Merlin TSM comparisons

Nothing says more about a product usually than an avid following over the long term!

Hopefully I get to hear a pair of Merlins someday.

Just because many people appreciate an excellent product that gives them pleasure and they share their feelings doesn't mean it is a cult. A cult insinuates to me an excessive admiration. The admiration of Merlin speakers by its owners is justified because they are great speakers and have developed over time a large following because of so many satisfied customers.

If you look at the reviews, by owners of Merlin speakers, at audioreview.com, I would say it is a pretty large cult:) Bobby is either a great designer, or a great hypnotist - looking for another speaker just never crosses my mind at this point and I have heard an awful lot of speakers in my life.

I agree with you Robbob about the great sound the Merlin TSM's deliver, I own TSM-MXE's, and a person who hasn't owned or spent a good amount of time with Merlin speakers viewing the comments of their owners as possessing a cult-like devotion to Merlin speakers. It is not a cult, but the appreciation of a terrific product that gives them a great deal of enjoyment. There are some who always have to criticize because a product is praised by many and so many seem very happy with their purchase. It is fine if someone tries a product and finds it is not for him or her or prefers another product,no speaker is for everyone, but I feel some people are just contrarians. I appreciate the Merlins because they enhance my enjoyment of one of life's great pleasures-music.

I am a fan of monitors in smaller rooms.

I have heard some like Dynaudio and Totem that can also sound very convincing in a larger room, but in general I would go with a larger speaker, monitor or otherwise, in a larger room or else add a sub.

Also I should note that I find thinness with good moniters relative to larger designs generally only becomes an issue for me when volume goes up. At low to moderate volumes, in adequately sized rooms, most any monitor I would call good does fine.

paul, there are many aspects of thinness but i think in this case it is a foundation to the music that adds expanse and a breath of life. some speakers do a better job than others but monitors in smallish rooms with the resulting bass reinforcement modes can be superb. however these monitors in too large a room volume can sound lost. this is where a sub can help.
the hardest aspect of sound reproduction is the range below 30 hz. just having the output is not everything to everyone. making it sound like it fits the performance is more important to me.
best, b

"a subwoofer, while it might help, is a difficult thing to pull-off well, when it is not part of the overall design of the speaker"

True, its up to you and not the speaker designer to pull it off, which is a BIG difference. You just have to trust your ears.

Ok, so you mean no bottom heft. It seems like the great speakers always have a mid-band and highs in balance with their bass output, however deep that bass might be. One thing Bobby gets right as that balance,which is why both the TSMs and VSMs, with considerably different bass outputs sound so natural, and never thinned out, which seems to be a problem of balance and not actual bass depth, and why I agree that a subwoofer, while it might help, is a difficult thing to pull-off well, when it is not part of the overall design of the speaker - but I guess it can be done, just not easy.

Hard to define thin objectively really.

The opposite to a thin sound is one with weight, authority and power behind it, like a big band or symphony orchestra playing full throttle, or even feeling the weight of the synthesized bass in a BEP tunes in your gut beyond just hearing it. For me, much of the weight comes from the low end where a lot of the power in music occurs.

Not sure what thin means. Is this related to frequency balance, or image density? In the latter case, tubes are not "thin", SS...

OK, but not meeting listener expectations does not mean the fundamental design of the speaker is flawed, only that the buyer chose the wrong speaker.

I've heard magico mini but never Merlin.

Even the mini's sounded "thin" to me on an absolute scale, despite being one of the best speakers I have heard in most every other regard.

I've heard higher end Totem monitors in the past as well and they were also quite good as has been similar Dynaudio (not thin).


I have some pretty good Triangle monitors ($500 new) also. These are thinner than 5X as expensive Dynaudio at higher volumes, but competitive with most anything at low volumes.

I don't view a sub as a band aid. That infers it fixes something that is damaged or defective otherwise. If integrated well with good small monitors in particular, it is there optionally to add something that was not there to start with, and only as wanted or needed.

There are many threads around arguing the pro/cons of subs so no sense re-hashing all that.

paul, you are in for more fun as you master bam and rc's are going out today by ups, signature requested.
have fun,
bobby

I am in my second week of breaking in a new pair of TSM-XMr monitors. Yes, the cult-like love for these speaker systems is founded on reality. They are quite amazing. I will be posting a full review in tomorrow or Wednesday.

Rob

"but if the fundamental design of the speaker is flawed there is only so much a sub can do'

It depends on what is meant by "thinness", but thinness can result with a very good monitor that does what it does very well but does not attempt to plumb the depths for low end by design because that is not generally what monitors are designed to do, although there are always ways to stretch performance if desired.

