Speaker shootout update; aggressive treble eliminating some (fairly?)

You’re using the wrong Martin Logan’s. Their Spires are available used for $3500 a pair. They’d offer far superior performance than Motians. Why would you consider Motians if you’ve $4k to spend on speakers. I don’t get it. Buy used, you’re always better off, imo. 

Hilde, will it not let you upload the actual links?  I’m not able to open them even replacing “dot” with “.”

Someone else here was able to get to them and it works for me so I’m not sure what to tell you. In the past uploading links to Google photos has just been blocked so I have not tried it.
The suggestion about the other Martin Logans is noted but the reason I don’t buy used is because I cannot audition it. Once you buy an expensive speaker on the used market it is yours. You cannot return it. So that is a risk that I am not willing to take. I had read many good things about the motion speakers and I tried them out for a mere $20. I was able to get the focal speakers from a local used shop called the music room and those were free. So I’m not sure where the wisdom is in trying a speaker I have no idea how it’s going to sound without the possibility of returning. It’s the other side of the saying you get what you pay for. You get it and then you cannot give it back. Without auditions there is no chance that I would choose a speaker.

You could always add them to your virtual systems page!

Agreed re: M/L

Copy and paste of links to shared google photo albums should work.  I did it earlier on the thread most recently. 

@hilde45
"...a more detailed description is coming, but they are not harsh or aggressive at all."

Excellent.  Reading posts, it seems the new monitor speakers are headed in a better direction for you and your listening space.  And, with no expensive room treatments, no DSP or equalization tools, running all of the exact same electronics. Nice. 

Hilde45, the impulse graph provides a single (multi frequency, I think) short sound (the impulse)  and records every reputation of that impulse until it completely decays.  You don't need to run the scans again, just select the impulse tab in the row of options above the frequency graph.  Set the graph limits at -0.002 on the left and .050 on the right, 0db on the top and -65 dB on the bottom.  Each vertical line is a reflection of the initial impulse.  You would like to have everything from 3m to 20 m on the X axis at -20 dB.  Anything above -20 dB will erode imaging because the brain will merge those early reflections with the 0m impulse signal, thus obscuring the spacial information in the recording.  Anything longer than 20m will be perceived as room spaciousness. 
Next, set the limits to -.002m on the left and 0.5m on the left.  I set the bottom limit to about -85 db.  This will show you how long it takes for the impulse to decay to the level of room noise, which is really a picture of how spacious your room will sound.  This is a matter of personal taste.  Some want as close to an anechoic chamber as they can get.  In other words, those folks advocate that everything after the original impulse should be  at the level of room noise.  Most of us like added spaciousness of the room.   My room currently shows a gradual decline to the level of room noise (the more or less flat zero slope area at the right part of the graph) at 0.3m.  m is time in milliseconds. 

@brownsfan I've figured out how to adjust limits, but am still wandering in the dark. Let's take this off-forum.

I've been listening to the Salks for several days and have not been systematic about recording impressions. This is preliminary.
But a few things are certain.

• The bass is incredible. Deep extension and also definition. I can feel it. It's not boomy. It's taut. There's no roll off that I can hear, as with some other speakers. I put on my REL sub and it barely added anything; it's a very subtle addition. (That said, I need to do a new sub crawl because I've moved listening position and speaker orientations.)
• The highs are *not* shrill, sharp, metallic or harsh in the least. Very articulate and detailed without any graininess or aggressive sharpness.
• The soundstage is well defined and has a tight central image. I'm still playing with placement; they sound like bookshelves (compared, e.g., to the massive sound stage of the tower 936 Focals) but they're big bookshelves. I'm still playing to see if I can get elements within the sound stage to locate a bit more definitely. The speakers have not "disappeared" yet.
• Vocals sound intimate, human, present — "there."

More details and observations, comparisons to come I hope. I get the Dynaudio Evoke 30 towers on Wednesday.

Seems the Salks are working well for you.Good to hear:-)

Hilde45, It sounds like you are making real progress.  With respect to spacial issues, your set up has an enormous advantage in that the side walls are completely innocent with respect to early reflections.   Side wall first reflections are the most egregious and are also not as easy to treat effectively as most people think.   After looking at your impulse graphs and room set up,  I suspect your ability to localize is compromised by proximity of your main listening position to the back wall/bookcase.  The bookcase is better than a flat wall, but the bookcase is not as easy to improve as a flat wall.   This may take a little creativity, but I think you can improve on imaging and localization by doing some things with the bookcase after you lock into the current speaker and MLP as optimal.   I'm sure you are getting some reflections off of the ceiling, but the human ear doesn't use sounds from above to for localization nearly as much as those in the horizontal plane, so I wouldn't worry too much about the ceiling unless you've got other issues like flutter echo. 

Brief update: the Dyn Evoke 30s have zero hours on them so I've been breaking them in a bit. I'm also doing some analyses of my room using the REW software and the UMIK mic. I cannot treat the room, obviously, in any elaborate way, but I can perhaps make some adjustments to give the speakers in my shootout a fair shot. Lots of listening ahead and a final decision, I hope.

Ha, why sample ML Motian’s. Hint: They’re not true ML’s. For $4k you can buy Spires or nearly Elthos. They’re about the most user friendly speaker there is. What music are you listening to?

"Motions" were highly recommended for their AMT tweeter. Your hint makes no sense to me. What is "Elthos"? I'm finding it hard to grasp your point. Perhaps revise your comment to help?

@coltrane1
"Ha, why sample ML Motian’s. Hint: They’re not true ML’s. "

Why not? A ML rep called me out of the blue this week, happened to mention Martin Logan sells Motion series all over the world with success. The original founder of Paradigm purchased the Martin Logan company last year, including Motion series. Why?, Sales there too. Gotta sell speakers to make money.

I own several Motions, along with other custom speakers I build. Tested Motions with various solid state and tube amplifiers. Decent AMT implementation, sounds nice when paired with some amps. Can be nice for folks with HT/Audio combos. Best for 2ch audio, maybe not, yet holding a position within the Martin Logan Co line now.

Personally, I wouldn’t own any of the new ML panel planar magnetic speakers below the new ML ESL-9 model. Very nice. $2k above OP’s budget. "CLX Art", yes! Few of the older MLs under $10k sound right to me, kind of a blurred sound.  

Did you actually test the Motion Series speakers? Which models, and what amplifiers were used in your evaluation, if any?

The Motion 60XTs outperformed several costlier speakers in my audition, including the lower-tier ML ESLs. 

@helomech I think they’re very musical, with bass that easily rivaled the Focal 936’s, perhaps beat them for texture and control. They weren’t right for my room, for reasons described earlier.

@corelli,


'Many years ago bought a pair of Def Tech BP-10's following an all to quick audition. They were bright. I had 6 CD's that sounded great. The rest not so much. Learned to hate them. They did not "break in" nor did my ears adjust. When you have a speaker like this, it is sheer lunacy to try and spend huge amounts of money to tame a speaker you don't even like in the first place. WHY WOULD SOMEONE EVER DO THAT?

By doing some careful research I am amazed how you can often find what you love without carting numerous speakers home (pity those dealers). We should all agree that a Klipsch is going to brighter than a Sonus Faber. Now what you love is up to you. So with careful discussion with other audio friends who owned both Magnepan 1.7's and then Tekton DI's, I confidently ordered up. And not only did I LOVE the DI's, but they did exactly what others had said they did.

So do some homework and don't waste time on stuff doomed to fail. Tonal balance and some other qualities will remain a constant no matter what room and what gear you pair them up with. I'll bet with careful research and discussion you can find a speaker you love in one or two tries. Then address placement and room treatments. Then look at associated gear and cables.  If your electronics are staying put, then obviously that has implications in what speakers will be good candidates as well.'



My experiences too.

I've never had much luck with 'correcting' speakers that had serious treble issues, so I don't really much faith in the difference that placement, amps and cables could make.

I once had a pair of Ruarks that sounded wonderfully vivid and dynamic - an explosion of sound. I would have loved those speakers but for the treble which considerably overstepped into harshness on more than a few recordings. 

It was a difficult decision to sell them on as they were doing so much right - but just one all too obvious thing wrong.

Yes, I could have attempted to modify the crossover myself but my knowledge and mental abilities strongly advised against it.

I believe the OP is trying his very best to avoid 'stuff doomed to fail' whilst at the same time trying to come to terms with which of the inevitable compromises he will have to ultimately accept. Great stuff.

@cd318
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I eliminated as much as I could and narrowed down to things which would not waste dealers' time, be something I could afford, and would best suit my amp and musical tastes.

I've listened to music for most of my 50+ years but only recently ventured into significantly higher quality sound; so, the challenge for someone like me has been to "educate my palate," so to speak. People rave about all kinds of speaker *types* (electrostatic, open baffle, MTM, etc.) and I had no idea how these things would sound, to my ears and in my room. I've learned a lot, and this forum and its members have helped me understand that there are many things that contribute besides the speaker — the room, most importantly, but more generally, my goals. I didn't really know my goals with any specificity in the beginning, and so it's easy to wander forever. Values drive everything else, so as the Delphic Oracle said, "Know Thyself." (Or, "Figure it out!")

Your point about not buying a speaker that *then has to be tamed* is exactly right; it took me into my 30's to stop buying shoes that pinched in the store but which I thought would "wear in." But I followed your logic with the Focals and the Martin Logans because I did not want to buy something wrong for my room, even if it could be "fixed." (Well, maybe or maybe not.) And returning those was hard because they were huge, I had to pack them up, I risked damage during shipping, and I had already put them on my Visa. Lots of reasons to say "good enough." But despite their very good reviews and many recommendations from smart people, they sounded wrong to me, and so I shipped them back. 

All this while I was conscious I could become impossible to please (the Princess and the Pea, audiophile edition). But now that I'm coming toward the end of the process I'm realizing that this has all been the "tuition of experience." I've educated my ears, figured out a lot about my room, and learned about various technical elements pertinent to speakers, amplification, and acoustics. The speaker choice is now more than just an expensive purchase, but the culmination of this aesthetic inquiry in service of music.

ex·​pe·​ri·​ence "direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge".

There are members on this forum with strong opinions back to early 2000s and now at "ten amps ago" or "twenty speakers ago". Some could afford to buy and resell, others simply demo’d with good merchants. Never feel bad about demo’ing. If it’s right for someone, they will buy it. Each of us have different hearing and preferences. To each his own.

I’ll tell you this. I own ML Spires. Am I trading them for Motians because ML wants to sell AMT speakers instead of planars, which btw, ML is known for over 40 years? The answer is absolutely no. Spires sold new for $8500. Today you can buy those same speakers for $3500. Why sample an inferior $4k speaker when one could purchase a superior product for $3500? Headscratching. But hey, it’s your money, and spend it as you choose. But don’t whine how Motians for $4k aren’t effective in your speaker shootout when there is a superior speaker available in the Spire or Ethos. 

So what's the result of the basement shoot-out?  Inquiring minds want to know...

@twoleftears et al.
Update on speaker shootout: Salks win.
I did extensive listening to all kinds of music, with many positionings of the speakers. There is no question that the Salks win, hands down.

Besides having an estimable bass response (even firmer and only a little deeper when paired with my REL sub), the clarity and precision of the upper midrange really gave me what I was looking for, without the harsh, aggressive treble of the Focals or Martin Logans or what I can only describe as slightly rolled off or veiled highs in the Fritz or Dynaudios. They just smudge the details I really want to hear.

There is no question for me that, among these speakers, none are perfect. The bass on the ML’s is low and tight; the soundstage on the Focals and the midrange is really luscious, expansive, and presses my "astonishment" button; the silky, across the board honesty and listenability of the Fritz is really an impossibly good combination. But given what I have discovered as my penchant for revealing and crystalline upper mids and treble, the Salks took the prize for me. On *some* tunes, I wished they would be a bit less forward, but this is a trade off which I think I can live with — even if I don’t address any of the issues in my room. (The REW data I’ve seen after a week of testing has shown me where some problems with my room are and I have some ideas about how to address them.)

So, there you have it. End of the road. Good process; back to the beginning, but learned a lot on the way.

Congrats!It's been an really interesting thread to follow.I'll look forward to reading about how you'll tackle your room later on.Relax and enjoy:-)

@jtcf  Thanks -- it's been interesting for me to read the comments and theories about what might have been happening in my room, and all the other great speakers out there to try, somehow, someday.

I appreciate you following through with updates. So many start speaker search threads and abandon them with no conclusion. 

Another happy ending.   👍

@mapman Thank you. I felt it was owed. 

@hilde45, it is good to see that you found a speaker that meets your needs so well.   You have pursued this project thoughtfully and have put in a lot of hard work.  In my opinion, you have assembled some really nice pieces that will serve you very well for a long time.  As time permits, a bit of work on your room will pay additional dividends.  Nicely done!

Doing all of the up front evaluation work also allows one to appreciate the final decision that much more.  Looks like the hard work paid off. Congrats!  

@decooney 
@brownsfan 

Thanks to you both. I had good guidance from both of you on different phases of the process. Invaluable.

FWIW, I mentioned in my note to Jim Salk that I loved the speakers but there were moments that they could be a little bright, and he said they make them for a flat response but depending on the rooms they're played in, this can happen. He's sending me a couple small resistors which he said could be added if I wanted just a bit less of those highs.

Sure thing @hilde45. Fwiw, maybe hold off on the resistors for a while, and a little more time on the speakers (drivers, and caps on x-over inside). And, the tube change on the DAC might get you one splitting hair closer to taking a tad bit of the brightness off. You are getting closer now, the rest is fine tuning and some fun listening! 

@decooney You were the only one to suggest that a change of tube in my Orchid MHDT DAC might help -- and it has already. I ordered a TESLA 6CC42  ($24, Ebay) from Ukraine and it took a couple weeks to get to me but *right away* it took the edge off without sounding rolled off. Perfect tweak.

Twoleftears  +1
 I notice when selecting speakers, many will audition several models all the same tweeter material  (usually metal), and then conclude that all the speakers are  bright. Better to compare the different material types  (metal, soft, Be, horn, etc.) so you understand their different characteristics, decide on the design you prefer, and then compare and select a speaker model within that type.   
There are trade offs. Metal generally gives a tip top high end that a soft dome doesn’t, like the tap of a stick on a cymbal or the crisp first nanosecond on a piano high note, but there is a quality in a soft dome that is more musical in other areas that happen to be more important to me (e.g. violins, muted trumpet, female voice). So I prefer the soft dome...but this will be a v personal decision, and will be influenced by the type of music you listen to.  

@glow_worm 
I couldn't agree more. My auditions ran the gamut:

Fritz Carbon 7 (ScanSpeak Textile soft dome)
Dyns (Cerotar soft dome)
Focal 936 (aluminum/magnesium)
Martin Logan Motion 60 (AMT)
Salk SS 6M (Beryllium)
Klipsch (titanium)

I learned a lot about what I preferred and also what worked in my room.

Unlike the Paradigm, the two best implementations of beryllium that I've heard have been in the Fritz Carrera and the Salk Song3 BeAT.

Good to hear the outcome Hilde!  
Im a big fan of Beryllium tweeters as well.  I feel like they have the detail, clarity and sparkle I like so much but they aren’t so in your face / fatiguing as titanium.  I also notice sibilance with Titanium that isn’t there with Beryllium.

The comparison between the evokes and the Salks wasn’t fair.  The esotar tweeter is more in line with your BE SB’s.  I’d bet that you’d still prefer the BE sound signature over soft domes though, some people do, self included.

I noted earlier in this thread (I believe) that you wouldn’t need a sub really, if you had some good bass response from a stand mount speaker, which it sounds like you have accomplished that.  I have had many expensive, high end subs in my room and most of the time I prefer no sub.  REL’s are so subtle as well but I do love them!

Just to add a bit to the previous post about the Fritz Carrera BE’s, I’ve had my pair for awhile now and just love them.  Fritz is now using the Beryllium SB acoustics tweeter in the Carreras.  Its the same tweeter as in your Salks (if you have the neodymium magnet version).

Anyhow, happy listening!  

@b_limo Someday, we'll speaker swap for a month? Hmmmm.

@hilde 45 and  @decooney, tube rolling in the Orchid was a brilliant (if obvious) lever to use. I’m just glad someone finally looked at the problem holistically instead of focusing on a single variable. A while back, there was an extensive thread on tube rolling in the Orchid. You probably saw it, but just in case, https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/mhdt-orchid-tube-rolling?highlight=orchid. Folks were using adapters to utilize 6SN7, the 6922 family, and some other stuff as I recall. That gives you an almost infinite number of great choices that can certainly emphasize or deemphasize any number of sonic attributes.

My one and only experience with Be tweets was in a Ref 3A speaker. It was a lovely tweeter. Very resolving but never bright. Unfortunately, it was much faster and much more articulate than the mid woofer, so it did not make a happy match. You could identify the tweet and midrange immediately as two separate drivers. My guess is that the Fritz and Salk both exhibit excellent coherence.

The monitors I use in my secondary system have Scan Speak Revelator soft domes, which are great tweeters, but I think one of the better Be tweets might be a better match in my living room. If you guys do a swap, please let me know what you think. One of those monitors might be in my future.

@brownsfan Will sure let you know. The Orchid tube was all @decooney I just know how to take good advice.

I’d be fine with swaping for a bit in a few months once the honeymoon period has worn off for you.  I’d imagine that the Salks have more bass simply because of the size of the cabinet.  It would be interesting though.  Same tweeter, both utilize a paper style midbass close in size, yet I think they would sound different simply because of different crossovers and different size cabinets.  I’d be interested to see if the Fritz are more sensitive.

SB acoustics makes some nice drivers. The 6” carbon driver Fritz is using, and the Satori midbass that you have are really beautifully built drivers.  Good quality stuff.  
There’s other good drivers out there too from Seas, Scan Speak, Morel, Vifa, Raal; as you move up the line they go from good to great!

But BE tweeters are always expensive and towards the high end of the series of a manufacturer.  I had Paradigms with BE tweeters, and have heard Focals and Revels with BE tweeters and liked them all.

To the OP: given the 60XT’s impedance curve, it seems that they would not match well with tubes at all. Tubes require relatively stable impedance over the frequency range.

They also perform quite poorly when driven with Denon / Marantz receivers (as the impedance goes down below 3 ohms at some frequencies). Hence, you get all these posts on how they underperformed in speaker comparisons at Magnolia.

Pair them up with a good solid state amp (I use the Parasound A21) and you’ll realize how good they are. No brightness / harshness in treble at all. I had them side-by-side in my house for a month next to the Monitor Audio Gold GX-300 speakers (way more expensive than the 60XT) and the 60XT won out clearly.

Wow, beat the Monitor Golds?  Maybe I’ve overlooked those ML’s..

@reg19 Thanks. That ship has sailed (I bought other speakers) but @decooney will be interested to hear your claim about tubes and the ML 60s. He has the ML 40s (perhaps a different curve) and has a tube amp, albeit a more powerful one. 

re: ML Motion 40/60 speakers

Yeah, they get kind of a bad rap when paired with mediocre home theater receivers and nests of cabling and switchers at Magnolia stores. A well used demo set at the store sounds different than a new pair not burned in.  

I listen to them every night for home theater with a 200w x 5ch home theater setup. Great for movies, better suited and more transparent than my former Totem Acoustic Signatures for HT purpose.

For 2ch stereo listening, tested them with various Class A tube and solid state amps too. 10w, 50w Triode and 100w tube amps. They can sound nice with quality amps and good cabling in the right room, ymmv.

This year you have driven down a great audio path and I have very much enjoyed the ride with you. Your approach and attitude has garnished a great deal of support, ending with your having put together a great system via education and experience gained in your own environment. Congrats! 

@mesch That is such a nice thing to hear! Thank you! And there are a number of people on this forum (including you!) who have taken their time to answer questions, ask questions, provide advice, provide a sounding board, and more -- a genuine community of inquiry. It's reassuring to know that dialogue of such a collaborative and supportive kind is still possible in the increasingly precarious online space.

You are more than welcome. As one who is somewhat isolated from audio loving friends, I take particular interest in developing relations within this form.