MartinLogan Neolith Electrostatic Loudspeaker Review

S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
I understand that there may be entertainment value in reviewing, and reading reviews of, $80k speakers and $100k supporting electronics but an audiophile is less likely to buy a set of these than they are to offer both kidneys on Craigslist for free.

If ML is trying to impress audiophiles, may I suggest a more realistic value proposition. Otherwise, keep 'em red, hike the price, and feature them beside a Maserati Merak to attract the Sonny Crocketts of the world.
The Neoliths aren't ML's bread and butter, they are a statement piece that exists to get attention for the brand. MartinLogan has plenty of affordable speakers that most people could easily have.
 
GrimSurfer

GrimSurfer

Senior Audioholic
The Neoliths aren't ML's bread and butter, they are a statement piece that exists to get attention for the brand. MartinLogan has plenty of affordable speakers that most people could easily have.
The only thing a display of excess tells me that ML understands the marketing used by the defence sector (expensive = better) or the pornography business (bigger = better).

A more affordable speaker that massively out-performs the competition would be a much more convincing statement on ML's engineering prowess. It would tell us that ML is a company that can deliver cool technology and performance better than anyone else.

This is a much better message than speaker-porn, which doesn't require any great imagination to achieve.

Now you might say that this article has gotten people to talk about ML, which is fair enough but totally missing the point (it's not the message that's important in advertising but the effect).

The only thing I get out of this piece is that ML is jumping on the same high-end gravy train occupied by cable manufacturers. This elicits a strongly negative effect in my mind and, perhaps, the minds of others.

If this sound unfair, it's one of the logical outcomes of an $80k loudspeaker message.
 
Last edited:
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
Does one really need to spend $80k to get a really good speaker from ML?

The only thing a display of excess tells me that ML understands the marketing used by the defence sector (expensive = better) or the pornography business (bigger = better).

A more affordable speaker that massively out-performs the competition would be a much more convincing statement on ML's engineering prowess. It would tell us that ML is a company that can deliver cool technology and performance better than anyone else. This is a much better message than speaker-porn, which doesn't require any great imagination to achieve.
Pretty sure @shadyJ covered that. How many KEF Blades or B&W Nautilus' do you think sell like there lower lines? Not sure why your hung up on it.
 
GrimSurfer

GrimSurfer

Senior Audioholic
Pretty sure @shadyJ covered that. How many KEF Blades or B&W Nautilus' do you think sell like there lower lines? Not sure why your hung up on it.
I'm not hung up on it. I just don't see the point, much as I didn't see the point of the Nautilus either (and I'm a B&W owner).

To be useful to consumers, technology has to be (1) effective and (2) attainable. So for the overwhelming majority of audiophiles, this isn't a useful product. I really wish it were because the audiophile hobby needs a shot in the arm. Products like this, however, just add distance between manufacturers and the marketplace.

And that's not good.
 
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
I'm not hung up on it. I just don't see the point, much as I didn't see the point of the Nautilus either (and I'm a B&W owner).

To be useful to consumers, technology has to be (1) effective and (2) attainable. So for the overwhelming majority of audiophiles, this isn't a useful product. I really wish it were because the audiophile hobby needs a shot in the arm. Products like this, however, just add distance between manufacturers and the marketplace.

And that's not good.
They are supposed to be statements, that's it. Not sure how by manufacturing statement products is somehow bad for the market place. One benefit comes from trickle down. When ML first did the original curved panel statements, the rest of their line came out of it.
 
GrimSurfer

GrimSurfer

Senior Audioholic
They are supposed to be statements, that's it. Not sure how by manufacturing statement products is somehow bad for the market place. One benefit comes from trickle down. When ML first did the original curved panel statements, the rest of their line came out of it.
Not sure if it's "bad for the market place". I think it's safer to say that it does no real good for the average audiophile.

All companies, regardless of their size, have finite resources. Companies have to carefully choose what technologies they research and what products they develop. Often, when a company chooses to do one thing it also chooses not to do something.

Spending resources to develop an $80k pair of speakers means a lot more affordable stuff may not be developed. Granted, some of the high end technologies could trickle down but this often takes a great deal of time and energy as well. Lessons learned in series-production can streamline costs. But if your production run is very small (as it would be in the rarified $80k speaker market),then your opportunities to learn streamlining techniques are limited indeed.

I have no doubt that ML understands this very well. I also believe that many things get lost when engineers and marketers decide between a product of excellence and one of opulence. R&D demonstrators are extreme examples of the former. Statement products are extreme examples of the latter.

One is meaningful to engineers and audiophiles. The other is more meaningful to marketers and non-audiophiles.
 
Last edited:
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
Not sure if it's "bad for the market place". I think it's safer to say that it does no real good for the average audiophile.

All companies, regardless of their size, have finite resources. Companies have to carefully choose what technologies they research and what products they develop. Often, when a company chooses to do one thing it also chooses not to do something.

Spending resources to develop an $80k pair of speakers means a lot more affordable stuff may not be produced. Granted, some of the technologies could trickle down but this takes a great deal of time and energy as well. Lessons learned in series-production can streamline costs. But if your production run is very small (as it would be in the rarified $80k speaker market),then your opportunities to learn streamlining techniques are limited indeed.

I have no doubt that ML understands this very well. I also believe, however, that something gets lost in translation between a product of excellence and a product of opulence. R&D demonstrators are extreme examples of the former. Statement products are extreme examples of the latter.

One is meaningful to engineers and audiophiles. The other is more meaningful to marketers and non-audiophiles.
Not sure what to say as I thought its was addressed, we can just disagree amicably..
 
GrimSurfer

GrimSurfer

Senior Audioholic
Not sure what to say as I thought its was addressed, we can just disagree amicably..
Sure thing. I have no animosity towards anyone. Just explaining my POV and looking forward to reading others'...
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
My friend is a ML enthusiast. I've always had a soft-spot for ribbon and ES panel speakers; but have generally avoided them for the combination of small sweet spot and difficulty in placement.

We were both at the show where these were being played.

We were not impressed. We both feel that the room setup was more than a little bit of that; but regardless of the reason, we did not like the end result.

They were not actually offensive (I think some of the boutique manufacturers there may have lost their HF hearing and their speakers were painful), but they weren't particularly good (in that environment).

I've listened to lesser MLs in more controlled conditions and liked them more. But considering what's in the $80k range, these would not be my choice. (even if we assume I'm spending $80k on speakers, I'd likely look at the McIntosh XRT 2.2ks first.)
 
GrimSurfer

GrimSurfer

Senior Audioholic
My friend is a ML enthusiast. I've always had a soft-spot for ribbon and ES panel speakers; but have generally avoided them for the combination of small sweet spot and difficulty in placement.

We were both at the show where these were being played.

We were not impressed. We both feel that the room setup was more than a little bit of that; but regardless of the reason, we did not like the end result.

They were not actually offensive (I think some of the boutique manufacturers there may have lost their HF hearing and their speakers were painful),but they weren't particularly good (in that environment).

I've listened to lesser MLs in more controlled conditions and liked them more. But considering what's in the $80k range, these would not be my choice. (even if we assume I'm spending $80k on speakers, I'd likely look at the McIntosh XRT 2.2ks first.)
I think Martin Logan makes good products, along with about half a dozen other companies (eg. B&W, Paradigm, JBL, etc...). But that's about it because developing good loudspeakers is difficult, requiring expertise, experience, and dedication. This is not a field for upstarts, which is why I'm continuing to see how much dedication and R&D Mc, Bryston and others put into the game.

Things are a little more open wrt powered subwoofer manufacturing because so many inherent design problems can be mitigated to a certain degree by DSP.

I believe your statement about boutique manufacturers is accurate. There is a lot of stuff out there advertised as "warm" when it's actually deficient the top end. The same thing goes for "bright", which is just as often due to a weak middle and bottom end.

Any objective measurement would clearly show this, which is why the specs for such gear is restricted to impedance and very basic frequency range.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
I think Martin Logan makes good products, along with about half a dozen other companies (eg. B&W, Paradigm, JBL, etc...). But that's about it because developing good loudspeakers is difficult, requiring expertise, experience, and dedication. This is not a field for upstarts, which is why I'm continuing to see how much dedication and R&D Mc, Bryston and others put into the game.
I'm not really sure how you define "upstart" here; but there are a large number of small players making great gear (Philharmonic and Salk come immediately to mind).
 
GrimSurfer

GrimSurfer

Senior Audioholic
I'm not really sure how you define "upstart" here; but there are a large number of small players making great gear (Philharmonic and Salk come immediately to mind).
And there are a larger number of small players producing over priced junk marketed as "boutique". It all comes down to measured performance and quality of materials.

The upstarts are easy enough to find: Limited histories, flaky patents, no serious R&D, lab facilities, anechoic chambers, engineers without pedigree in audio, third world assembly, no or incomplete product specs, over-emphasis on form, finish or esoterica.

You know, the usual flim-flam...
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
And there are a larger number of small players producing over priced junk marketed as "boutique". It all comes down to measured performance and quality of materials.

The upstarts are easy enough to find: Limited histories, flaky patents, no serious R&D, lab facilities, anechoic chambers, engineers without pedigree in audio, third world assembly, no or incomplete product specs, over-emphasis on form, finish or esoterica.

You know, the usual flim-flam...
Salk and Philharmonic certainly don't fit into those categories. The measured performance is very good.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
To be fair, it wouldn't be easy to properly measure a speaker like ML's panel designs. Conventional measurement techniques might not be right for these sort of speakers, where the transducer surface is so large.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
And there are a larger number of small players producing over priced junk marketed as "boutique". It all comes down to measured performance and quality of materials.
There are a larger number of small players, full stop.

I don't think I understand what you are driving at.

The upstarts are easy enough to find: Limited histories, flaky patents, no serious R&D, lab facilities, anechoic chambers, engineers without pedigree in audio, third world assembly, no or incomplete product specs, over-emphasis on form, finish or esoterica.
Bose has a long history, patents, serious R&D (or did at at least one time), likely an anechoic chamber (those aren't as common as you suspect), pedigree'd engineers, and a huge emphasis on form.

Many of the small players in the market assemble in their home towns, provide detailed product specs (including links to where yo purchase the same driver), and offer both first and third-party measured specs.

Of course: there are also great large brands and terrible small ones... again, I'm not sure what you are driving at.

Though pretty much every established brand was an upstart at one point. I recall the first mainstream products from SVS, Hsu, Emotiva, Oppo, etc.
 
GrimSurfer

GrimSurfer

Senior Audioholic
There are a larger number of small players, full stop.

I don't think I understand what you are driving at.

Bose has a long history, patents, serious R&D (or did at at least one time),likely an anechoic chamber (those aren't as common as you suspect),pedigree'd engineers, and a huge emphasis on form.

Many of the small players in the market assemble in their home towns, provide detailed product specs (including links to where yo purchase the same driver),and offer both first and third-party measured specs.

Of course: there are also great large brands and terrible small ones... again, I'm not sure what you are driving at.

Though pretty much every established brand was an upstart at one point. I recall the first mainstream products from SVS, Hsu, Emotiva, Oppo, etc.
Let me be blunt then... There are a lot of bit players in the business that don't have the parts to produce quality loudspeakers.

WRT Bose, you answered your own question... "form" is a principle design criteria for Bose products, not sound. That's why the company is famous (or infamous) for not publishing specs for its products. Doing so would not necessarily be in that company's commercial interests.

Bose's R&D has largely been focused on psycho-acoustics, which is a field of study that is not universally accepted by audiologists and sound engineers. While Bose has done well in this field (they sell lots of stuff and apparently make lots of money), nobody I know would accuse them of reference quality sound. At least not in the strictest scientific sense.

Your point on anechoic chambers is well taken. Far too few manufactures have these, which explains in part why so many manufacturers can't seem to build a neutral sounding speaker. This could be a big problem as bricks and mortar stores give way to direct sales but manufacturers got around this by advising customers that speakers need to be broken-in (which is largely nonsense but plays on a principle of psycho-acoustics that says that people's ears need a short time to adjust/compensate for differences in levels and sound quality).

As for specifications, I looked up the two brands you mentioned. Their web sites don't contain the kind of detailed specs one needs to assess whether they are good, bad, or indifferent. This isn't unusual, many of the big players don't either but will provide if asked. The reason why they can provide is because they spend a lot of time measuring and refining performance in a lab environment -- something small players cannot always afford to do.

[I'd be delighted if you could point me to a link that shows unsmoothed frequency responses, spectral plots, impedance and phase curves etc. I just love reading these things and am always on the look out for excellent products.]

Your point about everyone being an upstart at one time is more or less correct. But the companies you mentioned didn't start producing and selling speakers at $3k and up. They started small, built knowledge and expertise, and then entered the higher performance market. Some of them started small before being swallowed up by large companies with the budgets andknow how to take their products to the next level.

The reason is because it takes time to build the depth of experience and knowledge needed to make an excellent product. This is a truism that exists in just about any technical field, not just loudspeakers.

The "home town" issue is an example of pure marketing BS. Within certain bounds (child, slave labor) I don't care where a product is assembled. Neither should you.

The truth of the matter is that just about every product today touches the global supply chain at one time of another.

Some companies try to make points by portraying themselves as a group of artistes, assembling products to the sound of harpists and all sitting down for lunch together. Reality is often very different. So if the cabinet maker is a chain smoking, self-taught dude who nips out for a beer and tabletop ballet half way through his shift, who am I to care if his products meet muster? Ditto for skin color, ethnicity, nationality.

Companies would do well to spare us the glossy brochure featuring the gracefully weathered face of a model portraying a European craftsman staring down the edge of a finished joint. But if a company doesn't have the independently verified specs to back up their performance claims, then a glossy brochure will have to do. I guess.

If you have exceptionally deep pockets to build the right facilities and hire a helluva lot of talent, I suppose one might be able to offer a high quality loudspeaker in fairly short order. Doing so is far rarer than registering your company name, hiring a few talented wood workers, buying some d rivers and claiming to be a high end manufacturer. There are too many companies out there taking this approach, and it's neither good for audio nor good for audiophiles.
 
Last edited:
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Not sure if it's "bad for the market place". I think it's safer to say that it does no real good for the average audiophile.

All companies, regardless of their size, have finite resources. Companies have to carefully choose what technologies they research and what products they develop. Often, when a company chooses to do one thing it also chooses not to do something.

Spending resources to develop an $80k pair of speakers means a lot more affordable stuff may not be developed. Granted, some of the high end technologies could trickle down but this often takes a great deal of time and energy as well. Lessons learned in series-production can streamline costs. But if your production run is very small (as it would be in the rarified $80k speaker market),then your opportunities to learn streamlining techniques are limited indeed.

I have no doubt that ML understands this very well. I also believe that many things get lost when engineers and marketers decide between a product of excellence and one of opulence. R&D demonstrators are extreme examples of the former. Statement products are extreme examples of the latter.

One is meaningful to engineers and audiophiles. The other is more meaningful to marketers and non-audiophiles.
You have a very narrow and self-righteous point of view. Telling ML how to run their business, well, that's as misguided as when I read the financial analysts who write, "Apple should have done this..." or "Walmart should have done this...". ML sells just 50 pairs and that's $2M in revenue (assuming a 50% gross margin), and since the technology is essentially the same as in the higher-volume $15K/pair models, the incremental R&D is probably not all that oppressive. I know they sell quite a few of the $15K pairs, because my local dealer has sold a surprising number. (I thought it would be something like four, and it was well into double digits.)

As for the Neolith being relevant only to marketers and non-audiophiles, I don't follow that at all. What if you are someone who has a 15,000 cuft listening room and wants awesome music reproduction? There is a viable market of those folks, and that's where Wilson, YG, etc, aim their flagships. I don't think these products are hobbies or vanity exercises; I think they actually sell.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
Bose's R&D has largely been focused on psycho-acoustics, which is a field of study that is not universally accepted by audiologists and sound engineers. While Bose has done well in this field (they sell lots of stuff and apparently make lots of money), nobody I know would accuse them of reference quality sound. At least not in the strictest scientific sense.
I am not sure who would consider the science of psychoacoustics to be invalid. Pretty much every serious person in the audio business uses psychoacoustic principles to develop products. That would be like a biologist not accepting the principles of evolution.
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Samurai
The only thing a display of excess tells me that ML understands the marketing used by the defence sector (expensive = better) or the pornography business (bigger = better).
From now on you're my BFF!

I could say I see slightly more reason to statement pieces.

First of all there’s the buyer himself. The perception of a company that only does huge series is often rather bad. This is truer in some fields than others. Music sometimes having something to do with art, is one of those fields that get frowned upon for mass-produced. (I’m also guilty of this, I admit. Although I don’t have the resources to avoid it.) Sony often had to prove it can actually deliver by producing some very, very good amps and CD players. Still the perception of Sony as a kitchen radio-clock producer is very high. So this is one reason why companies do statement pieces. You give people cheap quality and they just end up yearning for expensive quality of the same quality :D


Then there’s this prototype business. A minute and crappy Fiat Punto costs billions to develop, but you end up with a finished prototype that you can’t sell nowhere near the cost of developing it. And most importantly; there is such a thing as trickle down, but trickle up is next to impossible.

It makes more sense to pair your research with a statement piece, sell off some of those and get some research money back, trickle the rest down the production line and sell those in larger numbers to stay in the game.

That way you underline that you’re not a kitchen radio-clock company, that you’re a serious manufacturer that can dance all over the reference field and that average audiophile benefits from this through improvements made while developing the prototype model.

Although I mostly agree with you, I think that, for example, Magico is much more deserving of this type of criticism that you put forward.

Most of the winemakers I’m close to will tell me that top end wines barely ever pay off, but being a producer of cheap wines can leave a long lasting damage and being a mass-producer of cheap wines is a noose.

I'm not really sure how you define "upstart" here; but there are a large number of small players making great gear (Philharmonic and Salk come immediately to mind).
Well, Phil and Salk wouldn't meet the cryteria of an upstart in this case. Even if they started their companies yesterday, that wasn't the start of their audio expertise.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top