Montis review

Rich said:

So what you are saying is that the Montis is a great speaker . . . as long as you are willing to fork over the dough for two subs and an Audyssey processor to make up for its shortfalls.

Click to expand...

Rich, this isn't about the quality of the Montis. Every speaker - Montis, Prodigy, Martin Logan, Wilson, MBL, etc. etc. etc. - will always exhibit frequency peaks and dips below the transition frequency of the room (depends on size, but typically 200-300Hz in normal listening rooms). These can be as large as 10+ dB and are the result of modal behavior which is directly affected by speaker and listener location within the room.

What jmschnur (and I, and many others) choose not to do is to allow the room to randomly EQ our systems. Instead, we strive for the best, most linear frequency response by a) sharing LF duties with sub or subs which are carefully placed and b) using PEQ or other room correction.

Have you ever used XTZ, Omnimic, REW or similar to measure FR (not to mention bass decay) in your room? If so, can you please share?

Ken........ I totaly concur with your response........BTW, I finally got my M-150's dropped off with Mark Obrien this week for 'M-180' conversion....I'll report back !

twich54 said:

Ken........ I totaly concur with your response........BTW, I finally got my M-150's dropped off with Mark Obrien this week for 'M-180' conversion....I'll report back !

Click to expand...

Very cool, Dave! Please do share your thoughts when you get 'em back.

RUR said:

Rich, this isn't about the quality of the Montis. Every speaker - Montis, Prodigy, Martin Logan, Wilson, MBL, etc. etc. etc. - will always exhibit frequency peaks and dips below the transition frequency of the room (depends on size, but typically 200-300Hz in normal listening rooms). These can be as large as 10+ dB and are the result of modal behavior which is directly affected by speaker and listener location within the room.

Click to expand...

Actually, my comments ARE about the quality of the Montis, because that is what most people are doing . . . buying a pair of high end speakers to play music in an average room. My room is heavily treated with acoustic treatments . . . bass traps in all corners and absorption behind the speakers. Even in a well-treated room, each speaker will have its own signature sound. My opinion is that ML's older model high end speakers like the Prodigy sound better, particularly in the lower midrange and upper bass, than their newer speakers. The newer speakers are more neutral and more coherent overall, but I'll still take the sound of a Prodigy any day on a male vocal, grand piano, or cello recording. I have heard both the Summits and the Prodigies in enough different systems and rooms (some of them quite large) to get a pretty good feel for the performance differences between these speakers without processing and without subs.

As I said above, I am not belittling the utility of a good processor to fix room modes. What I am saying is that if you are going to spend ten grand or more for a pair of speakers to listen to music in a two-channel stereo system, you shouldn't feel like you have to buy a high end processor and a pair of subs to get them to sound good.

RUR said:

Have you ever used XTZ, Omnimic, REW or similar to measure FR (not to mention bass decay) in your room? If so, can you please share?

Click to expand...

I have not. Although I do have a Meridian processor that I use for home theater use. My two channel goes direct from Wadia CD player to ARC Ref 3 Pre to Sanders Sound mono blocs to the Summits. Have measured basic freq. response, which was pretty flat, but not with any really high tech program.

Chacun a son gout


J

It's such a shame but the best way to describe nearly every piano recording on the Montis is as if it's played on a pianoforte of Beethoven's time

I am very lucky in that I have a wonderful Sohmer baby grand in a room near my listening room. The Sohmer is well tuned and in fine shape. Mozart's sonata in A sounds fantastic on it as it is played by my wife.

So does Uchida's version in my listening room with my Montis system. Perhaps the Uchida version is a bit better due to many factors including her skills.

I am confused by your comments about the Montis. Do you have one? How is it set up? Perhaps we can help with respect to setting up your room for listening to one of the better electrostats out there.


J

Rich said:

Actually, my comments ARE about the quality of the Montis, because that is what most people are doing . . . buying a pair of high end speakers to play music in an average room. My room is heavily treated with acoustic treatments . . . bass traps in all corners and absorption behind the speakers. Even in a well-treated room, each speaker will have its own signature sound. My opinion is that ML's older model high end speakers like the Prodigy sound better, particularly in the lower midrange and upper bass, than their newer speakers. The newer speakers are more neutral and more coherent overall, but I'll still take the sound of a Prodigy any day on a male vocal, grand piano, or cello recording. I have heard both the Summits and the Prodigies in enough different systems and rooms (some of them quite large) to get a pretty good feel for the performance differences between these speakers without processing and without subs..

Click to expand...

And that's fine, Rich. Subjective personal opinions are what they are. FWIW, my subjective personal opinion based upon experience with a variety of older ML's - both mine and others' - is very different. I would also point out that any opinions based upon hearing speakers:

• on different days (often separated by weeks/months/years)
• in different rooms with different acoustical responses
• at unknown but almost certainly different volume levels

are highly problematic and of little value in determining the true state of affairs.

As I said above, I am not belittling the utility of a good processor to fix room modes. What I am saying is that if you are going to spend ten grand or more for a pair of speakers to listen to music in a two-channel stereo system, you shouldn't feel like you have to buy a high end processor and a pair of subs to get them to sound good.

Click to expand...

And as I said in a prior post, "sound good" is a highly subjective and relative term. I'm sure they do sound "good" without subs/EQ. I'm equally sure they'll sound more "good" with them, assuming proper implementation.

I have not. Although I do have a Meridian processor that I use for home theater use. My two channel goes direct from Wadia CD player to ARC Ref 3 Pre to Sanders Sound mono blocs to the Summits. Have measured basic freq. response, which was pretty flat, but not with any really high tech program.

Click to expand...

Rich, whenever I read descriptions like "cellos sound thin" or missing "depth of tone", the very first place I look for an explanation is an accurately-measured frequency response. Without this most basic data, we're completely disarmed as we search for answers.

jmschnur said:

I am very lucky in that I have a wonderful Sohmer baby grand in a room near my listening room. The Sohmer is well tuned and in fine shape. Mozart's sonata in A sounds fantastic on it as it is played by my wife.

So does Uchida's version in my listening room with my Montis system. Perhaps the Uchida version is a bit better due to many factors including her skills.

I am confused by your comments about the Montis. Do you have one? How is it set up? Perhaps we can help with respect to setting up your room for listening to one of the better electrostats out there.


J

Click to expand...

Yes I have, of course they are still running in. They are quite far back from the rear wall, and I find the best bass setting -4 . One thing I haven't done yet is to spike them and place on a platform, rather than the carpet. Will that make a big difference ?

Actually some piano recordings like the early Stereophile ones ( eg Silverman ) sound quite good while rather dull-sounding on box speakers, perhaps because the MLs are better at revealing the acoustics.

I can add some commentary on how a speaker can sound different over time by using my Monoliths as an example.

These were the flagship speaker back in the 90's, and deservedly so, very impressive, as they fooled me into thinking a real grand piano was plying in a room, until I walked in on these beauties. I was blown away. Six years later (after my Sequels) , I owned a pair.

I've had these Monoliths in the same room for the past twelve years. the room was designed around them, and placement was carefully chosen and measured to optimize room interaction.

Over the dozen years, these speakers have steadily improved, and not because the fundamental technology or configuration has changed in any dramatic way, but because I've incrementally improved everything around and about the speakers I could.

- replaced passive crossovers with actives. Huge improvement
- Upgraded woofer to more modern one. Better bass but not stellar
- Went to DSP based speaker processors. super accurate time-alignment and phase match between panel and speaker improves cohesion.
- improved room acoustic treatments. Reduced high-frequency ringing problems.
- Upgraded panels and woofers. New panels have better high-end, strong mid-bass. New woofer optimized for 60 -400Hz range.
- Newer speaker processor (DBX 4800) to improve timing and speaker blending (especially new custom Center ch.)
- Massive room acoustics upgrade, huge impact on modal issues in mid-bass and bass frequencies, further reductions in HF ringing. Room supports 105dB SPL cleanly.
- Audyssey Pro room correction. Soundfield is now incredibly precise, on multichannel music and movies, sounds are located precisely inside or outside the speaker circle. Frequency balance is superb and low bass is tight and articulate.

And that's with the same basic speaker in the same basic room over a dozen years evolving into the best sounding system I've ever heard.

So any given model of speaker, whether MLs or other brands can be substantially improved by judicious use of room treatments and other techniques to affect its in-room performance.

Togil said:

Yes I have, of course they are still running in. They are quite far back from the rear wall, and I find the best bass setting -4 . One thing I haven't done yet is to spike them and place on a platform, rather than the carpet. Will that make a big difference ?

Actually some piano recordings like the early Stereophile ones ( eg Silverman ) sound quite good while rather dull-sounding on box speakers, perhaps because the MLs are better at revealing the acoustics.

Click to expand...

1. Speakers 4-5 feet from front all is a good starter, 2-3 feet from sides will work.
2. Flashlight trick for tilt in is a good start.
3. Spiking will help your bass
4. It turns out 100 hour breakin or more is needed . The mid bass should improve overtime .
5. Check your bass settings after breakin. -3 is about neutral.
6. I put GIK 244's behind the Montis. There are some companies in the UK that have similar. These helped in my. 16x14x8 foot room which has serious modes due to the 8x16 dimensions.

MLP should follow ML directions in the manual.

Of course I finished off with Audyssey xt 32 pro as Jon has in his system. However , I think you can go a long way with out digital correction .

Let us know how this sounds when you are done.

The Uchida Mozart 6 CD set is good listen if all is ok.






J

JonFo said:

So any given model of speaker, whether MLs or other brands can be substantially improved by judicious use of room treatments and other techniques to affect its in-room performance.

Click to expand...

Jonathan, given your experience with the Monoliths, I am curious what your thoughts are on the newer ML vs. older ML question. Have you heard some of the newer MLs (Summit and beyond), and if so, how would you compare their sound to some of the older larger MLs like the Prodigy and your Monoliths. Would you willingly trade your Monoliths for a new pair of Montis?