or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Revel Owners Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Revel Owners Thread - Page 97

post #2881 of 6812
Unless you're Kevin Voecks, it would be impossible to say.
The original Ultima line was around for 10 years.
The Ultima2 line was introduced at CES 2007.
post #2882 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

And my original thoughts of the C205 were before I realized the WG was rotated. Which gave me pause for additional thought. As Neutralguy has pointed out, the fact the C205 has no midrange driver but the older C12 does clearly points to the fact Revel did cut corners on the C205. Weather you want to believe it or not!
And I am NOT basing my thoughts on entire line on focused on the C205, as you mistaking keep pointing out.
So, let me spell it out for you, so you can follow (or are you purposely being obtuse?):
  1. Quote:
    Originally Posted by howaboutthat41 View Post

    The reduction in pricing on the Performa3 line (relative to the Performa 2 lineup), the already criticized MTM orientation on one of the center channel speakers (see post # 2818, above), and some of the observations about the new monitors have me scratching my head a bit.
  2. Quote:
    Originally Posted by addictaudio View Post

    I see, that is true. There are certain areas that are noticeable where the costs were cut down.
  3. Quote:
    Originally Posted by HaroldKumar View Post

    Such as?
  4. Quote:
    Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

    MTM center would be a good start.
So it was "evidence" you brought forth as "a good start". We're still waiting for the rest of the "evidence" to come forth. So you'll have to excuse me for coming to the conclusion that you are dismissing this Performa3 line because "costs were cut down"...when the only example you keep going back to is MTM C205 center. I have already stated numerous times it is not an "optimal design", and I have posted Revels comments on the matter, but then you just retreat into your "I design speakers, so I know" schtick. Now , on the crossover issue...you finally come back to Milt99 and say you wouldn't crossover so low, but offer no reasons why even though, as I posted from Revel, this was a CLEAR DESIGN CHOICE. You have yet to address my point that there actually IS a center designed in Performa3 with your preferred design. Does having a center design such as the C208 mean they still cut costs on the whole series (given YOUR comment above)?

You admit you have not heard the C205. You had no idea what the crossover point of the C205 is. You have no idea how Revel custom designed the driver or, as milt99 has point, what Revel's overall design philosophy is/was for Performa3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

I would like you to point out where I said any given speaker is that the Salon2. I never said anything remotely close.
I did? No, all I said was that someone had posted they auditioned the F208 next to the Salon2. That had NOTHING to do with you. Not sure what you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

Until you replied to Neutralguy YOU NEVER ASKED THAT QUESTION. And yes I have heard both and own the larger LC2.
And the LC2 is better than the LC1, with has no midrange driver, but at least the tweeter of the LC1 is not inline with the dual mid-bass drivers.
Right, but again, have you heard it next to the C205? WE know you haven't heard it, yet elsewhere on the forum you have already posted this:
"The C205 does have one difference, that being the waveguide is rotated 90* from normal. But I still don't like it does not have a MR driver. And as such, I doubt its as good as the JBL LC2 and certainly not as good as the PC600."

So you look at a design, probably after reading something on the internet ...yet you imply the LC2 will sound better. Admit it, you just don't like the C205, a speaker you have yet to hear and have no clue about (with regards to revels custom drivers, crossovers, rotated waveguide, etc), and as i listed out above tried to use the C205 as evidence Revel is cutting corners on the Performa3 line...yet conveniently still fail to acknowledge the existence of the C208. If you are going to use the C205s MTM config as evidence of Revel lowering its standard with the Performa3 line, then doesn't the design of the C208 actually completely disprove your point? It baffles me. Facts are facts, and post history does not lie, my friend. I'm really sorry I have to spell this out for you, but you seem to be extremely biased and scattered on this. You either lack logic, or have some sort of agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

And I really could not care less if you do not believe I have built speakers. And I can happily say you will never have the pleasure of hearing them.
I'm glad that makes you happy. I assure you, I won't lose any sleep over this. tongue.gif
Edited by Esox50 - 1/27/13 at 6:57pm
post #2883 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

