Revel Speakers

Having gone from the F52 to the Studio 2 I can speak from first hand experience.

While the F52 is an overachiever, the Studio 2 is much more transparent and provides a superior sound stage as others have said. The only speaker I've heard that is as detailed as the Studio 2, without any added harshness, is the Quad ESL 63. The upper midrange and treble of the Studio 2 is something special. The F52 isn't really warmer as such, it just isn't as transparent. This does take some of the edge off bright electronics/recordings, but it is a distortion.

I've seen comments over the years that the Ultima 2 series can be a little forward. I don't go along with that. Once I found the optimal room placement and treated my room to eliminate slap echo and sidewall reflections, well I've never heard anything like them. They do strings like no box speaker I've ever heard.

The upstream electronics are obviously a consideration, but the thing that really did it for me was to research room acoustics and determine exactly where to place the Revel's. AND where to place the listening chair. They need to be placed well away from back and side walls to image properly. My old room was 14' wide. My new room is 17'. The difference in imaging was astounding.

If you have a large room, say 400 sq ft or more, I'd go with the Salon 2. My room is 357 sq ft and the Studio 2's more than get the job done. Bring a beefy amp in either case.

Chrissain,

I'm guilty. I listened to my Studio 2's for over a year before I went on the net and read everything I could find about speaker/chair placement. Cardas Audio and Galen Carol Audio have some very good tips. While my original placement was close, the speakers where almost the same distance from the side AND back walls. As I discovered, a real no-no.

Once I zeroed them in, wow! I feel this explains, at least in part, some of the difference of opinion on what a particular speaker sounds like. A good speaker properly placed in a great room is likely to out perform a great speaker in an average room. The room and placement are an enormous variable.

Unless you can hear the speaker in your room with your stuff, you just don't know. Not only that, it takes time and effort to find the optimal set up. The Ultima 2 does have an advantage I'm seeing more and more companies use. It is adjustable. A big plus, particularly if your room has issues.

The Studio 2 is so good in my room I've stopped looking. Any future upgrades will be elsewhere.

Ricred1,

Did you find the Sasha's make to many recordings hard to listen too? Did you find they spotlighted the flaws in recordings to much?

I went from ESL-63's to Wilson 5.1's to F52's to Studio 2's. The Quad's still have the best midrange, but they have other limitations. I went polar opposite with the WP 5.1's. While they had the bass slam, dynamics and so on, I got listener fatigue to often. They never could get massed strings to sound sweet, like the Quad's. Ultimately I settled on the Studio 2's. They the midrange magic of the Quad, with most of the slam of the Wilsons.

The Revel Ultima 2 tweeter is amazing. It is revealing and musical at the same time. I don't know how they did it. The Ultima 2's will expose much more than the F52's, but to my ears they don't go overboard like the Wilson's did.

Put it this way. I love Bruno Walter. His recordings are generally bright and bass shy. With the Quad's they still sounded very nice. With the Wilson's they gave me ear bleed. With the Studio 2's I can listen and enjoy them once again.