MBL 101E Mk. II Listening Impressions Update
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
An interesting perception of a set up I did not describe accurately enough to give true understanding.
I find it hard to believe a soundstage can be too big. I do if it is paired with a lack of focus and density. A violin sounding as big as a cello but sounding as a piccolo, a cello sounding like having the size of a grand piano but sounding like a violin, etc. There is often an opposite reaction between soundstage width and focus and density of sound (timbre). The wider the soundstage (increase distance between speakers is one way), the less focus and density is often going to result from that.
As you wrote that you have a lack of focus on top of a "too big a soundstage", I assumed - maybe wrongly - this scenario was the case. In fact, many MBL owners seem to find that there is fewer focus with their speakers than with others but probably most do not object such phenomenon as this seems compensated by a number of other things the MBL do well or simply because not everyone is in search of such pinpointed sound image, but I do I admit
.Flyer - the MBLs were against the long wall of about a 20 foot long room. The listener sits only 7 ft away - very near field. The soundstage was as I described but I don't believe that's what most would want when you are only 7 ft away.
The owner is experimental in extremis - always swapping amps - in fact he had 10 the last time he fessed up. We've been messing around and experimenting with different components in each other's systems for a few years now. Each time we do it we learn a little more
The owner is experimental in extremis - always swapping amps - in fact he had 10 the last time he fessed up. We've been messing around and experimenting with different components in each other's systems for a few years now. Each time we do it we learn a little more
Flyer - the MBLs were against the long wall of about a 20 foot long room. The listener sits only 7 ft away - very near field. The soundstage was as I described but I don't believe that's what most would want when you are only 7 ft away.
The owner is experimental in extremis - always swapping amps - in fact he had 10 the last time he fessed up. We've been messing around and experimenting with different components in each other's systems for a few years now. Each time we do it we learn a little more
Do you really mean they were up against or close to the wall? That is not how to set up MBL's and surely does't conform to the instructions that come with the speakers. :no:
No they sit out in the room a few feet. Believe me he has tried them everywhere and he likes them where they are now. It is compromised. But they still sound very good when hooked up to the right gear.
He'll happily use a £60 T-amp on them. I think it is rubbish, but he likes it. One of his favourite amps. Really
Now the soundstage with one of those collapses hugely.
Hi Ron
Having just heard the latest MBL I detected no brightness
I note in the review it does mention that your listening height will effect the perceived brightness, I assume the closer u get to the tweeter height the brighter it will sound
Attachments
Hi Ked
I agree the mbl 9000 series were a bit disappointing
Big sound and dynamic but limited in resolution compared with many modern amps, good timbre
I am guessing big Spectral would bring the resolution but would run very hot with that low efficiency
Last edited:
This is a very polarizing speaker sonically. People either love it or find it to be too bright.
This speaker does many amazing things, and it does certain things better than any other speaker I’ve ever heard. I have listened to it numerous times at both audio shows and twice at length in a friend’s house.
I am afraid I found it relentlessly bright (meaning too much upper midrange/lower treble energy). My favorite amplifier for them is a hybrid amplifier like the Aesthetix Atlas.
Yes agreed, it does some things very well, but not imaging and it doesn’t play soft
It’s interesting that you found it bright, as MF said it was one of the best tweeters he had heard, and I hate bright, yet it seemed fine to me
I suppose we won’t know, and it all comes down to personal taste , and if you don’t like it you dont
I found it lacked a bit of the body of some instruments like violin and cello, but massed strings sounded fine
JV thought the xtreme much better and speculated that not having the bass module under it improved the sound quality
Interesting thought
Bill
I guess it depends on your priorities and room size
I love the quad timbre and natural impressions and sense at times of reality
Mine are very dynamic I must say within their limitations
Excellent bass in range of acoustic instruments pipe organs excepted
Large orchestral is not their best suit though
MBL do not focuses images
Sweeping soundstage and dynamics especially bass and deep bass
Good timbre but not perfect
Impression they don’t play soft well
Lack of body of instruments including violin and cello
This may point to Ron’s issue of too much treble balance, or the mbl amps
I didn’t find the MBLs quite up to the modern standard of microdynamics at least with the 101e
The speed and yet naturalness of the Quads is hard to beat, at times I shake my head and the way it portraits instruments
Now I have the Lamm m1.2 dialled in I will play more symphonies to see how the quads travel, as there is great clarity and higher envelop before clipping with these that was limited with other amps including better depth
I would like to hear the MBL with different amplifiers, maybe spectral 500 or ASR EXCLUSIVE, and more organic cables before final judgement
Interestingly I heard the mbl in a different set up, and they had the unrelenting brightness that Ron spoke of, and I think it is a function of set up, as the equipment was the same as I heard but different room!
