MartinLogan Neolith Electrostatic Loudspeaker Review

[killdozzer]

Are you sure?

What are you, MS Office?
Yes, I'm sure, but thanks for checking.

Some of bullets you’ve listed don’t mean anything to me when it comes to upstart companies. Anyway, to be clear and precise; I’ve read in these forums that it was Mr. Murphy who did a lot for Salk. In my book this means that even though your brand is starting anew, you benefit from some accumulated knowledge and experience.

I don’t care if the brand name is new. Upstart for me means new kids on the block doing their own stuff their own way.

That’s’ why, when GrimSurfer said this:

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 think he had a point. And when you said this:

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).

I don’t think you had one. I also think you knew this which is why you’ve chosen Salk in your last explanation and not Phil. Also; a number is singular as well as a large number. In fact, no matter how large a number is, it’s still singular so it’s: there is a large number of. Back to the point, perhaps we disagree on what upstart is, that’s fine, but since Grim was differentiating between ML, JBL, B&W, Paradigm because they had expertise, experience and dedication (the last one IS shared IMO), and the upstart companies, it was clear that for him an upstart company is the one without these traits.

So when you try to counter that by naming companies which have expertise, experience and dedication (even if all of those are not within the CEO but perhaps within a consultant), I come and say:

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.

I think this is as contingent as you’ll ever get.

I've been attempting to get him to clearly state his point so I don't straw-man his position.

Sure thing, good luck. I wasn’t trying to get in the way. For me his points were clear although I don’t fully agree with him since my affordable LS50's were made possible with a completely unaffordable Blade driver.

He seems to be saying "established = good, non-established = bad" and "It takes a large company to build a good speaker"; both of which I would disagree with.

I really didn’t get this from his posts. I thought he was saying that if one day you know little or nothing about speakers, you won’t start making excellent stuff tomorrow morning without at least having some blueprints and good parts. There’s no epiphany for XO’s. Big companies have the upper hand with R&D because it is expensive and demanding.

But even this wasn’t his main point. He started with reviews of an 80k speaker being futile for the most part and for most of us. Since this is in many ways obvious, I really think you kind’a “gung hoed” on the guy with very little reason. ML will not make a bad 80k speaker so the review might have consisted of: yes, it’s very good. Audiophile community is small and shrinking and only a small fraction can afford this speaker, but that small fraction is further divided among other good companies that make expensive gear, so saying that the community by large doesn’t profit from these statement pieces is not entirely wrong.

 

[GrimSurfer]

What are you, MS Office?
Yes, I'm sure, but thanks for checking.

Some of bullets you’ve listed don’t mean anything to me when it comes to upstart companies. Anyway, to be clear and precise; I’ve read in these forums that it was Mr. Murphy who did a lot for Salk. In my book this means that even though your brand is starting anew, you benefit from some accumulated knowledge and experience.

I don’t care if the brand name is new. Upstart for me means new kids on the block doing their own stuff their own way.

That’s’ why, when GrimSurfer said this:

I think he had a point. And when you said this:

I don’t think you had one. I also think you knew this which is why you’ve chosen Salk in your last explanation and not Phil. Also; a number is singular as well as a large number. In fact, no matter how large a number is, it’s still singular so it’s: there is a large number of. Back to the point, perhaps we disagree on what upstart is, that’s fine, but since Grim was differentiating between ML, JBL, B&W, Paradigm because they had expertise, experience and dedication (the last one IS shared IMO),and the upstart companies, it was clear that for him an upstart company is the one without these traits.

So when you try to counter that by naming companies which have expertise, experience and dedication (even if all of those are not within the CEO but perhaps within a consultant),I come and say:

I think this is as contingent as you’ll ever get.


Sure thing, good luck. I wasn’t trying to get in the way. For me his points were clear although I don’t fully agree with him since my affordable LS50's were made possible with a completely unaffordable Blade driver.


I really didn’t get this from his posts. I thought he was saying that if one day you know little or nothing about speakers, you won’t start making excellent stuff tomorrow morning without at least having some blueprints and good parts. There’s no epiphany for XO’s. Big companies have the upper hand with R&D because it is expensive and demanding.