Once again, it is only you who keeps making that statement. And issues I may have with the Performa3, as a series, has nothing to do with the issues of the C205. And it really makes no difference to this conversation as to what tweeters the JBL centers have. As the conversation has to do with the lack of a midrange driver in the C205, opposed to the LC2 having one. And the LC1's tweeter not inline with the mid-bass driver, which the C205 is.
You don't think it applies? My point was subtle, but let me spell this one out for you as well. rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

For starters, the Ultima2 series uses Be tweeters, top end all the way. Al can be good, but Ti is better and Be is better yet.
I would rather have Ti tweeters, having used both Al and Ti over the years. But each series and what materials are used is all about the intended price point.
If the Performa3 seems something less than the Performa2 its kinda like JBL's line. in the last 6.5 years I would say only one or two series, at the most, are better than the '06 Studio L series. The others that have come out during that time are all something less.
So, I don't think it's a co-incidence that the center channel you choose as evidence of some sort of flaw with the C205 uses Titanium tweeters. BTW, are the PolyPlas (i.e. plastic) driver in the JBL LC2 "top end all the way"? OR does driver material only matter when it suits your speculation of the performance of the Performa3 series? eek.gifwink.gif

Tell ya what, I would tell you to stop this nonsense and go hear the Performa3, but it seems you've already made up your mind and wouldn't give them a fair shake anyway. It does seem ludicrous, given Revels track record, to believe they've taken a step back with Performa3. I think member LSDEC said it best yesterday. Technology moves on. Sorry 4DHD, but I don't think you have a clue as to how Revel designed the new Performa3 from teh ground up. Check out some of the videos LSDEC has posted. Look what what Revel has on their site, etc.

Also, as far as Revel "conspicuously" not providing some measurements of Performa3, which was implied that maybe they are hiding something (though not by 4HHD, so I'll let you off the hook for this one tongue.gifwink.gif), has anyone asked them to post the measurements? Has anyone asked them to comment? Or is it better practice to speculate of some great conspiracy at Revel to conceal the truth that Performa3 sucks? The government also shot JFK and is hiding the presence of aliens. biggrin.gif Sometimes, the simple path to an answer is the best. Tell you what, in the spirit of not continuing this stupidity...why don't the few of you post all of your gripes and speculation about the Performa3 designs and Revel's apparent "coverup" or trying to "pull the wool over the unsuspecting", and I'll personally see if I can get Revel to comment.

I cannot guarantee they will respond, but we'll see...
post #2884 of 6812
Excuse me for inserting myself into this debate and you can tell me to f*ck off but,
How about we just agree to disagree and stop the back and forth.

You have both made your points, point by point.

You are both very knowledgeable and have addressed the issues or non-issues as you see them.

Just speaking for myself, I'd like to reserve any further judgement or speculation on these speakers until first hand observation or trusted reviews come in.
post #2885 of 6812
but I AM a trusted review lol
The speaker might, and might not measure well but i think the way these produce music is enchanting, till you realize what they are missing. By enchanting i mean, clean and never edgy soundin.
The cool phantom center (which i have also heard on the martin logan electrostats) the disappearing act of the tweeter and how well and smoothly all frequencies blended.
Not to mention the looks of the speaker.
But, it didn't take long to realize that the although the tweeter was smooth, it always felt like it was there riding the back of the mids instead of doing its own particular job. Never once tried to sing.
Then there was the depth less sound. Once again, the phantom center was cool but gave such a false presence to the music. The size of the image of the vocals was mediocre but what really had me itching my head was the fact that ONLY the vocals had the large(r) sound.
The rest of the audio seemed very small and therefore the main attraction seemed to be only the vocals instead of all the frequencies.
Geesh, i know it seems like i've been a leaching troll but it's hard trying to describe something that i did not engineer myself.
post #2886 of 6812
+1 on Milt99. Lets let the Performa3 line speak for themselves, or at least wait until people who have actually heard them to comment.
post #2887 of 6812
Bthrb4u, we have read your input many times over. Neither of us have Revels (at this point) so I consider myself a guest on this thread. You have made your point so lets see if others confirm or not. Please give it a rest and when more feedback comes in, then please feel free to add in then. I apologize for singling you out as there are several disagreements going but at least some have Revels where we don't. I do wish everyone would wait for real feedback and if they are inferior to the Performa2 series, then dis them deservedly. As noted before, that would surprise me but I try to be open minded. Things can change of course, but I am considering a two channel (2.0) rig and Salon2s, Kef Blades and Salk Soundscapes sit on the top of my list. Perhaps it will be Salon3s by then but they remain on the front of my choices.
post #2888 of 6812
It is afterall, easy for me to be a bit detached as in the Studio2s I have found a speaker that literally blows me away.
FWIW jima4a, I have the original trio of Salk HT-2s made.

