• 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.

So


So, if I’m using the Revels with a sub, I need to either place the Revels right up against wall, or over 1.1m away, and the sub a maximum of 60cm away?
And of course it is worth to remember that any walls as well as ceiling/floor will cause their own SBIR peaks and dips. The front wall is usually the most pronounced, but not always. But the same principles are valid for all boundaries and can therefore be used to plan and optimize placement.

This also means that if your loudspeaker is at the same distance from e.g. two walls, floor and ceiling the SBIR effects will add-up and your nulls will be deeper/wider and peaks higher/wider. This can be good or bad, depending on whether the nulls are within or out of the operating area of the loudspeaker/sub.

Note that we're usually more concerned to avoid nulls than the peaks, because peaks can easily be flattened by PEQ later.
 
Last edited:
Crikey! I think that’s a little out of context. What I was saying there - and quite clearly, I think - was that I’m making a buying choice soon, and I want to get it right because in the future I might not have the chance/spare cash.

Quite clearly, from everything I’ve said in this thread, I’m weighing up the pros and cons of these two speakers, and which ones to buy, now.
For @Robbo99999 , for clarity, please note that in this thread I’ve said:

“Okay, I'm looking at two reviews, and trying to see if I should get one or the other.”

And:

“Just for clarity, I don’t have £1k. The M16s can be had for £500-£550 in the UK at the moment, which is far more of a ballpark top end.”

That was in direct reply to you, so I’m not sure how you missed it.

And:

“I can afford the Revels. Push comes to shove, I can afford both, and trust me, I’m still considering that.”

That was a good sign that I can afford the Revels. Me saying “I can afford the Revels”.

And then:

“The Linton? In a flash, mate! But they’re probably just a sniff outside my absolute maximum budget…”

The Lintons sell for £1,100.

So yes, I think I’ve been very clear indeed there that I can afford the Revels. Hope that clears it up for you.
Yeah, it's ok, I was in a sharp mood when I typed out my replies to you earlier. It doesn't really matter if you can or cannot buy the Revels soon, in the scheme of things it doesn't matter. (So of course I should see that it's fine if you want to compare the Revel with whatever speakers, even if you're uncertain about when you could buy the Revel.)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's ok, I was in a sharp mood when I typed out my replies to you earlier. It doesn't really matter if you can or cannot buy the Revels soon, in the scheme of things it doesn't matter. (So of course I should see that it's fine if you want to compare the Revel with whatever speakers, even if you're uncertain about when you could buy the Revel.)

No problem. Thanks for the input.
 
Hi,
I recently found a you tube channel that lets you hear and compare between different speakers.
I thought it was quite good and I found the wharfedale speakers more enjoyable than the comparisons.
However I could not see a wharfedale vs Revel, although there is a revel or 2 on there.
It is fun to try out regardless. I think it is best to use your best headphones for these videos.
If my link does not work, search for Eproject in youtube.
 
Hi,
I recently found a you tube channel that lets you hear and compare between different speakers.
I thought it was quite good and I found the wharfedale speakers more enjoyable than the comparisons.
However I could not see a wharfedale vs Revel, although there is a revel or 2 on there.
It is fun to try out regardless. I think it is best to use your best headphones for these videos.
If my link does not work, search for Eproject in youtube.

In that video, there is no assurance that the level is matched - or if it is, at which frequency. (That could be an important difference.) Not only that, but the acoustic loading of the speakers is not in evidence. There is also no technical data given, no info on the mic used and its placement, nor is there any information on (or guarantee about) design axis. Not knowing all these things, we have to depend on the professionalism of the producer. If the producer was professional, these things would be stated or shown.

Not only that, but You Tube is a wide-open field for dishonest presentations that support a certain personal (or financial) agenda. For the most part, we simply can't know. For that reason, I don't watch (or post links to) videos that are not professionally produced by people who are known quantities to me.

Jim
 
...

Not only that, but You Tube is a wide-open field for dishonest presentations that support a certain personal (or financial) agenda. For the most part, we simply can't know. For that reason, I don't watch (or post links to) videos that are not professionally produced by people who are known quantities to me.

Jim

I tend to dislike a stance that suggests absence of evidence = evidence of absence for anything not posing to be a formal evaluation…

But when financial interests may be (are likely?) at stake and there’s no standardized website (YouTube) protocol for disclosing potential conflicts-of-interest (like kit reviews), this advice is dead-/spot-on.

So yes, a big x2 from me, @Jim Taylor .

