revel ultima salon2 vs focal sopra no. 2

[<eargiant]

These are John Atkinson's "Golden Rules":

• No one measurement tells the whole story. What you hear always depends on more than one measurement.

• Performing a measurement involves subjective choices.

• All measurements tell lies.

• Measurements can tell you how a speaker sounds- they don't tell you how good it sounds! The educated ear is the only reliable judge of quality.

• No matter how good the measurement, if you don't enjoy the music something is wrong.

Food for thought...

 

[Art Vandelay]

• Measurements can tell you how a speaker sounds- they don't tell you how good it sounds! The educated ear is the only reliable judge of quality.

Exactly.

Quality is ultimately measured by the educated ear, even if the charts have been interpreted by the educated eye.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Exactly.

Quality is ultimately measured by the educated ear, even if the charts have been interpreted by the educated eye.

On this we agree, but the judgement takes reference recordings, IMO, and the only way to get them is to make them yourself.

 

[Audiot]

What? MP3s for recording, are you daft? Who cares about a top 40 chart either when it comes to audio qualities?

It looks like you missed his point there.

See the quote below yours. Lovin', you missed it all, every bit. Thanks, Shady.

Skypickle, where are you in this process? Have you made your decision?

 

[Audiot]

On the B&W versus Revel comparison and what it's all about, my selection experience included both product lines. I found the B&Ws very exciting although the new line, while announced was not yet in stores. I auditioned the 800D2 and the Revel Salon2 in the same room. They seemed so different sounding and disparate in design as to be comparable only in respect to price, and even then, the B&Ws were more money deal to deal.

The B&Ws were instantly exciting and big sounding with a lot of sonic presence. The Revels were much more reticent and less "out there." My first instinct was to prefer the B&W's bold presentation but a second listen revealed to me subjectively that the Revels had all the clarity and low level detail but a very different spectral balance. I ended up with Revels for a number of reasons, including my sense of value and also a certain sense of neutrality I didn't get from the B&Ws coupled to a smoothness I found entoxicating. Against that, the B&Ws seemed bolder and bigger although part of that was probably due to variations in room placement. Both top speakers, but I thought the Revels would be easier to live with. They have proven to be all of that for me.

I'm not sure what a deep discussion of the B&Ws (800D2s) bring to a comparison of the Sopra2 versus the Revels, but maybe we can wrap that up for the moment.

 

[Irvrobinson]

On the B&W versus Revel comparison and what it's all about, my selection experience included both product lines. I found the B&Ws very exciting although the new line, while announced was not yet in stores. I auditioned the 800D2 and the Revel Salon2 in the same room. They seemed so different sounding and disparate in design as to be comparable only in respect to price, and even then, the B&Ws were more money deal to deal.

The B&Ws were instantly exciting and big sounding with a lot of sonic presence. The Revels were much more reticent and less "out there." My first instinct was to prefer the B&W's bold presentation but a second listen revealed to me subjectively that the Revels had all the clarity and low level detail but a very different spectral balance. I ended up with Revels for a number of reasons, including my sense of value and also a certain sense of neutrality I didn't get from the B&Ws coupled to a smoothness I found entoxicating. Against that, the B&Ws seemed bolder and bigger although part of that was probably due to variations in room placement. Both top speakers, but I thought the Revels would be easier to live with. They have proven to be all of that for me.

I'm not sure what a deep discussion of the B&Ws (800D2s) bring to a comparison of the Sopra2 versus the Revels, but maybe we can wrap that up for the moment.

I think you nailed it on the Salon2 vs 800D2 comparison. On my own recordings, the B&Ws never sounded real, more like larger than life, or perhaps closer than life. I will say this though, every B&W 8xx owner who has heard my Salon2 system (three of them) has strongly preferred their B&Ws, thinking the Salon2s were too laid back. And no accuracy comparison I did could convince them otherwise. They knew what they liked. ;-)

 

[Art Vandelay]

I'm not sure what a deep discussion of the B&Ws (800D2s) bring to a comparison of the Sopra2 versus the Revels, but maybe we can wrap that up for the moment.

I mention them only because most people have heard them, so they serve as a useful reference.

BTW, even though I own them I still advise people to buy Revel Salons simply because they're easier to get sounding right in most rooms. With B&W's the optimum listening axis and height occupies a relatively thin slice of space, and most people listen with their ears at the height of the FST mid which is a bit too low, or listen on the wrong H axis, or both. Optimum is just below tweeter height and about 15 degrees off the horizontal axis.

 

[Audiot]

That's true, but it's also true that compression was originally a necessity for the dynamically limited LP medium.

With the advent of CD in the 80's, with 30-40dB of extra dynamic range available, instead of mainstream recordings becoming more dynamic they've become increasingly less dynamic since.

Worse than that is that speakers and amplifiers have also increased the amount of dynamic range that's possible from a domestic hi-fi system.

So with all of the technology and hardware heading in the direction of greater dynamic range, music has decided to head in the totally opposite direction since about 1982.

Sure, not everyone listens through a home hi-fi system, but with digital mastering automation these days it would actually be very simple for artists to release an uncompressed / flat mix download for those who prefer to listen through a hi-fi / AV system at home.

Also, with the power of modern DSP, the future should be the empowerment of the end user to decide on their preferred level of compression and bass / treble equalisation etc. There will soon be no reason to compress / limit at the recording / mastering phases when it can be just as easily done at the user end of the chain.

In an ideal world, that is a well equipped one like yours or possibly mine, 50dB of dynamic range is possible but it stretches the limit of even the very best high end audio gear, especially as you approach the noise floor of the room. If you have a room with a floor of say 46 dB and you want to play the full range of the orchestra, you will frequently be hitting peaks of near 100dB SPL. Now, that's very possible with the kind of gear we're discussing but it still leaves a problem: what do you do with the very softest sounds? You're not going to enjoy and hardly hear a gently played instrument that is recorded to be just 1dB above the noise floor of your room. so in practice, some compression is inevitable depending on the recording technique employed. This is more so in pops since most end users don't have systems capable of 50dB of dynamic range above the noise floor.

I do take your point, don't misunderstand, but CDs didn't technically reduce the requirement for compression (or companding) in production and to a very real extent in mastering since a good engineer still has to create product that is playable on a range of systems, even if he aims to cling to better standards. While 16 bit is able, the reality of playback is not as amenable, even in well found systems like ours. Where we likely agree is that "they" can do better than 20dB of dynamic range for pop music, but as I said at the outset, I don't buy "that stuff" if I can avoid it. Caveat: in works of a certain scale it is possible to get by with no monkey business. Probably why I enjoy acoustic music so much, bluegrass, Celtic and the like. It sounds real and it sounds great when done well, it goes soft to loud musically.

Almost everything you buy over the counter has been compressed or limited, either individual tracks or the master. Ironically, audiophiles gravitate to the noisiest and least dynamic media (LP, tape) like bees to flowers. And of course, where would the tape based recording world have been without Dolby A or dbx? Compander based, all. I suspect the (acoustic) noise floor is the problem with playback of digital, whereas with the analog media, the problem is at the top of the energy range AND at the bottom.

But yeah, the loudness wars are a drag.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Everything you buy over the counter has been compressed or limited, either individual tracks or the master.

I assume you're referring specifically to pop music, because your statement isn't even close to true for most classical CDs and a significant portion of jazz CDs.

 

[Audiot]

I think you nailed it on the Salon2 vs 800D2 comparison. On my own recordings, the B&Ws never sounded real, more like larger than life, or perhaps closer than life. I will say this though, every B&W 8xx owner who has heard my Salon2 system (three of them) has strongly preferred their B&Ws, thinking the Salon2s were too laid back. And no accuracy comparison I did could convince them otherwise. They knew what they liked. ;-)

I'm sure if I had the B&Ws I'd love them. They are impressive. But I opted for and love my Salon2s with no urge to change. That's been so rare in my world. I did know what I wanted after years of professional experience so I went out seeking a smooth, easy to live with but revealing speaker that had the ability to go soft to loud without stress. I wanted detail, clarity and ease in a speaker that just went away and that you didn't localize on. The Revels do that about as well as it is done at his state of the game. I do not think of them as an old design. To me, they are proven and something of a bargain in the crazy world of the high end.

