Mikado463
Audioholic Spartan
as an old retired railroader I believe this thread has hit the 'Derail' .............. 
"Let our rigorous testing and reviews be your guidelines to A/V equipment – not marketing slogans"
AcuDefTechGuy
Audioholic Jedi
Well, it's all because of that new "EPDR".as an old retired railroader I believe this thread has hit the 'Derail' ..............
What's that saying - you can't teach an old dog new tricks?
Otherwise, without that EPDR, this would have been just another review about a 4-ohm speaker, which most speakers are.
Last edited:
D
Danzilla31
Audioholic Spartan
Eh theirs only one of our members on the thread that's this upset about it. The thread should be okas an old retired railroader I believe this thread has hit the 'Derail' ..............
B
Bonscott
Audioholic
No matter what the product is you are never going to get 100% of people to either agree or like it. For the most part the reviews and people who have purchased these ML speakers have been happy. You would think that would be goal of any company producing and selling products. As far as the AV industry ripping everyone off for greedy profits. Yea maybe some. The bigger companies like Massimo,Yamaha, Harman etc.. that have more capital have the advantage. I think the higher the price point equals higher the profit in most cases. The lower models you see at Costco and Best Buy have less margin. They are usually on sale and the higher end stuff hardly ever is.
G
G-wreck
Audiophyte
Gene,
As a person who owns a pair of the. XT B100’s as their mains do you think the issue with them was a fluke or a problem with the model of speaker? If they did make a change to the crossover I one could buy the updated parts. I live in Lawrence so I’d hope they take care of their neighbors lol.
D
dan3952
Audiophyte
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.
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' ..............
Last edited:
gene
Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
MartinLogan was going after the same sensitivity across the line. I think it's a very odd choice and the only way to achieve that would be to pad down the efficiency of the tower (Bad idea) or goose the treble of the bookshelf (arguably bad idea). If you have the B100s and like them, then don't hassle it. You can always lower the treble 2-3dB and see how that works. I'm uncertain if they made the xover change yet or not but will revisit this with them when we talk next time.
G
G-wreck
Audiophyte
Thank you for your response. Overall they sound decent in my system but I did note they were much brighter than my very neutral Sander’s ESL’s which when reading the reviews didn’t suprise me that they are a bit bright. I look forward to hearing any future information you get.
B
Bonscott
Audioholic
Looking forward to what information? IMO screw the reviews who cares. You either like the speakers or not. Form your own opinion
G
G-wreck
Audiophyte
Overall I think the speakers sound excellent and I was able to buy them from a dealer with a nice discount. For the money I haven’t found better speakers foe my purposes. Mainly I’m a bit disappointed that the review wasn’t completed for good or bad. I owned a ML c-18 Esl center and the AM tweeter in that thing was like treble laser so the B100’s seem a bit dark sounding in comparison.
gene
Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
I will take a listen next time I visit Maximum AV in tampa and report back.
Kvn_Walker
Audioholic Field Marshall
Wasn't really planning to get back on the speaker treadmill any time soon, but someone locally was selling his F200's at a great discount because his wife didn't like the gloss black and it was outside the return window.
I'm going to play them in the living room for a while against the McIntosh behemoths and decide who to keep.
I'm going to play them in the living room for a while against the McIntosh behemoths and decide who to keep.
S
shadyJ
Speaker of the House
Staff member
I don't understand that tweeter array in the McIntosh speaker. There are ways to make tweeter arrays work, but they are complicated. I wouldn't guess that McInotsh would do bandwidth limitied phase stuff for dispersion control.Wasn't really planning to get back on the speaker treadmill any time soon, but someone locally was selling his F200's at a great discount because his wife didn't like the gloss black and it was outside the return window.
I'm going to play them in the living room for a while against the McIntosh behemoths and decide who to keep.
View attachment 70130
TLS Guy
Audioholic Jedi
Have you actually heard Mac speakers? All the ones I have heard have been in the dreadful category, no matter what the price.
Tankini
Audioholic Chief
Does the analogy acoustic nightmare ring a bell. One can Only imagine the ringing from the tweeters at higher levels of volume.
M
mtrot
Senior Audioholic
I still say my X4700 fails to sound as nice as my X5200 that I used to have, both in the same system. The made in Japan 5200 shares the 140 wpc rating with the X6500 ,6700, 6800. I thought one of the channels had developed a problem so I sold it, later to find out there was a problem with the connection of my interconnect cables. I sure wish I had not sold it; it just had a sweeter sound to the musical score in movies.That’s right guys, your X3800H isn’t actually good enough or built well and hooking these MLs to them wouldn’t be advisable. Hey, don’t look at me, I didn’t say it.
You can use the pre outs to connect to 200w per channel amps. The X4800H just misses the bus at 190w max into 4 ohms but also breaks the $2k rule when not on sale. So, following the $2k + 200w into 4 ohm rule, you gotta’ pony up to the X6800H and spend about $8k if you want MLs connected to a Denon AVR without external amps. Now, that money does get you the separate 2CH Playback mode settings missing from the lower end models. So, there is value.
Kvn_Walker
Audioholic Field Marshall
You guys make me laugh. So quick to knock something you've never heard, and of course the one guy who hates any speaker he didn't build by hand.
Anyway, I've spent a good chunk of the last 2 days swapping these back and forth and listening to the same passages of shows or movies over and over.
The first ~8 minutes of "Legion" S1E6 is excellent for testing vocal performance of a set of speakers. It features a wide range of voice spectrums with 7 different people speaking. Then ends with a thumping low bass section as an actress walks towards a door with loud music playing on the other side.
