Why do Martin Logans sound lean/ thin (transparent) compared to other stats?

[DonH50]

+1000.

Imaging and sweet spot area are significantly improved with room treatment and is another reason why I have done so. I should have emphasized that. The variations in midrange response drove me nuts (a short drive) until I got the room treated. Comb filter effects are a nightmare with a dipole; you need a big enough room to reduce them, room treatment, and/or (more likely) both. The image is very stable and sweet spot as large as possible in my room after treating. I will take the clear, stable image and large sweet spot over a lot of interfering reflections every time.

 

[LL21]

+1000.

Imaging and sweet spot area are significantly improved with room treatment and is another reason why I have done so. I should have emphasized that. The variations in midrange response drove me nuts (a short drive) until I got the room treated. Comb filter effects are a nightmare with a dipole; you need a big enough room to reduce them, room treatment, and/or (more likely) both. The image is very stable and sweet spot as large as possible in my room after treating. I will take the clear, stable image and large sweet spot over a lot of interfering reflections every time.

Thank you! That is extremely helpful, and given how much I am looking forward to hearing the Neoliths...I am glad it is likely to be in a well treated room.

 

[JonFo]

Interesting...will bear that in mind. Just to make sure I get it right, you are suggesting that in an ML set up, having room treatment to damp the wall behind the ML's is a good idea to get the improved soundstage and hearing more of the front wave launch for wider sweet spot?

Exactly, treat the wall directly behind the speaker as well as the side-wall area between the speaker and the front wall. The treatment should preferably be broad band (250Hz - 20Khz), I've found the RealTraps MiniTraps HF (the HF is important) work very well for this.

For an example of what is needed to get a set of large ML's to perform at the highest level is documented in this page about my dedicated room. Specifically, look at the diagram of the room treatments, as there are 45 of them

 

[LL21]

Exactly, treat the wall directly behind the speaker as well as the side-wall area between the speaker and the front wall. The treatment should preferably be broad band (250Hz - 20Khz), I've found the RealTraps MiniTraps HF (the HF is important) work very well for this.

For an example of what is needed to get a set of large ML's to perform at the highest level is documented in this page about my dedicated room. Specifically, look at the diagram of the room treatments, as there are 45 of them

Thank you! Great link...I have read about your dedicated room and will study it again more carefully.

 

[Audioseduction]

I find my Summits Xs to play full body music as well as life like transparency and imaging to die for. It’s very important for speaker placement and to treat your listening room properly for the stats to sound their best. As you can see in the photo below of my system I have the wall behind the speakers treated very well. Also having Class A amps is a big plus for the Summit Xs. Stats sound better the more power you give them!

 

[Adrian Low]

Beautiful set up George!

Best,
Adrian Low

 

[Audioseduction]

Beautiful set up George!

Best,
Adrian Low

Thanks Adrian! Nothing like just relaxing and listening to your music and not the equipment.

 

[analog brother]

i agree!

beautiful artwork to delve into whilst indulging in some luxury listening.
does the heat off those amps affect the paint in any way?

 

[Audioseduction]

i agree!

beautiful artwork to delve into whilst indulging in some luxury listening.
does the heat off those amps affect the paint in any way?

Thanks! Not at all. The canvas artwork is printed on via a very large inkjet type printer.

 

[VFA]

I am not an expert on sound but I have been dabbling in high end for 20 yrs. i cannot afford the top of the line equipment but have auditioned the best Avalon Wilson audio , Magico Apogee , Maggie's, Focal, and others. I started into high end because I wanted to here the performers in my room ( holographic sound). I found the word holographic is thrown around way too easily. Since that was what was important to me that became my focus in looking for high end sound. Before I go on , I realize there is a lot of great equipment and speakers out there. All have there strengths and weaknesses. For me ,I like the human voice and Jazz and old standards not large orchestral or classical pieces so my tastes require a different type of speaker. I have only heard true holographic sound, ethereal, eerie ghostly sound 3 times in all my auditions over the yrs thru most of the east coast dealers. Once with Magico Q 7's. The other two times with Martin Logan's .once 18 yrs ago and very recently. Since I can't afford 180k I went with ML's. I have Montis with 2 Balanced Force 212 subs. For my tastes this set up gives great sound. I don't say better than others , just best for me which is what counts. My Montis is set at -10 dB and the subs to therefore handle the major base. Lastly Stillpoints for feet. Both these two mods decrease the resonances in the speaker itself and cleaned up the midrange greatly. Lastly the ML's. Don't have the pinpoint imaging of many dynamic speakers, but when I hav listened to live unamplified music I do not see pinpoint imaging, therefore I see this as unrealistic. For purity of midrange and soundstaging I believe the ML' s rival the best at any price.

 

[sbo6]

I've owned several pair of MLs, SL3s and Summits and I have heard quite a few others. While they are pros at disappearing and accurate spacial cues, I came to realise they had 3 main issues 1) sub par panel <-> woofer integration 2) Lack of dynamic impact 3) Lack of mid bass/lean. I would put #3 as less of an issue than the first 2 issues.

My conclusion was apparent listening to speakers such as Wilson, Rockport, etc, on friends' systems. However, what ultimately convinced me was when I upgraded to Usher BE20Ds (in the same room) which are on a completely different level in all respects except maybe imaging, and in that regard it's more preference than "better vs worse". This is not to say that I didn't enjoy the MLs, very good speakers for the $. But there are many tradeoffs and some benefits with planars vs cones speakers and for me jumping to a very good dynamic ultra - resolving cone speaker was the right choice. My 2.1 cents...

 

[amirm]

The appeal of Martin Logan belies the objective measurements of it. Here is a random example:

Clearly above 2 Khz, performance goes to hell. There is nothing remotely high fidelity about a loudspeaker that goes nuts that way. When I listened to them blind, I thought the speaker was a broken one put in there as a control to catch deaf people . Whereas prior to that, I thought they were a very good speaker. Now sighted I can hear the same issues and no longer like their sound.

 

[Audioseduction]

The appeal of Martin Logan belies the objective measurements of it. Here is a random example:

Clearly above 2 Khz, performance goes to hell. There is nothing remotely high fidelity about a loudspeaker that goes nuts that way. When I listened to them blind, I thought the speaker was a broken one put in there as a control to catch deaf people . Whereas prior to that, I thought they were a very good speaker. Now sighted I can hear the same issues and no longer like their sound.

Looks like the one you measured is a defective unit as I only hear pristine SQ from my Summit Xs. In fact I had a couple of members at our audio meet that both attended the AXPONA 2015 show said my 2CH system with the Summit Xs sound better the any demo they heard at the AXPONA 2015 show even the $200K+ systems.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I used to sell them, and they never sounded right to me. Dead-on in the sweet spot they image well, but I always thought there was something unnatural about the tonality, even before Amir published his measurements. And off-axis they just fell apart; a completely different sound than what you get in front of the panel. I can just imagine the havoc first reflections were wreaking on the sound, even in the sweet spot. The biggest ones were simply too tall to scale properly. Then there were the built-in subs - no placement options, no ability to process deep bass separately from the rest of the signal. Really not much you can do if the bass doesn't sound right except turn it down. They don't integrate particularly well, and that's not surprising. My apologies to ML lovers. Just MHO based on my experience with them. YMMV.

Tim

 

[Sharp 1080]

I owned Odyssey's and Sequel II's at one time and sold them for the same reasons listed by others above. I changed to a larger more dynamic setup. Much improved in all the areas that were deficient before.

 

[Argonaut]

A Quote from Noel Keywoods CLX HiFi World review,

"Frequency response of the CLX is flat from 700Hz all the way up to 20kHz, so it will sound even in its midband and upper midband/treble delivery. Below 700Hz output is on average 3dB up, right down to 55Hz no less. With a monopole this would give a fulsome balance, but with a dipole it gives a natural balance, likely because the solid radiation angle and associated acoustic power is less. A low frequency peak at 60Hz (third octave analysis, not shown here) suggests there will be no lack of punchy bass. This looks like a carefully tailored euphonic balance that will be easy on the ear.Frequency response of the CLX is flat from 700Hz all the way up to 20kHz, so it will sound even in its midband and upper midband/treble delivery. Below 700Hz output is on average 3dB up, right down to 55Hz no less. With a monopole this would give a fulsome balance, but with a dipole it gives a natural balance, likFrequency response of the CLX is flat from 700Hz all the way up to 20kHz, so it will sound even in its midband and upper midband/treble delivery. Below 700Hz output is on average 3dB up, right down to 55Hz no less. With a monopole this would give a fulsome balance, but with a dipole it gives a natural balance, likely because the solid radiation angle and associated acoustic power is less. A low frequency peak at 60Hz (third octave analysis, not shown here) suggests there will be no lack of punchy bass. This looks like a carefully tailored euphonic balance that will be easy on the ear.ely because the solid radiation angle and associated acoustic power is less. A low frequency peak at 60Hz (third octave analysis, not shown here) suggests there will be no lack of punchy bass. This looks like a carefully tailored euphonic balance that will be easy on the ear."

Might we be allowed a view of your 'own', presumably much better measuring, current speaker frequency response ?

 

[amirm]

Looks like the one you measured is a defective unit as I only hear pristine SQ from my Summit Xs. In fact I had a couple of members at our audio meet that both attended the AXPONA 2015 show said my 2CH system with the Summit Xs sound better the any demo they heard at the AXPONA 2015 show even the $200K+ systems.

That's not my measurement. It is from stereophile review. I can't find any Summit measurements. Do you have one?

Here is one of the Montis which looks like a step down from your Summit: http://www.stereophile.com/content/martinlogan-montis-loudspeaker-measurements

Same panel break up is occurring starting at 2 Khz.

Note that I am not disputing many people loving the sound. I was one of them until I heard AB tests against other speakers in a blind manner. This was the Vista I believe.

 

[Argonaut]

I used to sell them, and they never sounded right to me. Dead-on in the sweet spot they image well, but I always thought there was something unnatural about the tonality, even before Amir published his measurements. And off-axis they just fell apart; a completely different sound than what you get in front of the panel. I can just imagine the havoc first reflections were wreaking on the sound, even in the sweet spot. The biggest ones were simply too tall to scale properly. Then there were the built-in subs - no placement options, no ability to process deep bass separately from the rest of the signal. Really not much you can do if the bass doesn't sound right except turn it down. They don't integrate particularly well, and that's not surprising. My apologies to ML lovers. Just MHO based on my experience with them. YMMV.

Tim

I am curious Tim, presumably you advised your prospective ML customers accordingly at the time ? And why were you ultimately no longer involved in retailing ML speakers?

 

[VFA]

When I do serious listening I'm sitting in the sweet spot. Do other people do serious listing not sitting in the sweet spot. When I'm not doing serious listening I don't really care so much about the sound but I like the music. Therefore the fact that you have to sit in the sweet spot of property set up Martin Logan's isn't a real isn't a real problem for me. I agree that Logans don't pinpoint image but they have a great soundstage and pinpoint imaging is just not consistent with real music. Plus they are the only speakers short of the Magico Q sevens that I actually had given what I think is a holographic presentation. This is the most important part of music. To feel like there is someone in the room.and I am no stranger to dynamic speakers. I have owned B&W Nautilus 802's, Wilson audio watt puppies, and Focal speakers. All I would consider very good speakers but none of which produced sound like the Martin Logan montis. Obviously everyone has different taste in music and is looking for different things and all speakers have pros and cons to their abilities. So if you don't like the Martin Logan speakers buy something else but what's the use of talking about it on the website. No number of measurements or anything you could say would make me feel different about what my ears tell me. What I like to see on sites like this is constructive / instructive information about how to make my system better. If you're on to bash a certain line of speakers go to the line that you like and make comments on that forum

 

[sbo6]

The appeal of Martin Logan belies the objective measurements of it. Here is a random example:

Clearly above 2 Khz, performance goes to hell. There is nothing remotely high fidelity about a loudspeaker that goes nuts that way. When I listened to them blind, I thought the speaker was a broken one put in there as a control to catch deaf people . Whereas prior to that, I thought they were a very good speaker. Now sighted I can hear the same issues and no longer like their sound.

To me it looks like some sort of comb filtering going on. I tried to upload a REW shot of Summits, but I keep getting an exclamation point error when doing so...