But even this wasn’t his main point. He started with reviews of an 80k speaker being futile for the most part and for most of us. Since this is in many ways obvious, I really think you kind’a “gung hoed” on the guy with very little reason. ML will not make a bad 80k speaker so the review might have consisted of: yes, it’s very good. Audiophile community is small and shrinking and only a small fraction can afford this speaker, but that small fraction is further divided among other good companies that make expensive gear, so saying that the community by large doesn’t profit from these statement pieces is not entirely wrong.

I'd also add KEF to the list of highly competent loudspeaker manufacturers. They have followed, in almost textbook fashion, the way to build expertise in a loudspeaker company (until at least the 90s when the company faltered before being acquired by a conglomerate that continued to invest in R&D, IP and manufacturing capability).

This is a good time to talk about a dangling problem with my original criteria: offshore/3rd world manufacturing.

As long as the workforce is trained, properly equipped, guided by stringent standards, and compliance contractually verified there is absolutely no problem with manufacturing offshore/in the 3rd world. When done right, it results in products that are every bit as good as those made in Western countries... and it can be less costly, to a point.

To do the quality control piece right, however, requires one or more principals to actually be on site while work is being done.

This is where some companies, particularly small ones, lose the game. It cost a lot to put someone overseas and keep them happy there. When executed poorly, offshore/3rd world manufacturing can lead to major problems with the product, and its distribution and reputation.

 

[JerryLove]

You want somebody to give you an answer on the companies you have purchased from, when the means are at your disposal to answer the question yourself. In many ways you have, which appears to be the source of your ennui.

You used some version of "you" 7 times in two sentences.

That is not a paragraph about what I said, or what you said, or the topic at all. That''s a paragraph about a poster. It appears to be an attempt at a ad-homenim fallacy.

You could argue that some of the criteria listed are nonsense, which would logically require you to make a cogent counter point.

This statement is simply false.

It's false both in its direct claim (I am required to do nothing of the sort) and in it's implication (that no "cogent counter-point has been made")

This appears to be a continuation of the attempt to move the topic from the claims you have made into a meta-discussion about the discussion or me personally.

Why do you feel the need to do that?

[I've left a blindly obvious one for you, but you seem to be more concerned with your particular speakers than the broader issue of using critical thinking skills to develop an approach to making good future choices. Hint: it has to do with manufacturing.]

I do love hearing you tell me about myself. The note of condensation at the end is especially nice.

It takes expertise, dedication, and resources to build good speakers. Not a large company, though large companies tend to have both in abundance due to their economic capacity. (I think this is a more accurate reflection of what I've been posting.)

I don't know how a company, of any size, can achieve excellence without some sort of academically qualified and experienced members on staff, a lab, and an appropriately configured space to objectively measure and record performance. The best they can do is "imitate" or "guesstimate". But they can not reliably innovate or compete with companies making the right investments in product development.

Can you quantify those values?

None of this should surprise you, or anyone else who takes the time to think things through.

More implied insults? Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

 

[JerryLove]

I don’t care if the brand name is new. Upstart for me means new kids on the block doing their own stuff their own way.

An example being?

I don’t think you had one. I also think you knew this which is why you’ve chosen Salk in your last explanation and not Phil.

I chose Salk specifically because his background was on his website and Murphy's wasn't.

Chosing Murphy would let me hit the "overseas manufacturing" bullet point, but I don't know where his audio history before making speakers professionally would reside.

Salk I knew was not an engineer nor involved in the manufacture of speakers before taking it up as a hobby.

Back to the point, perhaps we disagree on what upstart is, that’s fine, but since Grim was differentiating between ML, JBL, B&W, Paradigm because they had expertise, experience and dedication (the last one IS shared IMO), and the upstart companies, it was clear that for him an upstart company is the one without these traits.

You mean you and he disagree on the definition or you and I? If the latter, I've not suggested one. I'm merely attempting to apply the definition given to real-world examples to see if the claim matches the empirical data.

I really didn’t get this from his posts. I thought he was saying that if one day you know little or nothing about speakers, you won’t start making excellent stuff tomorrow morning without at least having some blueprints and good parts. There’s no epiphany for XO’s. Big companies have the upper hand with R&D because it is expensive and demanding.

It is true that someone who is incompetent is not going to get good results with their own designs. That's something of a tautology.

