"Best" being a relative term, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Rich. Not only for the reasons mentioned above, but because mains are placed for ideal imaging, not so as to mitigate/eliminate the inevitable room nulls. Proper subs placement handles that.
Montis review
- Thread starter Gordon Gray
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
"Best" being a relative term, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Rich. Not only for the reasons mentioned above, but because mains are placed for ideal imaging, not so as to mitigate/eliminate the inevitable room nulls. Proper subs placement handles that.
So would you say that in order to produce a really outstanding hybrid ESL speaker that is easy to integrate into any room, what ML should do is separate the sub box from the panel? That way, the panels and subs could each be placed where they produce optimal sound, and the buyer wouldn't have to spend thousands of extra dollars on separate subs that basically duplicate the performance of the subs that come with the speaker? I have discussed this as a possibility a long time ago in some other thread and think it makes a lot of sense. Your thoughts?
Having said all that, I still think the best way to deal with room interaction issues is to design the room properly and use appropriate acoustic treatments.
jmschnur
Well-known member
Best imaging placement and placement for best low frequency response are problably mutually exclusive in most rooms. Good sub(s) with proper placement + Good speakers placed for imaging+ proper acoustic treatment is probably a good recipe for success. I found two subs MUCH better than one to get rid of nulls etc by the way.
Hocky
Well-known member
No, the ML bass section does not contain subwoofers, it contains woofer. They play too high into the frequency range to be relocated away from the rest of the speaker.
True. And four is actually optimal, from research I have seen.
It contains a woofer that goes down to 29 hz. (in the case of the Montis, at least). If the frequencies below 80 hz. or so are best handled by a sub that can be placed separately from the speakers, why not have a woofer on the speaker that only handles from about 70 hz. up to the panel crossover point of around 340 hz.? This would be seemingly easier and cheaper to design and implement than one that went down to 29 hz. or lower, especially with the small size of the Montis woofer box. At that point, you could also start considering doing the woofers as a line array next to the panel, to truly match the emanating characteristics of the panel. I think this would result in a much better sounding speaker, but not sure what it would add to the cost. I imagine Jonfo would have some good thoughts on this subject, since he did just that for his center channel.
Rule of thumb is that the FR should extend ~1 octave below the high-pass i.e. for a 70Hz xover, the mains should be capable to ~35Hz. Plenty of wiggle room in this "rule", given that high-pass slope could be quite steep, etc., but sufficient mains capability must be provided to permit flat, summed response at the xover frequency.
Interesting. What does this say about the vaunted CLX/Descent i combination, when the mains of the CLX only go down to 56 hz.?
Still seems that you could probably manufacture a better woofer setup for the Montis that only goes down to 35 Hz., instead of 29 hz., that would be cheaper with better overall performance with separate subs. Also, RUR, curious what you think of the idea of a mid-bass line array for a speaker like this, rather than a single woofer box. Seems to me like it would have several advantages.
All this discussion about the bass doesn't explain why the Montis can't manage to reproduce the sound of a grand piano in a reasonably satisfactory manner. My Quad 2805s could, even though they don't go as loud. Something appears "thin", it's also noticable on orchestral cello. Can someone pinpoint the frequency range that's affected ?
This is actually a common beef with ML's newer models vs. the older models. The Prodigy vs. the Summit is a prime example. The prodigy has much more flesh in the mids and lower mids, while the Summit which replaced it is much more thin in this area. It is a very noticeable difference. I think it is simply a byproduct of ML trying to produce a smaller, more WAF-friendly speaker. You make a smaller bass module and a smaller panel, and you are going to change the tone of the sound. It certainly does affect the realism as far as reproducing something like a cello or a grand piano. In some ways, the Prodigy may be the last great speaker ML ever made, although I understand the CLX does have its adherents. But I would bet the Prodigy can blow away the CLX when it comes to realistically reproducing a grand piano (I am talking about the speakers themselves, with no subs).
jmschnur
Well-known member
Using good subs addresses this issue well.
Xover at 70 hz leads to 140hz to 20 hz augmentation with quite good results with a 2 subsystem.
J
Xover at 70 hz leads to 140hz to 20 hz augmentation with quite good results with a 2 subsystem.
J
Last edited:
Actually, no it doesn't. Subs only really help augment the low bass. The frequency spectrum I am referring to here is the midbass and low midrange (appx. 100 hz. to 600 hz.). ML's newer speakers are noticeably thinner in this area than their older models, like the Prodigy. Even my Ascents have more depth of tone in the lower midrange than my Summits. The Prodigy blows them away in this frequency band.
