• 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!

Would someone care to interprate Amir's measurements/reviews here? Revel v Wharfedale.

Yorkshire Mouth

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
1,517
Likes
1,479
Location
God's County - Yorkshire
Okay, I'm looking at two reviews, and trying to see if I should get one or the other I'll post links below. After that I'll let you know my thinking, but you might want to write your comments in the reply box before reading that bit, so as not to colour your judgement.

There's also a bit of an objectivist philosophical question at the end too, if you're interested.

Revel M16:


Wharfedale Diamond 12.1:


Okay, what do you think? Compare and contrast, etc.

Now read on.

Both great speakers. Both low distortion. Both have a lovely, flat frequency response, except the Revels +3.5db at c.100hz, and the Wharfedales -4db at around 2khz.

I'm thinking of buying a WiiM amp, which has two attractions: a sub out with bass management, and PEQ. Now, the PEQ should be able to even out the FR bumps, no problem. But here's the thing, if I'm using the sub out, and I use the PEQ to dip the bass on the Revels at 100hz, that's going to be an area in the middle of the crossover with the sub, so I'll be dipping part of the signal to the sub, too (hope that makes sense). But if I raise the 2khz dip on the Wharfedales, nothing else gets in the way. Now, at the moment in the UK the M16s are £500-£550. The 12.1s are £250. Given that the latter would suit what I'm wanting to do more, isn't that a no-brainer?

But I might be missing something in the review. Which is why I'm asking.

The philosophical objectivist question is pretty clear. Can a £250 possibly sound as good as a £500 speaker...actually, when they first appeared the Revels were closer to £1,000. I know, I know, money can be misleading in hi-fi, but nonetheless that's a crazy comparison.

Isn't it?

Happy to hear anyone else's opinions.

Thanks in advance.
 
Okay, I'm looking at two reviews, and trying to see if I should get one or the other I'll post links below. After that I'll let you know my thinking, but you might want to write your comments in the reply box before reading that bit, so as not to colour your judgement.

There's also a bit of an objectivist philosophical question at the end too, if you're interested.

Revel M16:


Wharfedale Diamond 12.1:


Okay, what do you think? Compare and contrast, etc.

Now read on.

Both great speakers. Both low distortion. Both have a lovely, flat frequency response, except the Revels +3.5db at c.100hz, and the Wharfedales -4db at around 2khz.

I'm thinking of buying a WiiM amp, which has two attractions: a sub out with bass management, and PEQ. Now, the PEQ should be able to even out the FR bumps, no problem. But here's the thing, if I'm using the sub out, and I use the PEQ to dip the bass on the Revels at 100hz, that's going to be an area in the middle of the crossover with the sub, so I'll be dipping part of the signal to the sub, too (hope that makes sense). But if I raise the 2khz dip on the Wharfedales, nothing else gets in the way. Now, at the moment in the UK the M16s are £500-£550. The 12.1s are £250. Given that the latter would suit what I'm wanting to do more, isn't that a no-brainer?

But I might be missing something in the review. Which is why I'm asking.

The philosophical objectivist question is pretty clear. Can a £250 possibly sound as good as a £500 speaker...actually, when they first appeared the Revels were closer to £1,000. I know, I know, money can be misleading in hi-fi, but nonetheless that's a crazy comparison.

Isn't it?

Happy to hear anyone else's opinions.

Thanks in advance.
I would take the Revel, because the "extra" bass is in line with the Harman preference curve and there is a good probability that you even prefer it. And if not, it is always easier to "EQ down" frequencies as opposed to "EQ up", as you would have to do in the other speaker.

Make sure you get the full Room EQ and not just correcting the anechoic response of the speaker. Just check, as I am not sure if the Wiim Amp can do that.
 
I would take the Revel, because the "extra" bass is in line with the Harman preference curve and there is a good probability that you even prefer it. And if not, it is always easier to "EQ down" frequencies as opposed to "EQ up", as you would have to do in the other speaker.

Make sure you get the full Room EQ and not just correcting the anechoic response of the speaker. Just check, as I am not sure if the Wiim Amp can do that.

I knew REW would get a mention sooner or later.

Thanks for the advice. May I ask about the Harman thing? I know about the EQ profile for headphones, but do they advise a bump in the bass there for speakers?

Cheers.
 
I knew REW would get a mention sooner or later.

Thanks for the advice. May I ask about the Harman thing? I know about the EQ profile for headphones, but do they advise a bump in the bass there for speakers?

Cheers.
1701875860052.png


Yes there is a bass boost. The in-room speaker preference is the initial one, the headphones got derived from it. Remember: The Harman preference curve is just that and not a target curve. Meaning the average of the several hundred listeners ca 60% preferred it. Some ca 15% preferred even more bass and ca 20% less. Again it is the average listener’s preferences and therefore your individual preference might differ. However these individual differences can easily be EQed
 
I would take the Revel, because the "extra" bass is in line with the Harman preference curve and there is a good probability that you even prefer it. And if not, it is always easier to "EQ down" frequencies as opposed to "EQ up", as you would have to do in the other speaker.
Also the Revel has smoother and more continuous directivity so equalising it usually works better. I would guess it has also lower distortions in medium to rather high sound levels due to its larger and probably higher class woofer (Amirs early review of it doesn't have directly comparable measurements).
 
Cheers.

My room is 3m x 5m, and I’m going to be sat c.1.5m. For those reasons high volume levels are not required and - given that I’m pretty much nearfield and sat in one fairly rigid spot - directivity and reflections shouldn’t be too much of an issue.

Fascinating input and insights everyone. Please keep ‘em coming.
 
I would imagine living in Yorkshire the Wharfedale will be better value than a US speaker, fwiw.
My first speakers, bought in Huddersfield in 1968, were Wharfedales which were still made locally then.
 
In the end while the Revel is of course the objectively better loudspeaker it won't sound double as good as the price difference is so in the end only you can decided how much is good enough for you and with which compromise (EVERY loudspeaker is one) you can live with. In almost all kinds of engineering the rise of effort and cost is after some some point disproportional to the rise of the outcome.
 
In the end while the Revel is of course the objectively better loudspeaker it won't sound double as good as the price difference is so in the end only you can decided how much is good enough for you and with which compromise (EVERY loudspeaker is one) you can live with. In almost all kinds of engineering the rise of effort and cost is after some some point disproportional to the rise of the outcome.

Okay, playing devil’s advocate here (or maybe not?), I’ve always thought that 99% of the quality of a speaker is its frequency response, frequency range and distortion, or lack thereof.

The frequency response for each appears fantastic, apart from the two issues I’ve noted (one for each), and both can be easily fixed with EQ, the range goes lower on the Revels, but I think I’d be on handover duties to the sub before we got that low, so not really relevant, and distortion looks excellent in both. In which case, for my purposes, there’s nothing between them.

Or am I trying to persuade myself that the 12.1s could possibly be as good as the M16s?

To be honest, I think this is why I’m asking. Forgetting the price and focusing purely on the measurements - and within the bounds of how I’d use them - then objectively they’re both of the same standard. But every time I persuade myself of that, another part of my brain tells me I’m kidding myself.

I hope that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Living in the UK and measurements aside, if you needed parts, how easy would it be to get the Revel's serviced? Distribution here has been patchy to say the least and not sure many UK dealers would even look at them, no matter how much 'we here' rate them.

- Hold that, it looks as if the old Arcam premises in Waterbeach may be the distribution offices for the brand and the usual UK agency-collectors seem to list them even if they don't stock the model... Not sure if you could get a dem (I still like to listen first), so if buying online, make sure there's a return option should they not 'do it' for you.

I really don't mean to muddy your waters here, but one popular dealer chain (Sevenoaks) have B&W (sssssssspit), KEF and Focal at the five hundred quid level, the KEF's especially these days being an 'in' brand and maybe with a more sophisticated performance than the Wharfedale, where just maybe, the current Denton might be more like it?
 
Last edited:
Yes there is a bass boost. The in-room speaker preference is the initial one, the headphones got derived from it. Remember: The Harman preference curve is just that and not a target curve. Meaning the average of the several hundred listeners ca 60% preferred it. Some ca 15% preferred even more bass and ca 20% less. Again it is the average listener’s preferences and therefore your individual preference might differ. However these individual differences can easily be EQed
This is really misleading. There is no bass "boost". The natural in-room response of an anechoically flat speaker has a decreasing slope with frequency. Research shows that most people prefer this natural response.
 
Okay, I'm looking at two reviews, and trying to see if I should get one or the other I'll post links below. After that I'll let you know my thinking, but you might want to write your comments in the reply box before reading that bit, so as not to colour your judgement.

There's also a bit of an objectivist philosophical question at the end too, if you're interested.

Revel M16:


Wharfedale Diamond 12.1:


Okay, what do you think? Compare and contrast, etc.
The M16 has a better in-room response and better bass. The slight bump at 100 Hz is enjoyable to many people and easily EQ'd if you are not one of those people. The in-room response dip at 2kHz with the Wharfedale cannot be ED'd properly.

Personally, I wouldn't run any audio setup that isn't capable of room correction (or flexible PEQ).
 
You are the absolute master of these .gifs. Love them!
Thanksss! :cool:

Science tells us that switching between 2 speakers must be done in real time, because human auditory perception is short term.

I applied that same concept to speaker comparison. The differences become very clear when comparing speakers visually.

I usually apply a 1 second timeout for 2 graphs and 0.5 sec timeout for 3+ graphs.

It literally takes me 30 sec to do these, but the result is very worth it. :)
 
Okay, I'm looking at two reviews, and trying to see if I should get one or the other I'll post links below. After that I'll let you know my thinking, but you might want to write your comments in the reply box before reading that bit, so as not to colour your judgement.

There's also a bit of an objectivist philosophical question at the end too, if you're interested.

Revel M16:


Wharfedale Diamond 12.1:


Okay, what do you think? Compare and contrast, etc.

Now read on.

Both great speakers. Both low distortion. Both have a lovely, flat frequency response, except the Revels +3.5db at c.100hz, and the Wharfedales -4db at around 2khz.

I'm thinking of buying a WiiM amp, which has two attractions: a sub out with bass management, and PEQ. Now, the PEQ should be able to even out the FR bumps, no problem. But here's the thing, if I'm using the sub out, and I use the PEQ to dip the bass on the Revels at 100hz, that's going to be an area in the middle of the crossover with the sub, so I'll be dipping part of the signal to the sub, too (hope that makes sense). But if I raise the 2khz dip on the Wharfedales, nothing else gets in the way. Now, at the moment in the UK the M16s are £500-£550. The 12.1s are £250. Given that the latter would suit what I'm wanting to do more, isn't that a no-brainer?

But I might be missing something in the review. Which is why I'm asking.

The philosophical objectivist question is pretty clear. Can a £250 possibly sound as good as a £500 speaker...actually, when they first appeared the Revels were closer to £1,000. I know, I know, money can be misleading in hi-fi, but nonetheless that's a crazy comparison.

Isn't it?

Happy to hear anyone else's opinions.

Thanks in advance.
Can you buy and try them both? That's the surest way to know which one you will like better.
 
Back
Top Bottom