But even this wasn’t his main point. He started with reviews of an 80k speaker being futile for the most part and for most of us.

I don't think I've made a comment on that point at all. It was uninteresting to me. I've been discussing another claim he's made about company [pedigree/age/size/I'm not really sure because I have asked and not gotten a definition] as I found that to be more objectively testable... or at least to the point that the subjective elements will have clear consensus.

 

[JerryLove]

As long as the workforce is trained, properly equipped, guided by stringent standards, and compliance contractually verified there is absolutely no problem with manufacturing offshore/in the 3rd world. When done right, it results in products that are every bit as good as those made in Western countries... and it can be less costly, to a point.

I read this as "when well manufactured, speakers will be well manufactured; but if not well manufactured, they will not be well manufactured.

This is where some companies, particularly small ones, lose the game. It cost a lot to put someone overseas and keep them happy there. When executed poorly, offshore/3rd world manufacturing can lead to major problems with the product, and its distribution and reputation.

Yes. Bad manufacturing is bad. Good manufacturing is good.

So when GM (to name a large company) poorly manufactured cars (both in the US and abroad) they were bad. When Dennis Murphy had the cabinets for his BMR or Philharmonic 2's manufactured in China, they were good.

How did the small company lose the quality control game in this case? (yes, I know I've chosen a car company; but I don't really know which large, non-Chinese companies are manufacturing in China other than Apple).

Your statement is not completely without merit (smaller companies can have a more difficult time enforcing quality controls); but it doesn't seem to bear out very well in the real world (would we like to say Emotiva or Oppo or sub-standard builds? Are Monster and Bose of particularly good quality?)

 

[GrimSurfer]

You used some version of "you" 7 times in two sentences.

You (or is it youz?) used countless consonants and many vowels. So what's your point, that I should try for eight versions of "you" next time?

The point is that you didn't like my list. Fine. What's wrong with it (other than it jars the sensibilities of past purchases -- I'm guessing here, as it is the only thing that seems to explain such an emotional response to a rather mundane set of criteria)?

It is true that someone who is incompetent is not going to get good results with their own designs. That's something of a tautology.

"Something of a tautology"?. I haven't heard an understatement of this magnitude since living in Australia (if you know how Aussies talk, you know what I mean).

Ther issue is how to assess the potential of a company to produce a good loudspeaker. Please don't tell me it's by critical listening alone. That restricts assessment of any kind to only that which you have direct experience with. It also reduces the success of DI purchases down to the lottery level. [Do you start with manufacturers beginning with the letter "A", or try speakers randomly from the first to the 999th?] Surely, there must be a way to separate the potential candidates from the also-rans...

I've been discussing another claim he's made about company [pedigree/age/size/I'm not really sure because I have asked and not gotten a definition] as I found that to be more objectively testable... or at least to the point that the subjective elements will have clear consensus.

I really don't wish to be rude here (honestly, man, I don't),but you have to be somewhere on the ADD spectrum to obsess over precise definitions of specific criteria before agreeing on what those basic criteria might be. Now if you agree with all the criteria I've proposed, then we can start locking down some definitions. But you've avoided even doing this.

You keep going back to Salk and Philharmonic. Are those the only loudspeaker companies you know, own products from, or sell? Again, I have to ask because you appear totally absorbed with discussion around those companies and their employees.

What I'm interested in is a discussion that resolves a complex issue through the application of rational and structured thinking... going from the general to specific, agreeing broadly on terms and concepts before resolving definitions, then testing criteria against real world examples to see where the irreconcilable inconsistencies are, modifying and retesting. Not jumping frames back and forth to achieve a predetermined outcome of any kind.

If that's what you want to do, write two sentences containing the works Salk and Philharmonic seven time or more so I can declare you the winner and stop this nonsense.

What I'm sensing is that you'd prefer to have a dialectic discussion. The problem with the dialectic approach is that it never gets past opinion and open conflict. I'm after something slightly more constructive and constructed than that because it could help those new to the audio hobby.

Again, my intention isn't to be rude or insulting. I'm struggling with what you're interested in discussing, because if it is engaging in discussion as a means of arguing, I don't see this as terribly productive exercise for either of us.

Thoughts?