Merlin uses an equalization circuit called the "BAM" I believe to good effect to wean more low end than most small monitors I believe much like the OHM speakers in my system use a similar circuit called a "sub bass activator".

I like that Bobby provides expertise and solutions for his customers like the BAM and the RC network (to help adapt the speakers better to more amps apparently) that allow users to get more out of his speakers in more common listener scenarios as needed. That is a value added service that might not be had from many vendors.

I wonder how the TSM might compare to the Magico monitor. Quite a difference in price, but I do find it hard to see how much better you could get than the Merlins, especially the VSMs which are essentially bookshelf/monitors with "integrated" stands. After many years of looking, I still have not found a speaker I prefer to the Merlins.

paul, the rc network does two things. it is an hf filter at 1.6 mghz for filtering rfi and emi. imo a must in a city environment. and the second is to offer an unterminated amp a 10 ohm load at 100 khz. speakers are open circuits and the 10 ohm load on the amp in the extreme hf allows it to settle down and sound as good as it possibly can.
if you have a dull speaker you may prefer the sound with the rc off but in a high res system it is better with it on.
ok?
best, b

I can't see a sub solving the problem of a thin sounding speaker, it might help a little, but if the fundamental design of the speaker is flawed there is only so much a sub can do. The balancing act of detail and a too lean sound is a fragile one and the TSM's allow one to have their cake and eat it. This is where a talented speaker designer can make all the difference.

Bobby, can you explain what the role of the RC Network is? Is it a filter to keep out very high frequecies?

"what good is super transparency if the speakers are thin sounding"

If that is a problem, then adding a sub is a very practical and effective solution.

I have compared them to many different brands including, Trinagle, Reynaud, ProAc, Spendor, Harbeth and others and I prefer my Merlin TSM-MXE's. They are really incredible monitors and I would recommend them to anyone. They are extremely well judged and do everything so well including bass which so many monitors have problems with and tonal accuracy where they are right on the money. If a speaker is not tonally accurate I don't feel there is any reason to own it and it is not high end. I have never heard another speaker get the tonal accuracy and transparency so correct and maintain the proper weight and impact of instruments and voices. In other words what good is super transparency if the speakers are thin sounding?

The TSM's are great speakers. I've had the mme's for a couple of years and remain completely satisfied. They are senstitive to setup, but the effort to dial them in is well worth it. Enjoy!

Hi, Everybody,

I am enjoying my new TSM-mmi's. I haven't been posting here much lately due to having to deal with some health crises in my extended family, as well as being extremely busy at work.

My pair of TSM's got some extra break-in time at the factory; a whole weekend on the break-in system. Nevertheless, the Cardas jumpers and external RC networks that the speakers come with had no time on them when I got them, so those are still breaking in -- I've only got maybe an additional 20 or so hours on the speakers since setting them up.

Additionally, in consultation with Bobby P., who takes wonderful care of his customers and is extremely generous with his time and expertise, I've become more convinced than ever that I need to get a carpet on my hardwood floors to tame some of my room reflections in order to really get the most out of the TSMs or ANY speaker, for that matter.

With those caveats, I'll say that so far, the TSM's are very fine. They are extremely revealing speakers. Voices sound palpable and alive. Bass is surprisingly satisfying and tuneful for such a small bass/mid driver. And they throw a huge, enveloping, 3D soundstage with the right material.

I still have a lot of fiddling to do: the carpet, deciding whether I like them more with or without the RC networks, etc. But I am definitely enjoying them so far.

Oh, and the build quality is beyond superb... "loving," I'd call it.

I'll post more when I'm more convinced that I've got them optimally set up.

Best Regards...

Rebbi,

This afternoon I was talking with a guy at the local shop here that has a new pair of TSM speakers. He said they take several months to break-in, but they are coming along nicely. Hopefully, yours are too?

Yes, I'd like to hear as well.

rebbi, not to worry. maintain a 9.5 foot listening distance from the speakers if you can and put the speakers closer to the wall behind them.
the cardas golden rule which you refer to is a guidline for the best possible positioning which happens only a few times out of a 100. the most important thing is to sit the distance i told you away from them to utilize the power response which they are designed with.
you will be fine.
let me know.
best, b

Dude...I'm soooo jealous!

My Ruby Red TSM-MXr's should be coming soon. We'll compare notes.

Rob
NY

Hooray,

Finally got my TSM-mmi's from Merlin on Monday of this week. I've had a hideous work schedule this week so they're not yet connected to my system, but I did manage to get them fully unpacked and on the Osiris stands I bought here.

Hope to finally get them wired up and playing tomorrow. So far I can say that the fit and finish is beautiful!

For those of you with TSM's, how far out from the rear wall to you have them positioned? I'm asking because according the formula supplied in the setup instructions, with an 8 foot ceiling, the front panel of my TSM's should be something like 5 feet from the wall behind them, which I cannot pull off in my room.

Bobby,

Thanks for your follow-up, and like you I think it is good to clear the air, so thanks for following through on that. I wasn't intending to be secretive about the fact that I had once owned the SE or had heard the MMi at a friend's house. In the price neighborhood of the TSM I consider the Reference 9.2 worth adding to his audition list. I meant that as a general statement regardless of the TSM model. I will certainly take you at face value that you were not trying to lay the foundation to shoot down my recommendation as had Robbob.

To me your question was more blunt than polite. Something I have learned is that when I am asking probing questions, it helps to let others know beforehand what is my intention. That is something you may want to consider, and for my part next time if necessary I'll try harder to ask before reacting. But you are absolutely right and very astute to suppose that your (in my opinion) blunt question right on the heals of Robbob's shooting down my suggestion did make me want to push back, and that's what I did.

Again, I appreciate that you followed up on this with me and as far as I am concerned the air between us is clear.

Best,

J

I have no idea what all the heat is about.

A fellow I don't know mentioned tha Canton's as an option and I gave a counter opinion that they are not in the same league.

I have ONLY heard the MME versions. I have the newer versions (XMr) on order. I found the Canton's punchy and bright in my session with them. I thought the MME's were better and they were mated to inferior electronics.

That's what I heard and others may hear differently. By all means go audition BOTH and post your impressions.

We're talking about speakers here, folks. There's no need for anyone to get their panties in a bunch!

I was out sailing yesterday and I came upon a slower moving vessel. My boat is a 35 foot sailboat and the boat next to us was a bit smaller. My friend asked, "Is that a better boat that this?"
I replied, "What's the difference? We're out yachting on a Friday and kids are starving nearby."

The cost of my little Manley amp could feed an African village for a year. We need to keep some perspective and not get into silly tiffs over speakers!

Cheers....I'm off to go sailing again,

Rob

r, i made the post asking what version you had before robbob's opinion was even posted. that was his opinion and not mine. i did not even know he had made the post.
i asked you politely to mention the version. that was because i had forgotten that you had mentioned it earlier in this string. it was over 5 weeks ago. but look at the thanks i gave you for being fair. does this really sound like i have an alterior motive in this?
i did not jump in as you say to challenge anything. it is incorrect for me to give opinions on any brand but my own in a forum like this. and at any rate, i have not heard the canton and i do not talk about what i do not know. so how could i challenge your opinions on any level. i think you got upset because to you, it looked like robbob and i were in this together which is an incorrect assumption. and later that i was questioning your opinion on the canton which is also an incorrect assumption.
we are all entitled to an opinion and i would not question yours. but please do not make assumptions about my opinions or my character.
imho you are over reacting and taking things out of context. all you needed to say was that i mentioned the version earlier in this very string. and knowing now that you had, why be so secretive 5 weeks later?
and yes have a nice weekend.

and tvad, it is best to talk things out because this was a misunderstanding and we can learn from these.

Bobby:
(1) In no thread have I ever questioned the veracity of another member’s advice as Robbob did with me.
(2) In no thread have I ever asked another member to qualify his advice as you did with me. I did not mention which version because in my opinion the Canton Reference 9.2 is a viable option for any TSM model. I owned the SE, but have heard the MMi and consider the Reference 9.2 a viable alternative, although in my earlier post to which you alluded I said that at its price point I know of no finer speaker than your TSM. I stand by that too.
(3) You stated that had I specified which TSM model you would not have “had” to ask me. Why did you have to ask me anything at all if not to jump in and challenge my suggestion to Rebbi? What business is it of yours what suggestion I gave him? Your claim that the motive for your question was simply your edification is contradicted by your Ford models comments. My impression of your original question was correct – that you were indeed seeking to challenge my recommendation to Rebbi and that I find objectionable as my opinions in this community are just a valid as yours.
(4) At no time did I suggest that you leave this community. From what I have read of your posts you help a lot of people and are a true asset to this community, but requiring me to qualify my suggestions as though you are the final arbiter of all things Merlin is not a status I am willing to cede to you.
(5) Perhaps the most appropriate way for us to end this nonsensical exchange is just to ignore each other.
And I hope you have a good weekend too.

