Jkalman, we are interested in your updates on this and hopefully you can get these room problems addressed.
114 responses Add your response
Dgad. I asked about changing the room shape, because I was worried about shared lengths (9' ceiling and one wall is mostly 18'). Richard Bird said he wanted to maintain room volume... I still have to send him more in-room speaker measurements. I sent the first ones back awhile ago and he acted as if it was fine and only some reflections needed to be corrected on the impulse response. Not quite what I was expecting... I'll update the thread once I get a chance to send him updated measurements with the Salon2s and see what he says. |
Ckoffend, I also had the same thought as you after reading the same. But I know even more people with rooms designed for acoustics w. problems. I honestly believe room size & shape is a problem. In that regard I will add to your question. Was the room space in full control of Rives, or was a basic shape demanded that needed to be maintained? |
Wow, reading up a bit (above) this is certainly not a glowing recommendation for the Rives designed rooms. Two expensively designed, almost cost no object rooms, both with bass problems? I would have suspected that paying the big bucks for a professional designer geared toward audio performance would prevent such an occurance. After these issues were found, how did the design company respond and address the issues? Any warning in advance that these issues would be present upon completion of the rooms? |
Bar81, Right on if you are referring to Robert Harley and The Absolute Sound. I believe they are becoming irrelevant when they don't even consider measurements of value in todays climate of genuinely significant technological improvements-on all fronts in the loudspeaker field. These armchair reviewers delighting in the discussion of a "darker" or "more syrupy" sound are reading too many coffee, wine and cigar ads, and perhaps should be reviewing the same. Kudos to Kevin Volks, Keith Johnson and others like them contributing so much to not only significantly enhanced music reproduction but also our understanding of the technical requirements for such advances to occur. |
BTW, in the previous post I was referring to the V3, since that is what we have been arguing about. My only mention of Magico speakers previous to you bringing up the V3s a couple of times, was to mention that I would like to hear the Minis and the Salon2s in a "properly treated" environment. Though I guess that shouldn't be necessary seeing as JV, whose TAS review raved about the Mini speakers, doesn't seem to use any room treatments except those Shakti Hallographs... Here is the exact post where I mention the Minis, then some of your posts following that one start mentioning the V3: I'm still trying to find an environment where the Magico Minis have been set up well in my area. The Salon2 and the Magico Mini... Two speakers I would love to hear properly. I have nothing personal against your speaker of choice (I noticed yesterday that you own a pair of V3s, because you mentioned it in another thread). I do consider your behavior towards me reprehensible though... |
Well, if that is the case, why are you constantly bringing them up? You were the one who brought them up in this thread, not me. After the hole you have dug for yourself, what are the chances you will admit to anything positive about them. I guess there will be no V3 for Jkalman. Ok, we got it. No can you please move on Dhaan, they look cool, I'll give them that... :D All the Magicos look very pretty. Like I mentioned before, I probably wouldn't mind them with a bit of EQing. The only issue would be the areas where there are -4dB depressions in the frequency response. It is very easy to cut excessive gain in the response, but it can be dangerous to raise a null in the response, especially at higher frequencies where any EQing can have a negative effect on the sound. If a null in the room corresponds to a null in the speaker's response, then you have even more serious issues. I also admire the use of nano materials in their speakers. I'm actually involved in a venture capital investment with a "nano scale" technology company, so I am well aware of the excellent properties carbon nano tubes have to offer every industry. I respect it when a company uses new technologies, even if it is cost prohibitive. I haven't dug any hole for myself. I've stuck to the arguments and in some cases used your own arguments against you to demonstrate that "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander." When your arguments failed you, you resorted to attacking me personally... BTW, I eat my steak medium rare and I don't use ketchup on my steak (my family were original investors in and actually own a large share of some world famous steakhouses in NYC... Smith and Wollensky and Ben Bensons). My issues with the Magico sound are limited to the V3, Mini I and Mini II in an unequalized state. I have no experience with their other speakers or with equalizing the Magico speakers I mentioned. |
