Your hearing what I do. I currently own the Revel F52 with a PASS x250 amp. These speakers disapear, have and excelelnt sound stage, stagering bass response and very smooth high end. (I do have my room treated). I found the best cabel to be Radio shack Mega #14 bi wired. (I have tried many expensive cables)
This speaker has given me everything These speakers couldnt:
Magnepan MG3.6 with My stands
B&W 801 Matrix III
Audio Physics Virgo III
Eminent Tech LFT8a
Usher CP8361 (Forgiot nunber)
Van Shcwekert VR4rj
Others I'v demod
I cant speak for the Solon but the F52 is in a whole new legue for me
The Studio 2s are indeed pretty special. Most speakers that sound nearly as good, to me, cost more. Like the KEF 207/2, anything YG, anything Magico. I like the B&W 800D/802D for smoothness and definition, but I've never heard them image well. YMMV. But there are so many brands of speakers these days, who can hear them all?
What is the "ML sound"?
What is the "ML sound"?
IMHO, it is a well implemented op-amp sound. Fun to listen to, but a bit artificial and lack of body. This is only my interpretation though.
I have owned the Revel Salons and I have audtioned the Studio2's. I would recommend you check out the Thiel 3.7 at the 10-12K price range.
The Revel Studio 2 is truly a great speaker. I went from Quad ESL 63'a to Wilson 5.1's. The Quad was smooth, transparent, had great imaging and resolved low level detail even at low volumes. The Wilson was vastly superior in dynamics and slam, but ultimately was musically unacceptable as it focused on the flaws in the recording and not the music.
The Revel is close to the best qualities of the Quad with the dynamics and slam of the Wilson. In short, the best of both worlds. I suggest a high current amp that doubles it's output from 8 to 4 to 2 ohms. The Studio 2 likes lots of power. I've been an audiophile a long time and can say without reservation the Revel Studio 2 can to toe to toe with ANY speaker except for output below 30hz.
Comparing speakers of this quality by listening in a showroom is nearly worthless. You must listen with your equipment in your room. That said, if the feed the Studio 2 enough juice, experiment with placement and treat the room as needed, it will shock you. The way the drivers blend together into one equals a very large sweet spot. Live music doesn't force you to sit in one narrow position to enjoy it and neither does the Revel. The tweeter is revealing and glare free.
Read the review of the Salon 2 in the Absolute Sound. Other than a bit less very low bass, that is what I hear with the Studio 2. If you have a big room and want to flap your pants with a low C organ note, get the Salon 2. Otherwise, the Studio 2 is the one to get. I continue to be amazed that I hear detail in my reference recordings I've never noticed before, while at the same time I can listen to lessor recordings that formerly drove me from the room. The tweeter is magic.
To add to what Egrady said, the Studio 2 is down about 5db at 20hz but most average sized rooms add 3-5db from 20-40hz. I would expect the Studios to be flat at 20hz and spiked at 60-80hz in most rooms. If you target the 80hz hump with bass traps you should get pretty good flat bass out of the Studio 2. I do however find downward ports to be the trickiest to place in rooms. They seem more sensitive to side wall placement than rear ported and sealed speaker YMMV. You would think it would make placement easier because of the consistent loading from the floor but....
Here is Stereophile in room measurements
to back up my comments about the bass.
Egrady, do you feel the directionality of the upper highs to be and issue of for soundstage and liveliness? I still have not gotten out and demoed the Studio 2 but the narrow dispersion of the highs are my only real concern. I think they are going to need a good bit of toe in because of it. My room has wall to wall curtains with carpet (theater style) and I think they might be a little to soft in the highs in my room for my tastes (hard rock, etc). I have a demo for the Salons in a few week so I guess I will see soon enough.
As Yyz has stated the Thiel 3.7 would be worth a demo. I have demoed about 10 different pairs of speakers in the last year from 10-30k and the 3.7 have been the shining star regardless of price. They made many high-end speakers sound unintegrated and dynamically compressed. Some times when I listen to speakers like the 3.7s it make me sad because this hobby (the search) might really be over for me. Nothing under 30k was a better fit for me and I will never spend more thank that. It is hard to get into gear the is double the price or more and is simply different, not better. Anyway the Studio 2 is the last speaker on my list before I buy my next speakers.
your ears are correct, they are very good speakers, and to imagine that they were designed with actual science, instead of marketing bs . I would take them over all most any speaker I have heard, including much more expensive ones, aka [wilson]. happy listening.
Good and really special for sure
The Thiel 3.7 is very a interesting speaker, though I think the use of 1st-order crossovers is an old-fashioned marketing gimmick, and their use results in some rather difficult to resolve design compromises.
The fit and finish of the Thiels are equal to the best on the market, and significantly better than the Revels, IMO. Like the Revel they use purpose-built drivers. I like that; it's a sign of more complete engineering, especially with that crossover strategy.
When I listened to the 3.7s I came away with two impressions relative to the Revels: the highs weren't as good, as in not as realistic, and the bass lacked dynamic range. If you listen to vinyl or at relatively low levels the 3.7 is probably just fine in the bass, but for digital like I listen to I found them wanting, compared to several other speakers. Some people would say these aren't speakers for rock or organ, or perhaps even for contemporary jazz.
Since I listened to the 3.7s at a dealer (I've heard the Studio 2 in a home) it's difficult to compare exactly, but I thought the Revels threw a better image.
Of course, if memory serves, the 3.7s are 20% less expensive than the Revels.
Directionality doesn't come into play nearly as much in live music as it does at home. So, to me, a speaker that isn't directional is closer to what we're all trying to recreate. Driver integration is important and the Studio 2 is truly special in this aspect.
In my room it all came together with toe in just a bit less than recommended by Revel, placement using the 1/5 rule and spiking the speakers. I didn't spike the speakers until I had the position zeroed in. I was worried up to that point because the low end was poor. But once I spiked them, well all I can say is the difference shocked me.
The toe in didn't make the highs directional, just the opposite. The highs aren't recessed, all that is missing is grit and glare. It takes some getting used to, but you'll soon realize all the music is there without the artificial sizzle.
Since all recordings are different, some need a bit of high end boost and some need less. That is another advantage of the Studio 2. You can dial in a plus/minus of the high and low end to deal with room and recording issues.
Thank you all for sharing your own experience/comments. Perhaps it's really time I move back to cone speakers, if only I can get over the look of the Revel.
thats funny you commented on the look of the revel, I love the shape of the speaker, form follows function all the way. but I hate the high gloss, it makes them look cheap and tacky to me. a real furniture grade satin finish would of looked way better. I have a friend who bought the studios and had them professionally painted by a car shop with actual bmw anthracite gray paint, and they look stunning. like speakers batman would own.
""like speakers batman would own.
Unfortunatly Batman owns Peak Consult speakers - once we smoked up quite nicely and he told that his hearing too sensitive to Revels berylium tweeter ultrasonic frequencies :-(
actually the beryllium tweeter is one of the cleanest lowest distortion ever made, so you think he would like the sound of it, I know I do :)
Its not about distortions its about frequency responce
just take revels or focals or tidal/kharma on quites nice night out of the home, conect SACD record or just frequency generator with some helthy level of 40khz tone. You may surpsise but flying bats will not like that. some of them will flip on ground. fact that tweeters are very grain and distortion free will not help here that much.
I belive that Khrama bigger models would be good for Spiderman and what about Bruce Willis with Vivid speakers? :)
ok enought joke, and fluiding the thread. but its was realy funny to read on A'gon about speakers for... Batman :-)
Rockport Ankaa's and above are truely special, but not with ML gear.
What's with all of the trash talk in this thread about ML gear? Have I been listening to bad-sounding amps all these years and I didn't even know it? :)
Personally, I think you guys are nuts. All amps with flat frequency response (+-.25db), low noise (>-70db below 2.83v), low distortion (<0.1%), low output impedance (<0.2ohms) and are near-perfect voltage sources down to 2ohms are going to sound identical.
Op Amp sound? You really can't be serious.
it was suppose to be funny.
I liked the studio2's when I briefly heard them in an unfamilliar system and room a little while back. Seemed clean, transparent and dynamic.
If thats your bag I'd suggest also seaking out a Kharma audition. Other than the smallest they move more air and the drivers are also very well intergrated.
System synergy is always important. A ML 433 drives my Studio 2's as well as my C52. The match works very well, which isn't a surprise given the electronics Revel probably uses to voice their speakers.
The studio's are special , I liked the first ones better but there both very neutral and easy to listen to . you will need a couple of hundred watts to bring them to life .