That said, @dezza I’ll try to take a listen next time I’m in headphones on YouTube. I also agree that stuff can be fleetingly entertaining. Like great-flavored potato chips the first few bites, before the they start tasting like regular potato chips. Maybe that’s just me. :)
 
I tend to dislike a stance that suggests absence of evidence = evidence of absence for anything not posing to be a formal evaluation…

But when financial interests may be (are likely?) at stake and there’s no standardized website (YouTube) protocol for disclosing potential conflicts-of-interest (like kit reviews), this advice is dead-/spot-on.

So yes, a big x2 from me, @Jim Taylor .

That said, @dezza I’ll try to take a listen next time I’m in headphones on YouTube. I also agree that stuff can be fleetingly entertaining. Like great-flavored potato chips the first few bites, before the they start tasting like regular potato chips. Maybe that’s just me. :)
I have listened to a few comparisons on Youtube such as these, but as you point out, way too many variables in the equation, and the biggest variable, not knowing what the motives of the person doing the comparison are or if things are being presented in a neutral way for sure....lots of doubts for sure.

I love reading all the uninformed comments, where guys seem blissfully unaware of how mediocre and how unreliable comparisons like this truly are..!!
 
For me, it is all about transparency. I can handle a frequency aberration here and there like an hf rolloff. But the sound has to be transparent so it doesn't sound like I'm listening to plastic or metal influencing the sound. Unfortunately you can only sort this out through listening to them both yourself and then just trust your own opinion. That's what matters more than specs or price.
 
But the sound has to be transparent so it doesn't sound like I'm listening to plastic or metal influencing the sound
Are you saying there's no measurement that corresponds to this allegedly audible phenomenon?
 
But the sound has to be transparent so it doesn't sound like I'm listening to plastic or metal influencing the sound.

I don't understand what you mean by "plastic or metal influencing the sound". There are two things that come to mind; the enclosure and the driver diaphragm material. I can't think of anything else that would be described as " plastic or metal".

In either case, the most common complaint is resonance. Resonances in both the driver diaphragm and the enclosure show up in tests, such as this:

1706378275428.png

The jagged response above 1kHz indicates resonances.

1706378355186.png

You can see the same jagged spikes here ^^^, and they indicate the same thing.

1706378413564.png


In this ^^^ test, the spikes show up more clearly, indicating magnitude as well as bandwidth.

1706378514529.png

Some people prefer this ^^^ visual format.

So you can see that resonances can be made very obvious in tests and measurements. There is no need to say, "Unfortunately you can only sort this out through listening to them both yourself".

However... I'm very aware that subjective descriptions can be tricky. Were you using those words to refer to something else? :)

Jim
 

Attachments

  • 1706378730236.png
    1706378730236.png
    195 KB · Views: 21
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry for resurrecting this old thread.

I’ve just been re-reading it, and wanted to pin down a specific issue.

The main criticism of the 12.1s is directionality issues. However, given the advantages of nearfield listening (removes a lot of traction from the equation), and given the intended use in one, fixed seating position, completely on-axis, both horizontally and vertically, I’m not sure those issues apply, at least in my understanding of how they manifest themselves.

Would anyone care to explain how these directionality issues would be a specific (unsolvable?) problem in a fixed, nearfield listening environment.
 
I don't understand what you mean by "plastic or metal influencing the sound". There are two things that come to mind; the enclosure and the driver diaphragm material. I can't think of anything else that would be described as " plastic or metal".
I merely mean't what it sounds like. Like there's a sheet of plastic in front of me when I'm listening that makes things sound "reproduced" and less natural. Apologies for not being more explicit.
 
Would anyone care to explain how these directionality issues would be a specific (unsolvable?) problem in a fixed, nearfield listening environment.
As in normal listening spaces (so not anechoic chambers or outside) we hear also reflected sound which tonally differs in that case from the direct sound. The closer we listen in nearfield and the less close reflective surfaces like the desktop are the less it is a problem/disadvantage though.
 
As in normal listening spaces (so not anechoic chambers or outside) we hear also reflected sound which tonally differs in that case from the direct sound. The closer we listen in nearfield and the less close reflective surfaces like the desktop are the less it is a problem/disadvantage though.

That’s my understanding. You don’t remove the room, as with headphones, but you diminish it.

Two things. Firstly, the issues here are implicitly going to be off axis. The directionality indicates ‘beaming’ to different amounts, dependent on how may degrees off axis you sit, but the main data remains unaffected. You expect the drivers to beam correctly if you’re on axis, and none of the issues discussed here suggest you won’t.

Secondly, you’re still in a room. Audio science repeatedly insists we do not want to turn our listening rooms into anechoic chambers; we wouldn’t like it. So, given the nearfield situation we’re discussing, that’s just adding a little more - and only a little more - ‘real room’ into the situation. I mean that’s the whole philosophy behind nearfield.