reynolds853, i asked you what version of tsm you owned and i found out in another string, it was the tsm se. this is a 13 year old version and has been improved on by the m, mm, mme and mmi. if you would have mentioned this i would not have had to ask and got into this nonsense with you. owning a ford means you could own anything from a model t to a gt40. not all fords are the same, nor are all of the tsms.
have a good weekend.
b

r, i asked a simple question and was polite. your response is anything but polite. it is you that are way out of line and being rude. i am not policing anything, how could i. there are moderators here for that and they have removed posts if they think a line is crossed. none was. i just wanted to know what version you owned to see how current they were. i learn from people's comments and i like to learn. not everyone has to own my product or like it. that would be impossible. we all listen to and for different things. audio doesn't have to be a contact sport which is what people like you turn it in to. remember one thing, i am also part of this community and you nor anyone else will drive me from it.
have a nice long weekend.
b

Rebbi: I posted my reply because you asked for alternatives to the TSM, and I gave you one. That Robbob and BobbyPaldovich feel that they are policemen for this thread is out of line. The Canton Reference 9.2 speakers are indeed viable alternatives to the TSM and just because Robbob doesn't like them doesn't mean that you shouldn't listen to them and trust your own ears, not mine, not Robbob's nor Palkovich's.

And Bobby, I do not answer to you sir. If Rebbi wants to know to which ones I have listened, then he can ask me and I will be happy to reply. But this is not your thread and you are not the policeman of all Merlin threads regardless of whether you are the manufacturer or not.

what model tsm, r?
thanks, b

I don't think price is a big factor. Once monitors leave the 2K range it's all fairly big leagues.

I don't think the Canton's compete at all with the Merlins. I also recently listened to a pair of Focal Diablo Utopia and had no doubt at all that the Merlins are better.

I believe those Focals are pretty pricey! I have yet to hear the Silverline's but I've heard good stuff about them.

Rob

I owned a pair of Merlin TSM speakers and changed them out of my system for a pair of Silverline SR17.5s. The SR17 Supreme speakers which replaced the 17.5 in the product line are $6,000, so that is a different league from the Merlins. At a price point closer to the Merlins I would suggest that you audition a the Canton Reference 9.2 speakers.

Hi Rebbi,
The rest of the system is McIntosh C2300 tube preamp, MC402 amp, VPI scout with Ortofon Moving coil, all Supra cables, Dynaudio stand 4 filled with sand and lead shot, Sony SCD XA5400-ES SACD/CD player, Also have a McIntosh MVP861 player, Quadraspire rack, Shunyata Hydra power with Shunyata Power cables. That's it...

I am very happy with the Merlins. I have not desired another speaker since their purchase. (which is unusual for me).

Good Luck and trust your ears.
Bennett (hififile)

mapman, driver technology is important but not as important as how you use it. the woofer in the tsm is a morel and the tweeters are handmade to my spec by rennaissance audio and is an improoved version of the morel mdt28. it is the ren mst30.5. the disapearing act hififile speaks of has to do with the cabinet profile/dispersion, driver spacing, the very wide and super flat amplitude and its very continuous sound from top to bottom. it is imho, very expansive sounding.
best, b

"I could never get the Dyn to totally disappear and go invisible, the Merlin's do a great job in that regard."

I've accomplished that with the Dyn Contour 1.3mkii when able to optimize placement away from walls. They are rear ported. Not as much where currently located only a foot or so out in my wife's sunroom. The sealed enclosure should work well closer to walls I would expect.

I'm guessing the sealed enclosure is a big part of the Merlin's magic in some setups in comparison to other monitor designs that are ported in order to extend range.

I think I read some Merlins actually use Dynaudio drivers.

Hififile:

Can you tell me more about your system. What kinds of electronics, cabling and stands are you using? Thanks!

Hi Mapman,
I had the Dynaudio Special 25's prior to Merlin TSM-mme's. The Dynaudio was excellent and had amazing bass for it's size. However, "in my room", the sealed Merlin gives a better presentation.

I could never get the Dyn to totally disappear and go invisible, the Merlin's do a great job in that regard.

That is too bad about the Castle speakers. I have read many good things about them, never heard them, and I was disappointed to see them discontinue production about three years ago. I see, though, the the line has been picked up by a Chinese company.

That could be both good and bad. Good in that production costs come down. Bad in that there is the potential for quality control issues but that might be a wash given your own experience with them. What the Chinese do with them only time will tell, but if they stay true to its sonic heritage, who knows?