I've had the XT-F100s for ten months, and I feel the following statements were flawed:
1. "There is a ripple in the impedance curve at 150 Hz, where there is audible trouble."
It better than its predecessor which I also have. XT-F100s have some of the cleanest, most articulate bass I've ever heard (mind you, my listening was mostly confined to products below $6k. The MLs just sound tipped up compared to more neutral Revels. It's a feature speaker. Not a neutral one. The dynamics of the MLs are also almost as good as Klipsch.
2. "So clearly the cabinet is not properly braced."
Bad assumption there. I have played dozens of test tones and it's no different than other speakers I had listened to at the same price point. You may get better bracing paying $6k and up; I don't know.
3. "That speaker is going to be a receiver buster."
The receiver owner's problem and not mine. One should never use cheap receivers with $4500 speakers. I don't own any.
4. "Then we get to the choice of Kevlar for the midrange. I have found this to be a poor choice."
Based on what? There are good and bad designs with every type of material. The Kevlar driver provides a more natural midrange to my ears than that of the 60XTs with their aluminum midrange.
5. "B & W used it to not good effect,"
I had also listened to previous generation Motion speakers with their aluminum midrange drivers against B&W 703 s2, and I felt the B&W had a more lush and full bodied midrange with better timbre.
6. " I would bet that cone is breaking up around 2K"
Based on what? I have dozens of REW derived tests, and none of them show a spike at 2 kHz: FR, waterfall, IR, etc. At very least, that peak doesn't appear to be audible in my listening room. I have a falling response at 2 kHz. It also changes if I move the mike.
7. "A peak of the magnitude shown is very bad news for classical users."
Anyone can spend hours picking apart FR plots on speakers they've never owned, and then take cheap shots at the designers of those speakers. At least Jim Salk has retired, so I don't have to look at his silly ideal case, oversmoothed, FR plots anymore. I would rather look at jagged 1/24 plots that are even more meaningless. He himself knows that speakers play the room, but had chosen to contradict himself there.
8. "The strings will have a somewhat strident tone and the brass will be coarse."
Neither of those things are true. This midrange has a more natural timbre than some aluminum drivers I've heard. It's forward, but this has nothing to do with a real or imagined peak at 2 kHz, or the use of a Kevlar driver. It's not as laid back as British speakers. It's somewhere between a Revel and a Klipsch. ML house sound is a bold one.
9. " Frankly the top end is also a disaster"
Based on what? Revel's aluminum tweeters in the F206, and Wharfedale's soft domes in the Diamond line, are notably worse. Wharfedale also uses AMTs in their new Aura line, that look much the same as the ones in the Motion line. I'm pretty sure their designers aren't incompetent. Or else, he could try taking it up with Mr. Comeau. AMTs lag in directivity. They have more surface area, and move less. Beryllium ones used by Focal and Revel I would place ahead. ML's AMT soundly trounces any soft dome or aluminum tweeter I've heard in speakers under $4000. I care more about the midrange than the tweeter.
10. "I find even a small rise at 2 KHz to be highly objectionable"
That's his problem and not mine. I've seen lots of speakers on Stereophile that measure worse. There is no guarantee that this person would also get a rise at 2 kHz in his listening room. I get a dip and some bumps between 100 Hz and 200 Hz which may or may not appear in somebody else's listening room.
11. "and I would bet this will end up being costly to people who can't afford it."
Their problem, and not mine.
12. "reliability is always front and center of what I design and spec. out."
He has no business labeling any of ML's products as "unreliable". I bought my 60XTs in 2020 and they haven't broken yet. I had broken a binding post on the XT-F100s which was all user abuse. If I had to point out a flaw, that is it.
13. "the tweeter on that unit is not very good and I will be frank it's bad."
Based on what? See Brent Butterworth's review online of the 60XTs in 2015 which I also own. I've heard $6000 speakers that have worse top end. This is his personal bias which I don't happen to share.
14. "The fact that a simpler cheaper dome would perform far better"
Based on what? He had presented his opinion. Cheaper domes at the $3k to $5k price point hadn't outperformed. The Be tweeters used by Focal and Revel in their higher end lines, I had heard locally, had. B&W's 700 series tweeter I had found to be comparable but different. If I had to pick one that I would take in place of the AMT, that would be it. B&W speakers also have a deliberately tipped up, upper midrange that I don't care for. Again, if I otherwise like the speakers, I could simply use REW, and tone it down. B&W towers in the US sell for more money than Revel or ML towers.
as an old retired railroader I believe this thread has hit the 'Derail' ..............
