les_garten
Active member
I am trying to figure out which Monolith I have.
The serial number is 0498L-2
Anybody have any ideas?
The serial number is 0498L-2
Anybody have any ideas?
Monolith I or II?
- Thread starter les_garten
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
The format of the serial number does not seem to conform to the decoder format: Martin Logan Serial Number De-coder. Find out how old your Logans are...
Where is that number from?
Where is that number from?
les_garten
Active member
That's the serial number. I bought them around 88 I suppose. It's been a while. I shook my head once or twice since then.
I always thought I had M-I but now think it was M-II's. Mine has the barrier strip connectors that are bi-ampable when you remove the red jumpers
OK, If '88 then quite likely a Monolith I then. But I could not say for sure.
Have you done any changes to them over the years?
Guessing the woofer could definitely use an update, and the crossover could either use new caps, or all-out replacement with an active crossover.
Have you done any changes to them over the years?
Guessing the woofer could definitely use an update, and the crossover could either use new caps, or all-out replacement with an active crossover.
les_garten
Active member
I could not do any changes, never could get the wood off the side. The woofers are original, need to be replaced or refoamed. They never had a reputation for much. What would be a relatively cheap crossover?
Definetly replace those woofers.
For a crossover, it depends on your skills, if willing to try, a DBX DriveRack Venue360 is a great unit.
I can send you a pre-configured file to load. But even then, it's geeky.
Otherwise, a Marchand analog crossover might do. But that can't time-align the woofer and panel. But still, better than a passive.
For a crossover, it depends on your skills, if willing to try, a DBX DriveRack Venue360 is a great unit.
I can send you a pre-configured file to load. But even then, it's geeky.
Otherwise, a Marchand analog crossover might do. But that can't time-align the woofer and panel. But still, better than a passive.
les_garten
Active member
How do you use these crossovers? I am single ended and every crossover I've looked at is balanced?
I guess what I am looking for is a single ended crossover which I have not found.
Any recommended woofers?
I guess what I am looking for is a single ended crossover which I have not found.
Any recommended woofers?
Last edited:
A great source for audiophile single-ended crossovers is Marchand. The XM9 with crossover modules for 250 or 300Hz is where I'd start.
That means the woofer will need to be clean out to 500Hz, and be suitable for a vented enclosure (please confirm, IIRC the I is a vented design? ). Can you also determine the enclosure size, as we need the interior volume to find the right match.
That means the woofer will need to be clean out to 500Hz, and be suitable for a vented enclosure (please confirm, IIRC the I is a vented design? ). Can you also determine the enclosure size, as we need the interior volume to find the right match.
Well, it seems that after 4K+ posts and the added years, I forgot I had already tackled the topic of Monolith variants: Monolith series - differences and resources
Any clarifications / additions based on your model would be welcome.
Any clarifications / additions based on your model would be welcome.
les_garten
Active member
Mine is the Monolith II according to your description on that page. Mine is exactly like that.
And in case you missed this over on the ML site: The owners manual: https://www.martinlogan.com/uploads/documents/manuals/manual_monolith.pdf
Post a picture of the back connector block on one of your Monoliths, please.
Since it is a II, I think you might get away with only having to physically replace the woofers with the same Peerless I used, add that Marchand with XO at 300Hz, add a power amplifier for the woofers, and wire it up as per the Bi-amplification description in the manual. No further surgery required.
I can't believe Gayle originally recommended a 6dB/octave XO at 125. That would have the panel trying to output significant energy at 60Hz. No wonder people thought MLs were amplifier killers. A 24dB/octave at 300 is much cleaner, and your amp will thank you.
Since it is a II, I think you might get away with only having to physically replace the woofers with the same Peerless I used, add that Marchand with XO at 300Hz, add a power amplifier for the woofers, and wire it up as per the Bi-amplification description in the manual. No further surgery required.
I can't believe Gayle originally recommended a 6dB/octave XO at 125. That would have the panel trying to output significant energy at 60Hz. No wonder people thought MLs were amplifier killers. A 24dB/octave at 300 is much cleaner, and your amp will thank you.
les_garten
Active member
Here's a pic of the connectors.
les_garten
Active member
The Peerless 830699 is it, both PE and Madisound have it
https://www.parts-express.com/peerless-by-tymphany-830669-12-paper-cone-sls-subwoofer--264-1118
Madisound
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...rless-sls-830669-12-woofer-coated-paper-cone/
It will work OK in a vented cabinet as well.
https://www.parts-express.com/peerless-by-tymphany-830669-12-paper-cone-sls-subwoofer--264-1118
Madisound
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...rless-sls-830669-12-woofer-coated-paper-cone/
It will work OK in a vented cabinet as well.
les_garten
Active member
Thoght you might be referring to this one: "Peerless by Tymphany NE315W-08 12" Subwoofer Speaker" from www.parts-express.com!
That one is more of a sub-oriented design. In a vented 3 Cubic Foot cabinet, it will play lower than the other Peerless. But the price is a heavier cone (meaning higher THD in the mid-bass while simultaneously playing low-end). It has sufficient performance to work as the only low-end in a 2-way system, so if you never plan to add a sub, then this might be a good choice.
But for best panel integration the 830669 has the lighter cone and cleaner upper-end. Since there is a lot more music that range, I'd favor that over ultra-low end reach.