I guess it depends on your priorities and room size
I love the quad timbre and natural impressions and sense at times of reality
Mine are very dynamic I must say within their limitations
Excellent bass in range of acoustic instruments pipe organs excepted
Large orchestral is not their best suit though
MBL do not focuses images
Sweeping soundstage and dynamics especially bass and deep bass
Good timbre but not perfect
Impression they don’t play soft well
Lack of body of instruments including violin and cello
This may point to Ron’s issue of too much treble balance, or the mbl amps
I didn’t find the MBLs quite up to the modern standard of microdynamics at least with the 101e
The speed and yet naturalness of the Quads is hard to beat, at times I shake my head and the way it portraits instruments
Now I have the Lamm m1.2 dialled in I will play more symphonies to see how the quads travel, as there is great clarity and higher envelop before clipping with these that was limited with other amps including better depth
I would like to hear the MBL with different amplifiers, maybe spectral 500 or ASR EXCLUSIVE, and more organic cables before final judgement
Interestingly I heard the mbl in a different set up, and they had the unrelenting brightness that Ron spoke of, and I think it is a function of set up, as the equipment was the same as I heard but different room!
Incredible to think that it isn’t clear cut at all given price disparities for a newly renovated pair of 57s versus a pair of 101Es then...
Bill
I guess it has something to do with my sonic priorities
Timbral accuracy and true to life microdynamics have become more important to me
The Quads have been a revelation
The Lamms seem to have given them another 5db and the bass is scarily good
Combined with an earthy organic pre, I am pretty much happy
I see much to like about the 101e, but I would need to play with the combo, as I said in the quad thread, I chanced upon a great starting point
The room is a big factor with the 101e that’s very obvious
With Electrostatic dipoles, the room is taken out of the equation to a greater extent ie lower frequency than cone drivers that are monopoles in radiation
This endows them with a natural advantage even before we start on about the low mass of the membranes and speed
That the quads have this timbral rightness, I am not sure is by design or a happy fluke ....
I guess it has something to do with my sonic priorities
Timbral accuracy and true to life microdynamics have become more important to me
The Quads have been a revelation
The Lamms seem to have given them another 5db and the bass is scarily good
Combined with an earthy organic pre, I am pretty much happy
I see much to like about the 101e, but I would need to play with the combo, as I said in the quad thread, I chanced upon a great starting point
The room is a big factor with the 101e that’s very obvious
With Electrostatic dipoles, the room is taken out of the equation to a greater extent ie lower frequency than cone drivers that are monopoles in radiation
This endows them with a natural advantage even before we start on about the low mass of the membranes and speed
That the quads have this timbral rightness, I am not sure is by design or a happy fluke ....
From your pictures i assume you heard them with the smaller 9008 amps, not the big 9011’s. The 9008’s are fine if you have a second set on the bass drivers !
The sources you where listening to are not the Reference line, maybe that explains the lack of resolution? The bass is very impressive but has limits both
in depth and nuance in my opinion. With sub towers these limits disappear, imaging improves and the amps driving the upper range is less stressed.
A superb analog front end makes you realize what these speakers can do in the treble, on digital i always had some of the misgivings that Ron describes.
And yes room treatment is not an option, if you want to hear them at their best,
personally i would never place the source rack between them.
I come from many years of listening to electrostatics, and love what panels
do in the midrange, the MBL’s come close to the very best panels in that regard, with added capabilities in the highest treble. If you end up perceiving that
as brightness is often a matter of setup or conditioning.
In my opinion, of course!
Last edited:
As I wrote above I do not know if my brightness “issue” is excessive (to my ears) treble energy or excessive (to my ears) upper midrange/lower treble energy.
I have enormous respect for MF. A lot of reading of his reviews suggests to me that MF simply prefers subjectively a slightly leaner tonal balance than I do.
He liked the Maxx 3 and I found that speaker to sound too bright for me. MF opted for the darTZeel 458s, preferring them to the VTL Siegfried IIs, and I went the other way. MF generally likes the Lyra Atlas, and he finds the cartridges I like best to be a touch warmer than neutral. So it would make perfect sense to me that I might find the 101E Mk. II to sound bright while MF does not.
I like very much the four column design of the MBL X-Tremes. But I am not sure if doubling up on the tweeter drivers would help me with my brightness “issue.”
From your pictures i assume you heard them with the smaller 9008 amps, not the big 9011’s. The 9008’s are fine if you have a second set on the bass drivers !