 

[Audiot]

I mention them only because most people have heard them, so they serve as a useful reference.

BTW, even though I own them I still advise people to buy Revel Salons simply because they're easier to get sounding right in most rooms. With B&W's the optimum listening axis and height occupies a relatively thin slice of space, and most people listen with their ears at the height of the FST mid which is a bit too low, or listen on the wrong H axis, or both. Optimum is just below tweeter height and about 15 degrees off the horizontal axis.

No explanation or apology necessary, Art.B&W is a great speaker company with lots of tradition and backing science. I found it interesting/ironic when I was shopping that the B&Ws....an ultimate British speaker manufacturer....were the product(s) that had to my ear, and for lack of a better term, the brighter sound when compared to the Revels, a product of the company (Harman via JBL) once called out as the epitome of the "West Coast Sound." But that doesn't mean I wasn't impressed by them.


My comment was only intended to get the conversation back to skypickle's original question in the hope we have not hijacked the interplay with something irrelevant to his question.

We're hobbyists, I suppose wandering around the hobby is inevitable.

 

[Audiot]

I assume you're referring specifically to pop music, because your statement isn't even close to true for most classical CDs and a significant portion of jazz CDs.

Pop music. Jazz ensembles of a "certain scale also," I mentioned that (not specific to Jazz...but it's called out). I added it as an edit when I realized I'd been too sweeping. Chamber music doesn't have the dynamic requirements, so no compression required. I don't think you can say that universally of symphonic works though. It depends.

 

[<eargiant]

On this we agree, but the judgement takes reference recordings, IMO, and the only way to get them is to make them yourself.

Even with that, there will never be consensus.

For example, Dr. Mark Waldrep of AIX Records/Real HD Audio (I think he has the proper prerequisites) had this to say about the B&W D3’s (and this is a guy that is very vocal against the BS in this hobby).

“Equipment manufacturers are ahead of the content providers…way ahead. When Fritz played the “Mujaka” track from The Latin Jazz Trio AIX recording through a new pair of 802D3 speakers using a Classe amplifier, the expected high-end percussion sparkle and clarity that characterizes this track (in fact the entire album) was immediately apparent. It was difficult to hear all of the high frequency partials associated with wind chimes, cymbals, and triangles without blur, distortion, or smear. This is where high-resolution PCM digital shines. Fritz and I both looked at each other and reveled in the reproductive ability of the new speaker design.

I played a couple of classical selections and then turned to John Gorka singing, “I Saw A Stranger With Your Hair” (a personal favorite) and a track that demonstrates the other end of the spectrum. Michael Manring’s ebowed, frettless bass, the sound of acoustic guitar, mandolin, and piano form a perfect accompaniment to John’s resonant baritone vocals. The B&Ws delivered everything that it is in the track. I listened at low volume and then turned things up. The sound was smooth, clear, expansive…especially noticeable in the low end…and provided the ideal support to my recordings.”

He is definitely a fan and you are not. So be it.

And no accuracy comparison I did could convince them otherwise. They knew what they liked. ;-)

...or this could just be a perfect example of John Atkinson's 5th Golden Rule.

I have listened to fantastic recordings on theoretically "accurate" (whatever that is) speakers with exemplary measurements - yet they have failed to move me. Meanwhile other speakers out there have moved me, some with and some without exemplary (accuracy indicating) measurements.

Personally, I'd rather listen to a speaker that moves me and sounds right to me than to listen to a speaker that deep down inside I know is missing something regardless of how it measures, ultimately failing to covey the musicality of the score. I don't want to settle or find myself justifying or convincing myself that it sounds good just because I think it should. Been there, done that.

When I find a speaker that doesn't have me wishing it had more of this or less of that and I don't feel the need to keep looking - I stick with it. The 800 series has done that for me- I can't explain it but to hell with the graphs!

