[Aether Audio]

Folks,

Here's a recent picture of our Revelation MR-1 MKII in the base price Studio Finish - MSRP $9,995.00.  The copper trim is included in the price as well as all available upgrades.  Other hardwood trim options are available as well at no extra cost.  IMHO you'd probably want to stick with either a dark and/or reddish colored wood in order to compliment the copper phase-plugs of the woofers. -Bob

[NealH]

A nice understated elegance.  Somebody did a good job with this.  Wish it didn't cost so much.

[mixsit]

Wow Bob that looks really sharp.  

So someone please tell me, is there a sizable difference in performance from Continuum' to Revelation? Is there more to it besides bass extension?
Wayne Smith

[Double Ugly]

Hi Wayne,

So someone please tell me, is there a sizable difference in performance from Continuum' to Revelation? Is there more to it besides bass extension?
Wayne Smith

Obviously that's a subjective call, but I think you'd find that most - maybe all - of those who've heard the Revelations would say yes.  I'm one of 'em, and I can assure you that if I didn't think they were worth the extra $$$, I would've ordered a pair of Continuums or 2.5s instead of putting my heard-earned money down for a pair of Bob's best.

Although the SP Tech website says differently, I could have sworn Bob told me the 2.5s actually extend slightly lower than the Revelations (-3dB @ 23Hz vs. 25Hz), but there are two important differences  -

+  First, the other MRS speakers drop at a rate of 25db per octave below 25Hz vs. 12dB per octave with the Revelations.  Consequently, the Revelations are able to produce significant energy even into the upper teens.  The other MRS speakers can't compete in that regard.

+  Secondly (and most importantly IMHO), Bob's proprietary T-line is unlike any I've come across, and it produces the best, most accurate bass I've heard from any speaker or subwoofer.  The subtle nuances and idiosyncrasies you don't know are missing until you hear them are there, and the realism of the presentation is taken to a whole 'nother level IMO.

For me, if the bass isn't right, everything else suffers.  I'm no bass freak, but to me it sets the tone for the rest of the presentation, and depending on your tastes, may be the most prominent part of the program material.

Anyway, that's my take.  Hopefully Bob will correct any mistakes I made.

[NealH]

Good info Double Ugly.  In regards to your second point, Bob indicated to me that the T-Line also exibits quite a bit less group delay than the Continuum.  We all know the lower the better but, just how audible the differences are at the lower frequencies due to differering group delay characteristics between the Rev and Conti, I am not sure.  But, I do know that the better speaker manufactures like Thiel strive to get that group delay figure low as possible.  There must be something to it.

What is your perception on the intergration of sound from the basement on up?  Does this T-line ever give you the impression of "detached" bass?  Or does the integration appear utterly seamless?

By the way, the speaker looks great.

[Double Ugly]

What is your perception on the intergration of sound from the basement on up? Does this T-line ever give you the impression of "detached" bass? Or does the integration appear utterly seamless?

To my ears, they integrate just as well as their other speakers.

For that sentence to carry the weight it should, you need to know that "noisy" crossovers and less-than-seamless integration almost drove me from the speaker market.  I don't know if I'm just overly sensitive to it, or if the live music I've spent most of my adult life chasing has spoiled me.  Whatever the reason, I'd all but given up hope when I decided to take a chance on a pair of Timepiece 2.0s over 2 years ago.  After speaking at length with Bob and Bill Roberts of (at the time) Enjoy The Music, it seemed these speakers might be something I could live with long term.  Two-and-a-half years later, I've ordered a second pair of Timepieces and have a pair of Revelations on order.

Also of import is that I haven't heard the Revelations since the 2004 RMAF.  Despite the plethora of options readily available in the candy store, I found myself going back to the Revelation room time and time again.  Oh I made the rounds, and heard almost everything there.  But the Revelations just sounded sooooooo good to me, so right…especially the bass.  

Now I don't mean to imply anything was wrong with the rest of the presentation; there wasn't.  It's just that I'd never heard bass like that come from speakers, and haven't since.  The sound of the Revelations has been stuck in my head all this time, so I finally gave up recently and ordered a pair in studio finish.  I’d love to have them nicely veneered, but I can’t afford it.  Still, the studio finish is a lot nicer than I’d anticipated (my wife likes ‘em), and getting the quality of sound they offer for the money is a no-brainer to me.  

Not too many have heard them, but then I’ve never been one who needed someone else to tell me what I hear, or what I should or shouldn’t like.  It’s my ears that need to be satisfied, not their’s.  That said, I have to admit it’s somewhat gratifying to have someone of Jim Merod’s depth and breadth of experience actually cry listening to his own recordings played back through the Revelations.  It helps to reaffirm the notion that the sound I’ve carried around in my head since that October weekend in Denver is more real than imagined…know what I mean?

That's a long-winded way of saying no, the bass isn't "detached", and yes, integration is "utterly seamless."  To me, they sound like a single-driver w/o the compromises (true full-range performance, visceral dynamics that match the speed and impact of the aural dynamics, no congestion regardless of volume or program material).

