2. speakers
  3. 1429094333

Why so underwhelmed by Revel F208 audition???

After much reading my local dealer finally got in a pair of Revel F208 speakers to audition. After playing my usual demo songs I was sorely disappointed with the sound.
They simply had no life. The strings that sparkled on other systems sounded like cardboard (ok, bad description but you get my point). They bass did not move me at all.

Was it because:
1) I wouldn't know good music if it slapped my in the face?
2) I was actually auditioning the electronics more that the speakers?
3) I've become a music snob and only the best will do?
4) They are not properly broken in?
5) The speakers really are cr@p?

After reading that 3 different reviewers use the performa's (f206 or f208) as their reference speakers, it's really hard for me to believe number 5 - that the speakers suck

I've been a severe critic of bad sound and a conosour of fine music my whole life so I hope number 1 isn't true:(

The sound from my main system is breathtakingly beautiful. It consists of a Metrum Hex Dac, Benchmark DAC2 Pre preamp, Bryston 3B Sst2 power amp, PMC 22 speakers flanked by 2 Rythmik F12 Subs. The DAC is very rich and analog sounding and the rest of the system is very transparent. Stunning sound. So I have very high standards to reference these speakers against. Maybe I am just expecting too much from the Revels? So number 3 might be somewhat true???

The F208 speakers where being fed by an arcam CD player and an arcam a39 integrated amp. Perhaps this can not compete with my home system? Is number 2 correct and I am really just auditioning the electronics?

Break in can make a big difference in speakers. Maybe they need hundreds of more hours through them? I need to check on number 4.

Or maybe they really are that bad and everyone who has reviewed them is a big fat liar?

Who has heard these and can make a comment???
earlxtr
loomisjohnson
1,949 posts
 
i'll add, probably gratuitously, two points:
1. you should listen to whatever almarg tells you, as he is always right
2. i haven't heard the f208s but have heard the the 206s, f52s and f30 (which i still own) with a variety of amps and concur that as a brand they're very, very mercurial--depending on the amp they can sound like a completely different speaker, particularly insofar as low end response is concerned. I useta think they needed a lot of juice because of their low sensitivity, but actually got great results with a modest 125w parasound. in any case, i think the above posters are correct in positing that you'll get better, or certainly different results with another amp.
bombaywalla's avatar
bombaywalla
1,958 posts
 
The Arcam in question certainly has me quite curios on how they achieve a class A operation output of 20W until it switches over. My own Pass X250.5 used to power the Revel's hit about 15wpc before going A/B, and are far heftier and run decently warm from the get go. The Arcam appears very light for running that many watts in class A, which often requires plenty of heat dissipation.
There's no reason that the Class-G ARCAM cannot output 20W/ch in pure class-A & then switch over to class-AB. It's more a question of how much output current delivery does the ARCAM have compared to your Pass X250.5. The ARCAM looks like a traditional class-AB design. From the size of the chassis & the heat sinks size it appears that the power transformer used is modest so one cannot expect high current delivery like the Pass X250.5 & that is one difference.
The other difference is that the class-G ARCAM probably runs nominally at a lower DC power rail. Unlike the the Pass X250.5 that runs at its max DC power rail voltage thereby dissipating more heat while idling. This the efficiency that ARCAM is talking about in their literature on their A39 product page. They call in the higher power rail only when the program material is playing & when the program material requires it. So, if the ARCAM is running off a lower supply rail then the heat dissipation will be much less than the Pass X250.5.

I once demo'd some ATC speakers using ATC amplification and they sounded wonderful. Then the dealer replaced the ATC preamp with one from another brand (sim audio I believe) and the sound was completely wrecked. I then realized how much the electronics can affect a very transparent speaker.
Earlxtr
good observation but the wrong conclusion.
IMO, that ATC speaker is a bad design since it is so sensitive to the electronics. A well-designed speaker should not be & if it is then there's something going on with its impedance. In such a case the manuf can make some electronics that can exactly compensate for that varying impedance such that the overall sound from the amp+speaker is satisfactory but if you remove the compensating electronics, as you did, the varying impedance is back & destroys the music playback. So, the user gets limited by what electronics one can use. This should not be the case.
This ATC speaker seems like a high-Q design - just a little off the peak & you fall down sharply into the depths of mediocre playback. Bad news!
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,691 posts
 
Earlxtr wrote: Of course no break in on the Revels is one considerable factor, IMO.
I doubt it but that reflects my bias on that topic.

Have you now heard the Revel speakers? Do you think the Revels rival the Brystons?
I have heard the Revels only at show demos and would not dare to make a comparison based on that.
erikminer
433 posts
 
The OP could have saved him self an awful lot of time if he'd botherd to ask the dealer if the speakers were broken..
earlxtr OP
50 posts
 
Bombaywalla: I did not say the sensitivity to electronics was a good thing or a bad thing... I was making the point that electronics can have a significant affect on the sound of a very revealing speaker, which even you concure with by your response. Weather that's goid or bad is a whole other discussion.
More to discover