 

[killdozzer]

I'm merely attempting to apply the definition given to real-world examples to see if the claim matches the empirical data.

Yeah, right!

Look, perhaps we can call it a day. I get a feeling you don't understand much. Not what others write and not what you've written. I don't like that feeling and don't want to judge you in that way because I don't know you. Some of the stuff you wrote earlier made sense. So I lean towards a version where you felt under attack and this is why some of your "diggin' out of a hole" was, shall we say, less elegant than one might've wanted.

As I said, I don't think Grim was completely wrong so he should be able to write what he thinks without a dozen members asking him for detailed blood analysis, so to speak.

I will, of course honor your question and try to find an example of an upstart the way it was used in this thread. I thought it would be obvious why Phil and Salk wouldn't match as when you leave, for example, NAD to make your own amps, that's not really starting from scratch (although, some might say that working for NAD doesn't even scratch the surface). Also, if you employ someone or use his expertise, one might argue that you're leaning onto the work of some bigger brand.

I'd also add KEF to the list of highly competent loudspeaker manufacturers.

We both obviously would and yet this is also where we depart. Not that there's anything wrong with departing. I cut some slack to KEF as I think they've used the knowledge acquired from developing very expensive Blade to develop all recent lines of products. I would still, however, say that reviewing Blade is just bad taste.

I have no first hand experience with ML, but I would assume they would do something similar. I did listen to them here (post 8).

If you manage to lower the cost of R&D by selling statement products, you'll make more from basic product lines and have an easier job investing in further R&D.

I don't think boutique companies do the same and I wouldn't write this about them. When I see a Wadia Cd-player going for over 20k and has TEAC mechanism built in and a BurrBrown DAC and so on... I see these companies as merely taking the money from people who want to give it to them.

 

[everettT]

I think he works for chewlies

 

[GrimSurfer]

When manufacturers with excellent pedigree design, produce, and Market something ludicrous, I'm left wondering about what they're trying to achieve.

Designating a product as a "statement" in today's world is as good as saying that it is another piece of hi-fi esoterica. Saying that a product is a demonstration of expensive tech and manufacturing methodologies that will eventually trickle down to other lines installs a little more confidence. Better still is when a company is specific about exactly what tech they're talking about, and why it currently costs so much.

It's hard to make such a case when there's less "tech" than "clever assembly" of other manufacturers' components (Wadia) or refaceplating (Lexicon's saga with Oppo inside).

The loudspeaker industry is an interesting one. Loudspeakers are complex and the last link in the hi-fi chain that hasn't been able to overcome single-digit noise. There are a relatively small number of driver designer/developer/manufacturers seupplying the market. Cabinet making skills are in decline. So it's unclear where things are heading... and even less clear where this will,leave consumers.

I'm certain that consumers' need for cheap products will be satisfied. Cheap is easy, expectations are low.

I'm quite confident that consumers' need for adequate products will be satisfied.

I'm moderately confident that consumers' need for excellent products will be satisfied.

I've lost confidence in the industry's ability to develop and enforce standards that help the consumer distinguish between poor, adequate and excellent performance.

Price doesn't appear to be a good discriminator of performance. Or at least that's how it seems to me when manufacturers and reviewers tip-toe around using clear and unambiguous language to describe how a loudspeaker measures AND sounds.

 

[JerryLove]

What I'm interested in is a discussion that resolves a complex issue through the application of rational and structured thinking... going from the general to specific, agreeing broadly on terms and concepts before resolving definitions, then testing criteria against real world examples to see where the irreconcilable inconsistencies are, modifying and retesting. Not jumping frames back and forth to achieve a predetermined outcome of any kind.

As I understand your earlier claim, and understanding that I have honestly tried to get clarity on (resulting in the "but you have to be somewhere on the ADD spectrum ", which I presume was intended to be "autism" rather than any added clarity)...

As I understand your claim: To design and build good speakers requires that the company doing it have an anechocic chamber, a lab, either a domestic manufacture or the staffing to go overseas to maintain quality control. As I understand your claim, they must have researchers who must have a pedigree (which apparently 2 years as a hobbyist satisfies based on the Salk example). As I understand your claim, while it's not true that 100% of these criteria must be met 100% of the time; it's generally accurate.

