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
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.
James63,

Directionality doesn't come into play nearly as much in live music as it does at home. So, to me, a speaker that isn't directional is closer to what we're all trying to recreate. Driver integration is important and the Studio 2 is truly special in this aspect.

In my room it all came together with toe in just a bit less than recommended by Revel, placement using the 1/5 rule and spiking the speakers. I didn't spike the speakers until I had the position zeroed in. I was worried up to that point because the low end was poor. But once I spiked them, well all I can say is the difference shocked me.

The toe in didn't make the highs directional, just the opposite. The highs aren't recessed, all that is missing is grit and glare. It takes some getting used to, but you'll soon realize all the music is there without the artificial sizzle.

Since all recordings are different, some need a bit of high end boost and some need less. That is another advantage of the Studio 2. You can dial in a plus/minus of the high and low end to deal with room and recording issues.
Thank you all for sharing your own experience/comments. Perhaps it's really time I move back to cone speakers, if only I can get over the look of the Revel.
thats funny you commented on the look of the revel, I love the shape of the speaker, form follows function all the way. but I hate the high gloss, it makes them look cheap and tacky to me. a real furniture grade satin finish would of looked way better. I have a friend who bought the studios and had them professionally painted by a car shop with actual bmw anthracite gray paint, and they look stunning. like speakers batman would own.