Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 50

Thread: Monolith refresh - Panels, woofers and rail stain updates

  1. #31
    Super User JonFo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Big Canoe, GA
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wallacefl View Post
    speaking of a nice sub...strap the ACI SV-12's face to face in a 2 cu. ft. cabinet isobaric downfiring ...cross it fast at 40 hz and place it in the corner...or you can sell them to me!

    Wallace, good idea, actually, I had a pair of ACI Saturnís accompanying the Sequels back in í93. So I know exactly what you are talking about.
    --- for the rest: An ACI Saturn was a 2 cu ft. sub with an isobaric alignment featuring two 10Ē drivers. They produced great bass for the day. ---

    However, my old ACI SV-12's went to retrofit GeorgeHiFiís Monoliths in Australia.
     
    Jonathan

    System #45 (Monolith IIIx, Sequell IIb, SL3XC)

  2. #32
    Super User JonFo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Big Canoe, GA
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jedi35 View Post
    Ö Still, I'm enjoying the search or "quest" for better sound in my room. At this point, the next thing that I need to do is to totally disconnect the internal Xover boards in the speakers, and get the DBX DriveRack 260, along with whatever else I need to start analyzing the response in my room.

    Adrian
    Ah, I see the Jedi is becoming adept at sensing the force of the speaker processor, whose power is limited only by oneís ability to focus the force to oneís will
    Jonathan

    System #45 (Monolith IIIx, Sequell IIb, SL3XC)

  3. #33
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Well spoken, my master....

    The bass driver in the ReQuest is supposed to be a different driver than the one used in the QuestZ. The ReQuest, I hear, uses one that's stiffer, and has a heavier magnet. Yet, not only do the specs show that its rated response doesn't go quite as low, but I've read lots of comments that the bass is weak. In a good listening situation, is the bass weaker than the QuestZ, or does it just mean that no Quest or ReQuest will shake the foundations of the world? It's too early to tell, but I may have found a local buyer who might be interested in my QuestZs, having recently fallen in love with the sound of the Monolith prototypes. The owner convinced him that my Quests don't sound all that different, and would be a lot cheaper than finding Monoliths and transporting them here.

    What do you think of my interest in moving from the QuestZ into the ReQuest? Would my internal Xover bypass be any more or less safe? I read a thread where one owner had both in his house, and thought that the bass was deeper and the panals has a rounder sound on the QuestZ. The Request, he found, sounded more strident. If I'll be bi-amping anyway with a speaker processor, will any of this matter with the amount of control I'll have?

    Adrian

  4. #34
    Super User C.A.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,049

    Default

    I was under the assumption that the Quest , Re Quest and the Monolith all used the same Eminence 12 inch driver . IIRC I have the specs from Jim Power in a file. It may have even been him that told me that information.
    Martin Logan... Odyssey...Krell KSA 100s...Krell KRC3 Pre Amp...Krell Connect Media server/DAC
    My system here

  5. #35
    Super User JonFo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Big Canoe, GA
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Well, the master sucks at debugging his own system

    I finally get the new drivers, so before I pop them in, I decide to run some measurements with the ETF measurement rig just to document before and after really carefully.

    I test the left speaker, and sure enough, this nasty raspy sound at certain frequencies is evident.

    Switch to test the right speaker. And I think I hear the same raspy sound (but shorter, softer) when testing it.

    So, I get close to the left speaker and re-run the test on the right (got to love laptops, WiFi and remote desktop, full control anywhere ), and sure enough, sound is emitting from the left speaker at certain points of the test. But most of the sound (and clean) is coming from the right. So I mute the left outputs (go to love speaker processors with fine detail control via software), and re-run test. Bam, thereís that sound from the left driver again.

    Ok, this has to be something other than the speaker to do this kind of magic. Scratch head for three seconds, slap forehead, swear a bit and conclude it must be the amp thatís doing this. So switch the left woofer feed and speaker cable to unused channel on secondary Sunfire Cinema grand (got to love having spare channels).
    Re-run test, and AH-HA! It was the frigging, blasted amp, not the driver.
    One Sunfire stereo (which has been running smoothly for 13 years) goes off to service next week.

    Silly me for not doing a basic test: Swapping the speaker cables and testing to see if itís the speaker or something upstream.

    Philosophical point: itís easy to get overconfident in your knowledge and jump to the wrong conclusions.

    Lesson learned (again): test at least two variations, isolate the problem and verify.

    At least SleepySurfís demo Sunday will proceed with no impediments. Iím sitting here enjoying some Genesis on SACD and loving the sound.
    Jonathan

    System #45 (Monolith IIIx, Sequell IIb, SL3XC)

  6. #36
    Super User JonFo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Big Canoe, GA
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jedi35 View Post
    Well spoken, my master....

    The bass driver in the ReQuest is supposed to be a different driver than the one used in the QuestZ. The ReQuest, I hear, uses one that's stiffer, and has a heavier magnet. Yet, not only do the specs show that its rated response doesn't go quite as low, but I've read lots of comments that the bass is weak. In a good listening situation, is the bass weaker than the QuestZ, or does it just mean that no Quest or ReQuest will shake the foundations of the world? It's too early to tell, but I may have found a local buyer who might be interested in my QuestZs, having recently fallen in love with the sound of the Monolith prototypes. The owner convinced him that my Quests don't sound all that different, and would be a lot cheaper than finding Monoliths and transporting them here.

    What do you think of my interest in moving from the QuestZ into the ReQuest? Would my internal Xover bypass be any more or less safe? I read a thread where one owner had both in his house, and thought that the bass was deeper and the panals has a rounder sound on the QuestZ. The Request, he found, sounded more strident. If I'll be bi-amping anyway with a speaker processor, will any of this matter with the amount of control I'll have?

    Adrian
    Adrian,

    I would say that by the time you bypass the internal crossovers, and replace the woofer, there is no real advantage to a ReQuest. As by then all thatís really left is the ESL panel (which if updating, are the same for Quests and reQuests).
    A speaker processor erases the final shreds of contrast between the two options. So Iíd say stay with what you have.

    Also, Iíll wager than once you get the bi-amping and speaker processor dialed in (and new woofer), youíll probably like your rig better than the monoliths.

    The crossover bypass is bit harder on the QuestZ, but a EE should be able to look at the boards and do it no problem. Maybe even take it to a service shop along with info from the threads on modding and see what they would quote you.

    As for woofers, Iím with C.A.P, I thought all three used the same driver.
    But itís sort of academic if moving to bi-amping and a processor, because as long as the driver is a reasonable match for the enclosure, the rest can be tweaked to death and back with the processor.

    Since I wonít be installing the HiViís this weekend, I canít say if they are better than the Peerless. They sure are heavier and look one heck of a lot nicer. But thatís eye candy, itís all in the measurements and the subjective sound evaluation as far as Iím concerned.
    Maybe in a week or twoÖ
    Jonathan

    System #45 (Monolith IIIx, Sequell IIb, SL3XC)

  7. #37
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    64

    Default

    I guess I must be the victim of local salemanship, as I was told on first listening that the ReQuest had a heavier woofer magnet than the Quest. I'll go with what you guys are saying. I'm still confused over why the specs are different for the ReQuest bass response, and why so many here think that the bass is weak. If the woofers are the same, shouldn't I expect to be able to get a similar level of bass response from both? Is this weak bass compared to the Quests, or just weak bass in general, meaning all versions of Quests?

    I think I'm convinced to stay with my QuestZ speakers. Bypassing the crossover is no easier on the ReQuest, right? It seems that the only version of the Quest that doing this should be easy with is the original version. Here's a question...what would happen if I hunted down this original version for bi-amping? With the internal Xover bypassed, using a speaker processor, wouldn't I get the same results that I'd get with the QuestZ? There is the issue of the QuestZ being easier to drive, because of its friendlier impedance, right?

    Also, is it really important that I get an EE to look at my boards, since ML has sent me specific schematics on what I need to do? I was just going to follow what they sent me, and drive the transformer with the help of some protective resistors in place. I stand ready to try it, but what do you think?

    As far as your system is concerned, Jonathan, atleast you eventually came up with the right diagnosis. Hey, we all can make mistakes.

    Adrian

  8. #38
    Super User JonFo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Big Canoe, GA
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jedi35 View Post
    I guess I must be the victim of local salemanship, as I was told on first listening that the ReQuest had a heavier woofer magnet than the Quest. I'll go with what you guys are saying. I'm still confused over why the specs are different for the ReQuest bass response, and why so many here think that the bass is weak. If the woofers are the same, shouldn't I expect to be able to get a similar level of bass response from both? Is this weak bass compared to the Quests, or just weak bass in general, meaning all versions of Quests?
    If it is indeed the same driver, then variances in sound are largely due to the changes in crossovers between models. As for being weak, again, crossover efficiency differences could lead to gain balance favoring one version vs the other. Louder often sounding Ďbetterí.
    My very individual opinion is that except for some very unique room configurations, that Monolith and (re)Quest bass is sub par with factory x-overs. And that after 8 years or so, the OEM woofer will be under-performing, especially if pushed to do low-bass at high-levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by jedi35 View Post
    I think I'm convinced to stay with my QuestZ speakers. Bypassing the crossover is no easier on the ReQuest, right? It seems that the only version of the Quest that doing this should be easy with is the original version.
    Yep, a bypass is work on these models regardless, except the originals.

    Quote Originally Posted by jedi35 View Post
    Here's a question...what would happen if I hunted down this original version for bi-amping? With the internal Xover bypassed, using a speaker processor, wouldn't I get the same results that I'd get with the QuestZ? There is the issue of the QuestZ being easier to drive, because of its friendlier impedance, right?
    Once the crossovers are bypassed, and woofers updated, there are negligible differences between these models. Impedance if a factor of the crossovers, so if they are removed, then no diff.

    Quote Originally Posted by jedi35 View Post
    Also, is it really important that I get an EE to look at my boards, since ML has sent me specific schematics on what I need to do? I was just going to follow what they sent me, and drive the transformer with the help of some protective resistors in place. I stand ready to try it, but what do you think?

    As far as your system is concerned, Jonathan, at least you eventually came up with the right diagnosis. Hey, we all can make mistakes.

    Adrian
    Not critical to have a Tech do it, if you feel up to it, it can be done. As long as the ESL drive board is functional, youíre going to be OK. A tech just removes any worries youíve previously expressed.

    My system worked fine during the demo today. So glad I didnít need to mess with drivers this weekend.
    Next week Iíll pop one of the HiViís in and run tests.
    Jonathan

    System #45 (Monolith IIIx, Sequell IIb, SL3XC)

  9. #39
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Once again, thanks for all the info and opinions, Jonathan. I'm feeling more and more confident about what I need to do with my Quests. It would be excellent to update the woofers as well as the panels. I'm going to try a panel shower first. I do have small dust circles showing in each of the tiny stator holes.

    Regards,
    Adrian

  10. #40
    Member johnwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Sorry to do a semi hi-jack of the thread but it looks like you guys are close to alignment here and we all (those of us considering replacement kit) benefited from the exchange.

    I wanted to bow to the Monolith master again to let him know I finally pulled the trigger on a sub (a REL sub with two sets of outputs and the ability to do some fine adjustments) and think I have successfully hooked everything into the active cross over as you suggested.

    I still need to play around with placement and need to get the treatments stuff going but what a difference. If anything I have to find a way to adjust the bass down on so many recordings now.

    The plending seems pretty tight but do you have suggestions on the active settings now? I have played with the front switches but not a great deal of audible difference so I think I need to dig into the back dip switches.

    Having fun tweaking and literally having to determine what I can keep on the walls as I had things actually moving yesterday.
    Johnwa

    System: CLX, Depth, JL Audio Fathom 212 x 2, Speaker Lab S7

  11. #41
    Super User JonFo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Big Canoe, GA
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Johnwa, congrats on the new Sub, those REL's are nice.

    See, removing the low-end workload from these speakers really makes a difference. Not only do you get more low-bass, you should be getting much cleaner mid-bass as well. As pretty much any 12" driver will have significant third-order harmonics (~ -45dB) in the >120Hz region when playing low frequencies. So removing those <60hz signals from the Monolith/Quest drivers allows them to play their freq. range much cleaner.

    As for the switches in the rear, they control the gain balance between panel and woofer. So if you were happy with the balance prior to the Sub, then leave them set as-is.
    The front panel controls should allow you to dial in the balance between the sub and the woofer. Some measurements with test tones and a basic SPL meter should help you determine whatís best. Keep in mind though that probably more room modes are engaged now with a more capable low-frequency driver. EQíing the sub is what tools like the Velodyne SMS-1 or the upcoming SVS Ė Audyssey room correctors.
    http://www.svsound.com/CES2007/SVS_AudyessyRelease.pdf

    But thatís the next step, for now, enjoy the great sound
    Jonathan

    System #45 (Monolith IIIx, Sequell IIb, SL3XC)

  12. #42
    Member johnwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Man there is always something but each step does bring additional satisfaction you don't know you were missing until you have it. Do you endorce these EQ's in additon to the Driverack or instead of?

    Glad to hear I don't need to move everything again to get to the switches as I am very content with the sound, with or without, the sub with the settings as is.

    I do have to really work on the room treatments as you suggest and or take everything off the walls as I get some vibrations now that make it feel like the walls are going to implode on some passages.

    That said, I had already reached my level of incompetancy with just following the clear diagrams you and the manufactures lay out so I think I will need to call in an expert on the room dynamics.

    As always, thank you for your help and great advice.
    Last edited by johnwa; 08-11-2007 at 11:31 AM. Reason: spelling
    Johnwa

    System: CLX, Depth, JL Audio Fathom 212 x 2, Speaker Lab S7

  13. #43
    Junior Member DrWily008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Fernandina Beach, Florida
    Posts
    42

    Default Thread - Rise from your grave!

    Hi JonFo, I know this thread has been dead for a while, but I have a question.

    Have you put any more thought into changing the color of the light oak rails? I too would like to change the color on mine and would love any suggestions.

    Also the switch from passive crossovers to active crossovers...was it worth it? I've not started looking for a separate ML crossover any good suggestions where to start.

    Thanks in advance - Ken Bell

  14. #44
    Senior Member Cherian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,195

    Default

    Active crossover is the only way to go!! I had passive on mine and switched to active and it is so much better. Just know if you go active you will need 4 channels of amplification. I was going to buy the below listed crossover but my wife decided we needed new front doors.

    The krell crossover is even set up for the monoliths.

    http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....active-crossov

  15. #45
    Junior Member DrWily008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Fernandina Beach, Florida
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Thanks Cherian! I actually thought that the Martin Logan X-Over was my only option. That Krell would definitely fit the bill to.

    BTW - Your system is quite impressive, it looks like the gear you have makes your Monolith SING!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •