[jonbee]

I've been re-jiggering my smaller room stereos again here, and decided to switch speakers in my office, from Revel Ultima Gems to Revel M105s.
The room is 10x12, and the Gems really were too large for the room. I hated to give up these true "Gems". They are fantastic speakers, the best sounding standmounts I've owned, so the M105 had a steep hill to climb.
Most here know Revels are famous for their engineering prowess. Their better speakers have a house sound, aiming for in-room accuracy.
Info:
https://www.revelspeakers.com/products/types/bookshelf/M105-.html
There are a number of excellent reviews of the M105 and M106 online, including some very impressive measurements here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-m105-bookshelf-speaker-review.14745/
I'm happy to say the kudos are well earned. The M105 has a 5.25" woofer, which I've found often blend with tweeters better than larger, such as the 6.5" in the M106. That has been reported in user commentary for the 2 models, so I opted for the most accurate as reported, giving up some bass.
First, the "bad". The bottom end below 50 hz. is MIA with the M105. Down to that point they are flat and very clean and tight, dynamic and well defined. I think they would be excellent candidates to match with a very good sub in larger rooms, but in my small room the bass is tuneful and acceptably deep for my purposes.
They have many strengths, and other than the bass limits, no serious weaknesses. The overall sound is dynamic and the presentation a bit forward, not a criticism, but when playing they demand attention. Not harsh at all, but lively and not laid back either. I like it, others may not.
They are very high resolution. You can hear every musical detail plainly, even on loud, complex pieces. Very flat response, excellent harmonic and dynamic rendering of all instruments in a very nice soundstage, and they will play pretty loudly. Soundstage rendering of width and height is outstanding, slightly less so for depth. They favor no content, whether solos, chamber music, large scale orchestra, hard rock or movies. All sound as they should.
I have a hard time "hearing" and describing these speakers, as they put forward a very credible rendering of the music without editing. The character of the front end, amps, and cabling are plainly heard, so matchups are key to getting them to play their best, as is true of all hi-rez speakers I've owned.
I've had 5 models of older Revels over the years (2 M20s, F30s, F50s, Gems, and M12), and except for the Gems these easily outpoint all the others for sonic accuracy and enjoyment. It's clear Revel is not standing still.
 The comparison with the Gems is interesting. It was the cost no object model that launched the Revel company and the Ultima series. The Gems will play louder and go significantly deeper, (to well below 40 hz. in-room) and render a deeper soundstage. The Gems sold for $7200 (that's 1998 dollars!) without stands, vs. $1.5k for the 105. The Gems are also much larger, at 20x9x18, and weigh over 40 lbs., 90 lbs. with stands.
So- I recommend giving the M105 a listen, but give them the care any hi-rez design deserves when arriving at matchups before finalizing judgement.
The Performa3 M106, F206 and F208 are all very similar to the M105 except for size and number of woofers.
For me, they are just what I was looking for in my small room. YMMV, of course.
 

[timind]

Very nice write up Jonbee. As a previous owner of the M20, M22, and F206, I agree with your statement of a house sound. Although, IMO the F206 deviated toward the clinical from the earlier models. The Gem is a speaker I have wanted to hear/own for quite a while. I'm currently using a pair of Joseph Audio Pulsar 2s which for a while now has cured me of the desire to flip. If I were still flipping speakers the way I did a few years ago, the Gem would be high on my watch list.

[jonbee]

Although, IMO the F206 deviated toward the clinical from the earlier models. The Gem is a speaker I have wanted to hear/own for quite a while. I'm currently using a pair of Joseph Audio Pulsar 2s which for a while now has cured me of the desire to flip.

It's commonly remarked that many audiophile speakers are thin and clinical sounding. I think the use of very stiff cabinets contribues to very non-resonant response in the power range from 80-200 hz. Live music often adds energy in that range. Designers need to make the call on this tradeoff.
I could appreciate they can sound clinical, but they respond well to matchups with easier sounding gear. I'm happy with what I'm getting from them.
The Gems do have a more relaxed sound, and also can be fine tuned to suit.
Horses for courses, and it is true nowhere more than audio.
I've had several Josephs, and they are often marvelous.
Have fun!

[jonbee]

I wanted to put an update on this.
I've really been enjoying these. They replaced my Revel Gems, which are my favorite stand mount speaker. Although bass entension, front to rear spatial rendering and top end purity were not as good, the modest shortfalls really didn't affect my musical enjoyment much.
That said, my tweaker's itch got the better of me and upon inspection I decided the cheap industrial wiring in the 105 was suspect. The Gems used a KimberKable 8 pair, teflon dielectric loom as did all the Ultima series.
So, I replaced the tweeter wires with 20 ga. Neotech single crystal OCC rectangular wire/teflon hookup wire, which is very detailed and open yet sweet, and the woofer wire with Alphacore M1 (13 ga.), which I like for bottom end and mids, but not highs. I've used these for this purpose before with good results (ADS L1590s for one, with great results), but there are many other good choices too.
Wow, what a difference. Notably better dimensionality, depth and separation, and improved purity of tone. Definitely moved these very good speakers up a notch in clarity and refinement.
I also did one more simple tweak. With the tweeters out, I put non-hardening finger caulk in the spaces on the backs of the plastic face plates. The plates are much deader sounding now.
A pretty simple 3 hour job, so this is low hanging fruit. If you're handy at this type of thing and own Revel Performa3 speakers, this is effort well rewarded.

[JLM]

Amazing how good companies cheap out on tiny details.  Why?

[jonbee]

Amazing how good companies cheap out on tiny details.  Why?

I've never understood that. Very few $ spent on well chosen mid level wires and caps bought in quantity can really pay off, but it seems to not be in the dna of these companies. The caps in these are middling quality Bennics which aren't hard to improve on, but I'll leave them alone for now, as I like the sound as is.
In any case, the reviews often use the word "monitor" when describing Performa3 speakers, and I think that is an excellent descriptor for these. Very fast and transparent. This may be the type of sound some don't "warm to", but I've put mine with a good small 6.5" sub (PSB 150) and the result is marvelous in my 10x12 office, for my taste. Absolutely keepers, imo.

[catr]

would you call it 'diy' if someone just changes capacitors and or resistors and such?

i wonder about such things...

[jonbee]

would you call it 'diy' if someone just changes capacitors and or resistors and such?
i wonder about such things...

I have no real opinion on the semantics, except I've learned companies like Revel and others can bring engineering resources and focused design experience to bear that the hobbiest can't match for the designs and main parts. Many decades ago I built my own speakers, some of which were very successful. I was infatuated with transmission line loading for many years, with some good results.
It seems by the '90s I was hearing speakers like my beloved Apogee Divas and my Avalons from 2002 that no DIY build of the time could match (at higher cost, of course), so I hung up my speaker building and stayed with improving on the simple elements like caps, wiring, driver and cabinet damping where they made a difference on otherwise good designs.
In this case there aren't many such things. The major design elements are executed very well. As I said, I've never understood why the big companies don't sweat the small stuff like the boutique companies do.