Okay, so seriously, we have 2 schools of thoughts here.
First, I think you are on the Revel Salon2 Ultima side.
Second, I think William is on the B&W 800D side.
No, that confuses subjective preference with objective reality.
The false dichotomy in all these arguments (B&W vs speaker X, expensive wires, boutique caps, etc, etc, etc, etc.) is that it is a subjective vs objective debate. It isn't. A subjective person would simply say A sounds better than B. Period. And that would be it, no arguments. You prefer A over B. The problem only arises when the subjective person (always technically illiterate) states that A is "better" than B due to
objective (verifiable) reasons. Objective reasoning relies on scientific methodology, accumulated, verified knowledge and physical reality.
So it is possible to verify (objectively) whether A is actually "better" than B, even via subjective evaluation.
That's where folks like Chris get into trouble. His technical illiteracy cause him to make some very amusing statements (to the technically literate) like DSP can correct the B&W's polar disaster, spatial perception is formed primarily above 10k, he's done "blind tests" to prove that resonances are audible in the 362 vs B&W, etc, etc., etc.
It's "above the pay grade" above most readers (thanks for the quote), so they are left to wonder who is right or wrong in all this (it's probably far less amusing to them as well). Unfortunately, it's not always easy to explain
all the issues in layman's terms, so that everyone reading can understand. But let's try with at least some
Third, I don't want any modifications or equalizers or anything like that. I hate Audessey, EQs, DSPs, or anything pertaining to it. The only "modding" I want to do is moving the speakers around the room. My thoughts:
The B&W 800D speakers do not have any kind of DSPs in them, but the Revel Salon2 Ultima speakers do have DSPs (normal, boundary, etc.) in them?
If this is true, I was thinking the Revel might be more prone to reliability issues because of the added DSPs?
As was explained in a previous episode of The Groundhog Days of Our Lives, the B&W is uncorrectable via DSP (despite what the technically illiterate may state). Because the polar response (the Frequency responses in all radiated directions) is so horribly uneven and chaotic, if you were to place a mic at one position in space and apply DSP "correction", the correction would only be for that point, the rest of the polar field would still be a mess. So for example, you see the horrible flare in the off axis at 4k ish. You apply a filter to lower/cut this bandwidth of the flare off axis - now it looks much smother. But then you move the mic and measure the on axis - now there is a huge hole where there wasn't one before, because the DSP filter is working every where, not just at the point you have "corrected". You "fix" one mess...to create another one elsewhere.
We could go on and on about all of Chris's misconceptions, but it would be much better for you and others to understand the basic issues, so that you too can share in the amusement when you read such misstatements and nonsense. It's highly entertaining once you understand
cheers,
AJ
