Martin Logan XT B100 & B10 Review (LIVE)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Support the cause:
Patreon: / erinsaudiocorner
Contribute via PayPal: www.paypal.com...
🛒🛒
Generic Shopping Links:
Amazon: amzn.to/3v6i6ov
Audio Advice: www.audioadvic...
Best Buy: shop-links.co/...
Crutchfield: shop-links.co/...
Emotiva: emotiva.com?aff=14
Monoprice: bit.ly/3yAY6NH
Parts Express: bit.ly/3AqfWo3
SVS: www.dpbolvw.ne...
Arendal Sound: arendalsound.c...
If you are shopping at any of the above stores then please consider using my generic affiliate links above to make the purchase through. Purchases through these links can earn me a small commission - at no additional cost to you - and help me continue to provide the community with free content and reviews. Doesn't matter if it's a TV from Crutchfield, budget speakers from Audio Advice or a pair of socks from Amazon, just use the link above before you make your purchase. Thank you!
____________________
All of my tests are conducted using KLIPPEL Hardware and Software. KLIPPEL is an innovative leader in providing unique test equipment for electro-acoustical transducers and audio systems. Founded in 1997 by Dr. Wolfgang Klippel, the novel techniques developed for control and measurement systems of loudspeakers and other transducers are the result of over 30 years of fundamental research. This provides more accurate physical models of loudspeakers, micro-speakers and headphones valid for both small and large amplitudes. The focus is on revealing the root causes of signal distortion and defects and giving practical indications for improvements in design and manufacturing of audio products. For information on KLIPPEL products, please visit their site below:
www.klippel.de/...
I've learned so much from you over the past couple of years and just want to say thank you.
Detail intrinsically brings clarity, articulation, texture, and depth of content. Detail is a reduction of muddiness. It's important to understand that detail has different values at different frequencies. For example, at high frequencies, detail often means speed and to some degree crispness (although this often also needs retention of high dynamic range at high frequencies). This is NOT bright or loud. You can have rolled off highs, subtle, and STILL have high detail, resolution, clarity, and depth of the sound stage in those high frequencies. Loud is loud. Detail is detail. They're fundamentally different things.
A secondary risk of "detail" is noise. Sometimes high frequency distortion is perceived as detail just because "stuff" is there. There are a LOT of bad high frequency drivers that can be loud, noisy, and have stuff there, but many actually don't articulate well, present clarity and separation, actual recording information and not just noise and distortion.
A good high frequency presentation is often short in note, articulate, and s--p--a--c--e--d in content. Funnily, noise and distortion typically fills in that void, and a "thicker" high frequency presentation is often a lot of noise and not information.
I've considered IEMs to be a good audio space that shows exactly how detailed content can be. Many BA based IEMs specifically are VERY high detailed, and some products are better than others, to an ultra level of clarity. And against that competency, most larger drivers do not match, headphones, or full size speaker drivers alike. A number of these are some of the most capable products for high frequency presentation (although often no great in frequency balance) and is a reference point of how much detail, and what real information exists within any particular recording. When translated to headphones or home audio speakers, this known reference can identify how good these larger drivers can be, or how remarkably bad they're at with accuracy of information.
Bravo again Erin for explanations what is "revealing", "detailed" and so on "good" speaker.
Been looking forward to this one ever since I heard Ryan say he sent these to you. Appreciate your effort and help to the community. Get well soon!
I want to encourage you to keep being so relatable and I rely on your comprehension and insight
Thanks Erin. You're the only reviewer I trust.
He is pretty damn good, just damn good. I learn more from him than any other reviewer. Of course he listens to different music than many audio enthusiasts. So it’s something to note. Probably doesn’t matter since a lot of purchasers want monitor speakers. (Flat response)
Amir is a good reviewer too as he also provides data. But I still prefer Erin review as Erin provides the compression test which is amazing and only Erin provides that metric 🎉🎉🎉
I was at MWAVE in the blind test and prefer the ML I heard - surprised me and likely age related preferences because when I was younger I was very sensitive to high frequency voiced speakers
I agree. They had the f200 towers in two separate rooms and I thought they sounded amazing. Also heard the B100 and was impressed with them. Guess your ears like what your ears like.
This is why I love blind tests. It's really the most important thing and we should pick what we like to hear. It can surprise us.
What other speakers were in the blind test?
@@hifihometheater
I’m sorry I was not in the speaker comparison. I was in the room when the tested speaker cables and could you hear the difference in those. That being said I thought they sounded good. I’m not doubting his review at all.
Your 100% on to something with your comment. I've noticed the correlation between speakers that have boosted HF and "older" individuals or someone with some hearing issues. It's not and insult and it makes absolute sense since most individuals over the age 45 can barely hear anything beyond 10-12khz. After all why do you think most owners of B&W are old timers lol.
Gotta love the honesty. There were other reviewers before Erin whom I trusted blindly. But then Erin came along - what a fresh breath of air
An idea I'd love to make reality, is send a speaker to reviewer's under the guise of being a big and upcoming audio company, but the speaker is deliberately designed to have certain flaws to see what they say about it.😂 If this happened it would be hilarious, they'd all be singing it's praises and shouting from the rooftops.😂
It may be breath of fresh air, but unfortunately what Erin says is not accurate. He just listens to crappy recordings with over-active high frequency response. I notice that Erin doesn't consider classical or jazz music to be worthy of his listening, just because he didn't grow up with those genre's. Maybe Erin should expand his mind and learn about classical and jazz music. Some of the finer things in life are an acquired taste and we aren't born with an appreciation for them.
@@Mark-rw3kw so what if he is honest about it and puts out disclaimers. Besides: objective measurements don't lie.
@@BuffSquadBigBenni Erin (in this video and other videos) makes a big deal about how he listens to music that he relates to and "grew up" with, rather than music that is the best sounding. At the same time, he does very detailed measurements of speakers driven by electronically driven test tones. I don't have a problem with his measurements, I just don't like the way he dismisses jazz and classical music as just a bunch of sounds that audiophiles like to use to evaluate equipment, rather than as serious music.
Best sounding music is a very subjective term.
Also, he doesn't dismiss anything. He explains it very nuanced, rewatch the first 10 minutes and listen carefully.
Why should he listen to music he doesn't enjoy?
Hi Erin,
Great Video.
This type of video is so important, I just hope that people can put their biases behind and just listen to what you are actually saying.
So many people hear the bright speakers and think, Wow, they have so much more detail, but once they have those speakers in house, they realize that you are soon suffering from listening fatigue.
Of course as you said, if the person likes that sort of thing….Well, that’s another story, but I for once get it 100%
Keep up the great work, and that wasn’t bad at all for someone with (Covid, Back issues and Head Fog…lol)
Having heard the F100's and F200's at audio shops and being quite impressed with their sheer power in the mids and highs, it would be great if you could review one of the new ML Motion towers. Maybe, they measure out better than the book shelf models?
The XT F200s are INCREDIBLE. I heard them at a friend's house and, well, they're the best home theater speakers I've ever heard. Period. I'd argue the Genelec Ones series are better, but that's about it.
@@spdcrzy Hmm, thanks. My Sonus Faber Lumina V's sound nice on music, but they are not getting it done with action movies.
MartinLogan's Motion XT bookshelves have come off as an afterthought with every generation. I have seen frequency response curves of these from other reviews and the top end wasn't nearly as boosted. Klippel measurements always seem to be different. I think some of the issue with these is that there isn't enough damping inside and reflected energy is escaping through the port and reflecting back through the cone. The top of end these seems boosted. There may be something wrong with the tweeters or there is a mismatch with the crossover. I really hope ML didn't try to save money by reusing an older crossover. That's the kind of BS that Klipsch is known for in order to save money.
I have heard the F200's and they're fantastic. I want to add a pair to the Revel F208's I have in my cave.
@@hochhaulI had a pair of the Revel f208 towers for about a year. They played loud and clear but I found them incredibly boring. No mid bass punch drums and whatnot. I replace them with a pair of f200. I really love the Martin Logan f200. The Tweeter on the F208 is definitely superior but other than that the Martin Logan rocks
@ginob9157 they can sound a bit too flat. Some genres fit them better than others. I wish they hadn't rolled the bottom end off as aggressively as they did. I have a pair of ML Motion 60XT's and they are great aside from two things... the AMT's are mounted about 3 or 4 inches too high so they sound very rolled off from my seating position, and the cabinets are a bit on the resonant side. I bought the F208's for 30% off so I'm very happy with them. I really want to hear a pair of F200's though.
Exactly why I went with British speakers so I start with warm and laidback. Especially with reflective open rooms I and many have.
Sick with COVID and yet you slog through with another smashing review... you are a dedicated and tenacious person, Erin. Kudos! Now, get back to bed! LOL!
Your comments about "detail" are exactly what I've been thinking for so long. What always cracks me up is reviews that talk about how a speaker is so "neutral" but also has amazing "detail," and the measurements invariably show a treble boost.
I was hoping for better performance out of these. Not that I'm looking to purchase them, but I really like the style of them. ML seems to have gone all-in with this Motion series, Motion XT and Foundation Motion. They likely won't be refreshing them for quite some time.
There is nothing wrong with these (or other) ML speakers. The problem is with the trash recordings that Erin used for the review, that have boost in the high frequency, because let's face it, most people listen to those tracks on cheap earbuds.
I have a pair of the XT B100for my home theater set up and they sit next to my Sanders ESL’s. The Sanders are neutral and revealing speakers and when A/B’ing the two it’s was immediately clear that the ML’s are much brighter.
I own a pair of Motion XT F100 and I do not find them bright at all, same for my wife who is more sensitive than me to bright and sibilant speakers. We find them quite smooth and no fatiguing actually. I used to own the Focal Aria 948 which were bright and fatiguing.
Thanks for your honesty in this review and all the other ones. Keep it up.
This has nothing to do with your opinion or assessment but more the industry now as a whole. It seems like many of us rather look at numbers and graphs vs actually listening to a speaker. Its like we look at graphs and say, I wouldn't like that speaker or say, thats a bad speaker. I bet if many of us sat and listened to 10 speakers (blind) that would couldn't just perfectly guess the graph of each speaker. Ive worked in the audio industry for 20 years and listen to speakers weekly, MartinLogan has always been one of my favorite brands. I ended up with the F200s with how much I enjoyed them. That doesn't mean that everyone else will as much as me but I really enjoy them compared to everything else in there price point and slightly above. Im just trying to say, let your ears be your buying decision. We all have different ears and will perfer different speakers. Try to take bias out of it and just listen.
I always listen first. Then measure. With the purpose of understanding why I like or dislike what I heard. This information helps people make purchase decisions that better fit their needs.
@ErinsAudioCorner I understand. This comment wasn't supposed to be directed towards you as a review is your opinion. I just see videos and comments all the time on how people make judgments only based on graphs without ever listening to a product. And that's all they need to make a conclusion. That is where I think a lot of people are misled. Im also guilty of this. It's like we think the graph is our ears now a days or we use that as justification of what we hear.
@@guiltynessness8926 I hear you. Conversely, however, many people take recommendations based on someone else’s subjective opinion which can be biased by any number of variables. Or simply uneducated based on the person’s limited knowledge or experience.
@ErinsAudioCorner Of course and completely agree. Many are guilty of this and then act like only one was truthful instead of realizing that maybe two different people hear something differently and both were being honest. Which brings me back to my original point, we all have different ears and listening spaces, and our ears should be the buying factor. Note I'm not new to your channel and only brought this up as it's something I see more and more in this industry. People even saying about companies, I can't believe they designed they're speaker that way and for that price, when they haven't even heard it. We have no clue why a company made a speaker that way without asking, but I guarantee most would say because they found those measurements sounded better. I know a high-end speaker company that has informed me that they now make speakers based on looking better on graphs and admitted they think their new speaker doesn't sound as good to them after doing so. The reason being is they believe this is what most people will put stock into now. It's almost like we all want a speaker to sound and look the same instead of having different and unique offerings. Sorry as I'm going on. We all just need to go listen more as I think many write off speakers they may love. Not to say reviews aren't great, as they are and it's someone's opinion but that they may hear differently. We all have biases whether we want to admit it as well. Blind tests are the best tests I've found
@@guiltynessness8926 Excellent comment! I was just thinking this the other day and wondering if some designers are now just designing the speaker to "measure" as best as possible so they can win the klippel drag race and not also tuning them to sound how they want. It seems that some of the measurement expectations can also be subjective which is why I think it would be great to interview the designers regarding the measurements to understand why they made some of the decisions they did. To dismiss a speaker based on measurements without listening to it seems kind of silly to me. Some of my favorite speakers probably wouldn't pass the objective litmus tests of these measurement reviews.
I love it when Aaron reviews the reviewers.
So do I!
Who is Aaron? This is ERIN! It's right at the top of the page- ERIN'S AUDIO REVIEW! DUH!
@@DougMen1 thanks for being pedantic
@@joentell Erin schooled ya! lol
@@wa2368 I've never reviewed these, so I have no idea how he could have "schooled me". He's not talking about me. I can tell if a speaker has a high frequency rise, and I don't call that detailed. I call it bright.
I hope that clarifies the situation for you.
I too have heard the B100s and my listening impressions match yours, Erin. The problem with the last recommendation you give for prospective customers (order a B100 and an Emotiva B1+ and compare) is that they may fall prey to the "louder is better" phenomenon. Because the trebles are so boosted on the B100, when you quickly switch to a more neutral speaker like the B1+ the Emotiva may sound "veiled". Like if someone's shouting at you for a while, and then reverts to their normal voice, it sounds quiet. It's not until you listen to the B100 for extended periods where you'll hear not just the sibilance, but the fatigue associated with bright speakers.
That's a good point.
Another Headphone used as a reference for many years is a Sennheiser HD600 with good condition pads.
That peak @ 33:00 around 680Hz is obviously a port resonance. Not only does this correlate with the tuning frequency of the speaker vs cabinet volume, but what's extremely characteristic about a port resonance, is they follow the standard harmonics from a pipe very well. They shift a bit because of the port (pipe) correction.
This sequence in a rectangular box is not only far more erratic, it could only happen when there is no damping material inside.
In a reasonable dampened enclosure you would also not measure those as strong.
Best way to find the difference, just simply by plugging the port and measure nearfield and look and the waterfall diagrams.
Not impressed by these speakers at all. Looking at the waveguides they most certainly could have made the directivty so much better. Just a bad implementation overal. F3 of 66Hz is also nothing to be proud of from a 6,5inch woofer.
Actual real world experience. I have Revel F30 speakers (known for being pretty flat) in a treated dedicated listening room (first and second reflection points as well as front and back wall treatments). I've had these speakers for years and while the midrange and bass is great, the speakers are dead in the room. High frequency details suffer making the speakers sound dead with an emphasis on midrange. I got a great deal on some Martin Logan motion 40i with the AMT tweeter and decided to give them a shot. They sound absolutely incredible in my room with my gear (Levinson/Squeezbox running async into Arcam RDAC). Songs that had sibilance with the Revels are smooth on the ML yet retain a level of detail the Revel Aluminum domes could not achieve. I know the model 40i is last generation but they have the same sound signature as the new series. Just letting you know, while measurements can indicate how a speaker might sound it does not necessarily mean the speaker will sound bad in it's environment. I've heard B&W's sound shrill in some rooms and absolutely amazing in others with the difference being set-up and treatment.
The first albums of Norah Jones are considered audiophile.
The larger one looks like it not only has a larger wave guide, but they actually did some sort of computer modeling to come up with that shape instead of just using a generic shape on the small one.
I emailed MartinLogan a while ago about there sensitivity, here is their response:
For floor standing ESL speakers:
These are measured from approximately 3.2 meters back, with the speaker placed in a parking lot, and with the speaker toed in per the instructions. The microphone is placed at the same position as an optimum listeners ear would be placed.
We then compensate the SPL measurement by the distance to calculate an equivalent 2.83V @ 1 meter reading.
The Average SPL is calculated by averaging the measured SPL over the speakers rated frequency response window.
For non ESL speakers:
Very similar process and setup to the above, but these are measured in room, (a typical sized listening room, not an anechoic chamber) at around 2 meters back. We then perform similar compensations and calculations to get to the standardized 2.83V @ 1m specification.
Martin Logan measures their speakers in a car park and in a random room? If true, that is crazy. Totally unexpectable.
@@deneszoltan2160 It’s either doing ground-plane like that or using/building a large anechoic chamber, or a Klippel.
HOPE YOU ARE FEELING BETTER!!
First of all, I hope you fully recover soon.
It’s another great review from you, and I personally don’t like that boost in the higher frequencies (although I never heard those speakers in a room, so I’m trying to correlate with other speakers that I measure in my rooms, which may be different).
That being said, I’m not necessarily the biggest fan of a flat in room response (even in the mid/high frequencies).
I lean more towards the “BBC dip” kind of response, which incidentally is the kind of sound that you (and so many reviewers) praised about the Wharfedale Lintons.
Maybe I’m too sensitive in that presence region, but I find that kind of response curve to be more forgiving across a broader range of recordings (specially if there’s a bit of in-room roll-off of the higher frequencies.
But there are a few things to consider:
- While it might be more forgiving with harsh recordings, it also prevents other recordings from sounding as clear as they might.
- That behavior changes (from a perception point of view) with different volume levels, since our hearing gets “flatter” at higher volumes.
- Following the same train of thought, loudspeakers with “boosted” high and low frequencies might sound more engaging at lower volume levels, since they end up acting as a “loudness button” - although one that can never be turned off, making the listener “paying the price” for that at higher volumes.
- I have to go back to the “Circle of confusion”, since I find it near impossible that many recordings made over decades could sound as harsh in the studio where they we’re mixed as they do on flatter loudspeakers.
- It’s not entirely impossible for many of those recordings being mixed and mastered by sound engineers that were very famous, but with some hearing loss due to age and years of continuous excessive SPL.
- This all goes back to the lack of standards when tuning a mixing/mastering studio, and it’s well known that some sound engineers would require to change the EQ of the system.
While I have the upmost respect for the work of Dr. Floyd at Harman, and all the invaluable knowledge that it brought to the whole industry, I’m not sure that a part of it was imune to that circle of confusion! 😉
Someone had to choose the songs that made the study and the blind tests, and most importantly, they were likely chosen by listening to them on loudspeakers.
If the chosen loudspeakers were flat, I guess they impacted the song selection, acting as a reference to what makes a good / balanced recording.
If the reference loudspeakers had some sonic “character” (like elevated or reduced highs), would the music selection be the same, and thus the preference score? 😉
Those “experienced listeners” (audio reviewers, if I’m not mistaken) were very inconsistent in the results agains other groups of people.
But without trying to defend any of those groups, I have my own favorite “reference” recordings, and if I’m trying to make an assessment of how a loudspeaker performs (to my taste), I need to use those references.
This happens to almost everyone who really loves music and good sound (at least to our own ears and taste), which also includes you. 😉
I don’t mean this in a negative way (far from it), and I’m only reflecting my own feelings (gathered over many years) regarding what constitute a “reference sounding recording” for each person.
I tend to think that audio reviewers often tried to find the recordings that made a particular loudspeaker sound their best, in order to avoid saying too many bad things about a product/brand, since the money shouldn’t stop flowing into the marketing department.
While there’s a lot of truth to that (more in the old days, but it still happens today on somehow different basis), using the same recordings to make comparisons is more consistent, but there’s also a degree of bias towards the loudspeakers that sound the best with _those_ tracks. 🙂
Only to add to the very complex topic of loudspeaker performance, target in-room response also changes with different sized rooms, so they end up being a starting point, but not an “one response fits all rooms” rule.
I see your measurements as an amazing resource, one that I come back often. 🙏
I tend to agree that a flatter on and off-axis response is something to be desired, but I’d probably use some slight EQ to tailor the response to my personal taste (and maybe my room).
I don’t take subjective reviews seriously for the most part, but I found it very interesting to see that most subjective reviewers are very consistent on describing how the Wharfedale Linton sounds (no, I don’t have them nor I’m planning to buy them), which is curious, since they have the sort of design that was abandoned many decades ago (3 way, wide baffle, etc).
It seems to me that while they lack all the modern technologies of controlling dispersion / diffraction, they seem to be consistent on how they present sound (unlike many modern designs).
Do you have a reasoning why that seems to be the case?
