MBL 101E Mk. II Listening Impressions Update
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
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!
Thank you for telling us this very interesting story!
I actually found a set of E2 towers in Switzerland a couple of years ago, they did
not have the original crossover. I used a highly adaptable analog crossover set
at 100hz on the sub towers, using the MBL’s internal passive crossover on the
high pass, also at 100hz, emulating what MBL do on their Extreme speakers.
I liked the sound a lot but could occasionally hear the difference in speed and emphasis of the two different amplifiers, this type of setup is best run with identical amplifiers when the crossover is so high. During the last 8-9 month a guy i Germany was advertising a original Statement E2 crossover for sale for €5000, far to much in my opinion.
I offered him a thousand and he declined. 6 month later (having realized it was a hard to sell item) he contacted me and accepted my original offer.
I now have the MBL’s crossed over at 50hz, and the difference in amplifiers
is no longer notable.
To my ears the CLX does everything very well, much better bass and treble than
CLS’s, but are still a little lean in the mid bass. Compared to the stock 101E’s
they are less dynamic, especially in the mid bass, and the MBL’ s tweeter has
a little more air/bite depending on setup. I still love the magical way stats handle
voices, and enjoy it almost ever day in my very basic home theater.
I have not had the opportunity to play around with CLX’s in my home with
the gear i know, so take this with a grain of salt , i could be totally wrong !
Very interesting! What did the person from whom you bought the woofer towers do with the electrostatic/midbass coupler panels?
Which were the insufficiently similar amplifiers at the 100Hz crossover configuration? Do the E2 woofer towers have built-in amplification? (Krell?)
Was it these amps which did not match your MBL amps?
Which were the insufficiently similar amplifiers at the 100Hz crossover configuration? Do the E2 woofer towers have built-in amplification? (Krell?)
Was it these amps which did not match your MBL amps?
Hi Ron ! A Swiss ML importer sold the main towers to a buyer that did not want
the sub towers, after 10 years in storage he cleared them out of his warehouse, and sold them to me. When the crossover was put on German eBay i suspected
it had come from this speaker set, but no. In a little German mountain village, the local industrialists who always bought the best had died. His estate sold the local house with his old furniture and other crap, including a set of ML Statement E2’s. The new owner, eager to renovate, tossed everything in the backyard, smashing up some of the larger pieces for easy transport, including the speakers. The guy that was selling the crossover was part of a salvage crew hired to clean up. He found the crossover and kept it, not even knowing what it was. Marin Logan enlightened him, and gave him the price. Several people contacted him trough eBay willing to pay him crazy money if he could get
the rest of the speaker set. But a that time it had landed at the dump in pieces.
On the amplifier front, the Mbl 9011 is faster, has smoother more extended treble
and does something in the midbass few amps do on the 101 E’s. The Krell FPB 700cx i use on the sub towers is more powerful on paper, but does not handle
the MBL’s the way that the the 9011 does.
I think the midbass leanness is well known for the CLX
I have measured in my room and they do indeed have less midbass density
I think this is a mistake in the design, Arnie Nudell was aware of in dipoles and added the wings to Genesis
I have experimented with this, and improved it greatly
I am now thinking of fabricating some wings like on genesis 1 and 2
I use five subwoofers and five super tweeters in active configuration to assist the CLX
Sad fate of a great speaker but good a music admirer has resurrected some parts
I have always believed the mid-bass leanness of the CLS and of the CLX is a natural and inevitable result of the electrostatic panel-only design. The Genesis loudspeakers do not suffer this deficiency (sorry Big Dog!
) because they have woofer towers coming on-line at 100Hz.
Last edited:
The leaness in the CLX as measured is actually above 100hz from 100 to 260 hzI have always believed the mid-bass leanness of the CLS and of the CLX is a natural and inevitable result of the electrostatic panel-only design. The Genesis loudspeakers do not suffer this deficiency (sorry Big Dog!
Below is dependent on room
This creates a leanness especially noted in string instruments including violin cello and guitar and chest voice
The lowest notes of cello are readily apparent and reproduced but the body of the instrument’s resonance is lacking
The wings improve this greatly
My assumption is there is a certain amount of cancellation of the panels output possibly from wrap around from the dipole rear output in this frequency range
Yes you are correct. I agree with the mid-bass leanness frequency range.
I should have made my woofers below 100Hz point with respect to the “oomph” and impact I personally like to feel and hear below 100Hz.
Yes, I've heard several iterations of the MBL 101s over the years, including the most recent 101Emk2s and the Extremes, both at various shows and at a dedicated system here in Toronto. Eventually, I bought the Bayz Courantes for my personal system and we will be carrying the line here in Canada going forward.
I have always loved what the MBL designs do right, holographic imaging which is more like what (non amplified) live music sounds like to me, but the arc welder sensitivity, the colored mid range and top end as well as the boomy bass (of the 101s) always kept me from pulling the trigger. (I couldn't afford the necessary (IMHO) MBL Reference amplifiers, even if I could.
To my (now admittedly biased) ear, the Bayz offers all of the positive attributes of the MBL omni designs with much better top end extension, speed, low level detail, tonality and (above all) dynamics. No, not horn dynamics but matching or exceeding the dynamics of any other speaker design I've ever heard, dynamic or otherwise.
There's an excellent thread on the Bayz Counterpoints on this forum as well.
I urge everyone who feel that omnis "are the only speakers that project a realistic presentation of music" give the the Bayz Courantes and Counterpoints a listen.
I apologise for the OT post, but I think people reading this thread are likely interested in omnis in general, and you haven't heard the State of The Art in omni designs if you haven't heard the Bayz....
Last edited:
very interesting and thank you for the thoughts, when i first read about the bayz, i was wondering if the sensitivity and the newly patented design might offer some benefits over the tricky but delightful 101e mk2. now, i have only heard the 101's once but very much enjoyed what i heard. to be honest i think my s5 mk2 is no slouch in comparison but i am "looking" for thunderous dynamics which magicos struggle with (in comparison to other speakers. at this price point and higher a speaker that does it all is just table stakes imo).
few follow up points i'd like to open up for discussion:
1. is the mbl101e really that insensitive? i've heard differing reports that the low rated sensitivity is not the same as in room sensitivity due to the difficulty in measuring omni dispersion. ron mentioned earlier that the aesthetix combo drove a pair of mbl's quite nicely
2. for more modern music such as hip-hop, dance, pop, and rock can the bayz keep toe to toe with the mbls. is the inherrent high senstivity allowing the speaker to "power through" the bass notes
3. do the bayz like near field? do the mbls? in my experience the mbl near field was quite enjoyable but, again, i only spent a few hours with that speaker in an unfamiliar room. i noticed that i was enjoying it but nothing to write home about...until i requested that the speakers be placed closer together. wow, the way the image locked in after was nothing short of a hologram.
edit: typos
few follow up points i'd like to open up for discussion:
1. is the mbl101e really that insensitive? i've heard differing reports that the low rated sensitivity is not the same as in room sensitivity due to the difficulty in measuring omni dispersion. ron mentioned earlier that the aesthetix combo drove a pair of mbl's quite nicely
2. for more modern music such as hip-hop, dance, pop, and rock can the bayz keep toe to toe with the mbls. is the inherrent high senstivity allowing the speaker to "power through" the bass notes
3. do the bayz like near field? do the mbls? in my experience the mbl near field was quite enjoyable but, again, i only spent a few hours with that speaker in an unfamiliar room. i noticed that i was enjoying it but nothing to write home about...until i requested that the speakers be placed closer together. wow, the way the image locked in after was nothing short of a hologram.
edit: typos
Last edited:
3. do the bayz like near field? do the mbls? in my experience the mbl near field was quite enjoyable but, again, i only spent a few hours with that speaker in an unfamiliar room. i noticed that i was enjoying it but nothing to write home about...until i requested that the speakers be placed closer together. wow, the way the image locked in after was nothing short of a hologram.
I've owned 1010Es in the past and now have the Bayz Courante and Counterpoint.
With both the MBLs and the two Bayz speakers you can literally sit 3 or feet in front of the speakers and it's like you are in the soundstage. I sit about 8' from the Counterpoint and Courantes.....it's delightful.
I've owned 1010Es in the past and now have the Bayz Courante and Counterpoint.
With both the MBLs and the two Bayz speakers you can literally sit 3 or feet in front of the speakers and it's like you are in the soundstage. I sit about 8' from the Counterpoint and Courantes.....it's delightful.
You might think that but it isn't true.
The lowest note on my Gibson SJ200 custom cutaway acoustic is E2 i.e. 82 Hz.
However, when I put my acoustic guitar recordings through a temporal FFT, I can assure you it has plenty of 20Hz output. Really. It's resonance coming from the body of the guitar. The same will be true of a cello.
So whilst you may think it's OK, really it isn't. Especially since CLX starts to roll off at around 58Hz if I can remember correctly. Even a winged CLX won't reproduce 20Hz with significant output.
Sorry to be a killjoy! But in the interests of the truth
Last edited:
1. While its true that sensitivity, as measured under anechoic conditions will always be lower than in room response, this is true for ALL
speakers. I also feel that almost ALL manufacturers specified sensitivity is measured under favorable conditions, as higher numbers are the
most desireable, so why shave 1-3db off your advertised sensitivity if you don't have to. I feel that the 101EmkIIs with their advertised
sensitivity of 82db and Stereophile measured B weighted sensitivity of 81 db are among the lowest of any speakers measured by Stereophile.
The Bayz (at 90 db for the Courantes and 94 db for the top of the line Counterpoints) are dramatically easier to drive.
2. The MBLs need tremendous power to approach the Bayz designs dynamically. That is why, IMO MBL offers massive amplifiers such as the
MBL9011 References (one of my favorite amps of all time BTW). These amps are HUGE! 750wpc, 223lbs each and about the size of a little
person's coffin. I have even heard these bi amped per channel (yes 4!) driving the MBL Extreme loudspeakers. In this setup, the MBLs can
rock, dubstep, metal and hiphop for sure, but the Bayz can too, and I would argue better than all the MBL offerings save perhaps the extreme
MBL electronics driving the Extreme loudspeakers. The thing is the Bayz can rock with significantly less powerful amplification. They still
love SOTA amplification, but monster amps are not necessary
3. I agree with everything Bob said on this topic. The Bays give up nothing to the MBL in terms of imaging, and IMHO offer better top to bottom
coherence in terms of frequency response and holographic imaging.. If it your desire to listen nearfield, which is my preferred method, there
is nothing the Bayz gives up to any omni designs, including the MBLs.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
Last edited:
Thats a crazy story .
Quite a mix and match you have aquired .
Did you ever do FR response measurements to dial in your system ?
If your able to have it done somehow ,you should .
Brg hj
thank you for the thoughtful response. the coherence point is notable here. tonally, how would you describe the bayz? would you say they are as neutral as something like an mbl or magico m series? or do they lean more to the dynaudio, raidho, kef sound? i know this is hard to say given we all hear differently but i love reading and writing about audio/experience reports so, if you'll indulge me...
the mbl is still a stunning speaker but i am hoping to spend a bit more time with it before deciding either way. if the bayz offer a more hassle free mbl experience then that's a big deal for me.
could you compare the bass? i promised myself i wouldn't go back to ported bass after having a sealed cabinet (in my room and to my ears - huge advantage). but nohting in audio is ever certain haha. for me, despite the music i like i'm not a bass head and happy to sacrifice impact in favor of resolution, coherencey, and detail. in fact, with alot of my music, i find that bass impact can get a bit distracting
i should add that despite my questions, i fully plan on listening to the bayz speakers before any decisions are made and, ideally, spending a bit more time with the mbl too. i am in no rush to upgrade so i am enjoying the journey
Similar threads
