Stereophile finally reviews a Martin Logan - The Montis. (What is a Montis?)

[caesar]

After many years of absence, there is a Martin Logan write up in the latest Stereophile. Positive review overall, but the writer does nit pick on the imaging of the speaker. However, he does not pick up on the relative dynamic weakness in the midrange of an electrostatic panel to a dynamic driver.

Also, what the heck is a Montis? I looked it up in the urban dictionary and one of the definitions was quite colorful. Makes me wonder if the ML marketing department was aware...

 

[Tonepub]

The current ML product (pretty much everything from the Summit going forward) is actually very good in the midrange dynamics area. These are all speakers you can play Metallica on if you've got enough amplifier power. Not as tonally pure as a full range ESL, but they give away precious little.

The weakness of the Montis are far outweighed by it's strengths.

 

[Keith_W]

Also, what the heck is a Montis? I looked it up in the urban dictionary and one of the definitions was quite colorful. Makes me wonder if the ML marketing department was aware...

Hahaha, I just looked it up as well

Perhaps they mean to market a subwoofer to partner with it. They can call it the "Pythis"

 

[Mobiusman]

I am considering either a Montis or Summit X, but have some concern about the integration of the panel and the woofer(s). Any thoughts and or solutions?

 

[JonFo]

Integration in the Montis and Theos is very, very good. They use an active crossover for the bass driver, which means they can fine tune the impulse response and frequency blend quite accurately.

In some ways, these are better than the Summit X, blending of panel to woofer being one.

As for capabilities and imaging, if you really want to hear an ML do it's thing, make sure you learn how to treat the room and position the speakers. When well done, they absolutely rock, I play Porcupine Tree DVD-A's through my setup at concert levels. And with correct treatments, they actually have uncanny imaging, including a much wider soundstage than otherwise.

Anyone getting the head-in-vise one listening position result just has not set it up right.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Integration in the Montis and Theos is very, very good. They use an active crossover for the bass driver, which means they can fine tune the impulse response and frequency blend quite accurately.

In some ways, these are better than the Summit X, blending of panel to woofer being one.

As for capabilities and imaging, if you really want to hear an ML do it's thing, make sure you learn how to treat the room and position the speakers. When well done, they absolutely rock, I play Porcupine Tree DVD-A's through my setup at concert levels. And with correct treatments, they actually have uncanny imaging, including a much wider soundstage than otherwise.

Anyone getting the head-in-vise one listening position result just has not set it up right.

I never quite got the head-in-vice thing from MLs, but I did get a very noticeable change in FR off axis. Depending on how they were set up, FR could change dramatically when you just stood up (the smaller models). I tried them set up in our showroom many ways, including set up by the ML guy. But the best I ever heard was in the listening room of a customer who had substantial room treatments behind them and at the point of first reflections.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

In some ways, these are better than the Summit X, blending of panel to woofer being one.

I don't agree at all. The bass depends just as any speaker, despite being "self-amplified," on the amplifier. I'd like to hear anyone complain about the blending between the drivers with the Matthew-James amplifiers. No one that's heard them in my system has.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't agree at all. The bass depends just as any speaker, despite being "self-amplified," on the amplifier. I'd like to hear anyone complain about the blending between the drivers with the Matthew-James amplifiers. No one that's heard them in my system has.

Not sure I understand what you're getting at here, Myles. Are you saying that the integration of a subwoofer with the rest of the speakers in the system is entirely dependent on the sub's amp? That can't be what you're saying. I must be misunderstanding...

Tim

 

[Andre Marc]

Integration in the Montis and Theos is very, very good. They use an active crossover for the bass driver, which means they can fine tune the impulse response and frequency blend quite accurately.

In some ways, these are better than the Summit X, blending of panel to woofer being one.

As for capabilities and imaging, if you really want to hear an ML do it's thing, make sure you learn how to treat the room and position the speakers. When well done, they absolutely rock, I play Porcupine Tree DVD-A's through my setup at concert levels. And with correct treatments, they actually have uncanny imaging, including a much wider soundstage than otherwise.

Anyone getting the head-in-vise one listening position result just has not set it up right.

I was utterly thrilled with the Ethos. I will be an unhappy camper when they go back to the factory...
http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-l...ms/martinlogan-ethos-loudspeakers-review.html

 

[MylesBAstor]

Not sure I understand what you're getting at here, Myles. Are you saying that the integration of a subwoofer with the rest of the speakers in the system is entirely dependent on the sub's amp? That can't be what you're saying. I must be misunderstanding...

Tim

What I'm saying is that the Summit-Xs come with their own bass amplifier. One would then expect the bass to be largely independent of the "main" amplifier driving the rest of the speaker but that's not the case.

 

[mep]

What I'm saying is that the Summit-Xs come with their own bass amplifier. One would then expect the bass to be largely independent of the "main" amplifier driving the rest of the speaker but that's not the case.

Exactly the same case with my Def Tech BP7000SC speakers. The main amp absolutely dictates the quality of your bass.

 

[rbbert]

I never quite got the head-in-vice thing from MLs, but I did get a very noticeable change in FR off axis. Depending on how they were set up, FR could change dramatically when you just stood up (the smaller models). I tried them set up in our showroom many ways, including set up by the ML guy. But the best I ever heard was in the listening room of a customer who had substantial room treatments behind them and at the point of first reflections.

Tim

Which is very odd when you think about it. As you just posted, they don't radiate much off-axis, and the rear wave reflection is pretty critical to the imaging, so logically you wouldn't want much if any treatments behind, and probably minimal at first reflection points.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Which is very odd when you think about it. As you just posted, they don't radiate much off-axis, and the rear wave reflection is pretty critical to the imaging, so logically you wouldn't want much if any treatments behind, and probably minimal at first reflection points.

Makes no sense whatsoever. Unless the speakers were against the side walls or you wanted to kill the sound of the speakers.

 

[Mobiusman]

I have owned Montis since the beginning of this year and have made many changes in my system since their installation. One thing I can say is that they are not the weak link in my 6 digit system. Many problems I associated with EL hybrids are not the case with the Montis. Granted I have some fairly heavy bass support through my JL F 113's, but they integrate wonderfully with the Montis, although the bass setting on the ML woofer is critical to the sound of the Monis. Even a 3 degree change makes and total difference in the perceived sound from the panel.

if I have a single complaint, it is the impedance curve which drops to .6 ohms at 20 k. I reeks havoc with my Spectral amp and tends to shut it down at volume. Otherwise, I think it is the best value in speakers on the market if you can keep them away from the rear wall by at least 5 feet. I like them better than the Summit X's because I do not like down-firing woofers and think the JL out peform the ML woof's any way.

 

[DonH50]

If you damp the back wall the imaging becomes much more precise and stable, with a much larger sweet spot, but you lose some of that "spaciousness" in the sound.

 

[Bruce B]

If you damp the back wall the imaging becomes much more precise and stable, with a much larger sweet spot, but you lose some of that "spaciousness" in the sound.

that's what happened to me. My whole front wall at the time was a bass trap and the speakers were dry and lifeless.

 

[DonH50]

Yup. My room is like that; I could fix it by adding membranes to my absorbers or getting diffusors but so far haven't bothered. It means any ambiance comes from the mix, not the room. I have found a variety of listener's preferences over the years, from very dry to very live and everything in between. Most prefer a more "live" room and live with the comb filtering and such that results from the back wave.

I rarely have time to listen these days, and went down to the media room for the first time in a while yesterday to find an amp channel is apparently out (too bad the kids didn't mention that). I watched TV and read a book.