On the B&W versus Revel comparison and what it's all about, my selection experience included both product lines. I found the B&Ws very exciting although the new line, while announced was not yet in stores. I auditioned the 800D2 and the Revel Salon2 in the same room. They seemed so different sounding and disparate in design as to be comparable only in respect to price, and even then, the B&Ws were more money deal to deal.


The B&Ws were instantly exciting and big sounding with a lot of sonic presence. The Revels were much more reticent and less "out there." My first instinct was to prefer the B&W's bold presentation but a second listen revealed to me subjectively that the Revels had all the clarity and low level detail but a very different spectral balance. I ended up with Revels for a number of reasons, including my sense of value and also a certain sense of neutrality I didn't get from the B&Ws coupled to a smoothness I found entoxicating. Against that, the B&Ws seemed bolder and bigger although part of that was probably due to variations in room placement. Both top speakers, but I thought the Revels would be easier to live with. They have proven to be all of that for me.


I'm not sure what a deep discussion of the B&Ws (800D2s) bring to a comparison of the Sopra2 versus the Revels, but maybe we can wrap that up for the moment.

I suspect this could potentially have to do with the amount of gain used in the pre-amp. I've only found the 800 series to sound how you describe when driven with too much gain. The pre-amp stage I use allows me to attenuate the gain down by -14dB essentially bypassing the gain in the flat amp. They are not too forward or too laid back. IMO they are blissfully just right regardless of the SPL.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I found it interesting/ironic when I was shopping that the B&Ws....an ultimate British speaker manufacturer....were the product(s) that had to my ear, and for lack of a better term, the brighter sound when compared to the Revels, a product of the company (Harman via JBL) once called out as the epitome of the "West Coast Sound." But that doesn't mean I wasn't impressed by them. .

The 800D3's are a bit bright, due to the slight gain mismatch between the tweeter and mid / woofer. The tweeter should be padded back by about 1 - 1.5dB for absolute neutrality. Installing a 1 ohm resistor on the tweeter pcb in the space that's reserved for it will fix the problem. B&W should have included a tweeter level control or done what Wilson has done with the Alexia's and made it possible for the user to easily make small adjustments.

I wouldn't call it a 'west coast' sound because the speaker still exhibits the BBC dip at about 2kHz, particularly off axis, but I know where you're coming from. If you're seated a bit low there's a pronounced step in the response at 4kHz which can make them sound either forward or reticent in the mids depending on the spectral balance of the program.

When I bought the 800D2's I had in mind to use them with a DEQX, which means bypassing the internal crossovers and converting to fully dsp active. The way that 800D2's are built, with the crossover pcb's in the plinth, makes them very attractive from that point of view. Actually, that was one of the main reasons for buying them.

I haven't gotten around to it as yet but eventually I will be driving the 800D2's with 6 individuals amplifiers from a HDP-4.

 

[KenM10759]

Lucky me, I'll never have to concern myself with those deficiencies of the 800D3 series. Their price assures I won't be an owner by buying them, and my rotten reputation assures no one will gift me a pair.

 

[Irvrobinson]

...or this could just be a perfect example of John Atkinson's 5th Golden Rule.

I have listened to fantastic recordings on theoretically "accurate" (whatever that is) speakers with exemplary measurements - yet they have failed to move me. Meanwhile other speakers out there have moved me, some with and some without exemplary (accuracy indicating) measurements.

Personally, I'd rather listen to a speaker that moves me and sounds right to me than to listen to a speaker that deep down inside I know is missing something regardless of how it measures, ultimately failing to covey the musicality of the score. I don't want to settle or find myself justifying or convincing myself that it sounds good just because I think it should. Been there, done that.

No, you're just chasing "sounds good" rather than accuracy.

"...ultimately failing to convey the musicality of the score"? Take a breath and think about that statement for a moment. I know silly magazines like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound have popularized talking like that, but, remember, these are the same fools that think well-designed cables sound different.

 

[Irvrobinson]

When I bought the 800D2's I had in mind to use them with a DEQX, which means bypassing the internal crossovers and converting to fully dsp active. The way that 800D2's are built, with the crossover pcb's in the plinth, makes them very attractive from that point of view. Actually, that was one of the main reasons for buying them.

