Revel Salon 2 versus WP 8

I haven't done careful comparisons yet because the Salon2s are still breaking in. It does seem like the Salon2s are more foregiving, but a little less transparent in the critical mid-range. I have heard more transparency develop during the break-in process, so I am not sure what to expect when I come back to both speakers to do more careful A/B tests in early March. There is more bass extension with the Salon2s. There is also greater bass detail with the Salon2s so far, but this is with the boundary compression turned on, not with it set to normal.

I do have a lot of live "Grateful Dead" recordings that sound better with a little forgiveness in the playback. So this should be interesting. I have started a list of plusses and minuses on my AVS forum HT thread concerning both speakers in relation to each other in my room:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=748097&page=1&pp=30).

The room itself is an important consideration for me. I ultimately have to choose what will work best in my room situation with a 128.5" diagonal recessed screen in the center of the room. Room placement is an issue because of this. Compromises have to be made one way or the other. I don't think there is going to be a "best" speaker so far between the two, just another situation of having to choose what will work best in a given situation. I would wager, anyone who open-mindedly demos both thoroughly will find the same thing, and a choice will have to be made on what works best in his/her listening space. I'll be sure to give my opinion on which I would choose if room constraints weren't an issue.

Damn would I love to get Jkalman and Dhaan together with their choice of speakers and have at it. I know I would learn something.....

Jk,
Sorry for referring to your conclusions based on the in-room measurements you supplied. If you are aware of their shortcoming, why are you posting them? Anyway, back to the subject, the Ultima tweeter is not shelved. It has a rise response, starting at 10K. It is a big difference then shelving (You can also see the nice impedance of the Revel tweeter in comparison to the w/p, although, the delayed energy, seen in the cumulative spectral-decay plot is concerning). In regards to your comment on the w/p mids shelving , it is anything but useful. Remember, wrong on wrong is still not right. In regards to my sole intentions, yes, you are partially right, I cannot stand the fact that the most successful high-end speaker ever is a practical joke. It says something about this hobby, which I am a part of. I see it as my duty, and a service to the audiophile community, to expose the nakedness of the king.

In regards to my sole intentions, yes, you are partially right, I cannot stand the fact that the most successful high-end speaker ever is a practical joke. It says something about this hobby, which I am a part of. I see it as my duty, and a service to the audiophile community, to expose the nakedness of the king.

Golly gee, all us fools sure are blessed to have you here to show us the way and enlighten us.

If you are aware of their shortcoming, why are you posting them?

The in-room measurements show how inconsequential a flat frequency response can become once the speaker is placed in an actual room. A speaker that is slightly off of flat can sometimes measure better in-room in certain areas of the frequency response than a speaker that measures perfectly flat in an anechoic chamber as long as the speaker that is slightly off the flat response is placed correctly. So a company can design a speaker for wall placement, bookshelf placement, or close to boundary placement by designing it a certain way and it will still sound correct if placed well according to its design parameters. Go figure... People design speakers for particular kinds of room placement all the time.

I'm not wasting my time on this guy any longer. People can validate what I have been writing themselves by looking at the Stereophile graphs, my graphs and NRC measurements via Soundstage.

Both measure very similarly in-room. The problem with people who only look at graphs to judge things is that they tend to see the music and never hear it. As I mentioned previously, those people lack balance in their approach to this hobby. Those people tend to forget that people don't listen to music in anechoic chambers, but rather in a room. So if a speaker is designed for specific placement in rooms, whether by shelving or not, there is nothing wrong with that. That is not "wrong on wrong," that is intentional design with good reasoning behind it. Unless of course you are just looking to bash a brand, which this guy admits is his goal. I'm not at all surprised, it has been obvious almost since the beginning. At least now people know to take what he says with some grains of salt.

This is also a subjective hobby, so the only "wrong on wrong" is buying something you don't like listening to. There are a lot worse measuring speakers out there than either of these speakers, and both of these speakers measure good in-room with proper placement (albeit different placement) and PEQ. one of the speakers just happens to have some minor room correction and high frequency correction built into it (though not enough to deal with 200-300Hz range issues, so if you need closer wall placement you will likely still need another one anyway), while the other one does not...