I was never quite sure what exactly Mr. Jkalman has against the Magicos. This animosity has been dragged for some time now. Was entertaining for a while but somewhat pointless and old by now. This thread is about the Revel vs. W/P. It is unfortunate that the V3 got dragged in to that. If Jkalman like to discuss the V3, perhaps a new thread should be started. |
As I mentioned before, many times, there is more to loudspeakers design/performance then a flat freq. My issue with the W/P are much more fundamental than just a bad freq. plot. JK - If you had some basic understanding of how loudspeakers should be design, you would understand my points. It is your single minded approach to the subject that makes this discussion useless. We obviously looking at different truths here. One that you can correct with a PEQ, and I cant (I bet you also put Ketchup on your well done stake...). For the record, I find nothing wrong with your new loudspeakers. They are, as I said before, a huge improvement from where you are coming. The fact that you are not recognizing that, is pretty sad. It also, of course, throws your freq. response argument against the V3 out the window. |
JK-Please keep in mind that whenever you are going to bring up the V3, you will have to reckon with me. NP, I'm bored and need the entertainment... Not sure what you have against these speakers, but if you want to trash them, at least try and keep it real. How did I trash them? I told the truth about how they measure... As I mention before, even JA pointed out to the top octave shelved up of the Ultima Studio2 (Same tweeter arrangement as the Salon 2) This is true, which I mentioned in my post, and as I also mentioned, the Studio2 is not nearly as shelved up as the V3 is shelved up in the human audible range of the Frequency Response. Using the treble adjustment knob on the Studio2, the shelving isn't even worth mentioning... Especially from one who has defended the W/P -/+ 10db FR and admittedly, miss their 6 db midrange shelved up!! I enjoy upsetting you, since it causes you to exaggerate and/or flat out fabricate things about the W/P 8s, as well as distort things I previously mentioned in this thread. Without a doubt, you are Magico's worst enemy... If I were them, I would be begging you to start promoting another brand. :D The funny thing is, people can look at the objective measurements for the W/P8s and the V3s and see that I am telling the truth and you are not. They can also look at in-room responses and figure out what I have been saying about how speakers can be designed with frequency response aberrations intentionally for specific purposes (a common practice with in-wall, in-celling, and bookshelf speakers, among others). The W/P8s measure worst on the Stereophile site, where they are -5dB and +4dB, not the -/+10 dB you claim. The sooner you learn to use the truth to make your points, the better off your arguments will be, and the better off any speakers you associate yourself with will be... I never mentioned a "shelving up" in the mid-range... I did mention "shelving down" in a particular area of the mid-range, which happens to mate well with my room. I have to PEQ the Salon2s to get the same mid-range transparency with deeper male vocals that I had naturally with the W/P8s. The shelving down in the mid-range on the W/P8s allows for closer wall placement without the frequency response developing a mid-range bump that is bloated enough to interfere with many mid-range male vocals. That is all in the same paragraph complaining about the V3 extra 2 db abouve6.5K. Come on, get real. And then again, if you can correct it all with a good PEQ, does it really matter what speakers you end up having? So then you agree with me now that the W/P8 frequency response measurement issues are not really such a big deal? Make up your mind will ya... ;P I agree that it isn't such a big deal to have the V3s shelved up higher in the treble because the shelving can be EQed out with one form of EQ or another. I don't however see the point of spending money to bring a pair of V3s into my home to test, considering their measurements, which have issues in more than just the high treble. Wouldn't that be taking a step backwards according to your own philosophy concerning measurements? For instance, if you look at the V3 frequency response measurement, compare it to the Studio2 and then take a look at the in-room response of the Salon2, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that I am going to have even worse in-room response issues with the V3's frequency response, but like I said originally, and which you now agree with in your recent posts, it can be EQed out. Why bother though? With the Salon2 I have to do a lot less EQing and they cost less money as well. Why spend more money on a speaker that has more problems to deal with? Plus, with the EQing, I can make them sound practically the same anyway. As far as toeing-in (or out) the V3s to adjust for treble response is concerned, that will still yield bad results since the shelving isn't continuous throughout the entire treble band. So toeing them in or out will augment some areas while causing new issues with other areas that used to be flat or that were polar to the area being adjusted... Plus, between 3KHz and 10KHz, you have the response shooting down to -4dB then gradually rising up to +4dB (Wouldn't that be considered a bad crossover design?). Playing with the toe-in angle with that kind of wild variation in the response is not going to yield very linear results... My advice, stick with the EQing. ;) Also, whether a speaker is flat to 40KHz really is meaningless, since humans can't hear above 24KHz even at the peak of their hearing abilities, and even then, people who hear frequencies as high as 24KHz are very very very (etc) rare, as well as very very very young. People at my age (34) already don't hear above a level significantly lower than 24KHz, at least not at a decibel level that is even remotely near the border of useful for music playback. This is scientifically established data. (Absolute Threshold of Hearing) I do find it funny that you have now contradicted some of your earlier points in this thread. Now that the V3 does it, it is OK in your mind to design a speaker specifically for a certain kind of placement, while when Wilson did it for the W/P8, it was just wrong... Now it is OK to not have flat measurements, as long as it is a Magico speaker and not a Wilson Watt Puppy. Your logic and consistency flew out the window when many of your arguments about the W/P 8s could be applied to a Magico speaker. That doesn't help your argument. Take at as you wish but at least it is coming from a person that actually spent significant time with both speakers. Yeah, TAS is really big on measurements (I'm kidding of course)... I especially love those room treatments JV seems to be using in his room. What are those things called again? Shakti Hallographs? A person's credibility flies out the window in my book, when he uses something like that and says it actually does something to the sound of the music... Weird stuff like that is one reason why I stopped buying that magazine. The other reason is because they don't objectively measure equipment. IMO, the best periodical for researching equipment is SoundStage, since they use the NRC to get measurements. There is a much lower chance for biased results using an independent research group for measurements. Plus the results are going to be more consistent since they pretty much use the same methods every time, and their methods are based on objective research. I look forward to seeing how any Magico speaker measures via the NRC. IMO, many of the discrepancies RH finds between the speakers could likely be EQed out... While I would love the opportunity to experiment with both speakers, I'm not throwing down another lump of cash at this point on what would be frivolity. Besides which, when I heard them at shows, they sounded horrendously bright to me and despite what a reviewer or two has been saying, I thought they didn't image very well either... Go figure though, I didn't prefer any of the Radialstrahlers either. |
I agree in regards to reviews in general. However, at least RH had both speakers under the same roof. And I would say that just out of curiosity, one may feel the need to investigate more before reaching a conclusion based on debatable 2 db extra output above 6.5K. BTW, this issue is completely irrelevant since the V3 is designed to be listened slightly off-axis. In normal listing position (ears below the tweeters) the tweeters are flat almost out to 40K. |
I wouldn't put too much stock into a review from a publication with the credibility problems that one currently has. In any case, it's getting old how every few months (now apparently month to month) they find a new benchmark. However, your point with regard to the W/P measurements is valid, and I concur. |
JK-Please keep in mind that whenever you are going to bring up the V3, you will have to reckon with me. Not sure what you have against these speakers, but if you want to trash them, at least try and keep it real. As I mention before, even JA pointed out to the top octave shelved up of the Ultima Studio2 (Same tweeter arrangement as the Salon 2). Buying or not buying a speaker based on that alone, is silly. Especially from one who has defended the W/P -/+ 10db FR and admittedly, miss their 6 db midrange shelved up!! That is all in the same paragraph complaining about the V3 extra 2 db abouve6.5K. Come on, get real. And then again, if you can correct it all with a good PEQ, does it really matter what speakers you end up having? BTW, if you are at all really interested in a serious evaluation between the 2 speakers, you can start by reading RH of TAS comparison between them. Take at as you wish but at least it is coming from a person that actually spent significant time with both speakers. (http://www.avguide.com/news/2008/01/30/robert-harley-compares-the-outstanding-revel-ultima-salon2-and-the-magico-v3/ ). |
