I repeat myself - some of the best sound I heard in my audiophile life was from ML driven by all Mark Levinson top electronics using CD. It sounded great! But it was not in mono and the cables were Transparent Audio Reference XL - their top model.
It’s All a Preference
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
I repeat myself - some of the best sound I heard in my audiophile life was from ML driven by all Mark Levinson top electronics using CD. It sounded great! But it was not in mono and the cables were Transparent Audio Reference XL - their top model.
I used the 336 on the ML reQuests at the time
http://www.hi-fishop.com/media/amps/ultaudio336.pdf?cat=ia&prod=no383&review=8
Thanks for sharing that link Myles, I basically hear the same out from my 333 after reading your review of the 335, what cables were you using by that time?
Absolutely. There are dipoles, and bipoles, with much better off-axis FR than these Martin Logans (actually there are Martin Logan dipoles with much better off-axis FR than these panels, but I digress...), which change radically, even just a bit off axis. A dipole or bipolar speaker with good off axis response can create a lovely broad, deep sound stage. A dipole with bad off-axis response will create a broad, deep sound stage, it just won't sound right because the reflected sound is so radically different from the direct sound. No dipole/bipole speakers I've heard are particularly good at precise imaging across the horizontal plane. So, really, regardless of how you define "sound stage," it is not at all likely that these MLs would suddenly win the contest if you were listening to a stereo pair. One of them, dead in front of a guy seated in the sweet spot might actually be the best venue to show their strengths.
That there are people here who rate Martin Logans at the pinnacle of their audiophile experience, in spite of these problems, takes us right back to the thread title: It's all a preference. Evidently it is. When you are dead in the sweet spot, listening to the right kind of music, ML panels can be very charming. Just don't think too much or compare them too closely. Enjoy.
Tim
Tell that to my speakers Tim. Obviously you've never heard properly set up Martin-Logans.
Hey Amir,
Thanks for making this a very interesting thread. In another thread you said:
My take on things is that people who love the ML Summit love the Summit for it's midrange and are not bothered by the bass bump. Personally, I can't stand that bump that all ML hybrids have, but some people like it, ignore it, or are willing to make the tradeoff. They have been listening to that sound for 20+ years and really like it. Just like sitting in the same comfortable chair for 20 years, you will know that someone switched the chair on you and that the midrange of the $300 infinity speaker will not better that of a Martin Logan even if you blind them and stick pins under their finger nails.
My take is that the high end audio experience - just like any experience from participating in the Harman blind testing to going on vacation with your family or seeing the Grateful Dead perform Live - is personal, subjective, and ambiguous. We all hone in on different elements and we are shaped by them forever.
Thanks for making this a very interesting thread. In another thread you said:
I think the clarification needs is "what" do we hear the same and not the same. I suspect we all agree that we are talking about distortions in our reproduction system when we talk about whether we do or do not hear them. This falls in two categories:
1. Linear distortion. If I change the volume, I think most people will hear the change more or less. If I roll down 2 Khz by 5 db, we all hear that too.
2. Non-linear distortion. This gets harder. Best example is lossy compression. Most people are not able to hear distortion at moderate levels simply because we are not trained to hear them. The distortion comes and goes too rapidly and we simply don't evaluate distortion readily that way. Such a distortion though can be learned and once you do, then you will have superior ability to hear it then general population. Linear distortion in small amount falls in the same category. Who can hear a 0.5db drop at some frequency vs others. I have seen people who naturally hear such distortion without training.
I used to be completely blind to #2. I still remember I was shocked when my 128kbps compressed song sounded the same as the CD. Fast forward 6 months later after training and I could not stand listening to the same files!
Similar thing exists in food. There was a time that I hated sushi and if you forced me to eat it, it all tasted the same. Years later and many trips to Japan, and now I can easily tell the difference between good and bad sushi, frozen and not frozen fish, etc. The trick is ability to compare and contrast and eventually becoming tuned to the difference.
I think some elements of this were said earlier
My take on things is that people who love the ML Summit love the Summit for it's midrange and are not bothered by the bass bump. Personally, I can't stand that bump that all ML hybrids have, but some people like it, ignore it, or are willing to make the tradeoff. They have been listening to that sound for 20+ years and really like it. Just like sitting in the same comfortable chair for 20 years, you will know that someone switched the chair on you and that the midrange of the $300 infinity speaker will not better that of a Martin Logan even if you blind them and stick pins under their finger nails.
My take is that the high end audio experience - just like any experience from participating in the Harman blind testing to going on vacation with your family or seeing the Grateful Dead perform Live - is personal, subjective, and ambiguous. We all hone in on different elements and we are shaped by them forever.
Put 'em on the phone, Myles. I'll be happy to tell them you like them. I won't show them the results of the Harman testing, though. No point in hurting their feelings.
Tim
Tim,
There is a fundamental misunderstanding in your comments about preference. When you use the word preference you use the word in the sense of divergence, trying to disqualify high-end with your sad comments. The people at Harman use the preference of people to rank speakers because they believe that humans can be intrinsically right in their appreciations, and they will converge in the better device.
The high-end preferences do not converge on a type of speaker or amplifier. They converge in a type of sound quality that it seems you do not believe it can exist as it can not be described using words that you find acceptable. High-end sound exists and is our point of convergence. Unhappily, IMHO, it can not be reached with usd 700 speakers to the same level we can get with usd 70000 speakers.
The system is irrelevant, but its diversity and our postings enthusiastically describing features of our systems are part of the game. But believe me, in our divergence we (high-end believers) converge.
