[jonbee]

I've been a fan of Revel since their inception, having owned 5 models (M20, F30, Ultima Gem, Performa3 M105, and Concerta2 M16). Their engineering is always good, but some models just worked better than others in my rooms. FWIW, I think the Gems are a very fine small speaker.
I've recently owned the M105 in my office system for 2 years, and found them quite transparent, dynamic, with a wide and deep soundstage in the range they cover. The main shortfall was the overly forward mid treble region, which made them a little relentless. Not terrible, but it did detract from the illusion of live music some.
I got the itch to try something else, and actually moved down the Revel line to the Concerta2 M16, which are a newer design than the Performa3 series. They are the least expensive stereo speaker made by Revel, at $900 list, but they are a serious product, with excellent engineering and execution.



They look very good. The mirror finish lacquer is very sharp looking, and they've hidden all the driver screws for a clean look. I still haven't figured out how to open them up!
Measurements show a very flat response above 150 hz., with a gradual rolloff on the top. There is a woofer resonance about 5khz which disappears a little off axis. Below 150 there is a 3-4 db gradual rise to about 100 hz.
First off, the M16 needs some strong, clean power, perhaps 50 watts minimum from a quality amp.
The first impression is these have a truly gorgeous soundstage, not quite pinpoint definition, more like mid-hall, but very wide and high, moderate depth, but a smooth and coherent presentation, with excellent balance and harmonic accuracy. Voice, piano, etc. are very accurate, and the top end has great definition and detail without grit or peakiness. I prefer the top end to that of the M105. Very natural.
The next feature is the bass hump centered around 100 hz. In a larger room with good spacing this might not be an issue, but in my 10x12 office it was too midbass heavy. I stuffed the ports, which helped improve things. Next I switched on a small sub I used with the M105s and adjusted the phase until I found a setting that actually removed most of the excess midbass energy. Standup bass runs are now clean and linear from  below 40 all the way up without emphasis or bloat. 
Now we're talkin'! The mid hall presentation is still there, but the naturalness, balance, and coherence of the whole is very enjoyable to listen to, with no fatigue for hours. I watched a well recorded section from Wagner's Ring and several movies I knew well, and I've never enjoyed the sound more. One reviewer said he wasn't completely sold on the M16 for music due to the mid hall presentation, but for movies they were the best he's heard, and while I don't really agree with his opinion about music reproduction, for movies they are amazingly good, really hard to fault. 
The M105s are more upfront with better focus than the M16s, but the M16s have some extra body and warmth. At $900 vs. $1500 M16s are about 60% of the price at list, and can often be bought new for $7-800, and used for $5-600 or so. At those prices they offer superior value for those who prefer their smooth, clear sound which can play loudly without distress if you have quality power.
I liked the M105 quite a bit, but I'm just as happy with the M16s. A different mix of virtues, but easy on the ears.
BTW, my personal reference speakers are Avalon Opus, a smaller version of the Eidolon, with the same Accuton mids and tweeters, a 9" Eton Hexacone midwoofer vs. the 14" version in the Eidolon, mated to a 9" down firing woofer. I've used them for 7 years, and after 55 years in the hobby, they fit my room and taste more perfectly than any I've had. They are very fast, clear and cohesive. My comments about other speakers are in comparison to the sound of the Avalons.

[twitch54]

I'm going to check them out since I'm in the market for a pair for a secondary system in our living room. Like you I 'm a satisfied Revel owner, Studio II's in my main system.

[jonbee]

I'm going to check them out since I'm in the market for a pair for a secondary system in our living room. Like you I 'm a satisfied Revel owner, Studio II's in my main system.

As mentioned, their presentation is less focused than the more upmarket Revels, including yours, but I listened for almost 12 hours yesterday after the adjustments were made and enjoyed it all and felt fresh after. The effect of the bass peak is pretty room dependent (too heavy in my small office, but flat and full in my living room).
Might be a good candidate for a larger/more open room than mine.
Have fun!

[snaimpally]

I own the M16s - bought them a few years ago. Excellent sounding speakers.

[jonbee]

I own the M16s - bought them a few years ago. Excellent sounding speakers.

Yes, I agree. I think many music and movie lovers might find these are "just right", at a much more affordable price than many audio perfectionists' favorites. My Avalons were 20x their price. I love the Avalons, but the M16s offer a pretty convincing rendition of the events with acceptable tradeoffs. Real keepers, imo.   

