Dave,
I always keep in mind the nature of the speaker set up when I audition speakers - both in terms of the room, speaker position, amps.
I am pretty good at getting he gist of a speaker in a demo. I generally prefer my CJ premier 12 amps to any solid state amps I’ve heard, I know the qualities they tend to impart to a speaker so I’m pretty good at mapping that on to what I’m hearing even when the demo is using other amps. Yes you can massage the sound of speakers via dialing in set up/amplification, but generally speaking a speaker’s character or voice carries through it all (at least through competent system set up).
If found if a speaker has an “IT FACTOR” (for me) I’ll notice it in almost any set up, and further refine it at home. I’m sure I could nudge the Revel sound further to my liking (and they were quite good!) but their voice didn’t have the IT factor that grabbed me in any way, to compel me to further effort.
I’ve heard a number of the Revel floor standars in different set ups. They all had that Revel sound - to me, extremely competent but never compelled me to want to spin Tune after tune. Whereas for instance I’ve heard Quad ESL 57s, or Harbeth speakers (and many others) in tons of different rooms and types of amplification and I’ve never experienced that ho-hum feeling. They always sound compelling to me. Same goes for Thiel, MBL, some Audio Physic models, and other brands that, while set up conditions certainly affect their sound - they have a particular presentation that comes through and keeps me wanting to hear more.
What would be really interesting to me would be trying the blind test at Harmon.
Given Tool’s work, statistically I’d be likely to choose the Revels in a blind test (unless those other designs get close enough to the design criteria identified as desirable).
So I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised if that happened. Then I’d have to wonder what to do with those results. Do I go with what I chose in the blind test? Or with what I perceive as more compelling in my sighted tests? It would be fun to find out.
(I’d have no problem sticking with my sighted test preferences for various reasons).
I always keep in mind the nature of the speaker set up when I audition speakers - both in terms of the room, speaker position, amps.
I am pretty good at getting he gist of a speaker in a demo. I generally prefer my CJ premier 12 amps to any solid state amps I’ve heard, I know the qualities they tend to impart to a speaker so I’m pretty good at mapping that on to what I’m hearing even when the demo is using other amps. Yes you can massage the sound of speakers via dialing in set up/amplification, but generally speaking a speaker’s character or voice carries through it all (at least through competent system set up).
If found if a speaker has an “IT FACTOR” (for me) I’ll notice it in almost any set up, and further refine it at home. I’m sure I could nudge the Revel sound further to my liking (and they were quite good!) but their voice didn’t have the IT factor that grabbed me in any way, to compel me to further effort.
I’ve heard a number of the Revel floor standars in different set ups. They all had that Revel sound - to me, extremely competent but never compelled me to want to spin Tune after tune. Whereas for instance I’ve heard Quad ESL 57s, or Harbeth speakers (and many others) in tons of different rooms and types of amplification and I’ve never experienced that ho-hum feeling. They always sound compelling to me. Same goes for Thiel, MBL, some Audio Physic models, and other brands that, while set up conditions certainly affect their sound - they have a particular presentation that comes through and keeps me wanting to hear more.
What would be really interesting to me would be trying the blind test at Harmon.
Given Tool’s work, statistically I’d be likely to choose the Revels in a blind test (unless those other designs get close enough to the design criteria identified as desirable).
So I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised if that happened. Then I’d have to wonder what to do with those results. Do I go with what I chose in the blind test? Or with what I perceive as more compelling in my sighted tests? It would be fun to find out.
(I’d have no problem sticking with my sighted test preferences for various reasons).