the case. Most towers put the tweeter and midrange next to each other, just like a standmount speaker.

 

[edechamps]

I can't see that being the case. Most towers put the tweeter and midrange next to each other, just like a standmount speaker.

It's the entire enclosure that radiates (e.g. because of diffraction off the edges), not just the drivers. This is why the entire size of the enclosure should be taken into account when discussing near field vs. far field. Again, see Toole, 3rd edition, section 10.5.1 (page 295).

 

[echopraxia]

I can't see that being the case. Most towers put the tweeter and midrange next to each other, just like a standmount speaker.

Sorry I edited my post a bit. I would concede that bookshelves have some near field advantages if only for the ability to adjust tweeter height optimally. I am curious about this though — if the tweeter and midrange are close to each other on a tower, how are those towers disadvantaged vs bookshelves for near field listening? I think @edechamps is claiming that the cabinet itself will emit sound, and cited Toole’s book (which I still need to buy and read fully). If so, I can understand this point being true. However, I think a sufficiently isolated tower design could avoid this problem.

 

[echopraxia]

It's the entire enclosure that radiates (e.g. because of diffraction off the edges), not just the drivers. This is why the entire size of the enclosure should be taken into account when discussing near field vs. far field. Again, see Toole, 3rd edition, section 10.5.1 (page 295).

Does this mean that e.g. Genelec 8351B’s stacked on deactivated W371A’s may sound worse than if they’re on pole stands? If so, does this also mean that 8351B + W371A would sound worse near field than 8351B on pole stands + a subwoofer in near field listening?

 

[edechamps]

I'm referring to the following figure in Toole's book (figure 10.9 in the Third Edition, 18.1 in the First Edition):

The only reference given is Beranek's Acoustics book, which does mention far field as being "3 to 10 times the largest dimension of the sound source", but does not discuss loudspeaker enclosures specifically. As far as I can tell, the finding that the entire enclosure must be considered is @Floyd Toole's conclusion.

Does this mean that e.g. Genelec 8351B’s stacked on deactivated W371A’s may sound worse than if they’re on pole stands? If so, does this also mean that 8351B + W371A would sound worse near field than 8351B on pole stands + a subwoofer in near field listening?

I don't know - it depends on how these interact acoustically. I would say that's not impossible.

 

[Xyrium]

Just be done with it and get the Genelec 8040B's....sell your amp, and go straight to them from the output of your DAC.

 

[Glasvegas]

Just be done with it and get the Genelec 8040B's....sell your amp, and go straight to them from the output of your DAC.

Wasn‘t expecting that. Interesting suggestion.

I though Genelecs were more suited to near field listening. My listening position is at least 9 feet from the speakers. Would they be at their best used this way?

 

[samysound]

Wasn‘t expecting that. Interesting suggestion.

I though Genelecs were more suited to near field listening. My listening position is at least 9 feet from the speakers. Would they be at their best used this way?

the extra output from the 8050 may be worthwhile

 

[echopraxia]

Wasn‘t expecting that. Interesting suggestion.

I though Genelecs were more suited to near field listening. My listening position is at least 9 feet from the speakers. Would they be at their best used this way?

These are uniquely good for near-field, but that does not make them worse for far-field. Other than SPL capability, it's not really a trade-off as far as I know; it's just that many speakers designed for mid/far field listening are not good in near-field, because it's really hard to design a multi-driver speaker that sounds good near-field.

I can attest that Genelec's work great in far-field; there's nothing about them that makes them inherently less suitable to this than e.g. any other bookshelf speaker, as far as I know. The only thing to keep in mind is overall SPL power capability, but active monitors like these are generally far more capable of high SPL than passive speakers of the same size, due to inherent technical advantages to active crossovers. At least one member here uses a full set of Genelec's for home theater purposes, and loves them. I tried mine briefly for home theater and music in a large room, and they are among the best speakers I've ever heard there.

There may be other advantages to tower speakers, but for example my Genelec 8351B's + subwoofers are definitely on par with (if not better than) my Revel Salon2's in most ways. The Salon2's have wider dispersion, but that's not really a matter of better vs worse, but different. You can read various subjective impressions of this comparison here, plus quite a few in-room measurements.

P.S. To follow-up on what I posted earlier: After having more listening time with my Focal Aria 926's, while they're great speakers for $2k, I would not recommend them unconditionally as your primary speakers, just because they have some treble flaws that Revel/Genelec/Neumann do not have.

After going through a lot of speakers, I definitely can recommend Revel/Genelec/Neumann pretty much unconditionally. They don't really have any major flaws. JBL also has some gems, but they also put out some questionable stuff so I would hesitate to buy a JBL without measurements or hearing it first.

