REVELation
Aaron
Posts: 1,853
This morning I spent some quality time with my beloved Revel M20's and their big brother, the F30 (tower version with 10" woofer). I've been kicking around the whole "tower vs. bookshelf + sub" idea, and I've decided that I'm going to get a full-range (tower) speaker. So, with that in mind, I spent a good 45 minutes with the F30 and only 15 minutes with the M20. After I was done listening to the Revel's, I spent about 45 minutes with the Martin Logan Ascent's. Oh yes, life is good.
Revel F30
After all of my RT12/RT55/RT800 demos last week I am quite familiar with the limitations of my current speaker system. Listening to the Revel's made last week's demos akin to listening to a clock radio. OK, maybe not that bad, but geez! The speakers are so retardedly clear. I guess the audiophile buzzwords would be "open" and "detailed." I'm not convinced that they were positioned optimally, because the imaging wasn't as it should have been. The center image was just so-so, too. I've heard the M20's do much better in this regard. Even so, the separation between the instruments was excellent. One of the coolest things I notice when moving to higher end speakers is the depth of soundstage you get. Killer. I love the midrange of these speakers. The tweeter is pretty fantastic too, though I do find it ever so slightly bright. The biggest disappointment with these speakers was the 10" woofer. It didn't seem to put out a whole lot. I mean, it was tight, and it had some depth; I was just expecting more slam. The salesman blamed this on the room acoustics. Still, my experience mirrored those of the reviewer from Stereophile, so I'm not totally buying what the salesman said. Overall, this speaker ranks at the top of my list for consideration.
Martin Logan Ascent
These speakers are totally different from the Revel's. They're much more laid back and less in your face. The clarity I observed with the Revel's was even better on the ML's. These speakers are amazingly detailed. You could rear right into and through the recording. On simpler recordings, such as Diana Krall, their presentation was so life-like it was scary. I thought they kind of fell apart when listening to intense orchestral arrangements, though; they seemed to lose their separation and become cloudy. This is also said to happen on rock music, but I didn't notice this with Dave Matthews (but this isn't a good representation of rock, either). The bass was pretty disappointing as well. My biggest complaint with it was the output and depth. I expected more from this 10" woofer. It also wasn't exceptionally tight, but it certainly wasn't bad. What's odd is that when I heard these speakers at Soundex (granted it was only for 5 minutes or so) I thought they had excellent bass output and depth. So, maybe there really was a problem with the room acoustics (or maybe there was a subwoofer on at Soundex, though Dan said he turned it off). Overall I was really impressed with this speaker. On some of the recordings I listened to I was blown away, others not. I'm not convinced that this speaker is a jack of all trades like the Revel, but it certainly does some things exceptionally. More experimentation with this speaker will be required before it can be considered in the running. Still, I like it quite a bit.
Aaron
Revel F30
After all of my RT12/RT55/RT800 demos last week I am quite familiar with the limitations of my current speaker system. Listening to the Revel's made last week's demos akin to listening to a clock radio. OK, maybe not that bad, but geez! The speakers are so retardedly clear. I guess the audiophile buzzwords would be "open" and "detailed." I'm not convinced that they were positioned optimally, because the imaging wasn't as it should have been. The center image was just so-so, too. I've heard the M20's do much better in this regard. Even so, the separation between the instruments was excellent. One of the coolest things I notice when moving to higher end speakers is the depth of soundstage you get. Killer. I love the midrange of these speakers. The tweeter is pretty fantastic too, though I do find it ever so slightly bright. The biggest disappointment with these speakers was the 10" woofer. It didn't seem to put out a whole lot. I mean, it was tight, and it had some depth; I was just expecting more slam. The salesman blamed this on the room acoustics. Still, my experience mirrored those of the reviewer from Stereophile, so I'm not totally buying what the salesman said. Overall, this speaker ranks at the top of my list for consideration.
Martin Logan Ascent
These speakers are totally different from the Revel's. They're much more laid back and less in your face. The clarity I observed with the Revel's was even better on the ML's. These speakers are amazingly detailed. You could rear right into and through the recording. On simpler recordings, such as Diana Krall, their presentation was so life-like it was scary. I thought they kind of fell apart when listening to intense orchestral arrangements, though; they seemed to lose their separation and become cloudy. This is also said to happen on rock music, but I didn't notice this with Dave Matthews (but this isn't a good representation of rock, either). The bass was pretty disappointing as well. My biggest complaint with it was the output and depth. I expected more from this 10" woofer. It also wasn't exceptionally tight, but it certainly wasn't bad. What's odd is that when I heard these speakers at Soundex (granted it was only for 5 minutes or so) I thought they had excellent bass output and depth. So, maybe there really was a problem with the room acoustics (or maybe there was a subwoofer on at Soundex, though Dan said he turned it off). Overall I was really impressed with this speaker. On some of the recordings I listened to I was blown away, others not. I'm not convinced that this speaker is a jack of all trades like the Revel, but it certainly does some things exceptionally. More experimentation with this speaker will be required before it can be considered in the running. Still, I like it quite a bit.
Aaron
Post edited by Aaron on
Comments
-
Well hell Aaron......you need to quote the prices...Oh, the bottle has been to me, my closes friend, my worse enemy!
-
Sounds like you had some fun,
The sub was off at Soundex when we listened to them.They also can sound alot better then what you heard as we had them on B&K ref7270 and a ref30 preamp.Not a shabby setup at all by NO MEANS but outclassed by the Martin Logans.Krell and audio research does a much better job of showing off Martin Logan.
I also see your looking at floor stand speakers.
I will have to give you one more speaker to listen to before you make a decision......Dynaudio Contour 1.8 mkII.3400.00 and counting and they are one hell of a set of speakers.You want more slam..well stand back they will dassle you with unbeliveable realism and depth....I get tingles everytime I sit and listen to them.
Here's the kicker with Dynaudio...bring all the music you like,they don't care what you play on them, they will make any recording sound the best it can be.
You know how much I like Martin Logan..they also have there limits like most high end speakers.Dynaudio's have no limits.
Listen for yourself,
DanDan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
2nd thought,
listen to everything else before you listen to Dynaudio ,bring your best demo in your head....then experience Dynaudio again...........Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
Gear:
Conrad Johnson SC26 preamplifier
Conrad Johnson MF2500 amplifier
Meridian 507 CD Player (I think)
Revel M20 - $2000 + $200 stands
Revel F30 - $3500
Martin Logan Ascent - $4200
Aaron -
The Revels do sport a metal dome, correct? In general, compared to say, Sonus Faber, just for example, sporting a soft, silk dome, I've noticed a tradeoff. The gear you listed, I don't really see it being 'bright', you may just be noticing the detail. All your speakers (owned) so far have been soft domes (even the tri-lam is not a metal dome, but simply a soft dome with vapor deposited metals).
Metal domes tend to be very detailed, revealing little nuances in the music, but with this detail comes what some may call brightness or fatigue, and sometimes a 'narrower' or less open soundstage. The speakers just don't disappear.
Soft (silk) domes tend be a little more laid back, and you may loose a little in the detail (which for some is less fatiguing), but you gain in soundstage depth and placement and the overused term 'warmth'.
I've noticed this over and over with my B&W's, very very detailed, but lacking to a degree in producing the overall 'stage' and totally disappearing.
Theil is the holy grail in metal domes, in what I have listened to at least. Incredible detailed, yet VERY non-fatiguing while producing a large sound stage. The best of both the soft-silk/hard-metal dome world we live in.
You owe it to yourself to hear JmLab, which uses an inverted ceramic dome, in all its current models/lines. You want to talk detail, this is where its at. However, I challenge you to listen to them, at any REASONABLE volume, for more than an hr or so. They almost seem to make you concentrate on the music, not relax and draw you in, but the detail is unreal.
Anyway, that's just how my ears hear it, and the Revels sound like a damn fine rig, I just can't get past the looks and the 'optional grill'. I've heard of optional floor plinths, but never an optional grill.
Cheers,
RussCheck your lips at the door woman. Shake your hips like battleships. Yeah, all the white girls trip when I sing at Sunday service. -
Oh, just another thought. Do you think these speakers were properly 'run-in' yet?
All the pairs of B&W (metal dome) speakers I've had really 'calmed down' after a good break in period. I'm talking night and day.
Cheers,
RussCheck your lips at the door woman. Shake your hips like battleships. Yeah, all the white girls trip when I sing at Sunday service. -
Yeah, I think they were. Like I said in my original post, I only found them slightly on the bright side. I didn't really find them fatiguing. I'm basically nit-picking here. They truly are great speakers, especially for the money.Oh, just another thought. Do you think these speakers were properly 'run-in' yet?
Aaron