Interesting that you bring up DEQX. I tried a DEQX pre-amp (on loan from a local dealer) in my system before I went down the subwoofer route, and it didn't require replacing the crossovers. (A member on this forum highly recommended their products.) The DEQX is a fascinating (though expensive) product. In the end I chose a sub solution, because it couldn't solve my bass issues, and I didn't have upper octave complaints, but the DEQX might very well work interesting results with the B&Ws.

 

[Audiot]

The 800D3's are a bit bright, due to the slight gain mismatch between the tweeter and mid / woofer. The tweeter should be padded back by about 1 - 1.5dB for absolute neutrality. Installing a 1 ohm resistor on the tweeter pcb in the space that's reserved for it will fix the problem. B&W should have included a tweeter level control or done what Wilson has done with the Alexia's and made it possible for the user to easily make small adjustments.

I wouldn't call it a 'west coast' sound because the speaker still exhibits the BBC dip at about 2kHz, particularly off axis, but I know where you're coming from. If you're seated a bit low there's a pronounced step in the response at 4kHz which can make them sound either forward or reticent in the mids depending on the spectral balance of the program.

When I bought the 800D2's I had in mind to use them with a DEQX, which means bypassing the internal crossovers and converting to fully dsp active. The way that 800D2's are built, with the crossover pcb's in the plinth, makes them very attractive from that point of view. Actually, that was one of the main reasons for buying them.

I haven't gotten around to it as yet but eventually I will be driving the 800D2's with 6 individuals amplifiers from a HDP-4.

Please don't take my comments as criticisms of your choice of what is widely acknowledged to be a great speaker. "Bright" is another indefinite term that isn't very expressive of what may actually be going on. My judgment was made on the basis of what I thought would be a good long term solution for me at a price I could tolerate. No doubt yours was made in the same vein. One counts it a good thing that we're both satisfied customers.

I have done very little tinkering with my speakers outside of compromising on a location in my room that gives me the presence and imaging that I want without severely affecting bass response. I've since added a subwoofer and get to rethink the equation. Integrating a sub with the Revels has been more of a challenge than creating the original system to begin with, but I'm enjoying the process.

As you know, the Revels do give the owner some control over the HF and LF output but I settled on the flat response positions of both pads (I don't know that they are technically pads, actually) although now that I think about it, I may play with the LF control as I work with integrating the subwoofer. But I have no complaints. If I had a magic wand, I might make my speakers 3 or 4dB more sensitive, but that's about it. Even that's not really necessary as I did what Revel recommends and bought a beefy amplifier.

 

[Audiot]

I suspect this could potentially have to do with the amount of gain used in the pre-amp. I've only found the 800 series to sound how you describe when driven with too much gain. The pre-amp stage I use allows me to attenuate the gain down by -14dB essentially bypassing the gain in the flat amp. They are not too forward or too laid back. IMO they are blissfully just right regardless of the SPL.

I have not heard the D3s. No doubt I'd like them.

To another point, the Ultima2s definitely connect me powerfully to music but I have to like the music first. When it comes together, it's a gestalt, and becomes a convincing and artistic rendering of a phantom event. I can pick the strands apart if I want to, but that misses the point. The bliss part for me is when I forget the system and just get carried away by the genius of it all starting with the music itself. My rig does that for me when in my mood and is more dependent on that than it is on any set of technical virtues or flaws. In that instance, being happy is about listening to the music and not the sounds of the moment. Later, I might marvel at what a gift the whole package is but the best for me is just letting the music speak. It happens a lot, usually late at night!

 

[Irvrobinson]

I've since added a subwoofer and get to rethink the equation. Integrating a sub with the Revels has been more of a challenge than creating the original system to begin with, but I'm enjoying the process.

What sub did you get?

I found the best way to integrate a sub with the Salon2s is to run the Salon2s full-range, measure the resulting bass response with a tool like OmniMic, and then use the parametric equalization capabilities of the sub to fill in the room response gaps.