As far as need for subs goes, at least the Summits don't need a sub to sound good in the low bass like the CLX (and apparently the Montis) does. Honestly, to spend $10,000 to $25,000 on a pair of speakers, and then feel you have to spend $5,000 or more on a pair of subs to have them sound their best is pretty sad.
Hocky
Well-known member
I replaced ascents with summits and don't think the ascent midrange performance was even close to the summit. They are the same size panel and the summit has newer technology...
Newer technology is not always better in every aspect. And, once again, we are talking about depth of tone (fullness) in the midbass and lower midrange, not overall midrange performance. And yes, the $10,000 Summit has (almost) the same size panel as the $4,000 Ascent. The Prodigy, which the Summit replaced, has a much larger panel, and has a depth of tone to the midbass and lower midrange that is unequaled in ML's newer models.
jmschnur
Well-known member
Each to their own ( opinion; sounds better in French).
Actually a xover at 70 gives you augmentation to about 140 hz which certainly not low bass.
In my room , with my treatments, in my setup, I do not find Cellos thin. In fact I use the Rostropovich Bach as a demo to friends along with aRon Carter solo "You are My Sunshine"
It could be that Audyssey XT 32 smooths the frequency response and group phasing so this is not a factor, could my perception, could be yours...?
J
Actually a xover at 70 gives you augmentation to about 140 hz which certainly not low bass.
In my room , with my treatments, in my setup, I do not find Cellos thin. In fact I use the Rostropovich Bach as a demo to friends along with aRon Carter solo "You are My Sunshine"
It could be that Audyssey XT 32 smooths the frequency response and group phasing so this is not a factor, could my perception, could be yours...?
J
Last edited:
They don't sound thin on my Summits either . . . until I compare it to my Ascents or a pair of Prodigies. Listen to a cello on the Prodigy sometime and I think you might have a different opinion.
jmschnur
Well-known member
I checked my Audyssey Pro curves. Indeed the 200-300 hz. Region has a db or more drop . This is then corrected by my Audyssey XT 32 pro system . thus I never hear it.
When I have some time , I will play with my Omni Mic and see how much distance from rear wall affects this in my room. . Since the wavelength of 200 hz is about 1.7 meters, it is clear the reflection from the rear wall will likelymake a difference and thus the distance from the rear wall of the speaker should be a strong factor in what we hear at the MLP.Martin Logan has some suggestions about this in their setup manual.
J
When I have some time , I will play with my Omni Mic and see how much distance from rear wall affects this in my room. . Since the wavelength of 200 hz is about 1.7 meters, it is clear the reflection from the rear wall will likelymake a difference and thus the distance from the rear wall of the speaker should be a strong factor in what we hear at the MLP.Martin Logan has some suggestions about this in their setup manual.
J
Last edited:
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.
jmschnur
Well-known member
I have 7.2 system . I also listen to stereo a lot. But I also
listen to SACDs.
So a pre/pro with Audyssey XT 32 preceded my Montis purchase (Integra 80.2)
Subs are a requirement for good reproduction of movies so when I bought my subs I kept in mind my love of music.
Then I went main speaker shopping. The Montis fit very well in my system. It performs very well and I did not have to add anything except for a lot of tweaking to make the system very very enjoyable. I did put two GIK 244s behind the Montis.
The new Montis speakers have affected our habits though.
We now spend 2-4 hours a night listening to our music collection and we have bought a lot of new music since last winter.
Actually for stereo only analogue only rooms I think the Montis would be fine as well for most.
1. Low frequencies below 40 hz are not an important issue in most of the music library.
2. The 200-250 thinness is probably an issue associated with speaker placement and what is behind the speaker and thus correctable without correction software. This is shown in the Stereophile measurements.
J
listen to SACDs.
So a pre/pro with Audyssey XT 32 preceded my Montis purchase (Integra 80.2)
Subs are a requirement for good reproduction of movies so when I bought my subs I kept in mind my love of music.
Then I went main speaker shopping. The Montis fit very well in my system. It performs very well and I did not have to add anything except for a lot of tweaking to make the system very very enjoyable. I did put two GIK 244s behind the Montis.
The new Montis speakers have affected our habits though.
We now spend 2-4 hours a night listening to our music collection and we have bought a lot of new music since last winter.
Actually for stereo only analogue only rooms I think the Montis would be fine as well for most.
1. Low frequencies below 40 hz are not an important issue in most of the music library.
2. The 200-250 thinness is probably an issue associated with speaker placement and what is behind the speaker and thus correctable without correction software. This is shown in the Stereophile measurements.
J
Last edited:
