Revel M16 Speaker Review

[YSC]

I don't always think measurements tell the whole story. They can point out certain things. They are similar in the fact they are warm tilting but they definitely sound like different speakers. Different tonality. To compensate for less bass in the M16 I had to raise the crossover point slightly and add a little volume to my sub. I would say I know the DBR62 pretty well and have tried them in 4 different sized rooms. The M16 is NOT a bad speaker by any means, comes down to personal preference.

I mean it's not an absolute thing to do measurement and call it a day. the trend is obvious and that we know the dispersion pattern caused a lot of in room effects, thing is to see if there's a obvious placement issue resulted and sub integration needs some measurement to do really well and make it sound like a single speaker. that aside we have the adaptation effect where one need to adapt to a new sound for a while.

Surely personal preference is a very true thing but when getting a new speaker, especially with a sub, measurement did help a lot of level matching both and minimize phase issues so you don't mess up that part to get a true evaluation of whether you like it or not.

 

[Fuzziekiwi]

I just hooked up the R200's. These are exactly what I was looking for. Unfortunately the M16's are going back. I'll still hook them up one more time but.. the R200 gets rid of the issues I had with the DBR62 while sounding better.

Those wanting to pick up an M16 might wanna keep an eye on the openbox/scratch and dent section..

 

[Chromatischism]

Still a great speaker but the M16 is much more detailed up high, has a bigger soundstage, and better bass quality to my ears (although much less bass than the DBR62).

The DBR62 is laid back, a little bassy, with some treble roll off- I could listen to these 8+ hours a day blasting without fatigue (I WFM so sometimes I'll be listening to music all day).

The M16 is flatter and more exciting to listen to with far more treble detail/overall, & soundstage. I can see these as being slightly fatiguing after a few hours, though nowhere near the RP600M that I had tried before.

Out of the two, DBR62 can be used without a sub IMO, the M16 not as much.

Different instruments sounds better on one speaker than the other to me.

You'll probably be happy with either one unless you don't like warmer sounding speakers.

Great insights you're providing.

Revel (and other waveguided speakers) provide the ability to attenuate the tweeter off-axis without coloring the sound. Did you try aiming the M16s straight into the room instead of directly at you?

 

[Chromatischism]

I just hooked up the R200's. These are exactly what I was looking for. Unfortunately the M16's are going back. I'll still hook them up one more time but.. the R200 gets rid of the issues I had with the DBR62 while sounding better.

Those wanting to pick up an M16 might wanna keep an eye on the openbox/scratch and dent section..

Interesting. I regard those as good speakers but I hate the idea of the narrow dispersion of the ring tweeter. Can you try them off axis and see how much the sound changes?*

*Yes I know the effect is in play at all times with less tweeter energy in the wall reflections which will skew the sound profile, but it's still important to understand what other listeners will hear if you have a group over.

 

[Fuzziekiwi]

Great insights you're providing.

Revel (and other waveguided speakers) provide the ability to attenuate the tweeter off-axis without coloring the sound. Did you try aiming the M16s straight into the room instead of directly at you?

I always play with placement.

 

[theyellowspecial]

How would you compare the two? My current setup is the DBR62. Mine are coming soon but I didn't realize that the Revel were not sold in pairs sooo I just ordered the second speaker and my wallet hurts lol.

I thought they were similar, but the DBR62's deeper midrange dip was noticeable (which you seemed to pick up on in your later review being more laid back). Also, as mentioned previously the DBR62's increased sidewall reflections in my narrow room resulted in a "hazy" presentation. Anyone can experience this for themselves with any speaker by testing large ranges of toe-in with speakers near a wall.

No comments on bass as I crossover at 100Hz to stereo subwoofers and run Dirac to ~300Hz.

Now that my ear EQ has settled in after a few weeks, the M16s sound very balanced.

Those free side reflexions exists any way.

Yes, but with speakers close to the sidewalls, there's a big difference in how late the reflections arrive at the ear when toeing in speakers crossing the listening position. In my 20ft long room, those sidewall reflections become rear-wall reflections and are delayed significantly to the listening position. This makes all the difference in the world to fidelity, including music and movie dialogue (I don't use a center channel).

 

[Fuzziekiwi]

I thought they were similar, but the DBR62's deeper midrange dip was noticeable (which you seemed to pick up on in your later review being more laid back). Also, as mentioned previously the DBR62's increased sidewall reflections in my narrow room resulted in a "hazy" presentation. Anyone can experience this for themselves with any speaker by testing large ranges of toe-in with speakers near a wall.

No comments on bass as I crossover at 100Hz to stereo subwoofers and run Dirac to ~300Hz.

Now that my ear EQ has settled in after a few weeks, the M16s sound very balanced.

Yes, but with speakers close to the sidewalls, there's a big difference in how late the reflections arrive at the ear when toeing in speakers crossing the listening position. In my 20ft long room, those sidewall reflections become rear-wall reflections and are delayed significantly to the listening position. This makes all the difference in the world to fidelity, including music and movie dialogue (I don't use a center channel).

I agree the DBR62's dip is noticeable but it does take the edge off certain artist's recordings, and pairs better with a lot of the music I listen to although there is a downgrade in soundstage/imaging. I listened to the M16 with and without a sub but I still couldn't convince myself to keep it, some vocals for me sound really off (but the dbr has that issue sometimes too) and I'm pretty confident it's not the recording. Looking in the graphs it looks like the peak at 5k? bothers my ears as well as the slight rise near 1k.

 

[enioentity]

Wow, good comparison between speakers Fuzziekiwi, lots of good info, just what i was looking for!

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Wow, good comparison between speakers Fuzziekiwi, lots of good info, just what i was looking for!

Revel thread turning subjective.

 

[Dimitrov]

Are there any links to where this speaker is on clearance? Most places I see have it for $450-490 each. I see some people buying them for $700 for a pair and I can't them anywhere listed at that price.

 

[nathan]

Are there any links to where this speaker is on clearance? Most places I see have it for $450-490 each. I see some people buying them for $700 for a pair and I can't them anywhere listed at that price.

On a regular basis (a couple times a year) it appears Revel/harman authorize dealers to list them below MSRP. Crutchfield is one place where this is visible when it happens.

That being said, that "sale" price is actually the price that a dealer will give you if you contact them directly most of the time (assuming Harman/Revel has them in stock at the time) and ask them for their best price (and like you might suspect, they will give you the best price for a larger order so be sure to ask about the full number you are interested in).

 

[Gatordaddy]

Are there any links to where this speaker is on clearance? Most places I see have it for $450-490 each. I see some people buying them for $700 for a pair and I can't them anywhere listed at that price.

Most local dealers will sell below MSRP but are unable to advertise below MSRP. Try calling.

 

[AVKS]

Are there any links to where this speaker is on clearance? Most places I see have it for $450-490 each. I see some people buying them for $700 for a pair and I can't them anywhere listed at that price.

While it was a couple of years ago now, I got my pair new from a dealer for $400. Definitely call/visit in person if you can.

 

[Dimitrov]

I've contacted Amirm on the website who has a company that sells them. I'm not actually based in the States, I'm from South Africa but the pricing there is horrendous and my local distributor (who used to be an actual distributor) is now selling direct to end users which doesn't help me at all. I'm better off importing it and saving

 

[Chromatischism]

I had the same misunderstanding you're demonstrating at one point. The following exchange may be illuminating for you.

View attachment 53074

Put another way, the third harmonic is a signal. That signal is then amplified by the breakup. The resulting distortion at H1 thus appears to be higher.

To put it simply, to reduce the 5.4 kHz bump, we must EQ at 1.8 kHz? In fact the whole 1-2 kHz level should be brought down per QMuse's EQ, but then maybe another dB or two at the distortion peak around 1.8 kHz and another dB or two at 5.4 kHz.

 

[dominikz]

To put it simply, to reduce the 5.4 kHz bump, we must EQ at 1.8 kHz? In fact the whole 1-2 kHz level should be brought down per QMuse's EQ, but then maybe another dB or two at the distortion peak around 1.8 kHz and another dB or two at 5.4 kHz.

Personally I'm not convinced that the 5,4kHz resonance is a result of the M16 THD increase between 1,5-2kHz. I'd say this resonance is more likely the effect of the physical design of the loudspeaker - perhaps due to waveguide and acoustic lense?

Here's why:

1. The similar M106 and M105 don't have the 1,5-2kHz distortion increase but show a similar on-axis resonance at 5,4kHz:
   
   
   
   (Source 1)
   
   
   
   (Source 2)
2. The on-axis frequency response is measured with a sweep, which means that at any single point in time only one frequency is generated at the input, and the same frequency is then measured and plotted at the output. I.e. when measuring the response at 5,4kHz there is no simultaneous 1,8kHz input signal that could generate the H3 distortion component and cause an increase of the response at 5,4kHz.
3. If the THD peak is 2% that is approximately -34dB vs fundamental. If we measure at 85dB SPL that means that the H3 of the 1,8kHz would be at approximately 51dB SPL. So the total signal at 5,4kHz is: 85 dB SPL + 51 dB = 85,172 dB SPL (if both signals are fully in phase - worst case; see e.g. this dB calculator); i.e. an irrelevant contribution. The M16 5,4kHz resonance is around 2dB vs the on-axis slope - which is a lot more. Actually at 85dB SPL, the 1,8kHz H3 would need to be close to 30% to result in 2dB boost at 5,4kHz.

 

[Chromatischism]

Nice. So EQ can just target the resonance directly.

 

[abdo123]

There is no way the resonance is second harmonic or any distortion at all. That's not how sine sweep measurements work at all.

 

[dominikz]

Nice. So EQ can just target the resonance directly.

Yes - but be careful, flattening the on-axis 5,4kHz resonance too much would harm the very nice off-axis response (resonance is much less prominent there - see also listening window and sound power responses in the spin):

(Source)

EDIT: In case it helps I developed a couple of EQ presets based on my own quasi-anechoic spin of the M16 in this post. The relevant part:

Loudspeaker response optimization with EQ
Lastly, I've played a bit with the amazing 'optimizer' function of VituixCAD to generate a few PEQ loudspeaker correction profiles for the M16. Here's what I managed to generate.

Note that if anyone were to try them, in both of these EQ presets I'd suggest to disable the first 2-bands of PEQ completely (these just flatten the bass-bump) and instead use in-room MMM measured response to correct below ~300Hz.

1) EQ optimized for highest preference score:
This EQ profile is optimized to achieve the highest preference score; 10-band PEQ, keeping boosts below 3dB, and Q below 5.
Code:
Filter Settings file

Room EQ V5.20.4
Dated: 19.11.2021. 22:52:53

Notes:Revel M16 - EQ optimized for highest preference score

Equaliser: Generic
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 96.80 Hz Gain -3.30 dB Q 2.120
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 130.0 Hz Gain -2.10 dB Q 2.000
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1510 Hz Gain -0.50 dB Q 0.997
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1890 Hz Gain -0.90 dB Q 5.000
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2068 Hz Gain 0.90 dB Q 0.991
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2524 Hz Gain 1.50 dB Q 5.000
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5562 Hz Gain -1.70 dB Q 3.720
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 5726 Hz Gain 1.30 dB Q 5.000
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 7619 Hz Gain 0.60 dB Q 5.000
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 12775 Hz Gain 1.00 dB Q 5.000

Preference rating as calculated by VituixCAD jumps to:

• Speaker alone: 6.4 (original is 5.3)
• Speaker with sub: 8.7 (original is 7.5)

2) EQ optimized for LW (weight=70%) and PIR (weight=30%) linearity:
This EQ profile is mainly optimized for LW linearity (70% weight) and with secondary focus on PIR linearity (30% weight). The ratios are not based on any research per-se, but my intention was to get a 'flatter' LW than what the preference score optimization gave. Again 10-band PEQ, keeping boosts below 3dB, and Q below 5.
Code:
Filter Settings file

Room EQ V5.20.4
Dated: 19.11.2021. 23:10:13

Notes:Revel M16 - EQ optimized for LW (70%) and PIR (30%) linearity 2021-11-19

Equaliser: Generic
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 100.0 Hz Gain -3.10 dB Q 2.380
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 136.0 Hz Gain -1.90 dB Q 2.040
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1570 Hz Gain -0.50 dB Q 1.040
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1949 Hz Gain -1.10 dB Q 5.000
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2478 Hz Gain 1.40 dB Q 5.000
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2804 Hz Gain 0.80 dB Q 1.080
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5706 Hz Gain -1.80 dB Q 2.660
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 5888 Hz Gain 1.40 dB Q 5.000
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 7400 Hz Gain 0.60 dB Q 5.000
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 13610 Hz Gain 1.30 dB Q 5.000

Preference rating as calculated by VituixCAD jumps to:

• Speaker alone: 6.3 (original is 5.3)
• Speaker with sub: 8.6 (original is 7.5)

A few comments on EQ
I should quality the above EQ profiles by saying that, even if the score jumps seemingly by a lot from these EQs, most of the gain comes from removing the bass bump (~0,7 of preference score increase).
As I stated before, since the bass bump is in the modal frequency range of most rooms it can be seen as extra headroom for subtractive room EQ and IMHO should NOT be removed based on anechoic measurements alone. The rest of the response correction accounts for only a small remaining gain in preference score (0.3-0.4) and most of it may be negligible in real use.

 

[USER]

I really do wish there were more thorough measurements of these speakers' distortion. They take to EQ so well and I really do think that, in an appropriate room and at a reasonable volume, they are pretty much a full range speaker. My first measurements showed the opportunity to boost the lower bass region and so I tried it out. It seems to work just fine. One can run a high pass filter at 20-25hz to help them out. Attached are various measurements through the years and in different rooms.

Baseline in my family room:

EQ'ed with Dirac in my family room:

EQ'ed manually in my living room: (I am sure I could have boosted it like above; I forgot to)

Now these are my non-professional home measurements so take them with a grain of salt. (This is the reason I'd love to see actual measurements.) But it does seem that the bass distortion is as good as it gets at the price. With such good directivity (EQ ability) they represent an incredible value to me. The distortion/resonances at ~280 and ~1.8k are clearly the only blemishes on these speakers. It would be good to see what they look like at 96dB so that we can better discuss their effect and the speaker's limits.