RevelStudio2 really special or I need to hear more


I have long been a panel fan, whether 'stat or ribbon. I am therefore very sensitive to the boxiness and disintegration of drivers in box speakers. I have been auditioning some box speakers as of late, as I feel I do not hear the boxiness and the disintegration of drivers in the upper range offering. Coming across the Revel Studio2 the other day, driven by all out ML gear, I was quite impress. Although I am never a fan of ML gears, and I could clearly hear the ML sound through the Revel, I was nevertheless impressed with these speakers for their coherency and the correctness of portraying the musical instruments. I have listened to Harbeths, Rockport, ATC etc. and yet I still feel something special about the Revel. Question is, do you yourself find these speakers special, or is it me who have not heard enough of the good offerings? For the latter case, what other box speakers would you recommend that are extremely coherent, natural and boxless sonically? All inputs appreciated.
asturias00

Showing 3 responses by irvrobinson

The Studio 2s are indeed pretty special. Most speakers that sound nearly as good, to me, cost more. Like the KEF 207/2, anything YG, anything Magico. I like the B&W 800D/802D for smoothness and definition, but I've never heard them image well. YMMV. But there are so many brands of speakers these days, who can hear them all?

What is the "ML sound"?
The Thiel 3.7 is very a interesting speaker, though I think the use of 1st-order crossovers is an old-fashioned marketing gimmick, and their use results in some rather difficult to resolve design compromises.

The fit and finish of the Thiels are equal to the best on the market, and significantly better than the Revels, IMO. Like the Revel they use purpose-built drivers. I like that; it's a sign of more complete engineering, especially with that crossover strategy.

When I listened to the 3.7s I came away with two impressions relative to the Revels: the highs weren't as good, as in not as realistic, and the bass lacked dynamic range. If you listen to vinyl or at relatively low levels the 3.7 is probably just fine in the bass, but for digital like I listen to I found them wanting, compared to several other speakers. Some people would say these aren't speakers for rock or organ, or perhaps even for contemporary jazz.

Since I listened to the 3.7s at a dealer (I've heard the Studio 2 in a home) it's difficult to compare exactly, but I thought the Revels threw a better image.

Of course, if memory serves, the 3.7s are 20% less expensive than the Revels.
What's with all of the trash talk in this thread about ML gear? Have I been listening to bad-sounding amps all these years and I didn't even know it? :)

Personally, I think you guys are nuts. All amps with flat frequency response (+-.25db), low noise (>-70db below 2.83v), low distortion (<0.1%), low output impedance (<0.2ohms) and are near-perfect voltage sources down to 2ohms are going to sound identical.

Op Amp sound? You really can't be serious.