Revel Concerta2 F36 Tower Speaker Review

gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
Ever heard the saying, "It's worth the wait?" Well, it's been years in the making but Revel has finally launched their highly-anticipated Concerta2 lineup. There's nothing entry-level about the Concerta2 F36 from the lauded high-end speaker manufacturer. The F36 tower is a 2 1/2 way, ported-design, full range loudspeaker. It's build, finish, and sheer performance brings to bear some of Revel's latest audio research—and it delivers with surgical precision.

Read on and see why the Concerta2 F36 tops our hot pick for tower speakers under $2,000/pair.



Read: Revel Concerta2 F36 Tower Speaker Review
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Overlord
It sure sounds it's a fine speaker, but this makes me think, Are these the best possible goals for $2k speaker:

The Revel team felt that the new Concerta2 line had to have measurable sonic improvement but, as Mark Glazer, Revel’s principal engineer, told me there were three more goals they had in mind:
  1. Be visually stunning with a more modern design (be pretty)
  2. Be easier to drive (so it could be powered with tube amps)
  3. Hit Revel’s target price-point for the line (meet specific margin)
(bold and text in parentheses is mine)

Some other speakers eschew points 1 and 2, but strive to improve measurable improvements. If I had 2k to spare now, I'd be looking two of best ID 2k budget speaker: Dave's Sierra Tower and Dennis's Slim.
 
Last edited:
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
If Revel is chasing sonic improvements, they are definitely able to make some serious gains there. They have a state-of-the-art R&D facility and some extremely knowledgeable engineers. The off-axis response of the F36s is sure to be superb, as will their imaging and sound stage. Also, the 'easier to drive' part has more to do with its higher than average sensitivity, 91 db, a spec I would tend to believe. I am betting the Concerta2s could keep up pretty nicely with the Sierras or Phils.
 
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Ninja
I don't doubt that the 200hz to 5000hz sounds great. I'd just like to see an f3 in the 40hz range for a 2k speaker. It's pretty much an assumption that most speakers in this range use sub/s. When you have guys like Paul K and Jeff B designing cabinets, it's hard for mass merchants no matter the RnD to keep up. Jeff has his hands on a few commercial products and it would surprise if Paul didn't also, outside of Jim's and Dennis's.

Edit, tower speakers that go done to 40hz.
 
Last edited:
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Personally a bit of a higher f3 does not bother me, since the room is going to mess up the bass response below the Schroeder frequency of tower speakers, so subs are pretty much required for a decent bass response no matter what. A deep bass f3 on a full range speaker is nearly useless for conventional home audio applications.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Because the best place for low frequency emission in-room is rarely the best place for higher bands. It doesn't hurt to have that capability there, but the the way most systems are setup, it doesn't help either, since they are typically high-passing their mains at 80 Hz. I feel that full range tower speakers are more a matter of convention than logic.
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Overlord
Because the best place for low frequency emission in-room is rarely the best place for higher bands. It doesn't hurt to have that capability there, but the the way most systems are setup, it doesn't help either, since they are typically high-passing their mains at 80 Hz. I feel that full range tower speakers are more a matter of convention than logic.
Tell it to TLSGuy, ADTGuy who run speakers fullrange. Gene does same, but supplements with few extra subs to even out the bass in room.
I feel that generalizing a bit too much and a bit off on more than few points.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Tell it to TLSGuy, ADTGuy who run speakers fullrange. Gene does same, but supplements with few extra subs to even out the bass in room.
I feel that generalizing a bit too much and a bit off on more than few points.
I do this too, but it only works with relatively expensive towers with powerful bass, so the towers are able to keep up with subs. For the majority of budgets, I'd recommend going with smaller mains and bigger subs. I also completely agree with ShadyJ that the best positioning for imaging and mid-high smoothness is seldom a good location for smooth bass response.
 
H

head_unit

Audioholic Intern
"This indicates a system tuning a bit too low for the available box size needed to produce a more optimal response. This isn't surprising as many speakers make this compromise in favor of aesthetics." I don't see what that has to do with aesthetics, since a lower port is bigger. Per my friend who worked at Harman/JBL and designed many Revel drivers, the idea is the same as I applied in automotive audio: tune lower than "optimum" to have a more extended slower rolloff, to better match room gain. Regarding F3 and "optimum" folks are WAY too obsessed with F3. It is NOT some holy grail and it is NOT the best figure of merit. When I was lucky enough to meet lord helmet Small in Indiana in his Harman days, he agreed F3 was just a useful mathematical convenience grabbed from filter theory for his thesis.* It has nothing to do with loudspeakers in rooms; F6 or F10 are more relevant but aced out by F3 because of...lord helmet Small using that in his thesis! (Understand also this was before Allison had published work on boundary reinforcement http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2760.)

(*He was a really nice guy, good humouredly laughing in surprise that I had a bootleg copy of his entire thesis Xeroxed out of Jim Novak's personal library. Now THAT, my friends, is some heavy bedtime reading...and yet at the same time, done in a clear manner, kudos Mr. Small!)
 

Latest posts


newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top