Montreal 2012 Hi-Fi Show

[Bernard]

Here's a few more thoughts on a topic I find interesting i.e. which is the best of the aforementioned.

1) The CLX sounds the least like the others i.e. it is the most deviant.
2) The MBL101 extreme is much like the 101E but with far superior scale and bass.
3) The 101E gets beat by the 116F in the bass dept. Not what you'd expect, maybe. A thought shared by a 116F owner I'm going to see next week.
4) In fact, even my long-in-the-tooth but re-vamped Apogees sound more like the others than the CLX.
5) The Trios - and I must stress with basshorns - simply sound like the most convincing portrayal of having musicians in front of you. And by some margin. Seriously, seriously good.

Considering that all of these speakers are highly rated, what is the truth?

BTW I will never forget the first time I heard the Quad 57s, with BBC tapes used as source. The musicians were magically in front of me. I've never heard anything quite like that again.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Bernard,

Here's my take on the 116's, which may be applicable to the models above.

My listening space is not big and my set up would be considered "near field" listening.

Better in a larger space? I would assume that to be true.

Regarding room treatments, I'm using less than when I had the Summits.

As Justin or others who have heard the MBL's will likely admit (assuming proper gear, setup, etc.), it's immersive like the ML sound but, given the omni drivers, quite different.

After hearing in a proper set up and comparing the two, some may still prefer the "panel" sound.

Gordon

PS: Truth? Given the nature of our hobby, we all know it's subjective in the end.

 

[Bernard]

PS: Truth? Given the nature of our hobby, we all know it's subjective in the end.

That was supposed to be a provocative statement, but I see it didn't provoke Justin into anything.

BTW I was looking at an MBL brochure that I picked up at the show, and there is a picture there of an all-silver system, which I think looks best; looks great in fact.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Bernard,

My biggest audio thrill to date (show experience) is when I heard the ML Statement with Krell gear at a CES show years ago. Also had a chance to meet Gale at that show.

I've yet to hear the MBL 101 Extreme or the Horn based system Justin admires.

Maybe one of these days.

Gordon

 

[User211]

Hi Justin,

The bass on the 116 better than the 101E's?

Find that hard to believe but ..................

Could be that the 116 stops at the lower 30's and you don't have any room issues below that frequency.

After a year, I'm still working on tuning that low bass in my room. I'm very close. Could be that I have the original versus the "F" version.

Checked out "hifi pig". Good luck to your friends on this endeavor.

G

Well 2 people think the 116F bass is better - me and the 116F owner! The 101E has ported bass and I swear I heard some colouration from the cabinet. Not sure what the inernal volume is but it 'looks' less than the 116F. I think the 116F has taunter, better controlled bass.

Bernard - Jerry listens to his MBLs super-near field. I mean 7 foot - literally. Somehow - they still work!

MLs chuck sound around almost as much as the MBLs - being dipoles with a curved ESL panel.

Whilst I really like Jerry's MBLs, I wouldn't swap them for my Duettas - seriously! They have less scale, less "slam" and they don't have the awesome bass that comes from the Apogee bass panel. Jerry freely admits the MBLs do not have the speed and slam of the Apogees. But they are blinking good in other areas - especially soundstage layering which I think is superb.

Depends what you value, and I do think the MBLs are very good with classical - better than the Duettas in this regard. Needless to say Jerry likes classical a lot. So it is a good choice for him.

WRT to subjectivity - true - but when you hear a system of the AGs calibre, you just KNOW instantly... there's bugger all out there that is better. At least that I have heard.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Justin,

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that a non ported speaker will (all other things being equal) have better defined bass than a ported design. Could be the issue I still struggle with since the original 116 is ported.

Question on the 101E you listened to. Was it the MK I versus the current MK II? Two recent reviews I've read indicate a major improvement in the MK II in this regard and in other areas.

With all due respect, what does "there's bugger all out there that is better" mean? You Brits talk funny sometimes.

GG

 

[Bernard]

Justin, at the show the speakers were super near field as well. 7ft sounds about right, but they sounded great. The depth was amazing. It's a shame that those speakers are not given the room that they deserve in Montreal.

Gordon, allow me to translate for Justin: he means that there is little or nothing out there that sounds better.

 

[Bernard]

MLs chuck sound around almost as much as the MBLs - being dipoles with a curved ESL panel.

You mean somewhat like Bose?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Thanks for the translation Bernard.

 

[User211]

Question on the 101E you listened to. Was it the MK I versus the current MK II? Two recent reviews I've read indicate a major improvement in the MK II in this regard and in other areas.
GG

Probably the MK1.

Hey Bernard - look - pictures!!!:ROFL:

 

[User211]

 

[User211]

 

[User211]

 

[Bernard]

Justin, the problem with your pictures is that when I turned my iPad through 90° to see them the right way up, the pictures also turned, so I had to rotate myself by 90°. Still dizzy from the experience, especially after a couple of glasses of port.

 

[User211]

Exactly as intended, Bernard. Consider it punishment!

:ROFL