The other three Salon2s I ordered will be arriving next week. By this time next week I'll have a full 5.2 compliment with all Salon2s and Ultima Sub 30s for the two subwoofers. I'm impressed by how these speakers measure compared to the other speakers mentioned in this thread. I do miss the mid-range transparency of the W/P8, even if it was a product of intentional (albeit skillful) deviations in the frequency response. I can do this myself with a good PEQ, and hopefully get close to that mid-range clarity. Though, I can't change the materials being used, and I think that might leave me unable to get the mid-range as transparent as I would like. Comparing the V3 to the Studio2 measurements in Stereophile, the Studio2 is just a much flatter measuring speaker, especially above 6.5KHz, where the V3 is up around 2dB more than the Studio2 off a flat response! So the Studio2 is getting ~-.5dB and +2.3dB (though, with treble correction and boundary compression, it is probably around -.5dB and +.7dB). This is compared to that -/+4dB on the V3. I've decided not to pursue an in-home test because of the frequency response differences between these two speakers... Of course, if someone wants to take a Saturday or Sunday drive and hook them up in my house, I wouldn't stop him/her. ;) |
I agree. If a person wants to get the sound they like in an untreated room then home audition is a must. I still believe an independent evaluation(listening and measurements) of the relevant parameters can determine which of 2 speakers is the more "musically" "accurate" reproducer. For me the room is a separate issue and my experience is that an untreated room is unacceptable. My choice is to find the most neutral speakers and then address room issues after the speakers responses are heard & measured in the room. From all the comments reviewed it sounds like the Salons are very good and quite neutral. I have a Spectral 200 watt @8ohm amp with about 50-60 amps peak current. I wonder if it is adaquate with the Salons? |
Jkalman, It's Pete the original poster. I really appreciate the effort you've put in to assist me and I can see you really are an afficionado of great sound. Your comments do let me to understand the differences you find in the speakers, no small feat with such a subjective topic. Your comments encourage me toward the Salons as the more 'balanced' overall. FWIW I use no tone controls (other than those in a speaker like the Revel). I have found everything else has a clear-no, I should say 'fuzzy'- negative impact on the great clarity I get from my reference Spectral/MIT system; and listening to big symphonic works I really appreciate clarity & detail when listening to a full orchestra. Thanks again for taking the time to share your unique experience spanning two great speakers. |
As per the original poster's questions: I listen primarily to classical and am seeking detail,nuance,microdynamics,soundstage and imaging for a 'being there' sensation as I find any decent speaker is dynamic enough for me. Detail: Mid-range to mid-treble, W/P8 (this goes hand in hand with imaging). Bass and ultra high frequencies, Salon2. Nuance: I'm not sure what you are asking for here... If you are referring to an ability to sound natural, well either one will do that with EQ, but the Salon2 has it built-in in the form of boundary compression. So, in an orchestral movement the Salon2 won't be as elevated at certain frequencies if your room has excessive modal reinforcements (as mine does...). There is an extra bit of thump in the kickdrum frequencies on the W/P8 that requires EQ of some sort. This does appear to be intentionally designed that way (something I've complained about openly before on these and other fora...). Microdynamics: With the boundary compression and treble controls built into the speaker, the Salon2. If you buy a separate PEQ to use with the W/P8, then both... (I've tested this with a Behringer PEQ) Soundstage: Salon2 (as per the coherence), or W/P8 (as per individuation imaging)... Imaging: W/P8 (as per the critical range) Coherence: Salon2 Keep in mind, this is with the Salon2 boundary compression set to the middle setting, to compensate for room modes... I've had the "being there" sensation with both of them, but there does seem to be more instrument separation with the W/P8, while more coherency with the Salon2. Like I said, it is a win/win (or lose/lose if you prefer) situation, so the best thing to do is demo them both yourself. There is no holy grail... One important distinction I noticed is that vocals on the W/P8 tended to sound more like a live person in the room, while the Salon2 sounded more like a person singing into a microphone. So, you need to ask yourself... Do I want it to sound "lifelike," possibly at the expense of authenticity, or authentic possibly at the expense of "realism." In either case, I think you may be able to EQ that difference in or out, but perhaps not... I found that the Salon2 was more forgiving. I listen to a lot of live Grateful Dead, Zappa and Phish recordings (among others...), which are not usually well recorded, so this was an advantage for me personally (I have every Grateful Dead Dick's Picks CD except two or three, a lot of other live Dead material, all of the Zappa Beat the Boots I and II material, other live Zappa albums, and I have every live Phish release). OTOH, the W/P8s could make a studio recording sound like a live event. Like I said, it was a tough decision for me... A less forgiving speaker meant many of my not so well made live recordings did not sound so spectacular. The question is, is it more forgiving because it is less transparent in the critical range? My suspicion is yes, but whether that is due to intentional manipulation of the frequency response on one speaker, or not, I am not completely certain. I would guess this is so given the advertising of both companies; one speaker struggles to be completely objective, while the other strives to fulfill a vision. I think they both succeed at their goals in an enjoyable way. Now, it is funny to make some of the distinctions I am making in this post, because both speakers are so far above a lot of other speakers I have listened to that the differences between them with PEQ used in the bass frequencies is not tremendous. With the Wilson, you get the extra building costs for the materials they use (the ones that Revel uses plastic for instead of steel...), which doesn't affect the sound, but does look nicer IMO. As people can see in my HT thread here at Audiogon, their in-room frequency responses are not so terribly different, which shows that the room itself will be the predominant factor with either speaker installation. As long as a speaker is relatively flat, it will work well with a little variation in room placement to compensate, as well as some EQ to boot. I think that a lot of differences between the two can be manipulated with EQ of one sort or another (as per my own experimentation), so I decided to go with the cheaper speaker and buy five of them for perfect surround sound timbre matching. Unfortunately, not all the differences can be EQed out as far as I can tell, but buying five W/P8s is a little too expensive for my tastes and they have no built in tone control to compensate for the effects of an acoustically transparent screen. Room/speaker interactions can be so radically different, that I feel comfortable saying YMMV. |
Branimir, I kept saying the Magicos were bright sounding when I heard them at HE2007, but a few people got all upset and started attacking my speaker choice and eventually me personally over it. Seeing that large area of +4 dB in the high frequencies confirmed my impressions 100%. Then there is the -4dB between 3KHz and 4KHz, as well as the +4dB at 100Hz. I just expected them to measure audibly better than the speakers people were railing against in the other threads, when in fact they don't measure better... In some instances like the frequency response, they measure worse! I expected better than -/+4dB for all the bullying that was being done hand-in-hand with the pushing of the Magico name. This is good though, it saves me from having to do another demo... ;D |
The Salon2 works better in my HT setup as a center channel. The vocals are not as natural sounding and open on the Revels, but the bass integrates better. Both are great speakers, but one will work better behind an acoustically transparent screen due to the built in treble controls. Don't read too much into it... If I had a second listening room I would keep both. |
Jkalman A LOT better?? Are you for real? What more do you need a BJ? Here is a speaker that goes a full octave above and below the WP, doing it in a smooth and linear fashion with a step response that makes the WP look like an Aztec pyramid and you are not impressed. Why am I not surprise? Anyway, these measurements, read objectively, should put many myths to sleep. Especially in regards the bass performance of the properly design loudspeaker. |
Lets see, A speaker that is -/+ 3 db flat anechoic from 40 Hz to 40K. A bass response in room down to 20 Hz with 88 db efficiency in sealed box!! No resonant box modes to be found. A 4 ohm nominal around the entire power region and a superbly clean spectral-decay plot. What exactly more do you want? A Wilson tag name? |