Thank you, and sorry for the long text (this would be fast if we were talking). 🙂
Flat in room response is terrible. Do not confuse it with flat ANECHOIC response. Watch this video:
m.ruclips.net/video/_tnWB8Rl0Ms/видео.html
Some HQ boost can compensate hearnig loss when becoming older
Just discovered this channel and as an engineer loving this review approach! Was thinking about moving from B&W DM602s to the B100s but now not so sure…
After comparing these in room to the kef r3 meta, I ended up keeping these. To me they just sound better. But I have an imperfect room, with imperfect speakers, being driven by an imperfect amp, through imperfect wires, to my imperfect ears.
Hahaha I am very very new in fact still in the middle of building my first set up but the Kef 3 Meta is one that I was looking at for my next pair of left right channel but also these as well surprised that you like these better
Great point about reviewers claiming a bright speaker has detail, very different thing. From my experience tweeters with less moving mass have an easier time recreating the harmonic structure of high-frequency waveforms. Most tweeters have too much mass and the edges of the structure are rounded off. A Ribbon or an Electrostat has the advantage for "detail" or "resolution".
But is that confirmed anywhere with measurements?
To be fair, I do generally like speakers with (true) ribbon or air motion transformers (AMT) better as well.
But I can't know if that's because ribbon/AMT actually provide more detail, or if those speakers with such tweeters are generally tuned with a slightly boosted high end, because people expect to hear it.
The ear is probably still the best way to confirm that. Common measurements to look for would be extended frequency response like out to 40 or 50 kilohertz, waterfall graph, distortion. Otherwise comparing the input and output through an oscilloscope. In Erin's more recent reviews The Wharfedale and ELAC have AMTs that are not boosted.
You also have to consider what happens in different rooms. Heavily damped rooms will cause greater high frequency droop so they can also be catering to users that may have more damped rooms.
Great review. Overall a good speaker for fans of high frequency boost. There are a lot of people in that camp.
But overall it shows that if Emotiva could build a decent looking speaker they would have a giant killer on their hands.
love the look of my B1+ but yeah its not for everyone... those martin logan in room response are just ugly imo at that price there is plenty better speakers (buchardt S400 are also better looking for me)
The Emotiva's problem isn't just looks, it's the terrible enclosures they used.
So, for us old fellas with HF hearing loss, are we good to go with these?! My wife and I are always having difficulty with dialog intelligibility. Maybe we need some sibilance? Also, our family room in which our system resides, is very well damped, with full carpeting and furniture, and drapes.
Which model of the crinacle iems do you consider to be reference grade?
I learned this "detailed" lesson the hard way. I have the tower version of these. I noticed the high frequencies were starting to annoy me right after I threw the shipping boxes away a few weeks after purchase. Unfortunately, that means my options to return or exchange are probably gone. Lucky me, -- but you live; you learn.
There is nothing wrong with your speakers. Unfortunately, a lot of recordings have high frequency boost to account for the fact that most listeners use earbuds. If you most listen to this kind of music, you might consider an integrated amp with a tube front end (pre-amp) stage and solid state output.
You can always EQ those high ends to your taste.
I never throw away the boxes of any equipment I buy. Even if I intend to keep the equipment I might move to a new home or send the equipment to a relative at some point in the future.
Try pointing the speakers straight ahead instead of toeing them in. The off-axis high frequency response is always lower.
Thanks as always! Question- what if we want some airiness but w/o any added sibilance? What Hz range would you boost?
>10kHz. I would recommend using a parametric EQ and set the frequency to 20 kHz with a Q of 1.0 and slowly bring that up until you get the desired effect without too much of an unnatural sound.
Thank you, Erin. Get well soon buddy! I have the 15i's and love them. They aren't sylabant. I am disappointed to learn that the new versions are not a step forward.😢
I had the Motion 35xt and now the new B100. They are in no way a step backwards. I would not put much stock into these graphs. Do we know the true measurements of his room and whether it is truly flat. I have been a professional Audio Engineer and mix/ master over 300 tracks per year! In my studio I use Barefoot MM27 speakers and I spent close to $100,000 in sound treatment and design for my control room alone to make sure it was as flat as possible. True Anechoic chambers that are perfectly flat can cost into the millions! Either way, I daily mix on the what are widely considered to be some of the flattest speakers ever made in a painstakingly flat room and believe me you do NOT want to listen to flat speakers for enjoyment. Flat speakers are meant to show every flaw, mistake, and bad frequency for the purpose of fixing them. I have the B100s in my bedroom and they are without a doubt the Clearest, prettiest sounding bookshelf speakers I’ve ever heard, and I’ve heard a lot!
@@audiogoldproductions4358 I am glad to hear from you. Erin seems to be the only reviewer that doesn't like these new ML speakers. He has a klippel scanner which supposedly gives a very accurate frequency response measurement that is not affected by the room. Please tell me a little more on how the 35i compares to your B100? Thanks
@@scottbennett3119 I’ve been loving the B100’s they are definitely clearer and more detailed than the 35xt but the 35xt is still a great speaker as well. I would not agree with them being harsh or overly bright in anyway.
@@scottbennett3119 also while the Klippel is a very pricey unit, the Klippel measurement system Erin uses is something like $90,000. It's designed to measure the speakers in a near field situation so the room doesn't necessarily need to be perfect but the issue is it's "predicted" response in a real room has too many variables to be accurate. I would rather spend $90,000 on a more perfect room! Without seeing it or better yet hearing it I can’t trust any graphs by any reviewers. Please understand this is not a knock on Erin, this is more just a statement on RUclips reviews and the idea of judging speakers by graphs in general. Speakers should based on sound, which can only be done by our ears, not by graphs.
@@audiogoldproductions4358 I agree with you on the klippel. I compared other reviewers in-room response of these speakers and the klippel estamated in-room. The klippel appears to be exaggerated in many parts of the spectrum, especially the top end. Thanks for sharing all the info and your experience with the B100. I feel much better about these speakers now.
I’ve had the B100 and C10 for about 60 days auditioning and comparing with the SVS Ultra center. When asking reputable sellers which one is brighter they always said SVS Ultra cause of the aluminum dome tweeter.. I heard the complete opposite. Especially at higher volumes for home theater content and two channel listening. Glad you confirmed this!!! Need more reviewers like you.
I have the SVS Ultra on hand. They are definitely not as bright as the ML I tested here. Those dealers are using old ways of thinking if they are referring to the materials used as a means to determine how a speaker will sound.
On your website for the XT B100 you have the same chart 2 times for Harmonic Distortion at -86dB. the -96dB @ 1m is missing.
Thanks so much, Erin. I trust your ears more than any other reviewer's. I sometimes wonder if they suffer from some hearing loss, because so many of them prefer a boosted upper frequency!
I know of some reviewers who have been reviewing speakers for quite awhile, they use the term "detailed" to express a speakers ability to pinpoint instruments and reproduce its sound. These speakers weakness appears to be a crossover bump at 900 Hz or so. But between that and 10k it looks pretty good to me.
You clearly have a different definition than I do. But that’s exactly what I’m doing here: giving you my definition, and showing you objective data on how I determine that. These absolutely sound bright to my ears. In my experience, the guys who referred to things as detailed and high resolution Can easily be shown that those same speakers have boost of trouble. It really is that simple. 😀
Hope you feel better man.
That is a HUGE first harmonic resonance from the vent. Only way to fix that is to make physical changes to the speaker, e.g. change the location of the vent's internal opening inside the box.
Probably a lack of damping material inside the enclosure. I also suspect ML decided to save money by reusing old crossovers from previous generations like Klipsch likes to do.
Erin you need to do a video that correlates "Age" vs "HF hearing loss". IMO there's a scientific reason why all the old timers prefer "detailed" speakers lol.
Interestingly enough, many people who reply here comment that they have tinnitus and that speakers with boosted treble are terrible to listen to.
@ErinsAudioCorner yeah that would do it! Luckily, I can still hear up to 16-17khz at nearly 40 years old. The bump above 10khz would drive me nuts, though! But in all seriousness, have you ever noticed how the older crowd 50+ tends to love those "bright" speakers? I think there's a very obvious scientific reason for that 🤔.
Great visualization of the enclosure resonances!
These speakers make the case for creating "Martin Logan High End Speaker Cables" (with a 100uH inductor in line)... lol :-)
Thanks so much, Aaron. Bringing the facts to flowery terminology needs to happen. I'm tired of audiophile descriptions that sound pompous sommelier wine tasting notes. Learn your frequencies folks, how they sound and what macro and micro dynamics really mean.
And no, you don't sound egotistical. You just sound well versed and intelligent about the topic you are covering.
Thank you.
For B100 money, I got a pair of Lintons. No regrets. I think Martin Logan has some branding and overall marketing issues. Their exposure on the mainstream audio review channels has been limited at best, nonexistent at worst. Thanks Erin for taking the time, especially while you’re sick, to share your thoughts on this speaker. I appreciate your steadfast attention to detail and objectivity. It’s much appreciated in the sea of [entertaining reviewers]. Great job with your channel!
I understand you, even 10 years ago i would. but as with some Klipsh speakers just don't point them at your ear. I have small Dali speakers in my bedroom and the manual says they should fire straight ahead witch means they are on the bright side. I ended towing them in slightly as they are close to the wall.
Its a shame these don't perform better out of the box as the design is beautiful, just like the last generation, but much more modern. EQ could fix some of the issues of course and these would perform differently in every room, but agree with Erin its far preferable to have something more neutral out of the box.
I recently acquired a pair of Martin Logan electrostat hybrids which I picked up a few months ago used. Bucket list speaker I just had to try. Still getting to know them but so far sound very good...though much different than dynamic/cone speakers. Use them in my theater as I got a great deal on them with the matching center for $700. From what I understand they dont measure that well but they sound good to me.
I've also got some Jamo C95 which are also very sibilant. I wasnt aware of when I first purchased them as I wasnt able to listen to them first. TBH I bought them based on AR youtube review as well as their stunning WAF friendly looks and clearance price of $400 a pair. Despite their sibilance and slight midrange scoop/bbc dip they still sound very good overall, particularly for home theater. In a carpeted room or the high frequency hearing loss many have the extra treble energy might be a lot less noticeable. Having vinyl plank floors now I prefer the more neutral Heco 700s. Picked these up a few weeks ago on a good sale and these are my main living room speakers for music, tv/movies and youtube. Perform well and look pretty nice. I think they sound better than the Jamos being less sibilant and with deeper bass. But they were also $200+ more costly.
My budge theater sub-a Klipsch 12" sub I paid $200 for doesnt compete with subs 2-4 times its price like SVS etc but wow does it sound phenomenal in my 15x15 home theater. I know the SVS does everything better but this this thing is just so good for a measley $200 its hard to justify buying more. It'll scare the crap out of you with just about any movie-even at half volume!
I have Monitor Audio Bronze 100s in the bedroom which are excellent too. Gorgeous design, great sound and were priced very reasonably at $450 a pair on sale. In the studio I really enjoy the Kali LP6v2-bass is phenomenal, midrange is clear and like the wide dispersion. Curious about maybe adding some IN5/8s at some point. If I could find a good deal on an used Atmos receiver with preouts Id use the Kalis for the front 3 in a surround setup. If Kali made a slightly more solid cabinet with better bracing for under 1000 a pair they would be the best choice available. As is they perform excellent but are hard to incorporate in anything beyond a 2.0/2.1 setup.
Ive been a music lover, live mixer and audio engineer for over 20 years yet I still am able to find something to like about almost anything. The one exception is soundbars. Ive never heard one I find acceptabe though I'm sure if you spend a few thousand theyre not better. Still, they dont compete with any decent pair of bookshelves under $300 and a $200 receiver. I also dont care for earbuds or extended use of headphones.
Please review the XT F100s!
If you thinking of buying them go for it, they're amazing!
I disagree that when most people (or reviewers) say a speaker is "detailed" that they mean it has a high frequency boost, or is detailed only in the high frequency. Detail can occur at all frequencies, and in fact is most noticeable in the mid to upper mids, since that is where most music notes occur. Now it may be that because these speakers have an the Martin Logan Folded Motion Tweeter (instead of the traditional dome tweeter) that they have an above average resolving power and output in the high frequencies, but I don't think that is the only reason why someone calls a speaker system "detailed." If it were too bright, they would say that, and detailed should be regarded as a compliment and not a derogatory term. Obviously, Erin doesn't think speakers should be an accurate playback of the source material (which is often too bright), and I noticed in previous videos that he doesn't really regard jazz as "real" music, just a bunch of sounds to evaluate frequency response of a speaker.
Obviously I disagree with everything you’ve said. But you’ve made up your mind about me so I’m not sure there’s any point in discussing my goals as a reviewer. Enjoy your speakers. I’m not here to tell you not to.
@@ErinsAudioCorner This is second video of yours that I watched, and both times you dismiss jazz and classical music as basically a bunch of test tones (which is ironic since your reviews contain more test tone measurements than just about all other reviews on RUclips). Before dismissing that kind of music, you should expand your mind and your music education to explore some classical music (I would recommend JS Bach or other Baroque composers) and also some jazz, especially those the ECM label. Lately, your listening room may be too bright, or maybe you should not toe-in speaker with tweeters like the ones on the Martin Logan's, and instead point the speakers only very slightly toed-in, to so the treble is not so on-axis and so harsh.
My speakers are PSB Synchrony 2's that I purchased quite awhile ago. I have no connection with ML and don't own them, but any speaker with ribbon tweeters is going to be a bit bright directly on-axis compared to a dome tweeter.
@@Mark-rw3kw I’ve never dismissed jazz as test tones (by the way, I have often cited music as tones, not dismissed any of it for that reason). I don’t listen to jazz regularly. Not sure why that should offend anyone.
@@ErinsAudioCorner I am not offended, just don't agree and I think your musical tastes could benefit from some music education. Also, I tried out the Phil Collings track you recommended on another video (listened from Tidal Hi-res) and I though it was terrible. Pretty good instrumentals (apparently added in the remastering process) but Phil's voice was so much less prominent than it was in the original recording that I thought the track was poor.
The point I am making (and I made previously) is that many current recordings and remasterings are horrible because they appeal the to least common denominator of listening equipment, which are cheap earbuds or cheap headphones, or computer speakers, etc. So any accurate speaker is bound to sound horrible on these kind of recordings. Even I will admit that best solution (although not practical) is to have two different listening systems, one for accurate recordings, and one for recordings that are too hot and need to be toned down.
@Mark-rw3kw As someone who does listen to plenty of Jazz and Classical, as well as popular music: comments like yours are exactly what pushes people away from trying genres like Jazz and Classical.
Respectfully, your comments come off as extremely pretentious and give the impression that you, yourself are the one whose musical horizons need to be expanded.
The fact that you dismiss the majority of modern popular recording as being made to "appeal to the lowest common denominator of listening equipment" makes your ignorance quite obvious.
Thank you for the review.
I have the previous ones, the motion 35xti, and I find them fatiguing + harsh sometimes. Sometimes they're very enjoyable but I prefer a speaker that's NEVER fatiguing. I'm trying to figure out what to switch to.
Lintons
Micca RB42s
Wharfedale EVO series. AMT but not harsh.
Do you think your observation will also be applicable to the tower, F200 or 100?
I can’t say for certain but I’d be willing to bet the same.
Get well soon Erin 🙏, I thought the COVID is behind us😮.
Well, I’m glad I went with the Kef R3 instead!!
Was your decision to go with the R3 over the B100 solely based on this review. ?
@@stomon01 no, I bought it before this review. I had the LS50 Meta before hand and loved it, but wanted it to handle higher output for a larger space. But the R3 and B100 were two I was considering from what I heard about their imaging and soundstage capability. From Andrew Robinson’s in-room measurements, it looked like the B100 was pretty linear, but this review shows different
@@chadlejeune9834 Thanks for your reply.
I was in the same boat as you. I wanted to upgrade my Monitor Audio Silver 100s, and after watching several reviews (Andrew Robinson among them) I whittled it down to the R3 Meta and B100. I also called more than half a dozen retailers to get their educated opinions on the two speakers, and every single one of them expressed a preference for the B100 over the R3 META. I’m not sure where you’re from, but I’m based in the UK where both speakers are the same price, in fact, the B100 is £5 cheaper. I went for the B100s, they are on order, so I should have them in a week or so.
@@stomon01 interesting! If you remember, please share what you’ve heard! As for the upgrade from the LS50 Metas to the R3 Metas, there was a noticeable step up in clarity and at moderate volumes and much better at higher volumes. The soundstage is also taller which was a shortcoming of the LS50. Otherwise very similar sound. Pinpoint accurate imaging. Very good layering and depth both in front and behind the speakers, but the width is not all that wide. However I am in a very wide room, so there’s no real side wall reflections
In ab/x trials, people pick the louder of two and one with a loudness curve applied. These will sell well.
Proper a/b trials should be done with no equalization ("loudness curve") applied, and all speakers should be adjusted to same volume.
How about an actual ABX with SPLs matched to as close as
@@Mishael_Agyei-Boamah how do you spl match an uneven frequency response? Something's always going to be softer or louder at some point, and depending on the song, people will flip flop
@@scotth6814 he means that the "loudness curve" is built into the frequency response of the speaker, hence generally people will pick this as being "better"
Get well soon, Erin.
Hey Erin, thanks for the reviews. I was seriously considering buying a pair of the XT B100 bookshelf speakers as they sounded quite good in a local audio showroom. Believe it or not I have to get rid of my Klipsch Heresy speakers as they are too large for the space we have now. I would like to get a pair of bookshelf speakers (no larger than these ML XT B100 speakers and no higher in price than these too). I'll be using a my 100 watt amp. Any great suggestions for bookshelf speakers in this price range and size would be greatly appreciated. Also, can I get away with NOT using a subwoofer with a great pair of bookshelf speakers? I do have a subwoofer that is paired with a soundbar on my TV using bluetooth but it also has a input with a mini jack. I wonder if I can also use that subwoofer with a pair of bookshelf speakers when I'm not using it with the TV.
So I am a bit confused. I have a couple of Master CDs I use to test speakers for what I always referred to as "detail or resolution". The main test is on track 5 of the "LA 4's Going home CD. There is a triangle or chime that you can hear in the piece several times. It is very faint(delicate) but definitely there. After listening to countless "high resolution speakers" I have only been able to hear it on my apogee ribbons, which I sadly sold. To a lesser degree on some custom Salks with a big HEIL driver. And also to a lesser degree on some of the new Quad Revella's which I am evaluating now. On most speakers you can't hear it at all, even with your ear next to the speaker. So what am I actually listening to when it comes to this micro detail of the triangle? Thanks for helping me understand better!
Maybe the word you are looking for is monotonic for those curves. Flat is constant, linear is monotonic without fluctuations.
Good information
Great job to both of U and thnx much!! So I got the R11s after your review. They are on their way tougether with front center and 3-6 ceiling speakers for stereo and 7/9.x system. So which AV receiver is it??
More music but but but… AV can’t be bad after all this $$$$
Wow, so how is everything and what did you end up getting for reciever!? Let me guess either Marantz 50 or ...sony 7000? Idk
I'm playing Norah Jones "Waiting" on my Genelec 8030Bs at my desk, and the piano solo in the middle sounds as smooth and soft as butter. I would think that having that passage being sibilant would ruin the mood of the song, which is pretty mellow.
@ErinsAudioCorner One of the reasons that piano solo on 'Waiting' is so sharp is because there's a glockenspiel (bells) part doubling the solo.
Listening to a person (wifey) speak in the flesh is my sibilance reference.
Just be careful with those that are completely indoctrinated to measurement protocols when it comes to speakers. Most of the best measured sound dead and lifeless, absolutely crushed by overly complex crossovers aimed at flattening frequency response and extending bass response. They just choke the life out of the speakers but design them for flattering measurements.
I’ve heard these speakers and they sound truly excellent and nothing like what he describes.
So true
Very true
The on axis frequency response of a speaker may look good but the rest of the data would expose all those other issues. Just a frequency response graph doesn't really tell the whole story..which is one of the reasons Erin's reviews are so good.
If you liked this speaker you should take note of all the data & look for it in future speaker purchases. I had this speaker for about a month..it was a little too bright for me. But everyone has different preferences..nothing wrong with that. Just wish this video came out before I tried them. I would have known they don't jive with my tastes.
So if the resonance moves down in frequency the bigger the cabinet is, could you give an educated guess where you would see that resonance in the Motion XT F200 if it was still there in that model ?
Sorry I missed the live review ❤❤
Wow, very surprised at these results after seeing so many rave reviews! So grateful for your contribution to this hobby Erin! With today's technology, it's really hard to comprehend how these speaker companies can make so many mistakes and still charge the prices they do. Cabinet resonance? Really Martin Logan?
I’m starting to think all these old reviewers have cloth ears and need a high Frequency boost ..
Erin’s channel is brilliant at sorting through the bs marketing campaigns, and giving you the facts.
I just bought the Motion F20 and let me tell you they are freaking amazing! I don't care for the measurements. I do care about the way they sound and I'm defo not disappointed.
Great review as usual,👍💯
Any large and experienced company like ML probably does market research, and it isn't going to design a speaker that has a sound that won't sell, or (since not a lot of people can still buy from a showroom) has a sound that will produce a lot of returns to Amazon or another online vendor. So, it's probably safe to say ML's customers, in general, probably will like the high end boost, at least for as long as the typical free return period. One reason for that may be a lot of people who are experienced enough to be in the market for speakers from a company with audiophile name recognition might have damaged their hearing by listening to overly loud music at concerts and clubs, and need the HF boost to hear any HF content at all when at home, where general sound pressure levels have to be lower.
do ML's customers also like strong undamped port resonances and driver resonances? These speakers are an engineering joke for $1,200-$1,600.
I think ML customers buy the speakers to listen to music and also for HT. Instead of making silly observations like yourself. ML is an engineering joke? You need to find a new hobby
Thanks Erin!! great info!!
Glad it was helpful!
If something performs better than this for cheaper... It is kind of terrible for its category, although for a layperson who does not discriminate very well between speakers and just needs to be able to hear it, you could say it's not too bad.
Personally feel I love a u shaped sound signature. Just suck out the midrange. Makes thing jam. But I would never call them detailed. Detail for me has always been how much information I can gleam from the music. And that includes midrange. So these reviewers callings boosted high range “detail” always worked me.
I’ve got a pair of ML’s prior iteration of the B10 (the Motion 35XTi). Its response looks identical except for that HF rise (a result of the new wave guide). But, yeah, there’s the exact same enclosure resonance at ~800Hz. Here’s a guess: with the angled top to the enclosure, the whole box is basically structured like a horn, so… they’ve gotta know what they’re doing, right? Seems like a deliberate design decision. As for the HF rise, I have no idea other than to think that maybe they’re playing nice to V-curve junkies?
It’s definitely a speaker with a voice of its own. I’ve experimented a lot with EQ, and anything without that upper-midrange resonance sounds dull, flat, and lifeless. That resonance is either a “stylish quirk” or a “serious flaw,” depending on your preference.
I have the Motion 60XT's. I think ML is doing something similar to what JBL did with their newer HDI and Studio 600 lines, a slight HF rise. That's where speakers often get that "presence" that reviewers talk about. Some assume that those frequencies make a speaker sound harsh, but those harsh frequencies are much lower in the response curve. Cabinet resonance is something that can be intentional. They measure prototypes and tune accordingly, and sometimes too much internal dampening can make a speaker sound worse, not better. Yamaha's flagship tower speakers are tuned to have intentional resonances and peaks, even telling reviewers to quote them directly with that statement. Ultimately it's up to the listener to decide if they appreciate or hate those design choices.
I have listened to the new of ML F200's and I'm impressed with the improvements they have made with their non-electrostat line. Love my Motion 60XT's but I may be adding to my speaker collection.
Thank you, for your review! I see that in the background you have LPs of
Tears for Fear
Dire Strait
Michael Jackson
Please let us know what are the other LPs you have on the wall behind you?
What happen if you change your amplifier?? Do you get the same result??
Yes.
I suspect they tried to cut costs by reusing the old crossover from previous Motion XT bookshelves. Something is clearly not right with the crossover. I also question how much damping material are inside of these. I hope they didnt save 5 cents in damping material by forgoing it completely, because measurements seem to suggest it. I might keep my eyes peeled for a used pair I can try to fix, because I love the AMT tweeters ML uses but these new bookshelf models are clearly a half-baked affair. Oddly enough, other measuremenrs I have seen of the B100's dont show the tilted up high frsquencies, just the messy bottom end. Strange that the measurements look so different.
Can't wait to see your review of JBL 4329. Amir provided data for that speaker but still wants to see yours as you are the only reviewer who provide compression testing data. And u even made it better with the distance and SPL matrix ❤❤
I'm considering a HT setup with the XT F100 and the XT C100. what would be better for surrounds? B100 or b10? I will be hanging them on the back wall about 4 or 5 feet above ear level. I also notice the MP10 that angle down, that seems like it would be good for my room. would that be even better than the b100 or b10?
Out of the two, B 10. Although, I wasn’t particularly happy with either. Still, I think the B10 is the better speaker in my personal experience and it’s about $200 cheaper each.
And as a cheap plug, if you are planning on purchasing them, please consider using the below affiliate link, which would help me out, but not cost you any extra.
howl.me/ckjJnM4aqLe
@@ErinsAudioCorner Thank you so much for the quick reply. after seeing this review it does seem the B10's would be better. I figured it wouldn't matter as much since it was just for surrounds. Since you weren't overly impressed with either, would you have a different recommendation? I have no experience with higher end audio. my first set of speakers was a Kenwood HT in a box. I upgraded those to a Bose Acoustimass, then nearly 15 years ago I upgraded those to the Klipsch Icon W series. I have the WF-35, WC24, and WS24. To me, they sounded better than the Bose and are currently the best speakers I've heard. I did no research on them until a couple of years ago and learned how great that are NOT. LOL. I want something that is going to be great and last me another 15 years. The Martin Logans xt F100's are in the upper end of what I'm willing to spend and seem to impress everyone that hears them. I assumed if I went with those, I should match the rest, hence looking at the b100/b10. I also considered the Polk R700's and their Center and surrounds. Anyway, I appreciate your feed back. when I decide to pull the trigger I'll use your link. thanks!
I've seen reviews talking about "detail" and such, but the two that took measurement showed a fairly flat response without the dramatic rise. I'm ignorant to all this wizardry. Is there something different with how they use REW to measure that wouldn't pick up the same results you saw?
They are probably showing *In-Room* measurements. I have a video about why flat in-room measurements are not good: ruclips.net/video/_tnWB8Rl0Ms/видео.html
Thanks for the information. Between that video and your center channel video my head is spinning. Thanks for the education.
Debunker 👍
Alice in chains MTV live trust me ! 💣 azz Reccording best MTV Live ' ever ! As always Thanks For the video '
I would think that reviewers talking about detail and accuracy are touching on the low distortion character of the speaker. As we saw in your graph here these speakers are also rather low distortion. I feel we should give reviewers more credit, that if the highs were boosted they would call it bright rather than detailed. But also worth noting is that the highs are upper harmonics of the mids and lows, so an elevated trebble would accentuate the harmonic character of instruments in a way which may seem realer than real. For example a clarinet and a piano can play the same note(fundamental) but sound totally different from the harmonic character of the instruments resonance. So an elevated high creating clarity isn’t a misconception but rather an expansion of the dynamic range of the harmonic character. Essentially the opposite of compression. Compression and distortion being the norm in the ever so falable art and science of sound reproduction. Overshooting the fundamental, or the overtones relative to each other may have some very interesting psychoacoustic perceptual advantages that are worth exploring as we unravel the secrets of sound.
The methodologies employed in the types of DSP which favor speech intelligibility may give some insights into whether the harmonics in a specific audio band that are revealed by a bright speaker may aptly be referred to as clarity and detail. But as initially mentioned, I think the distortion is probably playing a key role in this sentiment expressed by reviewers.
Anyway good stuff. I have a pair of speakers I’d like to suggest you klipple, what town are you in, maybe I can find a local pair for you to pickup on the cheap. Mailing a sample speaker is a bit too far gone budget wise.
No, Erin is already giving too much credit to the large RUclips reviewers (and print reviewers, for that matter) -- their main agenda is not to accurately inform and educate, that is for sure...
@@tylerrynberg no I’m right and you’re wrong. Ha ha ha let us not fall into a tribalism of having prejudices towards groups of reviewers or their ideologies, prejudice is to pre-judge, as men of science we must fight these tendencies towards bias, even from Or especially with sources that have proven themselves to be of a certain character in the past.
@@SwirlingDragonMist what are you talking about? Pre-Judge? I'm commenting based on over two decades of experience reading/watching audio reviewers. It is quite clear that some of these actors are only concerned with monetizing content and not achieving better sound for everyone.
Well said. . I find it interesting that the person who replied to your comment was unwilling or unable to discuss the specific points you outlined, instead opting to ordain Erin as the messiah of speaker reviews, who's single endeavour is to save us all from the duplicitous reviewers who gave the B100's a favourable rating.
@@stomon01 I appreciate you taking the time to express the sentiment. I don’t want to impart any negative vibes towards the other guy. But yeah thanks man, I found your thoughtful extension of kindness very comforting.
The blue bookshelf speaker behind you…is that the new Philharmonic monitor?
It is.
Is it a snake, is it rain or is it a leaking tire,maybe bacon,and that is mid and treble detail. Exactly right.
The ELAC Vela 403s, with a much better AMT driver, have detail with no high frequency boost.
Why didn't you measure phase distortion?
I'd question if the high frequency non-linearity you worry about is audible or even measureable in-room, when you add comb filtering into the mix. I would probably target 1/3 octave averaged EQ above the bass region. A simple high-frequency shelf should be perfectly adequate in this case.
I wonder if Martin Logan was targeting a "normal" listening volume less than 80dB, where it makes sense to boost low and high frequencies. This is similar to dynamic volume systems like Audyssey Dynamic EQ, but obviously without the "dynamic" part.
It’s absolutely audible. I heard it.
Comb filtering isn’t a phenomena that matters in this context. Not unless we are talking phased arrays. And we aren’t here.
@@ErinsAudioCorner What did you hear after applying a high-frequency shelf to bring it closer to neutral?
@@ErinsAudioCorner Comb filtering comes from the room and will create hundreds or thousands of peaks and nulls in the high frequencies.
Hundreds of thousands? Look man I understand what you’re trying to say but you have to be practical about it. If you are saying that there are hundreds of thousand comb filters then the question is are you hearing those and how? The truth is you are not. What you are hearing is boundary reinforcement on the low endand direct and reflected sound on the high end. Your ears adapt to situations very well. You gotta think about this practically. If the comb filtering was as bad as you would say then you would never have any idea of where any sound was ever coming from in any space that wasn’t outside.
Also, the HF is boosted. Objectively, this is proven. So compared to neutral speakers this isn’t neutral. That’s the beauty of objective data. You can always reference it to something.
@@ErinsAudioCorner My entire point is the comb filtering is not audible. At what point does it become audible? If you can see it at 1/12 octave smoothing or 1/3 octave smoothing? I use 1/3 octave above the Schroeder frequency with good results.
So is this a real 'ribbon' tweeter (like the Quad bookshelves which absolutely need to be reviewed sometime) or an AMT (air motion transformer, like Emotiva has)?
It is an AMT.
@@marct9587 In that case I don't see any reason except looks to not get the Emotiva bookshelves.
Do yo get the opportunity to make a review about Martin Logan Motion XT F200 at some point? :)
Probably not.
Okay thank you for response.@@ErinsAudioCorner
When a song is detailed, does that mean that the song has additional high frequency boost compared to a neutral song ?
Two different things. Good detail in a quality recording just means it was captured, mixed, and mastered properly... it's a window to the source. These speakers, however, add their own coloration to the sound.
I bought these when they debuted & really wanted to like them. Initially i was impressed with the tweeter. Few songs later and i ran out of PEQ tabs trying to tame it too my liking. Damn shame. Tweeter had so much potential but ML just didnt incorporate everything together correctly. Very unbalanced speaker/sound.
I totally get why some people like this speaker..but i relate more with the people who hated it.
I’ve watched loads of speaker reviews. And I’ve noticed they don’t specify whether the speakers are theatre or hi-fi? It’d be nice to mention that from the start. I’ve been looking for strictly $500-$1,000 range bookshelf’s for a couple months now….ask me how many speaker reviews I’ve watched that end up being not “home theatre” speakers 😮💨
As long as the speaker can perform at your volume level required on frequencies required, why does it matter if it's called home theatre speaker or not?
@@RennieAsh I agree with you. Some reviewers will claim “these speakers aren’t for home theatre or are for hi-if only”. So I do take into account opinions. Since I can’t listen to the speakers at Best Buy or rare home theatre stores.
I wonder why they didnt add a +/- 3db HF toggle switch in the back rather than forcing the HF rise onto listeners.
Because then
"it wouldn't be pure enough, and if people have to select curves it means we don't know how to tune speakers!"
@@RennieAsh well they are already showing that, so...
Thanks Erin.
I would expect a speaker with low delay to be called detailed while one smearing the audio with long time delay would be called muddy but that's just me...
Define "low" and "long" delay. Where is the breaking point for these two?
@@ErinsAudioCorner talking about time delay or decay for input response where speaker continues to resonate long after a signal is gone, you often provide a chart showing that. I don't remember scale used but when the response is smeared 1/2 way across the chart I would describe the sound as muddy as opposed to detailed. I may be using the wrong terms to describe it but that what I am trying to say. I equate clarity and detail although there may be some distinction?
How does a speaker add something that is not in the music? I can understand it if you say it hyper resolves sound. Which means the sound was already there.