Dougster
Well-known member
Just a thought.. Very positive review of Montis in Tone Audio!!
Hmmmmm I think they've just arrived in UK too
cheers, Bruce
:music:
Hmmmmm I think they've just arrived in UK too
cheers, Bruce
:music:
Montis review!!
- Thread starter Dougster
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
jmschnur
Well-known member
Do you have the URL of the review? I woud very much like to read it.
roberto
Well-known member
Hola. Here it is http://tinyurl.com/7kyu4r9 Happy listening
Good review. It validates the benefits of using active crossovers and judicial use of LF EQ to blend the panel and woofer. Analog crossovers just can't compete IMHO.
Sound shaping with active elements looks like the future. Realtime room correction is next. Imagine if your "processor" could determine where you just sat down or how many people were in the room; and correct for the sound absorption and "steer" the sound field for changes in the room; on the fly! Soon.
jmschnur
Well-known member
I posted a similar review last week on ml web site.
Using audyssey xt 32 with the pro kit , I can effectively integrate the Montis into a 7.2 system. However proper integration with the two subs I have (descent I, jl 112 ) took some doing . xover is best at 40 to my ears despite the MultEQ program suggesting 80 hz. The Pro kit effectively handles the Montis in SACDs , Movies, and stereo. My Bryston 4 sst does a good job with these speakers. Significant upgrade from my Vantages.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Using audyssey xt 32 with the pro kit , I can effectively integrate the Montis into a 7.2 system. However proper integration with the two subs I have (descent I, jl 112 ) took some doing . xover is best at 40 to my ears despite the MultEQ program suggesting 80 hz. The Pro kit effectively handles the Montis in SACDs , Movies, and stereo. My Bryston 4 sst does a good job with these speakers. Significant upgrade from my Vantages.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Hocky
Well-known member
Audyssey doesn't have a default settings - it calculates the -3db point in FR and sets the crossover accordingly.
jmschnur
Well-known member
Xt32 with the pro kit also looks for best splice for integration .
Xt32 on its own suggested 40hz a first choice ( 3db point) Pro sugggested 80, 70, and then 40 with three other choices.
I listened to the Passos Carter CD and SACD . Using that as a guide , 40hz seemed at bit better for Ron Carter's plucking of the bass than the other higher choices.
My review on the ML website is with no EQ and no xover after 100 hours or so of break in.
XT32 with the Pro calibrations sounds a bit better.
It may well be that for HT , 80 hz is a better choice and that for stereo music , 40 hz is better.
We listen more to music than HT.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Xt32 on its own suggested 40hz a first choice ( 3db point) Pro sugggested 80, 70, and then 40 with three other choices.
I listened to the Passos Carter CD and SACD . Using that as a guide , 40hz seemed at bit better for Ron Carter's plucking of the bass than the other higher choices.
My review on the ML website is with no EQ and no xover after 100 hours or so of break in.
XT32 with the Pro calibrations sounds a bit better.
It may well be that for HT , 80 hz is a better choice and that for stereo music , 40 hz is better.
We listen more to music than HT.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Last edited:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
I will tell all of you this.
At this years RMAF, they had these puppies in a typical hotel room suite and they sounded, uh, sweet. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
No hint of any panel / bass module discontinuity that I heard. Unlike and despite all my efforts over some five years, with the Summits to close this gap in my room. And, this was in a room (without any room treatments) that would clearly excite bass anomalies.
Furthermore, when I was there, they were playing (undistorted) at obscene volume levels. I tend to agree with JD's closing conclusion, not based on my familiarity with the Spire, but intimate knowledge of the legacy Summit.
I almost doubted my switch to the MBL 116's but I am a happy camper due to the fact that the 116's seem to energize my room in a more coherent, musical fashion.
Based upon my twenty some years with ML, and owning four different ML speakers, there appears to be some real magic going on here.
GG
At this years RMAF, they had these puppies in a typical hotel room suite and they sounded, uh, sweet. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
No hint of any panel / bass module discontinuity that I heard. Unlike and despite all my efforts over some five years, with the Summits to close this gap in my room. And, this was in a room (without any room treatments) that would clearly excite bass anomalies.
Furthermore, when I was there, they were playing (undistorted) at obscene volume levels. I tend to agree with JD's closing conclusion, not based on my familiarity with the Spire, but intimate knowledge of the legacy Summit.
I almost doubted my switch to the MBL 116's but I am a happy camper due to the fact that the 116's seem to energize my room in a more coherent, musical fashion.
Based upon my twenty some years with ML, and owning four different ML speakers, there appears to be some real magic going on here.
GG
And it coincidentally picked the THX standard. The THX engineers picked 80 for a reason. And I indicated "most"...
Shoe
Well-known member
Gordon, you made the comment that you spent almost five years trying to close the gap between the panel and the bass discounity on your Summits Yet I thought that when the Sumitts debute, they were highly praised for significantly closing the gap. There were many post here on this forum that all but claim that whatever gap existed in past models were all but gone.
Therefore I am curious how wide was the gap from the older model to the Summits /X compare to the Montis? I find it interesting that every time a new model comes out there there are pepole who say that ML finally solved the integration issue. I just don't buy it. This comes from a current Summit owner, who has owned various models over a span of 25 years and never could detect an intergrate problem in the first place. Just my observations.
Therefore I am curious how wide was the gap from the older model to the Summits /X compare to the Montis? I find it interesting that every time a new model comes out there there are pepole who say that ML finally solved the integration issue. I just don't buy it. This comes from a current Summit owner, who has owned various models over a span of 25 years and never could detect an intergrate problem in the first place. Just my observations.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Hi Shoe,
I got very close but never reached the point where I thought it was seamless.
My sense is that it was my room.
I strongly suspect if I could have installed some bass traps in the corners of my room behind the speaker, that would have resolved the issue. Unfortunately that was and is not possible due to a gas stove in one corner and my equipment rack in the other.
I loved the Summits but decided to pursue other options with a sense of trepidation.
As you know, all rooms are different. Please don't take my comments as criticism of a great speaker but merely an observation based on my personal encounters. What matters the most is what you think.
Enjoy your Summits. They, along with the Spires, are exceptional transducers.
Best,
Gordon
PS: To answer your question regarding progress on the "blending" issue, the Summits were, in my previous house, a substantial improvement over the SL3's due mainly to the new panel design, powered woofers and crossover adjustments. Here's my sense. On a one to ten scale, ML was at a 9 or 9+ with the Summits. To their credit, they continue their efforts to further close what is admittedly a much smaller gap, which may not exist for some given their room and associated hardware.
I got very close but never reached the point where I thought it was seamless.
My sense is that it was my room.
I strongly suspect if I could have installed some bass traps in the corners of my room behind the speaker, that would have resolved the issue. Unfortunately that was and is not possible due to a gas stove in one corner and my equipment rack in the other.
I loved the Summits but decided to pursue other options with a sense of trepidation.
As you know, all rooms are different. Please don't take my comments as criticism of a great speaker but merely an observation based on my personal encounters. What matters the most is what you think.
Enjoy your Summits. They, along with the Spires, are exceptional transducers.
Best,
Gordon
PS: To answer your question regarding progress on the "blending" issue, the Summits were, in my previous house, a substantial improvement over the SL3's due mainly to the new panel design, powered woofers and crossover adjustments. Here's my sense. On a one to ten scale, ML was at a 9 or 9+ with the Summits. To their credit, they continue their efforts to further close what is admittedly a much smaller gap, which may not exist for some given their room and associated hardware.
Last edited:
