Help me decide: Martin Logan Motion 60 vs B&W 702 s2

[Slevin19]

I think both are seriously flawed speakers by measurement. I personally would not like any of them. Both bloat the bass and both have HF issues, but different. The ML has a lot of bass ripple but in the end very poor bass extension for a speaker of that price and size.

Speakers are very difficult to choose as there are far more bad ones than good ones. The speaker market is a jungle. What is your budget?

Re: seriously flawed speakers by measurement - someone recommended the Monitor Audio Silver 300. I looked up their measurements from their Stereophile review Here and noticed flaws there too (though one good thing is that when phase is low in mid-bass area, the impedance is high). The room probability brings out it’s own set of flaws. Hopefully Audyssey correction minimizes both to a certain extent but I do not know (I’m a newbie).

Should I assume that ‘flat’ measurements = good sound quality? (Perhaps not always?)

 

[TLS Guy]

Budget: anywhere from 2.5k to 5k

That is a very sensible budget for a set of decent speakers.

James Larson, ShadyJ just reviewed these JBL 3800 speakers. It is a long time since I have seen a set of commercial speakers that measure that well. As a long time speaker designer, the design plan and compass of those speakers makes perfect sense to me.

Now I have not heard them. But speakers with a good set of measurements are far more likely to sound very good. Speakers with poor measurements never sound any good, I can tell you that.

For what they seem to offer these speakers look like very good value for money.

If I were in the market for speakers, which I am not as I build and design my own, those speakers would be top of the list for an audition in your price range,

 

[mazersteven]

$6000 FOCAL ARIA 948

 

[TLS Guy]

Re: seriously flawed speakers by measurement - someone recommended the Monitor Audio Silver 300. I looked up their measurements from their Stereophile review Here and noticed flaws there too (though one good thing is that when phase is low in mid-bass area, the impedance is high). The room probability brings out it’s own set of flaws. Hopefully Audyssey correction minimizes both to a certain extent but I do not know (I’m a newbie).

Should I assume that ‘flat’ measurements = good sound quality? (Perhaps not always?)

That means they have a good chance of being good. If they have poor measurements, they will sound lousy for sure and not be worth the time of day.

 

[shadyJ]

Re: seriously flawed speakers by measurement - someone recommended the Monitor Audio Silver 300. I looked up their measurements from their Stereophile review Here and noticed flaws there too (though one good thing is that when phase is low in mid-bass area, the impedance is high). The room probability brings out it’s own set of flaws. Hopefully Audyssey correction minimizes both to a certain extent but I do not know (I’m a newbie).

Should I assume that ‘flat’ measurements = good sound quality? (Perhaps not always?)

Some flaws are a lot more serious than others. That Monitor Audio speaker actually measures quite well and I would imagine it sounds fine. The things to look for are broader trends on the response. Stuff like really narrow bumps and dips are not very audible, even if they are relatively high in amplitude. Wide dips and peaks, on the other hand, are audible, even if they aren't very high in amplitude. And you have to look for these nonlinearities in areas that human hearing is sensitive too. For example, if the response get a bit hairy above 15,000 Hz, it would not be easy to hear even though many people can technically hear that high. However, if there is wonkiness in regions where human hearing is most sensitive, like around 3,000 Hz, that is going to have a far greater consequence on the sound character.

And it isn't just the on-axis response that you should pay attention to, but the off-axis response. If the off-axis response is erratic, that will negatively impact the overall sound. Look for speakers that have a smooth off-axis response with no major bumps or dips.

 

[Slevin19]

Martin Logan 60XTi measurements from NRC here

Bowers 702 S2 measurements from Stereophile here

Unfortunately two different measurement techniques, so it's not an exact apples-to-apples comparison. But it's better than nothing.

B&W sensitivity might be a little higher, but not a big difference. Both appear to be modestly difficult loads in terms of impedance. But your Parasound can probably handle either without much problem.

ML appears smoother in the treble. Both appear to have exaggerated midbass, but here it's really hard to compare measurements or to trust the NRC measurements since the ML is rear ported.

My conclusion: There are a lot of better speakers than either of these in this price range. Revel, KEF, Ascend, Monitor Audio Silver 300, Salk all come to mind. I'd probably say the Focal Arias, too, even though you said you were unimpressed.

Note: Just added some edits a couple minutes after posting.

Looking at the 60XTi measurements (Graphs of impedance and phase vs frequency as linked by you). As I mentioned, I’m using a subwoofer. Assume crossover is around 80Hz. Of course, I first ask Audyssey to get rid of the bass humps. Does that not take care of a lot of the issues? Basically, I’m trying to figure out what issues are really worth worrying about and what ones can be solved.

 

[shadyJ]

Looking at the 60XTi measurements (Graphs of impedance and phase vs frequency as linked by you). As I mentioned, I’m using a subwoofer. Assume crossover is around 80Hz. Of course, I first ask Audyssey to get rid of the bass humps. Does that not take care of a lot of the issues? Basically, I’m trying to figure out what issues are really worth worrying about and what ones can be solved.

Audyssey can kind of flatten out the low frequency response, sort of. That is about all it is good for. It can't fix your speakers, especially if the off-axis response is problematic. It can't improve your room acoustics. Subwoofers only cover deep bass, but most of the low-frequency region where room acoustics negatively impacts the sound is above subwoofer band frequencies.

 

[VMPS-TIII]

I needed help in deciding between these two speakers: the Martin Logan Motion 60XTi and B&W 702 s2. Price difference is irrelevant. Decision is mostly for music though I shall also be using them for my home theater set-up.

Room size: 20x20x9 cubic feet
Listening level: 65-75dB at approx 9 meters away
Music: primarily Jazz / classical

I would go with the Martin Logan Motion 60XTi. From my listening, the B&W sounds great in the sound room at BestBuy but once I got them home I started to realize they color the music significantly. If it was me, I'd check out the Martin Logan ESL X too.

 

[ryanosaur]

As a side note... I would not spend the coin on B&W or Martin Logan. They are both respected companies to be certain, but my ears told me a different story.
You have to find a way to hear more speakers!!!
I spent close to a year looking at speakers, studying reviews, cross referencing reviews and reviewers, sifting through the subjective and objective... for about 100 different speakers. Once I started auditioning speakers, I had a “vocabulary” built up. I was able to look at my experience against a reviewed experience, to look at review comparisons and better understand for my experience...
I learned what I like, and value, in a speaker.
I’m not saying I couldn’t be happy had I bought those MLs that first night I heard them... but I am glad I didn’t! Same with Monitor Audio. (Though with MA, I do know I would have been happy with the Silver 500s or 300s.)
But for me, I then heard what truly Flat, Accurate, and Neutral speakers sounded like... and I cannot go back.
You need to get out and experience more. $5000 is a lot, and it’s not... but for getting it wrong that is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

[VMPS-TIII]

But for me, I then heard what truly Flat, Accurate, and Neutral speakers sounded like... and I cannot go back.

Agreed. However, most new speaker buyers don't know what Flat/Neutral really means or how they can determine flat without someone testing the speaker for them. While not a perfect tool I found this listing of NRC tested speakers is a nice reference tool. I wish James had an index like this for all his awesome speaker tests too. It would be great for comparisons.

SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com - Loudspeakers

www.soundstagenetwork.com

Here's the 60XTi measurements. While there's a bump at 100Hz it's considerably more neutral than the B&W's.

SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com - NRC Measurements: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi Loudspeakers

www.soundstagenetwork.com

Here is one of my favorites:

SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com - NRC Measurements: Focal Sopra No1 Loudspeakers

www.soundstagenetwork.com

 

[Chocolatey MidsFan]

But does it have chocolatey mids?

That's my line.

 

[lovinthehd]

That's my line.

You snooze you lose?

 

[Calvin_and_Hobbes]

I would suggest getting a good demo of the speakers you are considering. I've most often found that Magnolia's listening rooms are not ideal. They usually have too many speakers in a room and in theory, additional speakers affect the sound of the speakers you are trying to audition. Also, they typically connect multiple source and amplification components via equipment/speaker selectors. I think these also affect the sound quality. I did a demo at Magnolia of Elac floorstanding speakers based on good reviews I had read. In the Magnolia listening room, the speakers sounded really muddy and undefined, but another set of speakers didn't sound much different. I think the lack of acoustic consideration given to typical Magnolia listening rooms makes them difficult places in which to do any sort of audio equipment demos from the several times I've done listening at Magnolia.

I can provide you with my listening impression notes of several B&W and Monitor Audio speakers that seem to be around your price range.

B&W 603: ($1999) Listening to this speaker was quite disappointing. My audition started well. The bass sounded tight and the midrange was precise on simpler music. As the music got more complex though, the music sounded increasingly muddled with the low end sounding loose and overwhelming the midrange.. On Fleetwood Mac's Monday Morning, the speakers exhibited a 'one note bass' problem and failed to convey multi bass tones and as a result failed to convey rhythm well The high end sounded harsh when pushed to even moderate volumes. The presentation sounded recessed and was less transparent as the Audio Physic or the Monitor Audio. The key issue is that this speaker doesn't resolve complexity well especially when volume is turned up even to pretty moderate volumes.

B&W 704 S2: ($2999): these speakers hit the spot. These played music with a lot more finesse than the 603 and were musical at a similar level to the Monitor Audio Silver 300s. These conveyed music and rhythm so much better than the 603s as notes were much more clearly defined and the textures of voices and instruments were better formed and conveyed. These speakers has a tight low end which integrates well with the rest of the range. The highs are smooth but extended.

Monitor Audio Gold 200 (previous generation, used) ($2400 > $2200): VERY smooth & dynamic. Really good weight in the low end. Not obvious exactly why, but this speaker had decidedly better pace than the Triangle Esprit Gaia speakers. With a ribbon tweeter, these project a LOT of midrange and high end detail. These speakers rock on being able to convey the beat. So articulate in conveying where notes start and stop! While these are extremely detailed in their sound, these are unfailingly musical sounding across all of what I listened to. Wow, so much that I’ve not heard before from Ballad of the Runaway Horse by Jennifer Warnes. So much drive out of these speakers. I’m amazed by the range of these speakers to make calm music sound calmer and upbeat music sound even more pacey. Absolutely the best speaker of the ones that I’ve demoed. Very neutral in not imposing a sound signature on music it is reproducing.

Monitor Audio Silver 300 ($2000): Similar personality as the Monitor Audio Gold 200. Very smooth and easy to listen to. There is less detail and transparency than the Monitor Audio Gold 200, but in only in a matter of degrees. Ballad of the Runaway Horse still sounds really musical. That track seems to be a really good test of musicality as it sounds absolutely boring on speakers that don’t convey tones or rhythm. Bass is less well controlled than with the Gold 200s. The ribbon tweeter on the Gold 200 does convey more detail and clarity. Both the previous-gen Gold 200 and the current-gen Silver 300 sound very musical and enjoyable, but the Gold 200 is able to pull more out of music. For a speaker with a lot of finesse, they also had a well defined low end conveyed with a surprising amount of force. Also, the high end sounded notably smooth. I also appreciated that these speakers sounded fast and agile like a smaller standmount speaker might.

I ended up with the Monitor Audio Silver 300 and the B&W 704 S2 as my final chioice and bought the Silver 300s. My decision between the Silver 300 and the 704 S2 was based on the following:

Monitor Audio Silver 300: Though not inexpensive, it seems that quite a few publications are right on the mark when they describe this speaker as a great value. These have the clarity and quickness in the mid-range and treble that my Linn Index speakers had with the addition of a tuneful and rhythmic low end. These are a LOT of fun to listen to and can really boogie when presented with interesting rhythms in music.
Bowers & Wilkins 704 S2: Has a similar level of clarity, quickness, detail and smoothness as the Silver 300s. (Close enough that I need to hear the Monitor Audio speakers again to figure out which is better) But is $1000 more expensive than the Silver 300s. The Silver 300s also have a smoother top end while not yielding any clarity or quickness to this speaker. All in all, there was nothing the 704 S2 speakers did better than the Silver 300s and the Silver 300s was more pleasant sounding in the high frequencies.

Other things I like about the Silver 300s:
1. They seem to be not too fussy about placement. 18" from the back wall is enough to reduce any boominess in the bass.
2. They seems to be easily driven. I'm using a old Creek 4140 amplifier with 35 watts per channel and the combination is sounding great. Due to how clear I've heard these speakers sound, I know they can sound even better with higher quality amplification and perhaps a bit more power. As a result, I find that the Silver 300s are a great stepping stone if you plan to upgrade to even higher quality amplification.

 

[Slevin19]

Thanks - that was a very detailed review. The MA speakers seem enticing.

 

[Slevin19]

An update: I bought two speakers - the ML 60XT and the Monitor Audio Gold GX300. I chose that MA speaker as many on a British forum mentioned that it sounded better than the current Gold 300 variant. These have dual 6.5 inch woofers as opposed to the 8 inch woofers that the newer Gold 300s have.

Trying both out extensively. Shall keep the one that suits my room and sell the other.

Both powered with the Parasound A21. So far, the ML60 clearly win in (1) more natural sound of instruments, (2) presence (3) bass
The MA GX300 are better in (1) airiness (2) clarity (3) ability to sound relatively good with all kinds of music (not just jazz / classical)

They are quite different speakers from each other.

I think I might prefer the ML60 more. I think I need at least dual 8 inch woofers for my room (20x20x9). It isn’t that I listen to music too loud (around 70dB SPL listening level). Too bad as the center channel for the GX300 is beefier & better sounding than that of the ML60.

 

[Gmoney]

ML60's gets my vote.

 

[TLS Guy]

Re: seriously flawed speakers by measurement - someone recommended the Monitor Audio Silver 300. I looked up their measurements from their Stereophile review Here and noticed flaws there too (though one good thing is that when phase is low in mid-bass area, the impedance is high). The room probability brings out it’s own set of flaws. Hopefully Audyssey correction minimizes both to a certain extent but I do not know (I’m a newbie).

Should I assume that ‘flat’ measurements = good sound quality? (Perhaps not always?)

It does not guarantee good quality. But if the FR is not flat it will not be good quality.

This is what peeves me about the commercial loudspeaker market. After all this work and development of computer assisted deign, there you have two different sets of commercial speakers, that sound quite different. So they can not both be right, now can they? Unfortunately they probably are both significantly flawed. There actually is no excuse for this at this time and place in engineering development. I can tell you there are a bunch of speakers in this house going back over 30 years I have designed, and actually none of them sound extremely different from one another only of ways in bass extension and issues like that. This just is not good enough. I would search some more. Lastly you can NOT turn a flawed speaker into a good one with equalization. This is fools gold for sure.

 

[Slevin19]

It does not guarantee good quality. But if the FR is not flat it will not be good quality.

This is what peeves me about the commercial loudspeaker market. After all this work and development of computer assisted deign, there you have two different sets of commercial speakers, that sound quite different. So they can not both be right, now can they? Unfortunately they probably are both significantly flawed. There actually is no excuse for this at this time and place in engineering development. I can tell you there are a bunch of speakers in this house going back over 30 years I have designed, and actually none of them sound extremely different from one another only of ways in bass extension and issues like that. This just is not good enough. I would search some more. Lastly you can NOT turn a flawed speaker into a good one with equalization. This is fools gold for sure.

As I’ve heard from interviews / videos from designers like Arnie Nudell: speaker design isn’t just about a flat frequency response. A bit exaggerated but it is like saying that just because I know and follow all the rules of driving, I’m going to start winning Formula 1 races. It is not like his speakers are more expensive than Revel 208s just because they have a flatter response.

Like my ML60s (slightly flawed) vs the MAs (which, according to measurements & being Stereophile recommended components, etc are less flawed): the ML60s move me more when I listen to my Jazz music collection on them and that matters more to me than measurements and which speaker is expensive (ML60s are less than half the price of the MAs). But, I admit, that across all recordings, my MAs are more precise than my MLs in some ways (one can hear more detail, especially in fast recordings like ‘Oriental Bass’ by Renaud Garcia-Fons) and less in others (pianos / acoustic guitars are more natural sounding on my MLs than on my MAs).

 

[Slevin19]

Monitor Audio Gold 200 (previous generation, used) ($2400 > $2200): VERY smooth & dynamic. Really good weight in the low end. Not obvious exactly why, but this speaker had decidedly better pace than the Triangle Esprit Gaia speakers. With a ribbon tweeter, these project a LOT of midrange and high end detail. These speakers rock on being able to convey the beat. So articulate in conveying where notes start and stop! While these are extremely detailed in their sound, these are unfailingly musical sounding across all of what I listened to. Wow, so much that I’ve not heard before from Ballad of the Runaway Horse by Jennifer Warnes. So much drive out of these speakers. I’m amazed by the range of these speakers to make calm music sound calmer and upbeat music sound even more pacey. Absolutely the best speaker of the ones that I’ve demoed. Very neutral in not imposing a sound signature on music it is reproducing.

Monitor Audio Silver 300 ($2000): Similar personality as the Monitor Audio Gold 200. Very smooth and easy to listen to. There is less detail and transparency than the Monitor Audio Gold 200, but in only in a matter of degrees. Ballad of the Runaway Horse still sounds really musical. That track seems to be a really good test of musicality as it sounds absolutely boring on speakers that don’t convey tones or rhythm. Bass is less well controlled than with the Gold 200s. The ribbon tweeter on the Gold 200 does convey more detail and clarity. Both the previous-gen Gold 200 and the current-gen Silver 300 sound very musical and enjoyable, but the Gold 200 is able to pull more out of music. For a speaker with a lot of finesse, they also had a well defined low end conveyed with a surprising amount of force. Also, the high end sounded notably smooth. I also appreciated that these speakers sounded fast and agile like a smaller standmount speaker might.

I found out why my MA audition (at home) was less than expected. I’ll be happy to give our Monitor Audio loving members an opportunity to get them at a great price.

FWIW: If any of you live in the Tristate NYC area and would like to pick up a pair of Gold GX300 speakers (walnut, fantastic condition, rarely used) along with the matching Gold GX350 center speaker at a v good price, please send me a PM.

They are great for most rooms. Unfortunately, the knucklehead that I am, measured my room at 20x20x9 even though the back end of my family room opens into a living room and foyer (making the whole thing more like 20x40x9).

The MA Gold GX300s should suffice for any room 25x25x9 or under. I have to admit: the clarity is amazing. I compared them side-by-side with (1) Silver 300, (2) Silver 500, (3) Focal Aria 936 / 948 and (4) Paradigm Prestige 95F at a dealership in my area prior to purchase. They were clearly the best of the lot.

 

[Slevin19]

A couple of dealers were kind enough to allow me to take quite a few speakers home (a demo pair at a time) for trials so long as I verbally commited to purchase some equipment through them. I tried Revel F208, Aria 936, Aria 948, B&W 702S2 at my place with my basic electronics: Tidal / Qobuz on Roon Core —> Chromecast Audio —> IFI Ipurifier2 (SPDIF version) —> a Denon X3700H feeding a Parasound A21 power amp & twin ML dynamo 1000W subs (crossed over at 60Hz or 80Hz).

1. ML60XTs are really good - I can’t believe they are only 1/2 to 2/3rd of the price of the others. I preferred them to all of the above (except, perhaps, the 948, but it was close). They need a beefy amp but not the Emotiva as the speakers felt a shade too bright with them. The A21 matches very well with the ML 60XT.
2. I ultimately had to go way up in price to get a speaker pair that felt like a real upgrade in my room. I settled on the Focal Electra 1038Be (which I preferred to the Kanta 2 that I also auditioned - though in the dealer's shop). BTW: the 1038Be need a powerful amp too, to get the best out of them. Got them at a decent discount as, apparently, Focal does not make them anymore. I actually was going to try out the Monitor Audio Platinum PL 300 ii but stopped my search after hearing the 1038Be.

Thanks to those that advised me during the process.