[AJinFLA]

What you have pictured are the S16 wall mounts. The M16s are curved bookshelfs. Very nice example of Harmans research, have a pair myself .

cheers

[jonbee]

What you have pictured are the S16 wall mounts.

cheers

Hmm... you may be right. Image swapped for a better one.

[AJinFLA]

We need a "Like" button

[celo]

Hey Jonbee, do you think the M16 is better than the M20 overall? I just bought the M20s and never heard the M16s. The M20s are very impressive, especially at today’s used price.

[jonbee]

Hey Jonbee, do you think the M16 is better than the M20 overall? I just bought the M20s and never heard the M16s. The M20s are very impressive, especially at today’s used price.

The M16s are more neutral, with a forgiving, very clean and detailed top end with a bit of top end rolloff. The M20 is more extended and airy on top, but not quite as clean.
The M20s go much deeper, solidly below 40 hz., and are flatter, less "chesty" in the midbass. They are one of a very few stand mounts that can properly load my bigger, lossy room with solid bass. Most just sound weak in here.
I owned 2 pairs of M20s at different times, so yes, I liked them quite a bit. I might still choose the M16. It has an easier, more refined and integrated sound. They only win on points, though, far from a KO. I've seen some very cheap M20s lately, and at around $4-500 or less they are an outright gift.
Both need solid, high current power to get them moving. 50 good watts or more, imo.

[newzooreview]

Revel has added a mid-bass bump to the M16 to make it more of a crowd-pleaser. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily. It measures very well otherwise.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-m16-speaker-review.11884/

A more neutral speaker for the same price is the Sierra-1 V2 from Ascend Acoustics. Unlike Revel, they have the advantage of owning a Klippel NFS and being able to make measurements as often as they like throughout the design process.

https://ascendacoustics.com/products/sierra-1-v2-pair?variant=41419225038902

The Sierra-1 V2s have the additional advantage of having wider horizontal and vertical dispersion, so the sweet spot is bigger while not having such a wide dispersion that room interactions are overwhelming. The V2s are also easier to drive than the M16.

[celo]

@jonbee

That’s saying a lot on the M16! I just bought the M20 and they’re excellent. They are very airy which I like and I hear things that I haven’t heard before on some tracks. They do play bad if recording isn’t good though which isn’t a bad thing necessarily.

[snaimpally]

Revel has added a mid-bass bump to the M16 to make it more of a crowd-pleaser. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily. It measures very well otherwise.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-m16-speaker-review.11884/

A more neutral speaker for the same price is the Sierra-1 V2 from Ascend Acoustics. Unlike Revel, they have the advantage of owning a Klippel NFS and being able to make measurements as often as they like throughout the design process.

https://ascendacoustics.com/products/sierra-1-v2-pair?variant=41419225038902

The Sierra-1 V2s have the additional advantage of having wider horizontal and vertical dispersion, so the sweet spot is bigger while not having such a wide dispersion that room interactions are overwhelming. The V2s are also easier to drive than the M16.

Revel is part of Harman which is now part of Samsung. I would have thought Harman, given that they own JBL and Infinity in addition to Revel, would have a Klippel NFS.

[newzooreview]

Revel is not listed among companies doing business with Klippel: https://www.klippel.de/company/references.html

Several arms of Harman are listed, so one might speculate that they can send speakers to be tested internally on the Klippel or in an anechoic chamber. Even if they are testing as regularly throughout the development process as a company with a Klippel in the building, like Ascend, the mid-bass boost is there. It's a matter of being aware of the design choice. It may be preferable if the speakers are out into the room, for example, and don't get much boundary reinforcement in the bass.

[jonbee]

Harman itself is listed. They own Revel, JBL, Infinity, Roon, Levinson, Crown and Arcam, among many others. All their speaker brands have access to and are products of their R&D facilities at Harman Labs in Northridge, CA.
It is well known they have the best technology available. Whether that approach produces the best sound is personal.
I have no doubt the midbass boost is intentional for larger rooms and to sound more full in showrooms and open spaces at retailers. A lot of buyers seem to prefer a little extra bass. As Revel's cheapest speaker they want non-audiophiles to like them. In my case I can live with it fine in my 10x12 room with the simple adjustments I mentioned.