Comparing the two, I find the bass on the ML's just as good as the Macs, but female vocals are too deep and the highs too bright. Voice just doesn't sound as natural on the F200's. And there's too much sizzle on spoken "s" sounds.
Decided to get the old laptop and do a few measurements from the center of the sofa. I've only done room correction for the LS360's so I left it off to measure. Yellow is the Martin Logans; green is the McIntoshs.
Lower bass on these is almost identical from 25-70Hz. Then the F200's have a little bit more energy at the next 2 peaks and even from 125-200Hz. That may be why I find some female vocals too unnatural though. Any low tones get too much of a boost. Some correction and EQ would likely improve that.
Midrange up to 2KHz is pretty equal, but then they diverge a lot. That dip might also play a part in why female speech never sounded right, and the ensuing boost in highs explains the sizzle.
Maybe next weekend if time permits I'll run Dirac with the Martin Logans and re-evaluate.
Anyway, I've spent a good chunk of the last 2 days swapping these back and forth and listening to the same passages of shows or movies over and over.
The first ~8 minutes of "Legion" S1E6 is excellent for testing vocal performance of a set of speakers. It features a wide range of voice spectrums with 7 different people speaking. Then ends with a thumping low bass section as an actress walks towards a door with loud music playing on the other side.
Comparing the two, I find the bass on the ML's just as good as the Macs, but female vocals are too deep and the highs too bright. Voice just doesn't sound as natural on the F200's. And there's too much sizzle on spoken "s" sounds.
Decided to get the old laptop and do a few measurements from the center of the sofa. I've only done room correction for the LS360's so I left it off to measure. Yellow is the Martin Logans; green is the McIntoshs.
Lower bass on these is almost identical from 25-70Hz. Then the F200's have a little bit more energy at the next 2 peaks and even from 125-200Hz. That may be why I find some female vocals too unnatural though. Any low tones get too much of a boost. Some correction and EQ would likely improve that.
Midrange up to 2KHz is pretty equal, but then they diverge a lot. That dip might also play a part in why female speech never sounded right, and the ensuing boost in highs explains the sizzle.
Maybe next weekend if time permits I'll run Dirac with the Martin Logans and re-evaluate.
M
mtrot
Senior Audioholic
It looks to me like the the McIntosh have just as much of a rise from 2k-6k as the F200 have from 6k-10k. I'm not sure which is more significant. Also, do female voices have much energy from 80 to 200Hz? If not, I'm not sure what would account for your impression.You guys make me laugh. So quick to knock something you've never heard, and of course the one guy who hates any speaker he didn't build by hand.
Anyway, I've spent a good chunk of the last 2 days swapping these back and forth and listening to the same passages of shows or movies over and over.
The first ~8 minutes of "Legion" S1E6 is excellent for testing vocal performance of a set of speakers. It features a wide range of voice spectrums with 7 different people speaking. Then ends with a thumping low bass section as an actress walks towards a door with loud music playing on the other side.
Comparing the two, I find the bass on the ML's just as good as the Macs, but female vocals are too deep and the highs too bright. Voice just doesn't sound as natural on the F200's. And there's too much sizzle on spoken "s" sounds.
Decided to get the old laptop and do a few measurements from the center of the sofa. I've only done room correction for the LS360's so I left it off to measure. Yellow is the Martin Logans; green is the McIntoshs.
View attachment 70160
Lower bass on these is almost identical from 25-70Hz. Then the F200's have a little bit more energy at the next 2 peaks and even from 125-200Hz. That may be why I find some female vocals too unnatural though. Any low tones get too much of a boost. Some correction and EQ would likely improve that.
Midrange up to 2KHz is pretty equal, but then they diverge a lot. That dip might also play a part in why female speech never sounded right, and the ensuing boost in highs explains the sizzle.
Maybe next weekend if time permits I'll run Dirac with the Martin Logans and re-evaluate.
N
NMG
Audioholic Intern
Heard those MLs at a demo recently and was very unimpressed. They were playing something from Disturbed and the vocalist had a very deep voice.
There were various times when he would hit a low note and the bass drivers went into full effect shaking the whole room. It was awful. Didn’t sound natural at all. Sounded like something was really off with the crossover points.
I think it had to be a setup issue. It was a very small room and I suspect the speakers were way overloading the space and/or they had something awry with how the electronics were configured.
It’s too bad because I really wanted to hear them as I was considering them as a potential upgrade down the road. Now I have to find a spot to hear them again because I just can’t believe they are that bad based on other reviews.
There were various times when he would hit a low note and the bass drivers went into full effect shaking the whole room. It was awful. Didn’t sound natural at all. Sounded like something was really off with the crossover points.
I think it had to be a setup issue. It was a very small room and I suspect the speakers were way overloading the space and/or they had something awry with how the electronics were configured.
It’s too bad because I really wanted to hear them as I was considering them as a potential upgrade down the road. Now I have to find a spot to hear them again because I just can’t believe they are that bad based on other reviews.
M
mtrot
Senior Audioholic
Hmm, that is concerning. I wonder what amp they were using.
The F200 bass/mid crossover point is 300Hz, which is in the most powerful frequency range of baritone/bass singers. Now, the F100 crossover point is a bit lower, at 280Hz. Not sure if this would help things with male vocals.
Edit: I just looked at various KEF speakers and all of them have even higher bass/mid crossover frequencies, so perhaps that should not be the problem.
Last edited:
Sitemap
Site Information
Site Information
HTML