To sum up my experiences: The W/P8 vocals sound more open and natural, while the Salon2 bass sounds more balanced and natural (with the compression setting in the middle setting). The treble on the W/P8 is a little more lively sounding. I expected more of a clear choice, but instead both speakers have strengths and weaknesses. I wasn't sure which one I would like better, but I really thought it would be cut and dry either way. It just isn't. :( Since the choice isn't cut and dry for me, I'll probably base my decision on what will work best in my HT situation... :D Having the built in treble controls and boundary compression controls is a definite advantage for the Revels if someone is looking for out-of-the-box, quick-and-easy EQ. There is no denying that. Both are excellent sounding speakers, so I don't think someone can go wrong with either one. That the W/P8 has a little bit of extra boom in the 70-80Hz range that happens to coincide with a room mode in my setup is an issue (someone people like that extra boom, I don't, as mentioned previously in this thread), and one that might come to play in the decision. The other issue in consideration is that I am going to be putting a third large speaker behind an acoustically transparent screen as a center channel. Having a built in treble control, while not an absolute solution to the roll-off this kind of situation can cause, is a boon. |
Elberoth2- I'm not a bit surprised by Jkalmans bass problems. I too have a Rives room and have been fighting a huge 80hz bump even after adding (rather, knocking out a finished wall and building) a large Helmholz resonator. After parading a number of different speakers from active to single driver, the bump is persistant, albeit the magnitude varies slightly. A wholly disenchanting experience. |
My Watchdog as per Wilson was not needed w. the Maxx IIs. But in reality, simply turning the sub on & off answers the question. It is an absolute must. That is w. Maxx IIs. I had WP7s so it is easy to deduce the WP8s needs. If I optimize speaker placement for bass I lose the mids & highs. That is almost any speaker. That is why the best systems have a separate woofer tower etc. There is no way around it. What is best in every room is different. Wilson & the Revel's allow you to optimize but in different ways. But Subs are 100% must in a large room. But even w. subs (single) I have a suckout. I would love to try a 2nd sub but that is for another time. My sub has a remote turn on so the preamp turns it on. I use True RTA to analyze my output / freq response. It helps but is a pain. Turn on your subs & measure. Use a Y cable if you need separate connections for home theater & stereo. Hope I helped. There are several good subwoofer threads here on Agon. |
Jkalman - I'm a bit surprised by your bass problems in a room that was designed for audio applications by a specialised company (Rives). I also initially have had bass bumps, but those were fixed by adding specially designed helmholtz resonators, that were tuned to a specific freq. Right now my room response is virtually "bump-free" (I do have a suckout in the 50-60 range, but that is room size related and is hard to cure). You can check my room response in my system page. |
Dgad, The measurements don't include the subwoofers. If I hook my Revel Sub 30s in and crossover at 80Hz I can eliminate all of the bass issues from 80Hz to below. The subs also have built in PEQ, so I can get a very flat response if I go that way. I currently only have them hooked into the surround potion of my setup. If I hook them into my two channel setup I will have to use them all the time or manually shut them off. I do know from listening to two channel through my surround setup that it does improve the bottom end. Concert halls are usually big enough that bass doesn't become an issue. The modes are spread out so much. That and they usually do a much more thorough job acoustically since the space is designed for audio from the moment of conception (dimensions and all). My room was a pre-existing space. |
Jkaalman, I am not sure but I think you can change the resistor values on the tweeter section of the WP8 if you want to attenuate the highs or increase the highs. Not sure, but I have read threads of people using a different resistor set on the WP / Maxx IIs based on their preferences. On a different note: w. Maxx IIs I also have bass problems. Of course room related. Next on my list. I tried placement changes, a single subwoofer to augment the bass etc. Nothing helped. I was thinking stereo subs should do the trick but never tried it. I saw subwoofers in your system. Do your measurements include your subwoofers? I am sure if the WP8s are setup perfectly based on wasp parameters bass will roll off a little early. A subwoofer will help a lot. Finally, how many concert halls attenuate bass? I know a crowded room sounds better than an empty one. Maybe more seating, and furniture might help. |