Last edited:
Caeser: you haven't heard them properly set up
And that goes for most speakers. You can not judge a product by a show or a store. The only fair way to judge is in your system in your room. To wit: years ago had Wilson W/P 5.1 and everyone (including the guys from AN) that came over couldn't believe how good they sounded from the upper mids to the lower treble. It's all about careful set up and matching of components. For example, I tried setting the W/Ps up as recommended by Wilson (wide apparent and severely toed in) and as I would normally set-up a speaker. Now I understand why Dave recommends the set up he does but I don't think that's necessarily the best. It's all about recognizing that the better the speakers, the more they reveal what's in front of them. And I've heard equipment where the bass sounded totally discontinuous from the rest of the frequency spectrum.Just had another manufacturer over yesterday who was astounded by the speaker's linearity and had never heard the Summit-Xs sound like that.
Tim,
Not at all:
When I use the word preference, I use it in the simple, direct sense of the word. You prefer what you prefer. That doesn't make it anyone else's preference and doesn't make its performance better by any metric other than your opinion. Subjective. The subject at hand: Preference.
And I'm not trying to disquality high-end. There was a Revel in the tests we're talking about here that ranked at the top by both measurement and subjective listening tests. Are Revels not "high end?"
If you're saying that all "high-end preferences" converge on a specific type of sound, that's what I don't believe in. I believe there is are obvious sound quality differences between the sound of Martin Logans, Revels, Wilsons, B&Ws, etc. and they are all "high end."
Given that you did not participate in the test, and likely have not had the opportunity to compare all (or even these) $700 speakers to the "high end" speaker in question (I don't know where the $70K figure came from, the MLs are $11K) I can only conclude from this remark that your point of high end convergence is not a sound, but a price point.
I'm not trying to "disqualify high end" or even the specific Martin Logan speakers we're currently discussing. I think ML hybrids and panels have their virtues and are a legitimate choice and have said so. But there are people here who are working very strenuously to find any reason they can to dismiss the evidence of Harman's studies Amir has presented in this thread. They're not doing very well, but they're working up quite a sweat trying. Why? Because a midfi speaker may have out-performed a respected Audiophile brand? The true criteria for "high end" reveals itself again.
Tim
Not at all:
When I use the word preference, I use it in the simple, direct sense of the word. You prefer what you prefer. That doesn't make it anyone else's preference and doesn't make its performance better by any metric other than your opinion. Subjective. The subject at hand: Preference.
And I'm not trying to disquality high-end. There was a Revel in the tests we're talking about here that ranked at the top by both measurement and subjective listening tests. Are Revels not "high end?"
If you're saying that all "high-end preferences" converge on a specific type of sound, that's what I don't believe in. I believe there is are obvious sound quality differences between the sound of Martin Logans, Revels, Wilsons, B&Ws, etc. and they are all "high end."
Given that you did not participate in the test, and likely have not had the opportunity to compare all (or even these) $700 speakers to the "high end" speaker in question (I don't know where the $70K figure came from, the MLs are $11K) I can only conclude from this remark that your point of high end convergence is not a sound, but a price point.
I'm not trying to "disqualify high end" or even the specific Martin Logan speakers we're currently discussing. I think ML hybrids and panels have their virtues and are a legitimate choice and have said so. But there are people here who are working very strenuously to find any reason they can to dismiss the evidence of Harman's studies Amir has presented in this thread. They're not doing very well, but they're working up quite a sweat trying. Why? Because a midfi speaker may have out-performed a respected Audiophile brand? The true criteria for "high end" reveals itself again.
Tim
May be my wording specific type of sound quality is poor language, but it is not the same as type of sound.
I just wanted to enter a price two orders of magnitude higher (x100) – for me it seemed evident . No reference to particular cases
… And I can understand that some one who can not see my subjective point of convergence can only think about price points. It seems you have not read or understood the Harman tests and limitations. Did you read the original papers? Sorry, but I am not interested in elaborating on provocative assumptions.
Tom,
IMHO, the convergence of high-end is towards an experience that focuses on the illusionary recreation of the emotions and perception of previous real experiences. The success of achieving this sound type is monitored by the analysis of the number of cases and intensity of the listener pleasure. All else are just tools to reach this objective.
Sorry if I misunderstood you. I took "convergence" and "type of sound" to mean that you believe there was a uniformity to the "high-end" sound.
OK. That one threw me. I'm still not sure that the $70k speaker would be better is self-evident, though. A company could use the most expensive materials avaialble, apply a mind-boggling mark-up to the price and still execute poorly enough to put out a bad-sounding speaker at a huge price point. I suspect it has happened more than once. On the other hand, a company like Harman can apply everything they've learned from designing and building their most expensive speakers, do a lot of very good research and development into finding the point at which inexpensive materials really become audible, build the best possible speaker they can at a given price point, and come up with a $700 pair that beats a couple of venerable "high end" brands in measurement and listening tests. Which is, of course, exactly what we're discussing here.
Nope. I've read Sean's reports on his blog and what Amir has posted here. But I've assumed nothing that wasn't published there, so we should be good. And if you're referring to the guess, not assumption, that I in the test is an Infinity P363, to me it is not even surprising, much less provacative, that it beat the MLs by the numbers and the ears. But I'm at a bit of an advantage. I've heard them both.
Tim
What are the limitations as you understand them?
Rob
Please read my previous exchange of posts with Amir in this thread. No time to repeat it again as the Aida are arriving
Please read my previous exchange of posts with Amir in this thread. No time to repeat it again as the Aida are arriving
Neat. What are they replacing?
Last edited:
Similar threads