And if you are going for bookshelf speaker form factor, I would definitely go for Genelec/Neumann -- because active crossover speakers have so many technical advantages, especially in compact form factor. These bookshelf form factor speakers will sound "bigger" and more impressive (deeper, stronger, more clean bass) than even towers of the passive variety. This only changes when you get up to dual 8" woofer towers like the F208 and beyond. But paired with a subwoofer, there's almost nothing that can match the sound quality perfection of Genelec/Neumann.

The remaining difference is mostly whether you like ultra wide dispersion or medium dispersion. Revel tends to be wider. This is often favorable for some (but not all) kinds of music. The medium dispersion from Genelec/Neumann is generally best for a wide range of music and movie content. IMO it's the best there is (among established brands) if you want one speaker to give you the best overall results no matter what you throw at it.

 

[MarcT]

These are uniquely good for near-field, but that does not make them worse for far-field. Other than SPL capability, it's not really a trade-off as far as I know; it's just that many speakers designed for mid/far field listening are not good in near-field, because it's really hard to design a multi-driver speaker that sounds good near-field.

I can attest that Genelec's work great in far-field; there's nothing about them that makes them inherently less suitable to this than e.g. any other bookshelf speaker, as far as I know. The only thing to keep in mind is overall SPL power capability, but active monitors like these are generally far more capable of high SPL than passive speakers of the same size, due to inherent technical advantages to active crossovers. At least one member here uses a full set of Genelec's for home theater purposes, and loves them. I tried mine briefly for home theater and music in a large room, and they are among the best speakers I've ever heard there.

There may be other advantages to tower speakers, but for example my Genelec 8351B's + subwoofers are definitely on par with (if not better than) my Revel Salon2's in most ways. The Salon2's have wider dispersion, but that's not really a matter of better vs worse, but different. You can read various subjective impressions of this comparison here, plus quite a few in-room measurements.

P.S. To follow-up on what I posted earlier: After having more listening time with my Focal Aria 926's, while they're great speakers for $2k, I would not recommend them unconditionally as your primary speakers, just because they have some treble flaws that Revel/Genelec/Neumann do not have.

After going through a lot of speakers, I definitely can recommend Revel/Genelec/Neumann pretty much unconditionally. They don't really have any major flaws. JBL also has some gems, but they also put out some questionable stuff so I would hesitate to buy a JBL without measurements or hearing it first.

And if you are going for bookshelf speaker form factor, I would definitely go for Genelec/Neumann -- because active crossover speakers have so many technical advantages, especially in compact form factor. These bookshelf form factor speakers will sound "bigger" and more impressive (deeper, stronger, more clean bass) than even towers of the passive variety. This only changes when you get up to dual 8" woofer towers like the F208 and beyond. But paired with a subwoofer, there's almost nothing that can match the sound quality perfection of Genelec/Neumann.

The remaining difference is mostly whether you like ultra wide dispersion or medium dispersion. Revel tends to be wider. This is often favorable for some (but not all) kinds of music. The medium dispersion from Genelec/Neumann is generally best for a wide range of music and movie content. IMO it's the best there is (among established brands) if you want one speaker to give you the best overall results no matter what you throw at it.

Dang, based on your earlier post about your 926, I was strongly thinking to get a used set of Aria 936. I dilly dallied and missed a set on ebay for $2,000 yesterday. Care to elaborate on the treble flaws you mentioned?

 

[Xyrium]

Wasn‘t expecting that. Interesting suggestion.

I though Genelecs were more suited to near field listening. My listening position is at least 9 feet from the speakers. Would they be at their best used this way?

The 8030c is a sweet spot for Genelec, IMO, but the 8040b has more authority....generally more dynamic. I haven't heard the 8340, but it sure looks great on paper and isn't much more expensive at that point, depending on where you are.

Ok..."damn the torpedoes": https://www.andertons.co.uk/genelec-8340apm-2-way-active-studio-monitor-w-dsp-(single-unit)

 

[Chromatischism]

After having more listening time with my Focal Aria 926's, while they're great speakers for $2k, I would not recommend them unconditionally as your primary speakers, just because they have some treble flaws that Revel/Genelec/Neumann do not have.

I'd like to hear more of your experience with this. I've seen several people test them and subjectively prefer the Focal. These seem to be people who tend to not like brighter speakers.

Also, the tweeter on the Aria does something really interesting. If you look at the directivity measurements, it widens at the mid to upper part of its range, the opposite of most tweeters, including Revel. Maybe you could comment on what that does to its sound.

 

[echopraxia]

Dang, based on your earlier post about your 926, I was strongly thinking to get a used set of Aria 936. I dilly dallied and missed a set on ebay for $2,000 yesterday. Care to elaborate on the treble flaws you mentioned?