To make a long story kinda short, back in 2005 Jim Salk was making a Veracity center channel(horizontal).
I thought that that speaker turned upright(vertical) would make a killer D'Appolito L\C\R.
After a few emails he and Dennis agreed and the HT-2 was born.

If you look at the Salk site, the satin black HT-2 monitors with the black Seas Excel drivers are the very same ones in my theater\music room.
I didn't care about custom finishes and since I was placing them behind an acoustically transparent screen I was worried about the Seas cones showing through so I requested the black drivers.
Seas has long since discontinued the black magnesium cones so I have some really unique speakers.
Initially the HT-2s were not hot sellers but when Jim came up with the SongTower configuration for a lot less money, bang, those have been his bread & butter and the HT-2 TL sells very well.
One thing about MTMs is they are very dynamic.
3 HT-2s provide an awesome soundstage for movies and multi-channel music.

Holy crap jima4a, I just re-read your speaker choices KEF Blades, Salons and Soundscapes?
You're in some rarified air there son.
If I had the bucks, those KEFs would be tempting.
Edited by Milt99 - 1/28/13 at 1:24am
post #2889 of 6812
So you have Studio2s and Salks?! Sweet!
post #2890 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by jima4a View Post

Bthrb4u, we have read your input many times over. Neither of us have Revels (at this point) so I consider myself a guest on this thread. You have made your point so lets see if others confirm or not. Please give it a rest and when more feedback comes in, then please feel free to add in then. I apologize for singling you out as there are several disagreements going but at least some have Revels where we don't. I do wish everyone would wait for real feedback and if they are inferior to the Performa2 series, then dis them deservedly. As noted before, that would surprise me but I try to be open minded. Things can change of course, but I am considering a two channel (2.0) rig and Salon2s, Kef Blades and Salk Soundscapes sit on the top of my list. Perhaps it will be Salon3s by then but they remain on the front of my choices.

There was a guy selling his relatively new Soundscape12 on AudiogoN for $8K. Too bad you missed that great deal.

There is also a Soundscape10 owner who says the RAAL on the Phil2 sound as great as the RAAL on the Soundscape, but he preferred the BG Neo8 midrange on the Phil2 over the Accuton midrange of the Soundscape.

I've compared my Phil3 to my Salon2, and I think the Phil3 can hold its own. I don't know which is "better" or more preferred if it were a double-blinded test. But since it's not blinded, of course I will prefer the Salon2. biggrin.gif
Edited by AcuDefTechGuy - 1/28/13 at 5:58am
post #2891 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

There was a guy selling his relatively new Soundscape12 on AudiogoN for $8K. Too bad you missed that great deal.

There is also a Soundscape10 owner who says the RAAL on the Phil2 sound as great as the RAAL on the Soundscape, but he preferred the BG Neo8 midrange on the Phil2 over the Accuton midrange of the Soundscape.

I've compared my Phil3 to my Salon2, and I think the Phil3 can hold its own. I don't know which is "better" or more preferred if it were a double-blinded test. But since it's not blinded, of course I will prefer the Salon2. biggrin.gif

The Philharmonic 3 is close or just as good as the Salon2...interesting.

So, if your budget was $4k would the Phil3 be your #1 pick?
post #2892 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by lsdec View Post

The Philharmonic 3 is close or just as good as the Salon2...interesting.

So, if your budget was $4k would the Phil3 be your #1 pick?

I think the Phil3 is close to the Salon2. But keep in mind the point of diminishing returns here. In this hobby, spending twice the money will not get us twice the quality.

For strictly 2.0 (absolutely no subwoofer), then, yes, I think the Phil3 may be my #1 pick for $4K budget.

But I will always prefer subwoofers. So if I had a strict budget of $4K, then I would get a single Funk 18.0 TSAD unpowered sub for $2K delivered & spend the other $1690 on a pair of TAD 2201 monitors or other monitors like the KEF R300 or Revel M106.
Edited by AcuDefTechGuy - 1/28/13 at 7:07am
post #2893 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

I think the Phil3 is close to the Salon2. But keep in mind the point of diminishing returns here. In this hobby, spending twice the money will not get us twice the quality.

For strictly 2.0 (absolutely no subwoofer), then, yes, I think the Phil3 may be my #1 pick for $4K budget.

But I will always prefer subwoofers. So if I had a strict budget of $4K, then I would get a single Funk 18.0 TSAD unpowered sub for $2K delivered & spend the other $1690 on a pair of TAD 2201 monitors or other monitors like the KEF R300 or Revel M106.

Wow! The Philharmonic 3 is close to the Revel Salon2?
post #2894 of 6812
Only if the Phil3 weren't so dam ugly smile.gif

I guess I can put an acoustically transparent bag over its head.

They looks massive at 2 feet deep
post #2895 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

Wow! The Philharmonic 3 is close to the Revel Salon2?

Just one opinion. Others may totally disagree. The Phil3 sounds great & has great bass. Of course, the aesthetic is nothing like the Salon2.

Just like some guys like Salk, but some prefer the KEF Q900 that he paid $1300 over some Salk that costs $3,000. Everyone will have a different opinion. Don't be too surprised. biggrin.gif

I had a Christmas party at my house. I asked the guys which they liked better between KEF 201/2, B&W 802D2, Salon2, & Phil3. It was not blinded at all. They knew exactly which were playing. Naturally everyone either picked the 802D2 or Salon2.

The guys who were interested in speaker measurements picked the Salon2. The guys that didn't care about or even know about measurements picked the 802D2. But they all knew these were the biggest and most expensive speakers of the bunch.
Edited by AcuDefTechGuy - 1/28/13 at 8:51am
post #2896 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by lsdec View Post

Only if the Phil3 weren't so dam ugly smile.gif

I guess I can put an acoustically transparent bag over its head.

They looks massive at 2 feet deep

Can't argue with personal preference. biggrin.gif

Yes, they are very deep & need some room. It's great for the bass though.
post #2897 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

I've compared my Phil3 to my Salon2, and I think the Phil3 can hold its own. I don't know which is "better" or more preferred if it were a double-blinded test. But since it's not blinded, of course I will prefer the Salon2. biggrin.gif

I have the Philharmonic 3 (based on your comparison to the Salon2) and can say, if this is the case, I no longer want the Salon2. I currently own the Performa2 F52 and still can't say the Phil3 is better than the F52. I'll concede that the Phil3 has more clear highs and more authoritative bass, but it doesn't give me that warm fuzzy that the F52 does.

I've been playing with placement of both the speakers and acoustic treatments in my room for the last few weeks and still have yet to get the Phil3 to move me the way the F52 does. The highs are clear, but the overall soundstage makes it seem like I'm on the balcony listening to a street performance. This has been remedied by raising the speakers by 5". The soundstage is large and wide, but does not expand outside the physical location of the speakers.

The bass, while more prominent than the F52 at low master volume levels, cause problems at higher volumes. I specifically chose the Phil3 over the Phil2 for the added low end. I was hoping to not have to use my subs when listening to 2 channel music. When running the speakers full range at above average volumes (75+ dB), the bass drivers will bottom out (with a very scary sounding noise) preventing me from turning the volume up anymore. I'm not listening to rap or hip hop either. This is while listening to Alicia Keys. So I have no choice, but to run them small with subs. The F52 had no such problem.

Recently, I let my brother-in-law borrow my F52 to audition them and without any room treatments or testing, I heard the sound of the F52 and they still gave me that warm fuzzy feeling. This is in a room with wood floors, 20' sliding glass doors on the left and a 25' x 3' window on the right. The speakers were tucked in the corners with, at most 10" of space between the front and side walls. There is one rug in the middle of the room, but nothing in front of the speakers themselves and large hard leather sofas.

I am now in the search for possibly replacing my F52s. I am following this thread closely for the consensus on the new F208 or possibly stepping it up to the Studio2s. After all this babbling, I STILL am lusting for the Salon2s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lsdec View Post

The Philharmonic 3 is close or just as good as the Salon2...interesting.

So, if your budget was $4k would the Phil3 be your #1 pick?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

I think the Phil3 is close to the Salon2. But keep in mind the point of diminishing returns here. In this hobby, spending twice the money will not get us twice the quality.

For strictly 2.0 (absolutely no subwoofer), then, yes, I think the Phil3 may be my #1 pick for $4K budget.

But I will always prefer subwoofers. So if I had a strict budget of $4K, then I would get a single Funk 18.0 TSAD unpowered sub for $2K delivered & spend the other $1690 on a pair of TAD 2201 monitors or other monitors like the KEF R300 or Revel M106.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

Wow! The Philharmonic 3 is close to the Revel Salon2?

See my post above. While the Phil3 is a good speaker and I would have loved them had I never heard my Revel F52, I would not say they are close to the Salon2 unless the Salon2 is also not as good as my F52s. I would highly doubt that though. With my F52s I would spend my days literally waiting to get home just to listen to them. This is EVERY day. With the Phil3, not so much. I enjoy listening to them, but I can just as well be online and have the news on in the background. Don't get me wrong. When I do listen to them with my music, they do sound very good, but it's not something I make a point to do for enjoyment. I'm still playing around with placement, amount of fiberfill in the upper cabinet, foam attenuation pads for the RAAL tweeters and my room treatments. Still trying to give the Phil3 a fair shake, but it's not looking good.

I'm probably the only one who hasn't sung high praises for the Phils.
post #2898 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

Yes, they are very deep & need some room. It's great for the bass though.

Unfortunately, this is not the case for me. Well, they are if I keep the volume down. Not so much once the volume is turned up. I have had them up to 24" from the front wall (measured from wall to the rear, top of the bass module) and ~4' from the side walls. frown.gif
post #2899 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

Just one opinion...Don't be too surprised. biggrin.gif

I'm never surprised by "audio opinion", I find your statement interesting.
post #2900 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by duc135 View Post

I'm probably the only one who hasn't sung high praises for the Phils.

You're not the only one. Salk speakers are essentially Philharmonic speakers since both have crossovers by Dennis Murphy.

At least 2 other forum members have said they preferred KEF over the Salk speakers, which also means they preferred the KEF over the Phil.

Not every audiophile speaker is for everyone. Every room is different. Our perceptions and brains are different. Personal preference prevails. wink.gif

I may have a great experience with the Phil's, but you may not, which is understandable.

So when I say I think the Phil3 is "close" to the Salon2, that's just my definition of "close". biggrin.gif

I'm sure the Salon2 is better than the F52, but again everyone will have a different definition of how much "better". biggrin.gif

Just like when guys say "The Salon2 is much better than the Studio2" or "The B&W 800D2 is much better than the 802D2", I'm thinking "R I G H T". biggrin.gif
Edited by AcuDefTechGuy - 1/28/13 at 9:39am
post #2901 of 6812
Anyone experienced any difference when playing with the grills on and then playing with the grills taken off? I am sensing it, but unsure if that is just in my head or it's real ...
Do I have to rerun the Multi-EQ again if I take off or put on the grills?
post #2902 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosoft7 View Post

Anyone experienced any difference when playing with the grills on and then playing with the grills taken off? I am sensing it, but unsure if that is just in my head or it's real ...
Do I have to rerun the Multi-EQ again if I take off or put on the grills?

I cannot hear a difference between grilles on vs off.
post #2903 of 6812
I knew you guys weren't interested in hearing my input anymore lol. was just trying to be obnoxiously annoying, hoping i would get hit with some of the heat that was going around so i could fit in.
post #2904 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post

Unless you're Kevin Voecks, it would be impossible to say.
The original Ultima line was around for 10 years.
The Ultima2 line was introduced at CES 2007.

Three things I recall hearing in an audio(?) or Stereophile interview with Kevin about the Ultima line.

1) The original line was still better than just about anything out there at its price point
2) They would only release a new product that had a substantial improvement
3) I believe he noted that some of the magazines would remove products in their recommended listings after X number of years. So even though the original Ultima line was better than stuff out there, it was not being listed any longer.

I'll see if I can dig that up and repost. I think it may have been Stereophile, but not sure and it was with the release of the F52s I think.

Regardless, what you're seeing--especially with the Ultima line--is that you probably are seeing a refresh cycle of 8-10 years. Let's not forget from cabinet designs to manufacturing and even improvements at that cost and level, it's a big deal to suddenly shift production and have enough of a difference in performance to justify the new release.
post #2905 of 6812
it's not like i actually thought they were a bad speaker. for the money they have some nice things to offer but i was comparing them to what my ideal speaker and ideal speakers to some of us are speakers that are over $10,000
post #2906 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by bthrb4u View Post

I knew you guys weren't interested in hearing my input anymore lol. was just trying to be obnoxiously annoying, hoping i would get hit with some of the heat that was going around so i could fit in.

So you're a troll?
post #2907 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by duc135 View Post


I am now in the search for possibly replacing my F52s. I am following this thread closely for the consensus on the new F208 or possibly stepping it up to the Studio2s. After all this babbling, I STILL am lusting for the Salon2s.

The F208 are really really good speakers. Very close to the Studio2 with a better finish at a fraction of the price. I listened to them side by side and also the F208 & F206 side by side.

I only looked at the C205 and the C208 and said, "ok C208 it is". :-)

Be prepared to wait 6 weeks + for them though. I'm pretty annoyed that I have to wait until March (hopefully that'll be it) for speakers ordered in the 2nd week of January.

My patience is running thin... I decided on the gloss black though.
post #2908 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

So you're a troll?

A rhetorical question I'm sure. biggrin.gif
post #2909 of 6812
Quote:
Originally Posted by lsdec View Post

The F208 are really really good speakers. Very close to the Studio2 with a better finish at a fraction of the price. I listened to them side by side and also the F208 & F206 side by side.

I only looked at the C205 and the C208 and said, "ok C208 it is". :-)

My patience is running thin... I decided on the gloss black though.

With the C208, you made the right choice. With the C205, if they had raised the tweeter above the center of dual the 5", that would have eliminated a big part of my objections. Although, as I noted, I'd like to hear how the 205's rotated WG changes things.
post #2910 of 6812
I might have a little to much time on my hands lol. But actually, the reasoning behind me trying to take some of the heat was because if someone were to get on me about something it would have been miniscule compared to the argument that was going on here between a person i find to be pretty awesome to read his comments and someone who i find to be quite a troll himself who is obsessed with hearing himself talk and over analyzes other people conversations and turns it into a big debate because someone had an opinion. Guess he's never heard of reasoning. Hate to see what his love life is like lol. No names mentioned.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Revel Owners Thread