[S Clark]

Revel is part of Harman which is now part of Samsung. I would have thought Harman, given that they own JBL and Infinity in addition to Revel, would have a Klippel NFS.

Klippel isn't the only game in town when it comes to speaker measurements.   There are others that are very capable of all the measurements needed by designers. 

[snaimpally]

Klippel isn't the only game in town when it comes to speaker measurements.   There are others that are very capable of all the measurements needed by designers.

Agreed. Given how long they have been in the game, I wouldn't be surprised if Harman has their own proprietary systems that are similar to (or perhaps even better than) Klippel.

[newzooreview]

Klippel isn't the only game in town when it comes to speaker measurements.   There are others that are very capable of all the measurements needed by designers.

David Fabirkant, on his forum, regarding the Klippel NFS:

“…the NFS was designed as an R&D device, producing the highest resolution, true anechoic 3-dimensional near-field and far-field response measurements. When properly configured and with enough experience, the data it can produce is leagues beyond any other acoustic measurement device and the capabilities of the NFS in the hands of an experienced engineer are near endless.”

“The NFS also gives us the ability to deeply analyze an individual transducer, to truly “see” what makes it sound good or bad, where improvements can be made.”

“with the Klippel NFS, Harman's "ideal" for speaker performance (which was determined in the 1980's) is, IMO as well as other professionals, a bit outdated. It only looks at directivity in 2-dimensions; horizontal angle vs distance (X = variable, Y = 0, Z = 2 meters) and vertical angle vs distance (X = 0, Y = variable, Z = 2 meters) This is because it was designed to use a microphone in a set position, and then a speaker is rotated on a turntable with the speaker placed vertically, and then placed horizontally. This sound field is 2-dimensional.

There was simply no other way to do it without moving a microphone to hundreds of different positions, a task that I sometimes had to do back in the 90's, a task that I wouldn't wish on anyone. The 2-dimensional turntable technique is what I have been using for decades now, and how I have designed all Ascend speakers - up until now…

Our NFS changes things, it accurately generates anechoic (or even non-anechoic if need be) response and phase data for any position in space, which is truly what we hear from a speaker in a room. To clarify, in a room – we don’t just hear what sound is produced from the speaker horizontally while vertical angle is 0, combined with sound produce vertically with horizontal angle being 0, we hear everything produced by the speaker at all X&Y angles, for example horizontally at 45 degrees and vertically at 45 degrees (and all combinations thereof.)

Even as I type this, a new truly 3-dimensional standard is being developed, of which I have been asked if I would like to participate in.”

https://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?7588-Introducing-the-Sierra-LX!!!

The relevance to this M16 review is incidental. The exaggerated bass in the M16 would have shown up in any decades-old frequency measurement. It was very likely a design choice by Revel in consideration of the $1k speaker market segment. Being aware of design trade-offs is important in matching a speaker to an intended use.

The Klippel NSF produces measurements not otherwise attainable, and the emergence in the last few years of datasets and education about these measurements will improve loudspeaker design at all price points as companies will find it increasingly hard to hide from the evidence of design decisions that degrade the sound. The Klippel NSF does not reveal every difference in sound that would be evident in listening, but it levels the playing field and sets the bar higher for manufacturers.

https://www.spinorama.org/

https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/

[newzooreview]

The spinorama.org site has a frequency response for the M16 labeled as data from Revel. This is the estimated in-room response following the CEA 2034 standard (the old Harman approach):




https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/Revel%20M16/Revel/index_vendor.html

[jonbee]

That's a pretty tight response, +- 1.5 db from 200 to 12k. That's how they sound, too. Very balanced, with uniform tonality and micro-dynamic response.
I owned a pair of the original Ascend Sierras, which I liked pretty well. I replaced them with the 7x more expensive Revel Ultima Gems, which are the best standmounts I've ever heard. Similar measurements, too, but not in the same class to my ears.
The Sierra is improved, I'm sure, and is also an excellent candidate in the sub $1000 class, but you won't find a pair of the improved version used for $5-600.
As always, measurements only tell part of the story. Our own ears are the final arbiter of the true goal, our own enjoyment of the music.
FYI- full measurements here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-m16-speaker-review.11884/