french fries, I've been moved by both speakers. I'm still finding that the W/P8 is more detailed imaging-wise in comparison. I am going to move the speakers further into the room when they are fully burned-in to see if that will strengthen the imaging and space between instruments, but for now I have too much stuff going on. If I have to pull them too far into the room they just won't work in my HT room because of my screen. The instruments on both sound real to me, though as mentioned, one throws an image that is more precisely locatable as well as offering more space between the instruments, but the amplitude issues because of my room response and the extra boost in the kick drum on the W/P8 can be annoying. Seeking to PEQ it with a cheap (really cheap) digital PEQ flattens the response, but it seems to affect the dimensionality slightly. I'm not sure how much is the quality of the digital PEQ device vs. the act of changing the FR. The mid-range transparency is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there is not as much focus on the Salon2, but on the other hand, recordings that are not perfect (such as live performances especially) don't sound as coherent on the W/P8. In the lower frequencies with the Salon2's boundary compression turned on in my room, the sound just goes a lot deeper and is more defined than the unequalized W/P8 with my room issues and the speakers' 70Hz bump. This has always been one of my biggest complaints with how the W/P8 integrates with my room... It is obvious the cheap PEQ (Behringer Digital) does improve the sound, but some of the dimensionality is lost in the process as opposed to the Revel's built in (analog?) approach. I'm not sure if this could be improved though, if I used a decent analog PEQ instead. I would say the Revels are slightly bright (as per the ~+2dB shelving mentioned in Stereophile). I do have the ability to lower the treble as well as toe them out more later. This should change things, as I played with it briefly the other week and it was an improvement. OTOH, the W/P8 is slightly rolled off. One exhibits more sibilance, while the other doesn't (though this has faded during break-in). It is usually easier to fix extra treble than it is to try and add extra. I think both are excellent speakers, and both require special setup needs. Out of the box, the Salon2 comes with more options for fixing any room issues it comes across as long as you have the freedom to choose optimal placement (which i don't because of my recessed projection screen), while with the W/P8 you could need further help (PEQ) if your room has major reinforcement modes. I think the important thing I'll find out around the end of this month is, can the imaging clarity be improved much more by moving the Salon2s further into the room... Most of the bass issues you are referring to French_fries are going to be a result of room issues and room placement issues more than an issue with either of these speakers. Of course if your speaker placement is restricted (such as mine is), and that 70Hz bump falls on a room mode, then you could have similar issues to the ones I am having. These can be PEQ'ed but that is additional costs above and beyond the speaker price... |
I recently auditioned both with the important caveat of different rooms different electronics. Impressions are on my system thread. But in a nutshell between the two I preferred the Revels though neither floored me much. Wilson, its an odd house sound I find, and perhaps that's why it tends to develop a love/hate relationship with community. For me it sounded dry, with the lack of timbre, tonal color that I cherish. |
i still would like to know after all of this sophisticated verbage and back and forth if one (or both) of these very expensive speaker systems sound like real pianos, violins, guitars, voices, etc. in a moderately (or a bit larger sized) room with actual furniture in it, some pictures on the walls, and some coffee-table books with artwork in them to browse through (but not during brahms of course!). if neither of them is convincing then the graphs might be of some help in explaining a "lack of overall balance" or even serious problems in the upper-mids/lower treble (too bright which drives everyone crazy), or a boomy lower-mid/upper bass (which is unacceptable unless you are a cerwin-vega fanatic). in any case $20,000 (or in this case quite a bit more than that) should sound so good it will quite often move you to tears of joy. if not then this hobby is specifically for people who are by-in-large tone-deaf, eh? |
You keep mumbling and I will keep telling you that there is very little value in assessing speakers based on their in-room measurements. Particularly youre in-room measurements which are not even averaging/sampling approximates area measurements.Also, since we all know you are a good reader, I suggest you read some books about loudspeakers design. You may understand why Wilson depress midrange is simply bad XO design and nothing else. Wilson, apparently never heard of the 6db baffle step issue. Speaker building 101. |