GG that was satire on the cable guys. You should be able to know by now who thinks what
Subjective vs. Objective
- Thread starter RCHeliGuy
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
GG that was satire on the cable guys. You should be able to know by now who thinks what
amey01
Well-known member
No, no. They'll sound very different to the Ethos because the dielectric used on the earth-pin shielding is not so good so I've heard. Exchange the bias power cord for something from Nordost (only prerequisite is that it costs more than the speaker) and it's like "lifting a veil". It should be considered an essential upgrade. But bear in mind it turns a $60,000 speaker into a $120,000 speaker and there is some other competition at that price point.
And because it's such a revealing speaker, make sure that anything you play on it has been downloaded through submarine cable only. It is instantly recognisable if the download has passed through satellites and this makes the audio unbearable.
User211
Well-known member
Having the benefit of CLX and 101Es within walking distance of each other a few years ago, I rated the MBLs 8.5 and the CLX 9 out of 10 on this forum in a show report. The 101 Xtreme however is a LOT better if you can get richer, Gordon
I'd have them over the CLX but what a price difference.Objectively, strictly a subjective assessment, you understand
TBH the 101E lost marks for its bass performance which I do not consider adequate for the money. The CLX is on dodgy grounds there too. Maybe 8 and 7.5 would be more realistic if a 10 rated speaker were to exist.
Last edited:
We're on the same page, Adam. I'm currently having my room trenched for the installation of my newest cable acquisition:And because it's such a revealing speaker, make sure that anything you play on it has been downloaded through submarine cable only. It is instantly recognisable if the download has passed through satellites and this makes the audio unbearable.
I read a review in a high end rag promising crystal clear highs and truly subterranean bass.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
My bad. I should have known better. Sorry amigo.
Having the benefit of CLX and 101Es within walking distance of each other a few years ago, I rated the MBLs 8.5 and the CLX 9 out of 10 on this forum in a show report. The 101 Xtreme however is a LOT better if you can get richer, Gordon
Objectively, strictly a subjective assessment, you understand
TBH the 101E lost marks for its bass performance which I do not consider adequate for the money. The CLX is on dodgy grounds there too. Maybe 8 and 7.5 would be more realistic if a 10 rated speaker were to exist.
I thought you reserved the 10 for the one you spec'd?
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Having the benefit of CLX and 101Es within walking distance of each other a few years ago, I rated the MBLs 8.5 and the CLX 9 out of 10 on this forum in a show report. The 101 Xtreme however is a LOT better if you can get richer, Gordon
Objectively, strictly a subjective assessment, you understand
TBH the 101E lost marks for its bass performance which I do not consider adequate for the money. The CLX is on dodgy grounds there too. Maybe 8 and 7.5 would be more realistic if a 10 rated speaker were to exist.
Justin,
Thanks for the input. As you know, I have great regard for your insights. Regarding money, please remember that I will likely (absent winning the lottery) be buying a used pair of the MK 1 at about $20K or so. In my mind, this is the price one should use to judge performance and compare with other transducers on the market. From that perspective and from what I've heard, I'm pretty confident about my current plan. But as you know in audio, nothing is for certain. I may hear something in the next two years or so that makes all of this irrelevant.
Regarding the CLX, way too big for my visual tastes.
Best,
Gordon
Bernard
Well-known member
Perish the thought! You want me go where angels fear to tread?
Bernard
Well-known member
Gordon, my wife saw and heard the 101s at a Montreal show, and said she would happily live with them, but I find the too large for my visual taste. The CLXes, however, I would happily live with.
BTW this thread has lost its way.
Happy to as one of my friends started and owns the company! Small world. Contact Rob Ronulfson directly or if you send me your contact info I'll get him to contact you. They'd be glad to show you the factory and a custom listening session. I wish I could afford them but not in my budget even at a friends price. Note that they have been at most of the audio shows yet I'm not sure about Europe.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Bernard,
With the OP withdrawing, I think not. And frankly I'm glad to see that folks seem to be behaving in the "O" v "S" discussion.
Gordon
User211
Well-known member
Whilst they are quite different to each other they are both obviously very good. The difference in rating of 0.5 is just down to show conditions, personal preferences and possibly\probably driving kit.
TBH I don't think either would work that well in my listening room, I am right on the limits with the ones I have. CLX is juts that little bit too much bigger, 101E would need more all round space.
Given the space I could live with 101E easily. At lower volumes I think it would be the better speaker. I'm not convinced about ESLs at low volume.
User211
Well-known member
Nah they are 11.:ROFL: 12 on a good day.
User211
Well-known member
We've all lost our way, Bernard. Mad hobby.
Bernard
Well-known member
Gordon & Justin, I agree with both (opposite) statements. Some stuff is best left alone.
Well mate from your statements I'm having a hard time believing that have a telecommunications background yet you make quite the emphatic statements comparing point to point links versus data networking. Its like a LAN administrator saying they know all about wide area networking technology. I mean no disrespect yet there's quite a difference. Since you're the one standing on the soapbox making absolute statements I think its you that needs to explain in detail including how you compensate for well known packet loss and latency across networks that are not controlled by the user or one company. That does make a difference even with buffers on time sensitive applications. hmmm... perhaps as part of that you can explain to all the satellite internet users why their USB cable outperforms their satellite during a snow storm.
Anyways if it helps I'll just say you win and we can all move on to more important topics.
Anyways if it helps I'll just say you win and we can all move on to more important topics.
amey01
Well-known member
Oh dear - we were never talking about performance during a snow storm. We were talking about data accuracy. We all know that performance is dictated by the clock in the DAC.
In the absence of your ability to provide any explanation to the contrary, I think so. Finally!
oh dear - still skirting the question with piecemeal answers, sarcasm and tidbits of technical prowess we can all google. come on and answer your own questions and prove you know what you're professing. I wasn't the one quoting satellite links and the internet in his statements.
Similar threads