I guess you can tell I sort of like them.  

[arthurs]

there should be an audition pair of these ......

[zybar]

Good info Double Ugly.  In regards to your second point, Bob indicated to me that the T-Line also exibits quite a bit less group delay than the Continuum.  We all know the lower the better but, just how audible the differences are at the lower frequencies due to differering group delay characteristics between the Rev and Conti, I am not sure.  But, I do know that the better speaker manufactures like Thiel strive to get that group delay figure low as possible.  There must be something to it.

What is your  ...

The bass was integrated and the best I have heard from a speaker (which is what I said a couple of years ago).

Think of all adjectives that people use to describe bass:  deep, tight, fast, visceral, dynamic, impactful, etc... and add to that:  musical, accurate, able to highlight shadings and texture and you start to get the picture.

I'll say it again, no speaker to my ears has produced bass the way the Revelation does.

George

[Double Ugly]

there should be an audition pair of these ......

 

[kyyuan]

The bass was integrated and the best I have heard from a speaker (which is what I said a couple of years ago).

Think of all adjectives that people use to describe bass:  deep, tight, fast, visceral, dynamic, impactful, etc... and add to that:  musical, accurate, able to highlight shadings and texture and you start to get the picture.

I'll say it again, no speaker to my ears had produced bass the way the Revelation does.

George

George...You'd better stop providing all those adjectives about the Revelation.  Arthur won't be able to stop drooling.

[arthurs]

Ken, that will only stop one source of my drooling....  

[Aether Audio]

rnhood,

But, I do know that the better speaker manufactures like Thiel strive to get that group delay figure low as possible. There must be something to it.

There is an excellent AES paper that goes a long way in explaining the low frequency group-delay issue.  It is:

Preprint Number:   2056    Convention:   74 (September 1983)
Author:   Fincham, L. R.

If you're really interested you can purchase it from AES for $20.  Other than that I will attempt to give the short version here.

Basically, Fincham of KEF fame built both a digital recording system and loudspeaker playback system that was flat down to a few Hz.(approx. 5Hz)  Obviously that took a lot of big woofers in a big room, but they did it. It is a known engineering fact that if one extends bandwidth down to 0Hz (or very close) the group-delay will be essentially "zero."  That means linear phase and zero signal delay through the system at all frequencies.

Then they recorded an orchestra (I believe) and played it back through the speaker system.  They had a number of volunteers give their impression of the sound.  The most noted aspect was that virtually everyone commented on the apparent "lack" of bass!

Then they inserted a very low distortion electronic filter that was designed to intentionally inject adjustable amounts of low frequency group-delay/excess phase - while keeping the magnitude response flat.  As the amount of delay increased listeners reported a subjective increase in the amount of bass.

The upshot of this test confirmed that the ear/brain mechanism interprets increasing amounts of low frequency delay as "more bass."  Albeit "artificial bass" - we transform the difference in delay of low frequencies with respect to high frequencies  into "magnitude."  A simplified equation would be: T(lf) - T(hf)  = Magnitude.  As low frequencies get "stretched out" or disconnected in time from the higher frequencies, our brains decide there is a greater amount of low frequency information.

And all of this makes sense.  There is a preponderance of data that suggests human hearing is time dependant as well as frequency dependant.  The real issue is a matter of degree.  Some would suggest that very small delays (less than 1mS) are clearly audible and use this to promote the idea that only 1st order - 6dB/oct. crossovers should be used in order to avoid them.  The scientific data does not support this claim though - or if at all, its importance is extremely small.

On the other hand, signal delays at low frequencies can be on the order of ten's of milliseconds.  It is not uncommon to see delays of 30mS or more in bass-reflex systems tuned to 40Hz - give or take.  It only makes sense that such large delays would be audible.

Many companies take advantage of this little psycho-acoustic phenomenon - intentionally or not.  "More bass" sells more speakers.  On the other hand, we here at SP Tech know that such "bass" is not accurate.  In fact, it is one major source of that "bloated," 'boomy," "one note" bass effect.  

In order to minimize it in our systems, we tune our reflex enclosures as low as possible.  As in Fincham's experiment above, given a certain type of alignment as a constant (reflex, sealed, etc.), when one extends bandwidth to lower frequencies, one reduces the total amount of low frequency signal delay as well.

This is not true though when mixing alignments.  Even though our Continuum 2.5 has the same -3dB point as our Revelation (25Hz), the rolloff "slope" (24dB/oct.) is twice that of the Revelation (12dB/oct.) - due to the fact that it is a reflex design in contrast to the Revelation's transmission-line.  Consequently, since the "F3s" are the same, the Revelation will have exactly 1/2 the amount of group-delay as that of the Continuum 2.5.

Is the difference audible and worth the extra expense of the Revelation?  Audible? - yes, to the experienced listener that knows what "live" bass sounds like.  Worth the price of admission? - Well...as far as we're concerened, we wouldn't offer it if we didn't think so.

Hope this helps.
-Bob