Well, that’s how I read it. But I’m asking the question, because if I’m making an error which can be explained, I’d like to hear about it.
 
Firstly, the issues here are implicitly going to be off axis.
Even at good hifi "far field" listening they would be off-axis, but as said we hear not only the direct sound but also reflected one which will be differently coloured on a loudspeaker with suboptimal directivity.
 
Even at good hifi "far field" listening they would be off-axis, but as said we hear not only the direct sound but also reflected one which will be differently coloured on a loudspeaker with suboptimal directivity.

Cheers. I think that, due to the necessity of internet brevity, there’s maybe a little confusion - almost certainly my fault.

A ‘directivity error’ in general creates two issues. Firstly, off axis, the sound will be different to on axis. Now as I’ve said that isn’t an issue in the context of this usage.

But secondly, the FR of direct sound might be perfect, but if the reflected sounds have a different FR, the two will mix to create a less-than perfect sum total.

So, on this second point. As noted, in nearfield the issue is diminished. But there’s something else I think has been lost, due to it being discussed in another thread at the same time.

The directivity issue here causes an on-axis dip around 2Hz. Now for me, this isn’t an issue, for several reasons.

Firstly, it’s intentional (see the speaker’s designer’s comments at the review thread).

Secondly, in listening tests, Amir didn’t find it to be a big issue. Indeed, whilst he usually preferred the speaker with the ‘error’ EQ’d out, he sometimes preferred it without EQ.

Thirdly, as implicit in the above, the ‘error’ can (and has) been ‘fixed’ by EQ, by both Amir on his review, and others since.

The sum total of the above is that this ‘issue’ simply isn’t an issue, in my user context.

Well, once again, that’s my reading of it, but I always appreciate any correction if I have this wrong.
 
So, on this second point. As noted, in nearfield the issue is diminished.
As you say it isn't eliminated, just reduced, especially as in most typical nearfield applications there are close reflective surfaces like desktop or console, thats why directivity still plays a role. On-axis direct sound like you say can be corrected by EQ, directivity though not.
 
As you say it isn't eliminated, just reduced, especially as in most typical nearfield applications there are close reflective surfaces like desktop or console, thats why directivity still plays a role. On-axis direct sound like you say can be corrected by EQ, directivity though not.

And yet that doesn't appear to be the conclusion of Amir's review.

" One track, then two, then three. I am not hearing much to complain about! Yet we had that directivity error and some lower treble dip. Brought out the EQ to fill those in...This made the vocals, especially that of females, to stand out more which I liked. And added a bit of resolution to them as is typical of this type of boost. On some tracks I thought there was a bit extra brightness but overall, I liked it better with EQ than without.

At this point I was puzzled that we had some flaws in measurements yet I am not able to put my finger on anything. So I pulled out my Revel M106 speaker and played it. The M106 was definitely a step up with much better resolution when it came to delicate details. It was clearly a better experience. That speaker is four times the price though so I changed it out for Revel M16. The M16 has a boosted upper bass and this was quite audible, creating a warmer, albeit slightly muddy sound without correction for my room mode which it activates. The M16 retails for double the price but you can get it for less discounted. Still, I didn't feel that it provided much of any advantage over Wharfedale 12.1 in this quick comparison."

Objectively this stands out a lot but in listening tests in my room at least with floor absorption and high ceilings, I was not able to identify it. Indeed I was stomped in trying to find much of any fault with the speaker. Directivity errors though mean that speaker sound will more room dependent so your experience may vary somewhat from mine. Still, I think Wharfedale has done a very good job here."

He doesn't say the issues don't exist, but he does say his rug/high ceilings made the issues unidentifiable. Nearfield should have the same effect, or very similar.

It just looks like an issue, which (in the right circumstances) is a non-issue.

Listen, I completely understand your points and concerns, and agree with the general principle. It just appears that, given the right environment, they're not a real-world issue in practice (hope that makes sense).

As ever, best wishes.
 
I wasn't referring to and don't really care about subjective reviews, just general principles.
I thought with nearfield you meant really such which in typical home acoustic spaces and such compact loudspeakers would be under one meter listening distance so typically desktop listening with above mentioned problems.
This doesn't mean at all that the 12.1 are bad loudspeakers, I even stated that in the beginning of the review thread, and am considering even getting a pair just for fun to test as they currently only cost 220€ per pair locally. :) Also as I have written in many threads, everything in this universe, so also loudspeakers, is a compromise, nothing is perfect for each and every case.
 
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.
Kudos for the topic. I think this is a very welcome approach. There are people who want to act upon some solid info, but still need a bit of "what do those numbers mean" explaining.
 
Back
Top Bottom