Revel F228Be vs. Magico A3 and Paradigm 3F
 

I see Revel F228Be vs. Magico A3 and Revel Salon 2.

x2 .....

I don't think the Salon 2 and Magico A3 are close in price are they? Aren't they targeted at different audiences? I would have "guessed" that the Salon would outperform Magico's lowest price offering.

The least surprising piece of data was about the Diana Krall track. :D

Not sure what the price point of the Magico A3 is but the performance of the 'lesser' Revel is the real key here IMO and I suspect that does not come as a surprise to Mr. 'R' .........

I believe the Magico's were originally priced at just below $10k and with the recent price increase now around $11k. I think the Salons are about $21k.

:thumbsup:

A3s were originally $10K and are now $12.5K.

interesting, so they are more in line with the Studio 2's (my speakers). Would liked to have seen that comparison, not that I'm about to make any changes.

I agree for reasons related to size, weight, etc. and not just because of a price reassignment.
As would I. The Studio 2 has not been a focus in these comparisons.

Isn't there a built-in bias here? Wouldn't Harmon employees be likely to listen to Revel's frequently and therefore be somewhat pre-conditioned to their "sound"? Don't get me wrong, I've heard the F228be and found it to be an outstanding speaker. And, I've heard the Magico's (also good but not quite as "great" as the Revels IMO). But ... is there not more than likely a bias that's been introduced into the "testing" here by using all Harmon employees for the test?

I suspect so. I don't know if it's true or not, but I've read that Harman conducts meetings with the employees about the listening tests and what to listen for.

well test were DBT and who knows, but there is a chance they had no knowledge of what speakers they were listening to until after the test was done ?

That is the standard procedure.

Even if that were true the Harmon employees are likely "accustomed to" the sound of the Revel speakers. If the Revel sound is their "reference" it would follow that they "may" have a preference for those voicing tendencies. While we would all like to think that our "reference" is live un-amplified music, we listen far more to our "stereo systems" which become our de-facto "reference". If Revel speakers are the majority of the lisening panel's "aural reference" the results are "tainted" by an intrinsic bias - I would think.

That having been said, I personally like the voicing choices Kevin tends to make, so.... I'm not complaining, but I would think they would try to lessen the bias via a more random choice of "listeners" for such a test. Unless the goal is marketing - in which case I would want a panel with such a "built-in" favorable bias. Wouldn't it be more "believable" if the listening panel were professional reviewers that listen to a large array of different transducers on a regular basis?

yep, all possibilities .........

I can understand that long time listeners of Revel, or any other brand for that matter, will develop a brand preference based on sonic signatures specific to the physical design properties, and I can freely admit to this myself.

The main problem I have with DBT's is that they're rarely done fully independently. Sure, that shouldn't matter if speakers are assembled in a well designed room and listeners are exposed to musical selections without knowledge of the speaker they're auditioning you might think, but as we're all aware the setup and positioning of speakers is far from an easy task, and getting the best, most neutral performance from a speaker isn't easily achieved without lengths taken to position them relative to room boundaries, experimentation with toe-in and rake adjustments etc, and sometimes even adjustments to room furnishings and acoustic treatments. And as we know, some speakers are far more fussy than others in this respect.

That's not to suggest of course that Revel's DBT's are flawed or deliberately engineered to discriminate in favor of Revel speakers, but at the same time I wouldn't expect that Revel would be going out of their way to fully optimize a competing brand's speaker to their DBT environment.

Harman's setup treats all equally. First, it is mono and that eliminates a lot of the setup particularities that you refer to. Second, the DUT is strapped to a platform and positioned in the middle of the room for each and every candidate. Nothing is optimized except for sound level.

Are you indicating that there is something wrong for a company who deals with music reproduction to train its people what to listen for?

:thumbsup:

Thanks for that info.

So the DBT then doesn't attempt to determine listener's preference for a speaker's soundstage capabilities - which is potentially a limitation for those interested in mostly two channel listening.

And it also does still perhaps bias the test in favor of speakers that are designed for on-axis listening, as well as speakers that have a broader beam in the vertical axis, or where the optimum listener's height just so happens to coincide with the conditions of the test setup.

Not that I'm attempting to undermine the methodology but I can see that there's a high probability that there will be a bias in favor of Revel speakers simply because they're engineered to have a smoother response over a wider vertical and horizontal plane than most. An engineering positive of course.

Noting too the very fine review of the F228be in this month's issue of Stereophile.

Nope and this has been discussed at length (with contributions from Voecks and Toole) at https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...nce-shows.html

Nope. The listener can get up and move around. I did.

Or the other way around. Revel designs take into account the data derived from these tests of their speakers and those of many others.

Thanks.

One of Revel's primary design goals is smooth/even off-axis response or tightly controlled dispersion if you prefer. In the event, one could conclude that a speaker optimized for on-axis response would have an advantage in a "sweet spot" scenario but in fact, that's not the driving philosophy at Revel, not that on-axis response is ignored.

As an aside, the same goal is valued in the design of many professional JBL products. Smooth off axis response makes setting up large scale systems much easier when trying to optimize such factors as gain before feedback and even room coverage so here's a case where certain near field design goals also can be made to work in the far field.

I'm not suggesting there aren't other approaches to take, but smooth, controlled dispersion is a feature of almost all of Harman's upper tier products, even their horn loaded systems.

I think Harman's double blind rig is done about as well as it can be and provides considerable benefits to those who believe that the design of these things is a mix of art with a liberal dose of science applied.

Yep, agreed, if even it is predominantly a marketing ploy.

What matters in the end is the quality of the end product, which ultimately determines success or failure in the market, and in the case of Revel the quality is very high.

Like many I've been hoping that a Ultima3 would be released by now, meeting or exceeding the standard set by the Ultima2 but with a bit more efficiency and a more dynamic and coherent bass. A new look and better fit n' finish wouldn't go astray either.

Well, after an extensive audition of the F228Be, I remain thoroughly impressed. For me the Holy Grail is transparency and 3D staging without being bright and these speakers have those qualities. I have a pair arriving at the house tomorrow (local dealer) for "in home" audition with intent to buy (provided they "work" in my small listening room).

Excellent! I hope they work out great for you. Let us know.

Marc T

Will do Marc.

Soundmig, congrats on the incoming Revel's. Hopefully they will provide you with the sonic bliss you're looking for !

Thanks Mikado463, So far so good. The dealer and his wife spent a few hours with me working on speaker positioning and listener position - and so far so good :music: Well enough that I coughed up the $$$ for purchase.
These have been pretty well reviewed so I don't have anything really to add to what has already been said. But.... at the risk of being redundant, they have an uncanny ability to transport you to the recording venue and make you feel like you were/are there.
Still getting a handle on these big boys in a small room (10.5' x 11.5' x 9'), but surprisingly they are working! I'm still trying to decide if the ports will remain open or if the plugs will be used. Most likely they will stay open as these things just sing when they are allowed to breath (especially the chest tones of male vocals and "body" of instruments like bass clarinet and French Horn). The bass is "maybe" a wee bit more tidy with the plugs in - in my small room, but nothing wrong with concert bass drum and pipe organ pedal tones being allowed to "Flow" :thumbsup:
Yes, these are great speakers - very happy!!!

My conclusion was quite different. I bought these speakers for my 2nd, smaller system, after reading Kal review and seeing the measurements (System driven by Vitus Signature Integrated). I was impressed at the beginning, but they fatigue me fairly quick. They are simply too bright to my ears. Violins and trumpets are unbearable (and so are most female voices). The “present” area is impressive at first, but ultimately, for me, unpleasant and not realistic. The BBC curve would have helped here. They also have some sort of a metallic haze that was present at all time. Overall, not a speaker I can live with.

Sorry to hear about that. How big is the room and what is your listening distance? Mine is described in the review and I sit about 12' from the main L/R speakers.

That's ok, I should have auditioned them first, my bad. It’s an open den, so no issues of reflections. I do sit about 15’ away. Had other speakers here, none sounded so forward.

Like all mass produced products and custom as well, quality control can vary. I’m a CEDIA installer and I’ve seen issues arise many times even when testing has been included with the product. Your mention of a haze has made me curious. I’m familiar with Revels line and I’ve never had the problem of haze mentioned in reviews. Before giving up on the speakers I’d try to get a replacement pair. Your Revels are made in Indonesia and shipping could have caused some components to get out of whack. Or a QC problem at factory. Hopefully it comes together for you.

Marsalis .... sorry the F228Be's did not work out for you. No speaker works for "everyone" that's for sure.
My experience is very different as I selected the speaker based on extensive audition, because it has tremendous soundstaging and transparency (important to me) without being bright or strident. Other speakers that I like that seem to have similar warmth AND transparency are the Harbeth 40.2's and the Vandersteen 7MkII's. I'd describe none of the above mentioned speakers as "bright".
At some point it may depend on perspective. I grew up playing piano, trumpet and French Horn in bands and Orchestras. So my aural memory is based on an "on stage" perspective. There is definitely more HF energy on stage than there is 15 rows back in the audience. There is also more "detail" and a more defined "attack envelope" present on stage, so I have a tough time listening to speakers that don't provide that information. Some instruments get a little dirty when played loud at a close distance and that is "natural". Reproducing the "edge" of a trumpet at 6 feet without it sounding harsh is a real feat. To me the F228Be's have that ability and I very much enjoy the sound.
The F228Be's are also very sensitive to what is upstream from them. I use a Schiit Gungnir MB DAC which is "warm" sounding and I drive them with a MC modified Hafler which is on the Mosfet warmish side as well. Perhaps the upstream warmth helps my situation?
Anyway, sorry to hear that they did not work for you in your system and room. That has to be very disappointing.

Revel F228Be vs. Magico A3 and Paradigm 3F
 

Did you ever consider, hear or compare the m126Be? I’ve had my eye on these and my room isn’t much bigger than yours. I already have subs so I’m curious if there is a big difference other than bass extension.

I auditioned the M126Be as well, and it is a fine speaker. It isn't quite as good in the mid-range as is the 228, but I'm splitting hairs. One of my favorite recordings (A Sheffield Labs recording of wind ensembles) has some bassoon in it that was clearly better on the 228 vs. the 126. It seemed to me that in the attempt to get enough bass from the 6" driver on the 126 they tuned it such that there is mild veiling of some of the "texture" that makes a bassoon sound like a bassoon. Same with the French Horns on the same recording. I'm not sure how else to describe it, but that's the best I can do. That having been said, the 126 was one of the best sounding speakers I have heard (if not the best) at under $5K and it is substantially better (clearer and easier sounding) than the F208. Not as much bass as the 208, but a "better" sound that is clearer, more open AND yet more relaxed sounding. I found the 208 to have some mid-range hardness that I'd not be able to tolerate for the long haul.
Each person has things that they listen for, but that is what I heard. I'd highly recommend and audition of the 126Be as it is very very good. It may be tough to integrate subs with it, as the speaker is very detailed and very "quick". I was wanting to get rid of subs altogether and the 228Be's in my small room allowed me to 86 the subs!

Thanks for your detailed reply. I may try to audition the 126s someday soon. I understand about the subs- it took me some effort to get them just right, which necessitated a multi-channel DAC and JRiver so I could delay the mains. But now I’m invested and enjoying the benefits.

I heard the 208s a few years ago and remembered a bit of ‘chestiness’ for lack of a better audiophile term.

Interesting perspective, Soundmig. Not trying to highjack this thread, but would be interesting to hear your perspective on orchestral recordings and how 'natural' or desired by you might be different (or not) from what most recording engineers are trying to achieve.

Not sure that I understand the question completely. Suffice it to say that "most" orchestral recordings sound too bright to me. I think that in an effort to gain transparency and detail (like the Conductor hears), many classical recordings are just too bright. My favorite example of a "classical" recording that I think is really well recorded and "not too bright" is the Sheffield Labs "Music for Winds and Percussion, a tale of two cities" of Mozart, Grieg and Husa compositions. The CD version (made from Analog session tapes) sounds "just right" to me and is wonderful on the F228Be's.

Thanks, Soundmig. This was pretty much what I was looking for.