I’m being really nitpickey here. I still recommend them as great speakers for $2k. And the Revel F206 has its treble drawbacks too, to be fair. But my only issues with the Aria 926 is that it seems to have a bit of elevated treble response that can be slightly fatiguing to my ears. Note that my ears are very painfully sensitivity to any FR increases 1khz and up, for whatever reason. I have them connected to my Sonos Amp right now, so I can use it’s settings to EQ down the treble by 3db and it sounds mostly fixed now — except the EQ curve they use doesn’t match exactly what needs to be done, so then some other parts of the treble feel reduced too much.

With better EQ I’m pretty sure my only complaint can be fixed completely, though I haven’t tried that yet. Just note that without access to precise EQ I find Revel’s natural FR to be better out of the box. To be fair, Genelec/Neumann will also sound very bright in a small or reflective room, but that doesn’t need any kind of precise EQ to fix — just a broadly declining slope frequency response correction. And they include switches or software built-in to adjust that, so I don’t hold it against them.

 

[Chromatischism]

I’m being really nitpickey here. I still recommend them as great speakers for $2k. And the Revel F206 has its treble drawbacks too, to be fair. But my only issues with the Aria 926 is that it seems to have a bit of elevated treble response that can be slightly fatiguing to my ears. Note that my ears are very painfully sensitivity to any FR increases 1khz and up, for whatever reason. I have them connected to my Sonos Amp right now, so I can use it’s settings to EQ down the treble by 3db and it sounds mostly fine now — except the EQ curve they use doesn’t match exactly what needs to be done, so then some other parts of the treble feel reduced too much.

With better EQ I’m pretty sure my only complaint can be fixed completely, though I haven’t tried that yet. Just note that without access to precise EQ I find Revel’s natural FR to be better out of the box. To be fair, Genelec/Neumann will also sound very bright in a small or reflective room, but that doesn’t need any kind of precise EQ to fix — just a broadly declining slope frequency response correction. And they include switches or software built-in to adjust that, so I don’t hold it against them.

That's odd. The Revels should sound brighter.

Revel M16:

Revel M106:

Revel F208:

Focal Aria 906:

Aria has less treble – and the measurements are in agreement with those at Soundstage:

To confirm this, I went over to the Crutchfield SpeakerCompare and loaded up some Focal Arias and Revel Performa3's. While neither was perfect, the Focals always sounded fuller and the Revels were always missing something in the mids while the highs sounded tipped up in contrast to Focal's relaxed tweeter.

So with that said, what part of the treble did you feel you needed to EQ?

 

[echopraxia]

So with that said, what part of the treble did you feel you needed to EQ?

I think it's the upper treble mostly. I can EQ it down, but then the mid treble sounds too recessed. One of the plots you showed illustrates it well:

Focal Aria:

vs Revel F208:

My hearing is tested to be good to 17 or 18khz. I once tested one of those "teenager repellant" sound effects that plays a 17khz tone or so, and while most people can't hear it at all, it is incredibly painful to my ears. So I may be an outlier in this respect.

I will test them again this evening by blocking the line-of-sight to the tweeter with something and listening to the indirect sound only. If the treble pain goes away, it probably will reinforce the idea that the upper treble is the problem, because I remember reading that these frequencies don't reflect much from the walls.

What's interesting is that to me, I don't necessarily strongly hear an elevated treble, but I feel the pain associated with it. And when I EQ it down enough that it's no longer painful or fatiguing, the treble and upper midrange sounds really recessed. So that also intuitively reinforces the idea that it might be the upper treble. I can test further to confirm, and even bring it out to my system with the miniDSP SHD to see if I can EQ down 10-20khz to fix it completely without compromising the rest of the treble/midrange.

 

[Chromatischism]

The treble above 15 kHz bothered you? Golden ears

 

[echopraxia]

The treble above 15 kHz bothered you? Golden ears

I dunno... perhaps this is one reason why I've always loved the Ascend Sierra's RAAL tweeters so much? Look at the following treble spins of five speakers:

The speakers whose treble was mildly fatiguing:

In order, we have Revel Salon2, Ascend Horizon RAAL, Revel F208, Revel F206, Focal Aria 906.

The F206 I have owned (not the F208) and the treble is not bad, but it has always been a bit sharp to my taste. The Salon2 are flat enough that they don't bother me, but I still set the treble switches on the back to -2db (then they're just about perfect for me). Not counting my Genelec/Neumann's whose treble is even flatter (but not as wide dispersion), the Ascend RAAL and Revel Salon2's are the best treble I've heard. From the measurements I suspect I would like the F208 a lot too.

But yeah if your hearing cuts off around 10-14khz like most, I think the Focal Aria 206 at $2.3k/pair could be the speaker deal of the year.