On June 1, 2015, I posted my listening experience at T.H.E. Show in Irvine with the MBL 101E Mk. II, a speaker which I then described as “materially more dynamic and realistic than anything I have ever heard before.” I also wrote that: “After the initial first couple of hours of shock and disbelief about the tangibility of the music and the holographic venue recreated by the speakers my power of rationality and analysis slowly came back into operation. . . . By the third hour of auditioning I could no longer ignore the fact that I find the speakers bright-sounding.”
After the show I canvassed pretty much every audiophile I know to see whether I was crazy or whether brightness is a relatively common criticism of the MBL 101E Mk. IIs. Approximately half of the ten or so people I spoke with who had heard the MBLs also found them to be on the bright side.
I reported my brightness issue to Jeremy, the President of MBL North America and to Greg, the President of United Home Audio and the man behind the UHA reel-to-reel tape decks (the most exciting and realism-producing source component I have ever heard) and the standard-bearer of the open reel tape renaissance. Both gentlemen were extremely patient in listening to, and evaluating, my concern about what was, to my ears, in the demo room at the show, excessive treble energy and brightness from the MBLs.
Knowing that I subjectively prefer tube electronics, Jeremy and Greg kindly introduced me to a client of theirs in Los Angeles, who, helpfully and coincidentally, has numerous other components with which I am quite familiar. Yesterday I spent the afternoon in that gentleman's apartment. His system consists of a Benz Micro LP S-MR on a Graham Phantom Supreme on a Clearaudio Master Innovation (magnetic drive!) going to an Aesthetix Rhea and Calypso going to the Aesthetix Atlas (tube input stage and solid state output stage) driving the MBL 101E Mk. IIs.
I can now report that tube amplification on the MBLs eliminates most of what I perceived to be the excessive brightness of the speaker (just as Greg promised). The tweeter setting on the speakers was set to the middle position of a three position tweeter control, so the softest tweeter setting probably would have reduced even further the perceived treble energy of the tweeter.
I cannot say that my issue with excessive brightness has been eliminated completely. By the volume threshold at which the MBLs are playing loudly enough for them to create their magic with dynamics and realism I still heard a bit of brightness creep back in. My ears still heard a bit of brashness on brass instruments and a bit of tinkling-ness on cymbals and triangles. But unlike the strong brightness I heard in Irvine what I heard yesterday was comfortably within our usual subjective preference spectrum of very slightly warmer/darker to very slightly brighter. With absorptive acoustic room treatment I could easily live happily with what I heard today for the rest of my life.
This experience proves again the axioms that the sound we hear at show demos can be significantly misleading, and that judiciously selected associated components can go a long way towards mitigating a sonic concern we have about a particular component.
Now that I know the tweeter on the MBLs can be significantly tamed will I give up on electrostatics and go with 101E Mk. IIs instead of Neoliths? The MBLs conjure up a realism with certain instruments which is, in my experience, unique. When the MBLs reproduce the sound of a brass instrument you can hear and almost feel the weightiness of the soundwave being created by that instrument in a manner which I have never heard from any other speaker.
Ultimately, I do not think I will switch away from electrostatic speakers because I still perceive a bit more transparency from electrostatic panels than I have heard from any other speaker, including the MBLs. But the 101E Mk. IIs (and the big Wilsons) have made me very aware of the dynamics I am forfeiting to retain that last smidgeon of transparency I enjoy with the Martin-Logans.
After the show I canvassed pretty much every audiophile I know to see whether I was crazy or whether brightness is a relatively common criticism of the MBL 101E Mk. IIs. Approximately half of the ten or so people I spoke with who had heard the MBLs also found them to be on the bright side.
I reported my brightness issue to Jeremy, the President of MBL North America and to Greg, the President of United Home Audio and the man behind the UHA reel-to-reel tape decks (the most exciting and realism-producing source component I have ever heard) and the standard-bearer of the open reel tape renaissance. Both gentlemen were extremely patient in listening to, and evaluating, my concern about what was, to my ears, in the demo room at the show, excessive treble energy and brightness from the MBLs.
Knowing that I subjectively prefer tube electronics, Jeremy and Greg kindly introduced me to a client of theirs in Los Angeles, who, helpfully and coincidentally, has numerous other components with which I am quite familiar. Yesterday I spent the afternoon in that gentleman's apartment. His system consists of a Benz Micro LP S-MR on a Graham Phantom Supreme on a Clearaudio Master Innovation (magnetic drive!) going to an Aesthetix Rhea and Calypso going to the Aesthetix Atlas (tube input stage and solid state output stage) driving the MBL 101E Mk. IIs.
I can now report that tube amplification on the MBLs eliminates most of what I perceived to be the excessive brightness of the speaker (just as Greg promised). The tweeter setting on the speakers was set to the middle position of a three position tweeter control, so the softest tweeter setting probably would have reduced even further the perceived treble energy of the tweeter.
I cannot say that my issue with excessive brightness has been eliminated completely. By the volume threshold at which the MBLs are playing loudly enough for them to create their magic with dynamics and realism I still heard a bit of brightness creep back in. My ears still heard a bit of brashness on brass instruments and a bit of tinkling-ness on cymbals and triangles. But unlike the strong brightness I heard in Irvine what I heard yesterday was comfortably within our usual subjective preference spectrum of very slightly warmer/darker to very slightly brighter. With absorptive acoustic room treatment I could easily live happily with what I heard today for the rest of my life.
This experience proves again the axioms that the sound we hear at show demos can be significantly misleading, and that judiciously selected associated components can go a long way towards mitigating a sonic concern we have about a particular component.
Now that I know the tweeter on the MBLs can be significantly tamed will I give up on electrostatics and go with 101E Mk. IIs instead of Neoliths? The MBLs conjure up a realism with certain instruments which is, in my experience, unique. When the MBLs reproduce the sound of a brass instrument you can hear and almost feel the weightiness of the soundwave being created by that instrument in a manner which I have never heard from any other speaker.
Ultimately, I do not think I will switch away from electrostatic speakers because I still perceive a bit more transparency from electrostatic panels than I have heard from any other speaker, including the MBLs. But the 101E Mk. IIs (and the big Wilsons) have made me very aware of the dynamics I am forfeiting to retain that last smidgeon of transparency I enjoy with the Martin-Logans.
Last edited: