Amir's Impressions of Martin Logan Neolith at CES 2016

[bonzo75]

More from the ML forum:

http://www.martinloganowners.com/fo...ut-of-2016-CES&p=176092&viewfull=1#post176092

"I'm writing this from the ML room. I have been listening to the Renaissance all day. I ordered a pair in Ferrari Red. Seriously. These will replace my beloved Prodigy's Personally for me these are the best $25k speakers I've ever heard "

 

[bonzo75]

Harlequin, I never said MLs had appalling sonic performance, I said the bass cabinets vibrated ridiculously. I loved my Summits and SL3s when I had them, what they do well, they do very well..

When I purchased them, I didn't check for any structural deficiencies, who knows all speakers' problems until you buy them and try them?

They have been replaced with Usher BE20Ds, which IMO are levels better. Of course, they are significantly more $ so they should be.

When I bought my Summits, I heard the Summit X's and the big Ushers in the same room, with expensive ARC monos and Esoteric K05 CD-dac combo. They are too entirely different sounds. I didn't like the Ushers, but I wouldn't say one is better than the other. Cost and Price have nothing to do with SQ, a box speaker is always costlier because more cabinet material is required (which causes the sound that I don't like). I always hear more crossover problems in cones than in Logan hybrids (where there is only one problem, as the panel does a lot right from the top down to 250hz) instead of crossing over in the midrange to a different type of driver and then to the bass to yet another driver, and I tend to find constipated anything that comes out of a box. Apart from really big cones like Alexandrias, I have yet to hear a box do a piano right. Not that a Logan hybrid gets it right, but at least the cost of not getting it right is much lower. The vibration issues are cheap to fix.

 

[Zero000]

Interesting stuff.

As an ML user of 17 years, I find the sweet spot comments really interesting. Whilst I used to sit with my head in a vice with Ascents and Descents in my room ay home, and having heard the CLX and Neolith in large rooms, the sweet spot with both the later speakers was far bigger than I ever experienced at home, personally.

TBH in the Munich room from Neoliths, the sweet spot seemed to be almost a non-issue with small variances in sound with ear position changes. This is all documented on the MLOC forum.

As to the apparent frame resonances, now that is disappointing. They look rugged and robust enough to do a good job.

 

[amirm]

More from the ML forum:

http://www.martinloganowners.com/fo...ut-of-2016-CES&p=176092&viewfull=1#post176092

"I'm writing this from the ML room. I have been listening to the Renaissance all day. I ordered a pair in Ferrari Red. Seriously. These will replace my beloved Prodigy's Personally for me these are the best $25k speakers I've ever heard "

I don't think he is talking about Neolith but the other one ML announced at the show (which we are discussing in the alternate thread where my childhood video is illegally released).

 

[bonzo75]

I posted on the wrong ML thread

 

[amirm]

I posted on the wrong ML thread

I vote for a 3 day ban.

 

[JonFo]

Amir, thanks for the review. It's disappointing to hear that ML still has not nailed the panel mount rigidity of the big panel.
I have Monolith III's (same panel) and at high volume it vibrates in the stock frame. Some small mods quiet it down, but I've been dreaming of designing and building an all-new aluminum mount for them that anchors them to both the floor and the ceiling.
But for what they charge for the Neolith one would figure a rock-solid mount for the panel would be part of deal.

 

[amirm]

You are welcome Jonatan.

 

[Gregadd]

Lol. Be careful what you ask for.

 

[Gregadd]

Hatchet job. I am sorry that the Martin Logan experience was such a negative one for Amir. I have never had such an outing.
Bad odor,sound,music selection,seating,small room,and discourteous operation of the exhibit.To add insult to injury he had to endure preferential treatment for Michael Fremer. I would have left. But I have never attended a show on a schedule. Curiously after such a horrible treat Amir doubled down for another Ml exhibit. What a trooper. Let us not forget 5 hours at the airport. Arriving at the hotel at 2 a.m.

 

[Gregadd]

Newton ,for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Moreover a cone speaker is a piston. Thus a dynamic speaker is also a dipole.The dynamic speaker attempts to trap the back wave inside the speaker often doing little more than stuffing some absorbent material inside. That is why many of us prefer open baffle designs like Nola and Linkwitz Orion.

 

[Gregadd]

Now if we consider the ML speaker panel vs a dome tweeter, there are some similarities. Sound is being radiated on a line perpendicular to the surface. While the dome is round in both the vertical horizontal planes,the ML is round only in the horizontal plane. It achieves vertical dispersion by height. We can see Sanders has excellent vertical dispersion with limited horizontal dispersion. There ?eally is noting strange about them speaker

 

[sbo6]

When I bought my Summits, I heard the Summit X's and the big Ushers in the same room, with expensive ARC monos and Esoteric K05 CD-dac combo. They are too entirely different sounds. I didn't like the Ushers, but I wouldn't say one is better than the other. Cost and Price have nothing to do with SQ, a box speaker is always costlier because more cabinet material is required (which causes the sound that I don't like). I always hear more crossover problems in cones than in Logan hybrids (where there is only one problem, as the panel does a lot right from the top down to 250hz) instead of crossing over in the midrange to a different type of driver and then to the bass to yet another driver, and I tend to find constipated anything that comes out of a box. Apart from really big cones like Alexandrias, I have yet to hear a box do a piano right. Not that a Logan hybrid gets it right, but at least the cost of not getting it right is much lower. The vibration issues are cheap to fix.

There are several members on WBF who have heard the Ushers vs the Summits and all say the same - no comparison, the Ushers are levels better. Even when I demo'd and sold the Summits, the buyer asked to hear the Ushers. His expression was priceless. There is simply no comparison. You must have a strong affinity for the things MLs do well which IME is a small piece of the overall speaker puzzle...

 

[Gregadd]

I am not sure what value a public opinion poll has on the relative quality of speakers. I simply sought to point out speakers of any design share many of the same problems. IMO trapping the back wave in a box is far more problematic. In addition directional or beaming tweeters have long been a bane of the industry
All grist for the design mill.

 

[Argonaut]

There are several members on WBF who have heard the Ushers vs the Summits and all say the same - no comparison, the Ushers are levels better. Even when I demo'd and sold the Summits, the buyer asked to hear the Ushers. His expression was priceless. There is simply no comparison. You must have a strong affinity for the things MLs do well which IME is a small piece of the overall speaker puzzle...

Can I really be Bothered with all the Anti Martin Logan 'Weed Up The Ass' agenda driven Bollox propagated on this forum of late ? Oh go on then, do please list your *Several* audio luminaries and hopefully they will contribute to this discussion.

Just for the record I had a good friends BE-20's with me for a couple of months, whilst he sorted himself out during the early stages of his domestic split up, and liked them very much, were they excellent transducers (for monkey coffins) hell yes, did they out perform my CLX's in the lower base registers, undoubtedly, could they compete in the lower midrange with the CLX's ? Score draw if I am being generous to the Ushers, could they IMHO compete with the CLX's in tonal/timbral accuracy and clarity in the midrange, upper midrange and treble? NO WAY JOSE.

Elbows and Lower Alimentary Canal's, ***We All Have Them***

 

[sbo6]

Can I really be Fukin Bothered with all the Anti Martin Logan 'Weed Up The Ass' agenda driven Bollox propagated on this forum of late ? Oh go on then! please list your *Several* audio luminaries and hopefully they will contribute to this discussion.

Just for the record I had a good friends BE-20's with me for a couple of months, whilst he sorted himself out during the early stages of his domestic split up, and liked them very much, were they excellent transducers (for monkey coffins) hell yes, did they out perform my CLX's in the lower base register, undoubtedly, could they compete in the lower midrange with the CLX's ? Score draw if I am being generous to the Ushers, could they IMHO compete with the CLX's in tonal/timbral accuracy and clarity in the upper midrange and treble? NO WAY JOSE, See, Elbows and Lower Alimentary Canal's, ***We All Have Them***

Harlequin, curb your attitude, grow up or get off the thread. I'm voicing constructive criticism and have already stated I loved my MLs but for me, it was time to move on. And for the record, we were comparing Summits, not CLXs to Usher Be20s.

 

[sbo6]

I am not sure what value a public opinion poll has on the relative quality of speakers. I simply sought to point out speakers of any design share many of the same problems. IMO trapping the back wave in a box is far more problematic. In addition directional or beaming tweeters have long been a bane of the industry
All grist for the design mill.

Because people respect others opinions and it's an important data point IMO. Is this the first time someone on this forum referenced someone else's opinion? I don't think so.

 

[Argonaut]

Harlequin, curb your attitude, grow up or get off the thread. I'm voicing constructive criticism and have already stated I loved my MLs but for me, it was time to move on. And for the record, we were comparing Summits, not CLXs to Usher Be20s.

Well, You are merely the latest In a line of the 'Usual Suspect' disparagist commentators were ML transducers are concerned, and please, Do Not! Presume to administrate nor pontificate on the content of my response until you are either an administrator or moderator of this forum.

Perhaps you might like to speculate on the, more than IMHO, fair minded comparison of the Be20's with the ML CLX's?

I have heard Sumit X's on several occasions, and whilst not in close proximity to the Be20's time wise, your 'implication' of overall superiority of the later leaves me with nothing more than an impression of one monkeys opinion over another's

 

[Gregadd]

Because people respect others opinions and it's an important data point IMO. Is this the first time someone on this forum referenced someone else's opinion? I don't think so.

I think I stepped in the middle of something...

 

[amirm]

I am not sure what value a public opinion poll has on the relative quality of speakers. I simply sought to point out speakers of any design share many of the same problems. IMO trapping the back wave in a box is far more problematic. In addition directional or beaming tweeters have long been a bane of the industry
All grist for the design mill.

Number one, two and three things about a loudspeaker is how it sounds, not how it is made. How to produce a good sound is loudspeaker designer's problem. Telling us how he has done it is his marketing. For us the test is only the sound. Otherwise you go nuts listening to thousand stories of thousands of loudspeakers are designed.