Revel Salons - Do they really sound like this?

I have the studios and also demo'd the salons. What you describe is not consist with the incredible sound stage I experience. However in demoing the revels at the various locations on occasion I did replicate the experince of cmpromo.
His description could be caused by many factors. In one setting
the studios were set up with Levinson 336s and it sounded muddy and uninspiring. I asked the guy at the store what the problem was and he admitted that both the speakers and amps were new with very little breakin time. This is critical. With my set up
it took a considerable period to properly breakin my amps and I hated them until that magic moment. The speakers also require a certain breakin. Also the room acoustics interconnects ect. also contribute. Unfortunately dealers don't always do justice to the equipment. I love the revels and find them similar to thiels with more mid range and a warmer soundstage.

First I'd like to say it sounds like you have a very nice setup at home with the Pass and Dunlavys that would be the envy of many, and I'd love to hear it.
I own Salons with 436 amps and am continually amazed by the sound. Each time I upgrade my equipment I find new levels of information. One thing I've noticed though (and I believe this is the reason some people come away from auditioning the Salons unimpressed)is that the Salons are like chameleons taking on the characteristics of the setup, recording, and associated equipment perhaps more so than other speakers I've auditioned. I can't fault the amps, but one of my suspects in your case are the Transparent cables. I've audtioned them several times using their Reference series digitals, power cords, speaker cables, and interconnects, with both SOTA Krell gear and Levinson and came away with many of the caveats you described. I've found both Synergistic and the Chris Ven Haus cables to be a much better match with my gear.
I've also found that one has to be very careful with the acoustics in the room. I've spent hours tweaking my room with Auralex and Room Lenses.
The 436s like lots of AC current and won't sound their best without a direct dedicated line to each amp. Something that I don't believe many dealers supply.
As for the Hoveland and Ayre equipment, I can't comment on the sound quality, as I've never auditioned it but it does have a good reputation and is definitely admirable. Perhaps it was not the best choice for this setup, althougth you would think the dealer would know which in store components would make a system like that shine.
Several of my friends and I have found that as you attempt to get the best out of high end equipment, you have to spend hour of time audtioning, tweaking, and finding out what conditions this caliber equipment wants to sound the best. It is easy to just make the connections, crank the system up, and be prepared to be blown away. But with equipment of this caliber (and I would include your home system) to get the sound SOTA equipment can provide can take hours of effort.

I agree with vinylphile. $17k should and will get you a lot of speaker. There's oodles out there. Keep looking/listening. peace, warren

Hi Cmpromo:

I own Salons and also ran Dunlavy SC-III's for five years.

My "evolution" with Salons should be interesting to you. I first heard the speakers at Lyric in Manhattan, and thought that they were dull and lifeless. They were being run with all-Levinson Reference gear (33H monos, 32 preamp, and the 31.5(6?) transport and top processor), and I chalked it up mostly to the Levinson front end, which I have never cared for. Several years later, I again heard them at Lyric, this time run with the 436 monos, but with a variety of other non-Levinson gear. This time, they sounded extraordinary -- on Freddie Freeloader, I could hear the echo of Coltrane's sax move 3/4ths of the way across Columbia's huge E. 31st studio where that session was recorded. Everything sounded incredibly right and I bought the speakers. I use them with tube monos and a good analog rig that really makes them sing.

As for criticisms, the Salons fall down a bit in coherence in comparison to more expensive speakers that feature better crossovers (Kharma, Avalon). I can't say that I hear crossover points and they ARE coherent, but there are better speakers in this regard. My other criticism is that they are only of average efficiency (87 db.), which requires them to be used with amps having horsepower.

In comparison to the Dunlavys, they are not a time-coherent design and I have never quite captured the holographic intimacy that the Dunlavys provide in the sweetspot. The Salons are much more transparent and detailed, however, have a much larger sweetspot (they sound really good off-axis), and are overall much better at conveying the impression of real instruments and performers being in my listening room. In short, to my ears, the Salons are clearly superior.

The above contributor may have a point about the Salon system you heard having been accidentally hooked up out of phase (that would explain the deadness and lack of detail). And having the speakers ten feet off the front wall is odd, as they need much closer proximity to the front wall in order to get proper bass reinforcement from the rear-firing port (that would explain the poor bass).

One final comment -- the Salons are very neutral as speakers go and will give you the sound of whatever electronics they are being driven by.

PS - I have a friend who also went from Dunlavys (big SC-V's) to Salons, and I'll let him know about this thread.

I accompanied a friend to a dealer demo of either the Salons or the Studios -- can't remember which -- with Levinson electronics and Meridian digital gear. We couldn't leave the room fast enough. They sounded as you described. I figured it must have been the setup at fault -- roughly $60K worth of gear couldn't sound that bad.

But then, I'm a tube guy.