Revel Salons - Do they really sound like this?


I've been entertaining the idea of a speaker change lately. Not that I'm unhappy with my system. I just thought I might try something new for a change. Lots of people rave about the Revels so I went to my local dealer to hear the Salons. Associated equipment were 2 Levinson 436 monos, the latest Hovland preamp, and the new Ayre cd player. Transparent reference cables throughout. This audition turned out to be a big letdown. Im not trying to bash the speakers, I'm just looking for a little insight. The room was about 35X20. The speakers were set up parallel with the long wall. They were about 10ft in from the back wall and 5ft from the sidewalls with no toe-in. I was sitting back about 8ft centered perfectly and there were large acoustic panels on every wall across the room spaced about 2 ft apart. There were no defined images, the sound seemed to come from all over the room. The mid and high frequencies were very laid back which was non-fatiguing but to such an extreme that it was almost lifeless. I couldn't make out details on music that I was familiar with, it was almost as if there was a veil over the sound, and the bass wasn't that great either. Im thinking for 17 large, there must be something wrong with the setup. I use Dunlavys with Pass gear and the imaging is pinpoint. I can hear a vocalist take a breath. I can even hear Daina Kralls lips come apart before she starts to sing. I figured I would try and explain what I wasn't hearing to the sales rep so he could mabye change something and he looks at me and says, "Have you had your ears checked recently." I was absolutely floored. I did bite my tongue however and left quietly with a poor opinion of the salesman and the speakers. I came home and thought I might ask the fellow goners their opinion of the Revel Salons.
cmpromo

Showing 4 responses by 9rw

Chris, Chris, Chris,

Trust your ears. Your Dunlavys beat the fool out of the Revel Salons. I've heard the Revels with Levinson monoblocks and they sound like a decent PA system. If they cost about $5,000, they'd be pretty good. At whatever the current retail price is, they're a joke. That's what happens when you know the right people in the audio rag industry and get several favorable reviews. The price has skyrocketed to the point of being ridiculous -- especially considering the quality of the drivers, crossover, cabinet work and, most importantly, the sound. Stick with your Dunlavys!
A lot of audiophiles lack the confidence to use their ears, so they buy on the basis of what they read here and in the audio rags.

The truth is, if you're looking for accuracy, which is not subjective, the Revel Salons fail. They also cost a lot considering their level of performance, and the Salons require monster expensive solid-state amps to come to life. That poses a whole different problem.

As I noted, the Salons started out being priced thousands of dollars less than they cost now. What accounts for that huge price increase? Inflation? No way. Look at the data and do the math. More expensive drivers, crossover components or better cabinet quality? Could be, but I don't think so. They just got some of those dime-a-dozen rave reviews so the price skyrocketed.

I'm not saying the Salons are bad speakers. I'm just saying they sure don't represent great value. The Dunlavy SC-IV/A's that Chris owns are simply better (measurably and audibly) than the Salons at less than half the price. They just don't look as cool.

Kr4 (and Cincy_bob):

Accuracy in speakers can be measured. It's not some kind of elusive, magical, subjective quality. So there's no opinion involved here. The fact you prefer one type of sound to another is irrelevant to the question of accuracy.

The Revels are not phase- or time-coherent, they cannot reproduce a square wave and I sincerely doubt they boast the kind of flat frequency response of Dunlavys and some of the better (and more accurate) speakers available today.

Regardless, it's great that you love your Salons. As for the price nearly doubling in just a few years, no one has had an explanation for that. But it's certainly a manufacturer's right to charge what some people are willing to pay. Enjoy.
This is typical Stereophile drivel. John Atkinson attempts to explain away mediocre results (slight lumpiness, lack of presence-region energy, etc.), saying, "This could be a measurement artifact."

A few years ago, John Dunlavy revealed Stereophile's measurement capabilities for being what they are: extremely flawed. And that frequency response graph doesn't look all that flat to me -- especially in the high frequency portion.

Judge for yourself. This is from Stereophile's measurements section in the review of the Revel Salon, which retailed for $14,400 in 1999:

"However, the high-order crossover means that the Salon cannot be time-coherent, as shown by its step response on the tweeter axis (fig.8). The tweeter output arrives first at the microphone, followed by the outputs of the midrange unit, then the upper woofer, then the three lower woofers. It is arguable whether time coherence is necessary or not. Certainly, LG's very positive reaction to the Revel's resolution of detail and its imaging accuracy was not negatively affected by the speaker's time-domain behavior.

". . . The Salon's waterfall plot (fig.9) was not as clean as I had expected. I suspect that some of the HF hash present in the floor of this graph is due to early reflections of the tweeter's output from the tops of the speaker's side cheeks. There is a hint of delayed energy just below the on-axis notch in the presence region, but this is probably too subtle to introduce any coloration.

". . . Another finely engineered loudspeaker design from Kevin Voecks and his team. — John Atkinson"

Indeed. Are we talking about the same speaker? The main problem, though, is that these speakers just don't sound that great compared to the competition at this price and even one-third the price.