Montis review

Tone # 20 reviewed the Spire
Tone # 44 reviewed the Montis

The reviewer found the new xover leads to better blending between the panel and the woofer and thus much better overall performance than the spire. He has reviewed the Spire previously. It is quite a good review for the Montis.

I found more technical details in the Stereophile review ; however there was no comparison between the Spire and the Montis ; probabably because, as Gordon says, Stereophile had not reviewed the Spire.

I do believe ML advertises a good bit in Tone.

As I said, I was able to buy the Montis this winter at a ML approved retail outlet for much less than the MSRP of the Spire. Market dictates price. Now with these series of great reviews market price may well increase.


Joel

While I've not heard the Montis nor the Spire, I would expect a well executed DSP-based crossover could easily deliver a noticeable improvement in overall speaker performance.

So not surprised reviews of the newer model give it great praise. My only surprise is that it's taken ML this long to get on the bandwagon for more active speaker management, but kudos for joining the 21st century

Joel,

A bit of background.

Tone's editor is Jeff D., who used to post on this site. Reference "tonepub" for information.

He's a big ML fan and used to have (maybe still does) the CLX as one of his reference speakers.

He's probably the most educated (read experienced) in reviewing all the ML models and pinpointing differences thereof.

GG

It's a bit surprising that the biggest improvement in Montis over Spire should be in the crossover integration. Spire was know to be ML's best effort in that area and many times considered pretty seamless between drivers. It was what created the pressure to announce Summit-x as prior model was considered being inferior to the new cheaper model, Spire.
I found it very confusing when something new is being mentioned as great improvement over something else previously mentioned as near perfection. How perfectly can a boxed dynamic driver and electrostatic dipole driver be combined anyway considering their acoustic behavior?

Gordon,

Thanks . That puts his Montis review in perspective .


J

Gordon Gray said:

Joel,

A bit of background.

Tone's editor is Jeff D., . . .

He's probably the most educated (read experienced) in reviewing all the ML models and pinpointing differences thereof.

GG

Click to expand...

Judging from his posts here, he is also the least likely to mention anything negative about ML's products and most likely to push whatever their current marketing hype may be. I think MPS makes a great point. When the Spires came out, Lots of reviewers were raving about the excellent integration of woofers and panels, saying it was much better than the Summits (which had previously received raves for the same qualities compared to MLs previous speakers). Ken Kessler owned Summits and said the Spires had much better integration. So how many times can you noticeably improve the panel woofer integration? Or are the reviewers just focusing on that because that is ML's marketing gimmick for this particular speaker. After all, they have to at least try to justify a near 20% price increase over the prior model. The "better woofer panel integration" mantra is beginning to sound like a broken record to me.

MPS said:

... How perfectly can a boxed dynamic driver and electrostatic dipole driver be combined anyway considering their acoustic behavior?

Click to expand...

Like any speaker design, it's a series of compromises. But integration between the ESL and a dynamic woofer typically happens at or below the Schroeder frequency of most rooms (around 300Hz or so), therefore the behavior and response of the woofer is very room and positioning dependent. The challenge is the 250 - 500Hz range where both drivers are operating together and where we are much more sensitive to distortion and other sonic artifacts. An active crossover and judicious use of DSP for EQ, phase and gain matching can go a long way to make the woofer side of the equation more effective in mating with whatever the passive high-pass and ESL panel do.

But to truly get the optimal (not perfect, I said optimal) blending, requires a fully active setup, with crossovers and DSP ahead of the amps, with each side tuned to exacting measured results (ideally in-room). That's what I've done with my Monoliths, and they truly are cohesive.

Now, the very best match of dynamic woofer(s) and ESL is a line-array of mid-bass/woofers such as I use in my custom center channel, that speaker out-performs my Monoliths in the under 1Khz range in terms of dynamic mid-bass energy as well as far-field blending of that frequency range.

Rich said:

... The "better woofer panel integration" mantra is beginning to sound like a broken record to me.

Click to expand...

Rich, I know it sounds fishy, but there is a *lot* of room for improvement when moving from passive designs to active. Even using just passives, modern prototyping and modeling tools have enabled ML engineering (actually, any speaker designer) to dramatically improve crossover-region behaviors. That's why the series of Summit->Spire->Montis keeps improving in this region, even though the panel and basic speaker configuration (ESL + dynamic woofer) remains similar across the versions.

So as good as the Montis is, I bet that if I grabbed a used Spire, ripped out all passive and crossover elements and applied my speaker processor (and tuning process) to it, I would have a noticeably better performing speaker. So expect some future review a few years down the road of a fully-active design to rave yet again about 'improved integration'

Jon, what I take away from your posts is that: a) it is possible to greatly improve woofer/panel integration of ML's older models by applying an active, external crossover; and b) the tools with which to do this improve constantly. So my question then becomes, why would ML (or any manufacturer) hardwire this stuff into a speaker? ML spends all this R&D money to put in a DSP based crossover in the speaker . . . and the technology is outdated almost before it is even implemented. Why not make the standard passive design and offer the active as an external option, which could be purchased separately and upgraded over time? As it is, the Montis is sure to be outdated in a couple of years just due to advances in DSP technology, yet as you said, you could take a Spire and make it sound as good or better than the Montis right now. Or even better three years from now. It just doesn't make sense to me to come up with all this technology, hardwire it into the speaker, and charge your customer a lot more for the same speaker, just so that it will be outdated in a couple of years. However it does seem to fit ML's new marketing scheme of planned obsolescence and regular price hikes.

While I disagree with your premise, it will be interesting to see if ML offers a dsp chip upgrade to the Montis as time goes on.

My disagreement is that I think it is perfectly reasonable to sell a speaker that as a whole is optimized with the best technology currently available . Having a switchable xover ( internal vs external ) could lead lead to lots of unwanted unintended consequences .


J

Rich said:

... So my question then becomes, why would ML (or any manufacturer) hardwire this stuff into a speaker? ML spends all this R&D money to put in a DSP based crossover in the speaker . . . and the technology is outdated almost before it is even implemented. Why not make the standard passive design and offer the active as an external option, which could be purchased separately and upgraded over time?

Click to expand...

Hi Rich, the challenge in marketing an Active speaker is that you eliminate the audiophiles impulsive obsession with using amps as a form of tone control, tube or SS religious obeisance or simple bling-enjoyment

More seriously, it is a marketing challenge. Meridian has been making stunning actives for over a decade, but they have not set the world on fire.The added costs of the amps also make comparisons more difficult.

But from a sheer performance standpoint, an active system can be absolutely killer, yet the cost / value angle raises its head, how much does the manufacturer put into the amps? $2K, $4K, ??

In terms of responding to real-world market situation, the Montis is actually a great compromise. Use active crossover + DSP on the complex and room sensitive mid-bass/bass element and let owners decide what amps to run the panel with. even if that is a bit sup-optimal, at least it's fairly straightforward to purchase and deploy.

I actually wish they would go back to the option they offered on the Monoliths, where the crossover was optionally passive or active, and easy to substitute.

As for worries about obsolescence, all tech is outdated over time, so I'd not hang my hopes on a 20-year reference design in anything these days. Progress is happening at a lightning pace on so many fronts.

I have found that my Montis sounds best in a 7.2 Aidyssey XT 32 pro calibrated system with the xover at 70 hz or so.


The excellent transition between the panel and the woofer is maintained with out any potential artifacts that the small box might produce at low frequencies are eliminated by the 70 hz xover.

I do decouple the Montis from my supported 2nd story floor with hard absorbers meant for a washing machine.


My low bass sounds great with my two subs that are harnessed well by The Audyssey pro calibration.

jmschnur said:

I have found that my Montis sounds best in a 7.2 Aidyssey XT 32 pro calibrated system with the xover at 70 hz or so.


The excellent transition between the panel and the woofer is maintained with out any potential artifacts that the small box might produce at low frequencies are eliminated by the 70 hz xover.

I do decouple the Montis from my supported 2nd story floor with hard absorbers meant for a washing machine.


My low bass sounds great with my two subs that are harnessed well by The Audyssey pro calibration.

Click to expand...

Interesting. So you are basically saying that your Montis speakers sound best only when you have them hooked up to an audyssey calibration pre with a high crossover setting and two subs to cover the low bass, all of which makes up for the poor design of the bass module of the Montis? Hmmmm. My Summits sound best when hooked straight through a neutral tube preamp and high current amp and my descent sub is turned off. The woofer/panel integration is excellent and the low bass is very impressive. For the price of the Montis, I would expect more.

Room is always a factor.

Supported floor and room modes affect a lot. By moving the subs to inhibit coupling I can avoid most of the issues and still have great imaging with the Montis. Best to keep frequencies below 40 hz from Montis. Amp is a new Bryston.



The sound is really great . Bach Rostropovich Cello, Ron Carter bass, etc. Audyssey 32 is very good for calibration in tough rooms.

I do have GIK 244 panels behind the Montis.

Last winter before the great reviews it was possible to get a low price on the Montis .


J

jmschnur said:

Room is always a factor.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But room modes are best treated with proper acoustic treatments. Bass panels in all the corners is a good start. But my point is simply that a $10,000 speaker that goes down to 29 Hz. shouldn't need to be rolled off at 70 hz. to two subs in order to sound its best. The Prodigy and the Summit both went for around $10,000 new and neither needed that kind of treatment to sound their best when properly set up. I'm not knocking the audyssey system. I understand it is awesome. But the Montis is way overpriced if it needs to be crossed over at 70 hz. to a couple of subs in order to sound its best.

Of course I paid a lot less.

However, I would say that the very low bass in my room (less than 40 hz) is not great with the Montis where I have them standing. My solution solves the issues well. The system now goes 20-20k without strain.

most music never goes that low so it is not a big deal. Krall sounds great without the subs etc,

My approach works well for music and movies.

It took a lot of tinkering to get to this point. Jon Fo's sticky helped a lot. Now I am content.


J

Gordon Gray said:

September issue of Stereophile contains quite the rave.

Question. Given ML's recent panel replacement cost actions, how does this impact forum members reaction to the review?

GG

Click to expand...

I am curious as to whether any other review of the Montis is avialable online without subscription. I looked for it and could find one.

Tone # 44.

Hi fi world also but may be hard to find on line.


J

Rich said:

Interesting. So you are basically saying that your Montis speakers sound best only when you have them hooked up to an audyssey calibration pre with a high crossover setting and two subs to cover the low bass, all of which makes up for the poor design of the bass module of the Montis? Hmmmm. My Summits sound best when hooked straight through a neutral tube preamp and high current amp and my descent sub is turned off. The woofer/panel integration is excellent and the low bass is very impressive. For the price of the Montis, I would expect more.

Click to expand...

Hi Rich,

I wouldn't assume that this is a Montis issue - or an issue at all, per se. I've tried all kinds of subwoofer/Summit permutations involving placement, crossover frequency and slope and I've always found that mains/sub Xover in the 70-90Hz region sounds best. Not only are the sub drivers better suited to these low frequencies, but relieving the ML mains woofs of these duties reduces distortion at frequencies above the xover. All of this assumes a setup which permits control of the basic parameters - Xover frequency/slope, mains/sub delays, etc., etc.

RUR said:

Hi Rich,

I wouldn't assume that this is a Montis issue - or an issue at all, per se.

Click to expand...

I wasn't really assuming anything. I was simply reflecting on jmschnur's comment regarding the performance of his speakers in his room. I understand the utility of one or more subs for home theater use, but I maintain that a $10,000 speaker shouldn't need subs and a high crossover point to sound their best with music. I know that my Summits certainly don't, and I have a good friend with Prodigies that sound incredible without a sub. If the Montis does, then it is because ML has done a poor job of designing the bass module for that speaker. jmschnur alludes to this fact with his comment that: "The excellent transition between the panel and the woofer is maintained with out any potential artifacts that the small box might produce at low frequencies are eliminated by the 70 hz xover."