Long-Time ML Montis User - Experience and Impressions

[Rascal]

Hello Fellow Marin Logan enthusiasts.

It’s been a while since I last contributed, so I’ll keep this short and rely on questions from others to steer the discussion.

I’m a retired research EE with considerable circuit and system design and analysis experience. I’ve also been involved in audio for a long time. I’m 78 and my hearing isn’t wha5 it was at 20 - it falls off past 12 kHz and stereo discernment isn’t what it once was - but what remains is still, IMHO, adequate if not better than many. I own a lot of other gear (speakers, amps, sources) but I’d like to focus here on the Montises.

My wife is a concert pianist and music teacher. She echoes my remarks about the qualities of the Montises’ sound.

My Montises are in an AV room and are used daily both as stereo listening speakers and as the front left and front right speakers in an AV home theater with large screen projection. The Montises are driven by a Benchmark AHB2 which is driven by. Benchmark DAC3. Control of source is via the DAC3: For listening, I use digital and analog sources connected to the DAC3 and control volume with the DAC3; for home theater, the DAC3 runs in home theater mode (fixed level) driven by the L and R outputs of a Denon AV receiver. The center channel speaker, BTW, is a Dynaudio Contour T 2.1 which matches well the Montises. The speaker cables are Blue Jean Canare star quad designs. I tried simpler cables and can hear the improvement.

I’ve gone through a multitude of amps prior to settling on the AHB2. The AHB2 is by far the cleanest I’ve heard, has no trouble handling the Montises, which are highly capacitive loads in the upper registers, and has ample power. Prior amps include a custom modified ADCOM GFA555 (designed by Nelson Pass and modified to improve high frequency power supply bypassing), a pair of custom refurbished McIntosh MC-60s, a custom refurbished Marantz 8B, the Denon AV receiver and its predecessor by Marantz. I personally don’t think tube amplification is the best choice for this sort of load, and only the best solid state designs are clean enough to do these justice.

In the listening area, a room that is very long and a challenge to load, the Montises are rear load by acoustic absorbing panels hung on the brick wall behind. The panels significantly reduce the back image, improve the smoothness and the stereo imaging.

The impression i get from the Montises is, especially, great smoothness and natural rendering of nearly all instruments and voices. This is due, no doubt, because of the fundamental qualities of the electrostatic driver and the utter absence of any crossover effects between midrange and treble. They aren’t great at stereo imaging. It’s part of the nature of large panel transducers. They’re also tricky to position in a room, but by now most of you know this. What they’re great at is sounding musical, accurate and smooth yet revealing.

I don’t think anyone should buy this sort of speaker without a live audition and a solid return if not satisfied policy.

I think this should be adequate for further discussions. Thanks for your attention.

 

[twich54]

Rascal, as a former and long time owner of di-pole speakers I couldn't agree more with your analysis. With that being said and your wife a music teacher / pianist I've yet to hear any transducer at or near the price point of ML that does the piano justice.

 

[Rascal]

Yep — Piano reproduction is tough. The system I own for best handling piano is a pair of KEF 105.1 driven by a custom refurbished Adcom GFA555 and a Benchmark DAC2. Of course, the 105s aren’t made anymore. The high end B&W 800 series are similar in sound but terribly expensive.

A really good listening test is the Argerich-Freire pairing of the Rachmaninoff Suite No. 2, Op 17. A very dynamical recording with spectacular playing.

Obtaining good, faithful piano reproduction requires taming room acoustics, especially with electrostatic speakers. Treatments make a huge difference and can bring out some of the unique dynamics of a piano’s sound. Also experimenting with listening chair and speaker placement helps.

There’s also headphone listening, but that gets complicated and has little to do with the Martin Logan’s.

My wife’s studio boasts a Steingraeber 6’ 9” and a Bluthner Model 2 (around 8’). The studio uses broadloom carpet hanging on the walls and carpets on the floor to attenuate the volume. Without it, the piano sound is so loud that it leads to ringing in the ears. The acoustics are dry as toast but hearing is better preserved. The studio speakers, when listening is called for, are the KEF’s.

 

[Rascal]

For those curious about what a Montis is, it’s an earlier model which was, ultimately, replaced in the line-up with the Impression, the ESL 11A. There are of course similarities and differences, but I believe much of what I’ve described applies to the later model as well.

My objective in launching this thread is offering to share my experiences with this sort of loudspeaker. While my Montises continue to satisfy, and a good pair of used Montises might prove a real bargain, I’d direct purchases toward the newer ESL 11A model.

A write-up comparing the performance of the Montis with that of the ESL 11A was published by a friend and informed audiophile John Gatski:

http://everythingaudionetwork.blogspot.com/2017/12/audiophile-speaker-review-martinlogan.html

 

[Tmort]

I’ve found stereo imaging with my classic 9’s in a highly acoustic treated room is excellent, prior to the treatments not nearly so.

 

[Rascal]

I can understand that. I’m glad you had success.