Revel Salon 2 vrs Kef 207/2

The conclusion that the KEF is generally more system/room compatible than the Revel is hard for me to follow. Other than the fact that the Revel does need more power. In fact, they both are more flexible than most large floor standing speakers because they have tone controls and large sweet spots.

It may be easy to get 90% of what the KEF can do following a basic room placement rule-of-thumb, but to get 100% out of any speaker almost always takes many trial and error efforts.

I'm wondering, Egrady, if he formed that conclusion after my original post regarding my week of inching around the Revels to get the right placement. The Revels were, truth be known, more difficult to place that my previous Legacy Focus, but I suspect that the Focus was inherently easier to place because it had front and rear woofers, and back-facing rather than down-facing ports. But I'd chalk that up more to the Legacys being easy to place than the Revels being more difficult than normal.

As I mentioned previously, the KEFs and the Revels are both very, very good. There are differences between them, but they are so close to the same level of achievement that it will end up being mere personal preference for which you choose. The KEF's mid-bass, at least in my audition, definitely struck me as plumper than the Revel's, and some people might be drawn to that. On the other hand, the Revel's reproduction of cymbals still strikes me as unmatched by any speaker I've ever heard. So, because there are subtle differences, it is easy to see how an individual could develop a preference for one over the other, even though either one exceeds the performance, overall, of just about any other speaker I've ever heard.

Hi Irvrobinson,

no I came to my conclusiong after my audition using various systems upstream, Salon2 required more juice, not just more, but right one. Like you said it was more sensitive to the placement as well. Anyway, I agree with you that KEF does produce plumper/little more body in the mid which I personally like. (gives good body/texture/depth to the instruments I think) And also, yes, they both exceed in their performance at their price point in my view. I have heard some that cost twice/three times much which didn't come near KEF/Salon 2 in terms of sound quality..Don't get me wrong. I contemplated in buying Salon 2. With right system match, right room setting, and placement, they are super. However for those who do not have the luxury (most don't) then I am just saying be aware that it will require some efforts/$$ to get to 100% vs. KEF which I felt was more listener friendly to get to that 100%. cheers and have a wonderful Christmas..it is got dang hot here which wipes out the Christmas atmosphere.. ;-)

Part of the what is going on with the Revel's and in-room placement is that their drivers are matched speaker to speaker to very tight tolerances. So it is relatively easy to put them in your room and just sort of eyeball the placement and they will sound good/acceptable but I have found, owning the Studio2's, that very small changes in position are audible. So when set-up right you can hear really deeply into the recording.

When I worked at Legacy Audio we would get a pallet of Eton mid-range drivers in and they would be tested for voice-coil alignment issues but prior to Legacy's purchase by Allen Organ their freq. resp. was not tested. The crossovers would be adjusted individually so that a 'pair' of speaker gave relatively the same response. That method works 'ok' unless you need to replace a driver, it is really impossible to reach the same level of precision as the bigger mfg'ers.

I started matching the mid-range drivers as it made my job easier (less adjustments needed) when it came time to adjust the crossover and match a pair of speaker to one another, (one of the things I did when employed at the Allen Organ plant in Macungie PA to every Legacy speaker that came out of PA at the time).

Anyhow sorry going off on a tangent but with firms like Revel or KEF or B&W or JM Labs that make their own drivers they have a significant advantage as they really can match drivers with in fractions of db instead of being in the 2,3,4 db off at a given frequency. Wilson does not have that benefit even though they work closely I sure with their vendors it is not the same thing. This was part of what drove Dunlavy, their rejection rate of drivers from Vifa that didn't cut the mustard was something crazy like 60-80% per pallet. Legacy was more of the 'use every part of the animal' mentality. I have no idea what their current practice is but that is what was happing in 1999.

There is a reason for the cost of some speakers, tight tolerances cost a lot of $$$

The way any speaker interacts with a room is unpredictable. Pkoh70 may have found the Revels more placement sensitive than the KEF, but that doesn't necessarily mean such will always or even usually be the case. The reviews of the Salon 2 I've seen don't indicate they are particularly picky in this regard. Certainly not in Wilson territory. In any event, in my view all this is immaterial. What is important is whether or not a speaker works in your room, not how much work it might take to find the optimal spot.

I'm lucky enough to to have a rectanglar room with a vaulted ceiling. I moved by Studio 2's around for a few weeks until I placed them using the 1/5 rule. That is, with the center of the speaker front 1/5 of the room width from the side and 1/5 of the room length from the back wall. After my jaw got off the ground I installed the spikes and have never enjoyed music as much. Placement had a huge impact on firming up the low end. No more boom, just a tight and controlled bass foundation.

The Cardas website has some very instructive comments on speaker placement. While I'm tempeted to try the 1/3 rule, logistics make it impossible for me to move the speakers that far from the back wall.