I disagree with your claim, as I understand it. I've seen too many good speakers from hobbyists and too many bad speakers from large manufacturers to agree to any claim that designates one as good and the other as bad.

And if that's not your claim: Why haven't you said so? Why does a request for clarification have you commenting on your beliefs about the cell-to-synapse ratio in my brain.

 

[JerryLove]

Are those the only loudspeaker companies you know, own products from, or sell?

A partial list of speakers I have owned.
Ascend Acoustics CMB-170
B&W 801 Matrix III
B&W 801N1 (and the WMTMW matching center) (and surrounds)
B&W DS6
Energy Bookshelves(forget model)
Green Mountain Audio Europa
[heavily modified] Infinity 362
Infinity 363
Infinity RSIIIb
Kef Q1
Klipsch KL-650-THX2
McIntosh 717
McIntosh XR5
Monitor Audio GLSCR
Ohm Walsh F
Paradigm Studio 60v3
Paradigm Studio 40v3 (and matching CC-470)
Paradigm Signature S2
Philharmonic 2
Pioneer (forget model)
Polk Audio (forget model)
PSB 400i
Salk SCSTs
Solid Sat(forget model)
Sony bookshelves (forget model)

Subs include but are not limited to:
B&W
KLH
Klipsch
Paradigm
Rythmik
SVS
A sub I would really have to go turn over to tell you; but sealed with this 18" driver

There have been other things. Boom boxes and integrated stereos of days long gone, things I purcased to play with but got rid of quickly (Sanaui, A/S/L etc). Then there are the headphones and car systems.

None of which touches on "other people's systems". I've been known to spend 10 hours in a stretch listening to other people's gear.

See. What would happen is that someone would make some claim, and I'd put it to the test to see if it was true. People started shouting about phase choerence and I picked up some GMAs. One builder got obsessed with super rigid cabinets, and I got the WMax speakers. Omnipolar was supposed to be all that: I got Walsh Ohm 2s. Line arrays are the bomb? 10 hours at the local vendor with the McIntosh XRT2ks. Bipolar is the way to go; time to hit my friend's house and listen to the Maggies.

Heck: I just picked up some high-efficiency horns.

 

[Epsonfan]

The more expensive the speakers get the more drooling the reviewer gets.

 

[Kingnoob]

A partial list of speakers I have owned.
Ascend Acoustics CMB-170
B&W 801 Matrix III
B&W 801N1 (and the WMTMW matching center) (and surrounds)
B&W DS6
Energy Bookshelves(forget model)
Green Mountain Audio Europa
[heavily modified] Infinity 362
Infinity 363
Infinity RSIIIb
Kef Q1
Klipsch KL-650-THX2
McIntosh 717
McIntosh XR5
Monitor Audio GLSCR
Ohm Walsh F
Paradigm Studio 60v3
Paradigm Studio 40v3 (and matching CC-470)
Paradigm Signature S2
Philharmonic 2
Pioneer (forget model)
Polk Audio (forget model)
PSB 400i
Salk SCSTs
Solid Sat(forget model)
Sony bookshelves (forget model)

Subs include but are not limited to:
B&W
KLH
Klipsch
Paradigm
Rythmik
SVS
A sub I would really have to go turn over to tell you; but sealed with this 18" driver

There have been other things. Boom boxes and integrated stereos of days long gone, things I purcased to play with but got rid of quickly (Sanaui, A/S/L etc). Then there are the headphones and car systems.

None of which touches on "other people's systems". I've been known to spend 10 hours in a stretch listening to other people's gear.

See. What would happen is that someone would make some claim, and I'd put it to the test to see if it was true. People started shouting about phase choerence and I picked up some GMAs. One builder got obsessed with super rigid cabinets, and I got the WMax speakers. Omnipolar was supposed to be all that: I got Walsh Ohm 2s. Line arrays are the bomb? 10 hours at the local vendor with the McIntosh XRT2ks. Bipolar is the way to go; time to hit my friend's house and listen to the Maggies.

Heck: I just picked up some high-efficiency horns.

I. Suprized could could part with any of those speakers wow , amazing ??
Did you have any preference of brand or speaker type ? for movies


Ultimate bass lover !! si ht15 dvc.
Free the reptile aliens