The sources you where listening to are not the Reference line, maybe that explains the lack of resolution? The bass is very impressive but has limits both
in depth and nuance in my opinion. With sub towers these limits disappear, imaging improves and the amps driving the upper range is less stressed.
A superb analog front end makes you realize what these speakers can do in the treble, on digital i always had some of the misgivings that Ron describes.
And yes room treatment is not an option, if you want to hear them at their best,
personally i would never place the source rack between them.
I come from many years of listening to electrostatics, and love what panels
do in the midrange, the MBL’s come close to the very best panels in that regard, with added capabilities in the highest treble. If you end up perceiving that
as brightness is often a matter of setup or conditioning.
In my opinion, of course!
Yes your correct these were 9008 not 9011
I am not familiar with the mbl front end equipment and take your word for that
I agree the room I heard on were less than ideal, and you could be correct about lack of resolution being in the front end
Clearly they do things in the bass that my CLX cannot, I didn’t play organ music so cannot comment on deep bass, most acoustical instruments only go down to 40 hz, and just a very few below other than organ
Heard a lot of drum tracks but as you know a lot of the sound of a drum is upper frequency not bass
When i bought my MBL’s i was very close to a deal on a pair of CLX anniversary !
One of my favorite speakers. I was using my CLS ‘s with Vandersteen subs as
my main system at the time, and wanted to order a spare set of panels.
The Danish importer had a pair of CLX for sale at a favorable price at the
time and after a couple of hours of listening i was close to sold.
In the end of the nineties i wanted to buy a pair of Martin Logan Statement E2, but the resellers in south Florida “Sound Advice” did not carry them !
Martin Logan told me to go hear them In Lawrence Kansas or one of the dealers
that did. Stereophile was having the yearly show in Chicago that year and the
dealer in Chicago did have a pair . M L did not exhibit at the show,
but Gayle Sanders was going to be at the store and demo his Masterpiece.
I booked into the hotel where the show was and took a cab out to the
store. Showroom conditions where not ideal, and the Krell amp driving
the bass towers was a smaller model. But i was impressed and Gayle and the
store owner gave me a good deal, and i took it.
Handshakes where given and i left a cash deposit of $5000 with promise of more next week. Then i went to the Stereophile show. One of the rooms
had a full MBL reference setup, and it kept pulling me back in !
I heard things in that system i had never heard before !
But a handshake is a contract in my world, and $5000 is $5000.
10 years later just before committing to the CLX’s a Norwegian gentleman
put a pair of MBL 101 E’s up for sale at about the same price as i was going to
pay for the CLX’s and the memory of that show demo won me over, and the
rest is history!
I
What amplifiers and cabling are you using
And what kinds of music do u listen to
thats a very interesting experience
When i bought my MBL’s i was very close to a deal on a pair of CLX anniversary !
One of my favorite speakers. I was using my CLS ‘s with Vandersteen subs as
my main system at the time, and wanted to order a spare set of panels.
The Danish importer had a pair of CLX for sale at a favorable price at the
time and after a couple of hours of listening i was close to sold.
In the end of the nineties i wanted to buy a pair of Martin Logan Statement E2, but the resellers in south Florida “Sound Advice” did not carry them !
Martin Logan told me to go hear them In Lawrence Kansas or one of the dealers
that did. Stereophile was having the yearly show in Chicago that year and the
dealer in Chicago did have a pair . M L did not exhibit at the show,
but Gayle Sanders was going to be at the store and demo his Masterpiece.
I booked into the hotel where the show was and took a cab out to the
store. Showroom conditions where not ideal, and the Krell amp driving
the bass towers was a smaller model. But i was impressed and Gayle and the
store owner gave me a good deal, and i took it.
Handshakes where given and i left a cash deposit of $5000 with promise of more next week. Then i went to the Stereophile show. One of the rooms
had a full MBL reference setup, and it kept pulling me back in !
I heard things in that system i had never heard before !
But a handshake is a contract in my world, and $5000 is $5000.
10 years later just before committing to the CLX’s a Norwegian gentleman
put a pair of MBL 101 E’s up for sale at about the same price as i was going to
pay for the CLX’s and the memory of that show demo won me over, and the
rest is history!
What amplifiers and cabling are you using
And what kinds of music do u listen to
MBL 9011 on the 101 E’s, Krell FPB 700cx on the Statement sub towers.
Straightwire Crescendo 1 and 2 Mogami IC’s.
I listen to Jazz, blues, folk, bluegrass, gospel, country and blues rock. My classical education is regretfully lacking !
Similar threads
