Royd Revelation

[Spike]

Hi, this is my first post so I'll keep it brief.

Does anyone have any hands on experience on the new range from Royd? I've been a fan of Joe's designs for years but have yet to hear the Revelations

cheers
Spike

[Robbo]

Spike

I have never heard any royd kit, and I am not aware of anyone on the forum who uses royd. The only person I can think of is Timpy who has heard nearly every speaker going (or so it seems) maybe he can help.

Cheers, Robbo

[zanash]

I liked their gear in the mid 90's, but not seen much about these days in fact I though they had gone down the tubes.

[timpy]

Not heard many Royd models seriously, but the Minstrel was a cracker so long as ultimate volume levels were kept down and deep bass was off the agenda, and the Doublet was capable but with a lesser sprinkling of the magic it's little brother had.

Royd tend to be fast and a little forward, not un-civilised a la Linn Kan's can be (I find), but their top end used to be a little insistent, and generally needed electronics from a higher price range to make them shine. The A7's were good, more music than hi-fi, they used a tweeter that was a bit crude, but really ripped long, again only really shining with good/sympathetic electronics.

As for the new stuff, I've not heard it, but if the above sounds like your bag, and you find yourself gravitating towards Neat, Epos, Rega, smaller Linns etc, then the Royd's take on things are a must to listen to IMO.

Don't forget Revolvers new range. Not heard them, but where they've been pitched in the market, I reckon you should grab a listen to these too.

Cheers

[lAmBoY]

Royd (Joe Ackroyd I think) are still going strong. In fact they are based about 10 miles from where I live. I believe they are still selling well in Canada.

I think the revelations got an editors choice award (HFC) a couple of years back. I just might give them a go next month.

Hmmm, I wonder if I can get a factory direct loaner and cheap cheap purchase price? Worth a try me thinks;)

[MO!]

A couple of pairs going over on hififorsale.com

"Minstrel" and "the abbot" listed on the 22nd

MO :D

[boxsoft]

Royd is definitely alive and well. In fact, I just recently finished some more tweaking of their website. Check it out at www.roydaudio.com.

timpy said:
their top end used to be a little insistent, and generally needed electronics from a higher price range to make them shine.
I find that almost any "good" speaker can sound pretty wonderful with good electronics upstream, and potentially poor when driven with questionable gear. That having been said, I gave some Minstrel SE's to my mother to put on the end of her Sony CD player and receiver. It was really quite astonishing how palatable it could sound, even with a "bad" source and amp.

BTW, I've had a long history with Royd loudspeakers, which is how I ended up designing their website. It's really a labour of love. I've personally owned many of their models, including the Albion, Minstrel SE, Merlin, Squire, A7X, and AV77, and I've auditioned many more. I'm currently trying the new RR3 against my Albions, and will be comparing them to the RR2 later this week.

The new range in a nutshell:

RR1
I haven't spent much time listening to this speaker. My first impression, though, is that it's a much-improved Minstrel SE. The bass from these little speakers is startling, and the overall demeanor is very smooth and natural.

RR2
This is comparable to the old Doublet, except that it sounds far more seamless and magical. It can't go quite as loud, but the added bass extension and slam makes you less inclined to turn it up. Again, I haven't had much experience with it, although I'm looking forward to auditioning them.

RR3
This is the new top of the line. It's one of the most natural sounding speakers that I've ever heard, especially with acoustical material. Nothing is forced, yet it still manages to maintain a great sense of PRaT (Pace, Rhythm and Timing). The soundstage is also astonishing, for such a rhythmic speaker. From a physical perspective they seem diminutive, yet they deliver bass as deep as speakers many times their volume.

The entire Revelation Range is somewhat limited in the volume department, which is only a problem if you really like blasting yourself. They do such a great job of reproducing the scale of music with an effortless grace, though, that you don't feel the desire to turn it up (as you would with a lesser speaker).

So check out the new site, and give their speakers a listen. I guarantee that you'll be surprised at the results.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[lAmBoY]

Excellent job Mike!!!

The Royd web site has been a long time coming.

cheers //lamboy

[Robbo]

I had a quick look and the speakers look interesting, but seem pretty feeble in the power handling department. Their single mid/bass drive unit speakers only handle 40W and the twin mid/bass only 80W:eek:

I wonder why the power hadling is so low compared to other quality speakers:confused:

Cheers, Robbo

[bottleneck]

Hi Rob

I cant imagine they are that critical.


I mean, the standmounts are 83db! Id sure as hell want to stick more than 40w into an 83db load. 100w would seem sensible, 200w wouldnt seem to be overkill (and then theres WM wattage, but lets not go there!!! :D)

Chris

[boxsoft]

Remember it's talking about 40W RMS continuous power. Just because an amplifier can put out 500WPC, doesn't mean that it's doing that all the time. Peak (i.e. occasional) power is not as much of an issue.

In my case, I'm testing the RR3's with Naim 135s, which are conservatively rated at roughly 70WPC. The lower efficiency of the speaker does mean that I have to turn up the volume knob approximately "one hour" further to get the same perceived SPL. I've been able to get them quite loud before "topping out", although the maximum does vary depending on the source material.

The effect of too much power manifests itself as an occasional distortion in the midrange during extreme bass notes. The woofer is being thrown too far away from the voice coil for it to maintain the minute control required for midrange frequencies. This is very evident with music like Dub Reggae and some bass-heavy electronica. However, I've thrown a bunch of drum'n'bass at them, and they've handled it very well, so this behavior is by no means universal.

Distortion from your amps will kill the speakers long before too much power does.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[Robbo]

Ok,

Most speakers manufacturers just put a vague comment like recommended amplifiers 20-200W or something. obviously that is not the same as continuous RMS power handling. I see that this is also in the spec for the royd speakers.

Personally, if I were Royd, I wouldn't put the constant RMS power value in as it doesnt seem to be industry practice and could scare off potential punters who are casually browsing (like me for instance!)

cheers Robbo

[timpy]

Originally posted by boxsoft
I find that almost any "good" speaker can sound pretty wonderful with good electronics upstream, and potentially poor when driven with questionable gear. That having been said, I gave some Minstrel SE's to my mother to put on the end of her Sony CD player and receiver. It was really quite astonishing how palatable it could sound, even with a "bad" source and amp.


Hi boxsoft

I agree. What I just couldn't understand was the placing of some of the Royd models. Take the A7 as an example, that was a budget priced speaker, and used one of the worst Audax tweeters ever invented (same as the Goodmans Maxim 2 for instance). They had decided to turn it into a warts and all design that demanded very high quality electronics (or forgivingly soft budget ones). Now that may have appealed to the LP12 owner who had followed the philosophy of the time, and commited every last ha'penny to the "source first" idea, but as a budget speaker, it didn't sell to budget buyers, and that seemed to be the intention.

If however that was the intention, then why not bite the bullet and put a proper tweeter in it, and up the price just a little. As it was, even with really good stuff upstream, it always sounded a (little??) crude.

The later Minstrel was a much more compatible and versitile proposition (in comparison anyway) as was the (somewhat less exciting) Doublet. I quite like these two Royds but I couldn't live with them due to the music I tend to play. Horses for courses and all that, but they never seemed to do themselves any favours IMO.

Cheers

[boxsoft]

Originally posted by timpy
They had decided to turn it into a warts and all design that demanded very high quality electronics (or forgivingly soft budget ones).
I mentioned the concept of a "labour of love" above, and I suspect that the same applies to a number of Royd designs. It's almost as if Joe Akroyd decided to achieve a certain technical goal, just to prove that he could. It seems that the marketing sometimes took second chair.

I've never heard the A7, but I did own the A7X. It was specifically marketed as a surround sound speaker. My pair is in my sister's system, fronted by NAD gear, and they sound OK. They sounded even better when I was still deciding whether to buy the Albions, and my electronics included Naim 3.5/Flat/102/NAPSC/140.

I didn't have my home theater setup when I sold them to my sister, otherwise they would be doing surround duty in that system now. Instead, I've got some cheap (but nicely laminated) Celestion 120's, which suit the purpose just fine.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[jay]

Sorry for hi-jacking folks :D

Mike - quick question for you. I managed to pick up a mint pair of Minstrels which I am using in my HT system with an AV77 centre. There's B&W601's at the rear and I'm quite keen on getting another pair of Minstrels to do the rear as well. Good idea? Bad idea?

Minstrels appear to be quite a good option because then the system would be tonally matched (not sure that's impt, but that's what I've heard) and they're kinda easier to hide away.

Thoughts, advice, anyone?

Jay

[boxsoft]

Originally posted by jay
There's B&W601's at the rear and I'm quite keen on getting another pair of Minstrels to do the rear as well. Good idea? Bad idea?

Minstrels appear to be quite a good option because then the system would be tonally matched (not sure that's impt, but that's what I've heard) and they're kinda easier to hide away.
I've had people give me similar advice in the past. When I was first shopping for my main system, I was in my apartment and planned to have the music system double as a home theater. Due to the impending multi-channel music formats, one of the salesmen suggested that I get two sets of Albions, so that they would match. It seemed a little extreme to me at the time, and I ended up buying a house before getting all the necessary gear together for the HT setup. With the extra space, I have my music system on the main floor and my HT in the basement.

Now that I've had some experience with various home theaters, I've made the following observations:

The most important speaker is the center channel, with 75% of what you hear in the movie coming from there. Too often it's viewed as even less important than the rear surrounds, when it is actually more important than the front L+R. In your case, the AV77 is comparable to a Doublet. (Although Timpy disagrees, I strongly feel that the Doublet is a noticeably better speaker than the Minstrel SE, and is miles ahead of the standard Minstrel.)
Tonal matching is more important with the front channels than rear, because you're facing the front and your ears expect things to sound "seamless" in that direction. Even so, most times the main signal comes from the center, while ambient information comes from the from front L&R channels. Occasionally a sound effect will pan across, but level (versus tonal) matching is more important for that. It's good to have them sound "similar", but IMO a perfect match is unnecessary.
In the case of the rears, there are two things that make the most difference: level matching and dispersion. The concept of level matching is self-explanatory. Regarding dispersion, when you hear something from the rears, it should sound like it comes from "over there", rather than "from that speaker over there". If you can get the speakers far enough away from you (I find that breaking point is somewhere between 6 and 8 feet), then the surrounds will seem much less obvious. If they must be close, then I strongly suggest dipoles that can spread out the sound a bit more. In fact, when it comes time to replace my surrounds, I'll get dipoles, regardless of the distance. For now, your B&W's should be fine for that purpose.

I should mention that the above comments assume that you're watching movies with your home theater system. If, instead, you're building a music surround system (an abhorring concept to me), then perhaps tonal matching is more important. Some music surround mixes use the surrounds as they were intended: for ambience. Other mixes arbitrarily throw instruments willy-nilly here-and-there. The end result is an abomination, but would require that ALL of your speakers and amplifiers be the same. Keep this in mind, if it's important to you. AFAIAC, music will be 2-channel for a very, very, very long time, while multi-channel will remain a curiosity.

BTW, when you've got a TV in front of you, your brain naturally focuses on the visuals, with the audio playing second fiddle. You're brain is much more forgiving in this context. Alternatively, if this is a music surround system without a TV, then your focus will change and the speakers will become more important.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[jay]

Thanks Mike, much appreciated.

The system is purely for HT use so I think I'll go for the Mistrels all round if I can find a decent 2nd hand pair at a decent price. Unfort the rears will be quite close to the listeners, can't do much about the except tweak the distance settings in the receiver.

Thanks again. Jay

[RDD]

I found a pair of Royd Doublet speakers in my local Cash Generator recently, £150, not to bad really considering the S/H price from some shops.

Even though they seemed to have good reviews from the usual magazines, I could find so little about them reviews wise, and so few owners/mentions on any of the HiFi forums I didn't really consider them.

I found it odd at the time that Royd seems to have been totally forgotten, nay, ignored, and still do :confused:

Cheers,
Rick

[boxsoft]

Originally posted by jay
The system is purely for HT use so I think I'll go for the Mistrels all round if I can find a decent 2nd hand pair at a decent price. Unfort the rears will be quite close to the listeners, can't do much about the except tweak the distance settings in the receiver.
Are you sure you read my message? :confused: You wouldn't have come to that conclusion based upon my advice.

For a dedicated HT, where the surrounds will be close to the listener, you should get dipoles for better dispersion. For example, take a look at the Paradigm ADP-70 or ADP-170 (www.paradigm.ca). You can also mount them up higher on the wall, getting them even further from the listener. That will sound noticeably better (for that purpose) than another set of Minstrels.

If, however, you want to get more Minstrels because they're really cute (which they are), then that's OK to. :) Just realize that you're compromising your HT experience.

Regarding your receiver's distance settings, set them to match the actual distance of the speakers from the main listening position, and then set the relative volume levels appropriately.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[lowrider]

For music, the surrounds should match the front´s timbre, but they can have less output, meaning be smaller, as for the center, it is important that it is very clear, and "powerfull", and never brighter than the fronts, (or it will stick out), if I listen to my center Proac CC2 compared with the fronts SF EAII, they sound different, but toguether they blend seamlessly...

I agree that the surround should be far away, my speakers are all about 10´away, otherwise you hear them too much... If they must be close, then point them forward, instead of towards you...

[michaelab]

Originally posted by lowrider
If they must be close, then point them forward, instead of towards you...
I would disagree with that :rolleyes: I have mine quite close (about 2m away) and also only barely behind my listening postition so I have them facing each other, rather than facing the fronts. I think facing the fronts is better in a setup like yours where they are much further behind you.

In setting the relative volume levels an SPL meter is really useful. I had done mine 'by ear' but when I then re did them with an SPL meter the rears were completely wrong :eek:

Michael.

[lowrider]

Mine are completely wrong too, because I set them up for DPLII by ear, and I know they are higher then the fronts...

Your case is a bit different from most people that have them close because they sit against the back wall, and thats why I sujested pointing them forward, but the main poinrt is not to point them to our ears when they are close...

[jay]

Are you sure you read my message? You wouldn't have come to that conclusion based upon my advice.

Hi Mike

Understood your advice - thx again :D Minstrels are more convenient and because you didn't say NO then I took that as a YES :D

I'm perfectly willing to compromise the HT system as it's in the lounge and I've taken over another room in the house for a music room.

I will try to move them away from the sitting position though.

Jay