Martin Logan At Silverstone 2010

[User211]

I usually do full show reports but I'm not sure I have the time/willpower to do so at the moment. Let's see how it goes.

Anyway, where was Peter the ML rep? I've had some conversations about the chap holding the demo. He isn't Peter. And what's more - he's nowhere near as good. The guy seem to have an attitude problem, and wouldn't let anyone play what they wanted. Precisely what is the problem with this? Awful attitude, really.

I don't know if Peter is still with ML - but if he is - he is massively better and much more affable. Genuinely good at his job - at least from the show visitors' viewpoint.

This time round I actually got a pretty good set of pictures. Really quite happy with them. But guess what? The ML room was very dark indeed. So unfortunately, many of the Audio Research pics I took simply aren't great. But some are OK - so Bernard and Adam - I did the best I could with a cheap camera, OK?

Anyway, the new model on display was the Ethos in black ash. I personally thought the request to play music by my colleague was badly handled, and the excuse for denying his request was pretty lame "if we play your disk, then we'll have to play anyone who asks". You'd have to have been there to understand the vibe...

So, with limited female vocal input, the Ethos sounded pretty much exactly how I expected it to. It was very good in the mid range IMHO. My colleague wasn't so sure - he complained of a plasticky colouration to the sound. I kind of know where he is coming from there, but I don't find it intrusive.

Someone else will have to evaluate its bass performance because we couldn't with this material. Shame.

Driven by the new Audio Research DS450, it seemed a very good pairing.

A brief exposure only, I can't really say to much else without hearing the speaker with more demanding material. Sorry about that. What I will say is the Maggie 1.7 is half the price and playing Bob Marley sounded pretty convincing.

A note for Rich here, though. The Maggie 1.7 is ultra-flimsy, has insubstantial stands, wobbles about all over the place when rocked etc. The Ethos does feel more substantial/rigid on it's feet. OK it is twice the price, though, and compared to MLs of yore isn't going to win on size/mass stakes.

Whilst I don't think the Maggie can hit the mid range purity of the Ethos, it is very competitve and the Maggie salesman knew it - specifically citing ML as a target. I agree with him. It did sound very good for the money.

Pics next... well, maybe tomorrow.

 

[Rich]

Someone else will have to evaluate its bass performance because we couldn't with this material. Shame.

My guess would be that is exactly why they didn't want anyone playing their own material. Sounds like the constructed the demo to take specific advantage of what the ESL panel does best. And they were unwilling to take any chances on exposing its weaknesses.

A note for Rich here, though. The Maggie 1.7 is ultra-flimsy, has insubstantial stands, wobbles about all over the place when rocked etc. The Ethos does feel more substantial/rigid on it's feet. OK it is twice the price, though, and compared to MLs of yore isn't going to win on size/mass stakes.

Whilst I don't think the Maggie can hit the mid range purity of the Ethos, it is very competitve and the Maggie salesman knew it - specifically citing ML as a target. I agree with him. It did sound very good for the money.

Not surprising. Most Maggies do better with aftermarket stands. I'm sure the 1.7's are no different. As you say, for the price difference you would hope the ML's would be more substantial and sound a whole lot better. But how could you tell, if you can't play your own material? Thanks for the report, Justin.

 

[User211]

Dusty smudged Ethos. Come on now keep 'em clean - people might take pictures you know!:ROFL:

 

[User211]

Audio Research DS450. Also, the inside of the limited edition pre and the reference phono.

 

[Bernard]

Thanks for the pics, Justin. The caps in that LE Pre are quite something! Wish I could get my hands on one (the pre, not the caps); just a pipedream.

 

[User211]

No problem Bernard.

I must admit I was a bit surprised to see two pairs of CLX Anniversary's at the show. I would have thought they would have all gone by now - didn't they only make 100 pairs? In which case, sales must surely have been low...?

 

[User211]

After mentioning the Maggies I guess they deserve a pic. The following pic is some notably (for Rega) expensive driving electronics. More Rega info here: Rega

I hope those circles on the Maggies aren't Marigo dots

 

[User211]

What was I most interested in at the show? The Analysis Omegas driven by the NAT 211 PSE monos, EAR Acute CD and Brinkmann/Graham/Orpheus combo. This is because of the obvious parallel with my own system. Indeed, a London show many years ago of the Omega stimulated my Apogee Duetta Signature refurb project.

What did I think? Well, I was initially underwhelmed by the sort of recordings I’d never play. I began to suspect complete lack of bass... until a listener saved the day and stood in with a decent recording on CD. Then there was some bass, a decent enough soundstage and reasonable clarity.

This system didn’t inspire the fond memories I had of the Omega from many years ago. The dealer thought the NATs were clipping the day before and the low show voltage level was causing power delivery issues.

I thought the Omega deficient in the bass dept. The panel is quite a bit smaller than the Duetta, and uses different ribbon tech, which internally looks more Maggie like – much like the 1.7s at the show. Duettas seem capable of much more bass wallop and extension than the Omegas, due to the difference in tech. I’ve recently heard Maggie are moving to the same bass panel tech that Apogee used. Interesting. Sometimes you have to go backwards to move forwards?

I personally think the Omegas probably needed some good old solid state current to get them swinging better. Last time I heard them they were driven by big Mark Levinsons IIRC. They are 2 DB less efficient than Duettas.

Those NAT 211s monos, though. Bloody gorgeous, I thought. Eat your heart out Pure Sound – they look much better built than the 845s on show in the Coherent room – and at £3K more I’d easily take the NATs on build quality – just MILES better. Miles. Way more power, and two complete monoblocks too.

 

[User211]

These big Tannoys seemed to be almost universally liked by all who heard them. Wadia/Music First/Moscode as input. Nobody seemed to like the way they looked, but they might be targeted at the middle eastern market with the price tag, which I believe is mid-30K sterling.

Definately good.

 

[User211]

Burmester. Hm. This system just sounded awful and ill-defined. I'm not sure what the total cost would be, but I could do better by spending an awful lot less. Absolutely no question about it.

I know Jeff rates Burmester gear, but believe me - this just didn't work when I was in there. I know not why. Duff speakers?

Mind your eyes on all that chrome. TT is a Transrotor Fat Bob and what looks like a long SME V with a TR logo on it.

For all I know some of the Burmester gear could be new. I didn't spend much time researching what was new, though it is all in the show guide. Too tired to pick it up TBH.

 

[User211]

More shiney chromey Deutschland uber alles stuff... well, it's easier than typing in prose Anyway, a picture speaks a thousand words, only it didn't sound as good as it looks

 

[User211]

Adam Tensor. This is a very good speaker hampered by a small demo room. Somebody said the McIntosh was set 12DB down to control the bass. Whilst that seems like too much to believe, this is a serious speaker with another mid-£30K price tag.

Pics with and without flash to pic up the vibe of the room, but with some inevitable hand held blur...

Sonic signature was very well defined and clear with appreciable scale and taut, well controlled bass considering the room contraints. I've got the feeling this thing would go very loud indeed, without showing much in the way of stress.

 

[RichTeer]

Mind your eyes on all that chrome. TT is a Transrotor Fat Bob and what looks like a long SME V with a TR logo on it.

It looks like it, but the removable headshell and no VTF dial suggests a 12" variant of the SME 345.

Nice pics, BTW; thanks for the audio porn!

 

[Satch]

Yeah Rich, I wonder if that's the arm for the SME 30/12 or 20/12... And Justin, thanks for the photos and thoughts.

Ray

 

[Bernard]

Really great pictures Justin. Your pornograph is working well.

 

[User211]

It looks like it, but the removable headshell and no VTF dial suggests a 12" variant of the SME 345.

Nice pics, BTW; thanks for the audio porn!

I thought I might stand corrected there. TBH - I'm not sure it is really a Fat Bob - it might be some variant thereof.

Bernard - thanks. I'd better post a few more pics then

 

[Rich]

Burmester. Hm. This system just sounded awful and ill-defined. I'm not sure what the total cost would be, but I could do better by spending an awful lot less. Absolutely no question about it.

I know Jeff rates Burmester gear, but believe me - this just didn't work when I was in there. I know not why. Duff speakers?

I concur with your analysis. A year or so ago I auditioned Burmester's top of the line system at a dealer in Atlanta. Nice, big, acoustically-treated room and a system that cost well over a hundred grand. Dull, lifeless, un-involving sound. No big surprise Jeff likes them. They are expensive and they have a huge advertising budget. :ROFL:

 

[Bernard]

The Burmester racks look very "industrial", but I have always found them very attractive. If I had the spare cash, though, I would buy a RixRax before anything else. I'm getting a bit disillusioned with my Salamander.

 

[Jimna]

Great photos Justin, you have me all randy now. RMAF cant get here soon enough.

 

[User211]

I concur with your analysis. A year or so ago I auditioned Burmester's top of the line system at a dealer in Atlanta. Nice, big, acoustically-treated room and a system that cost well over a hundred grand. Dull, lifeless, un-involving sound. No big surprise Jeff likes them. They are expensive and they have a huge advertising budget. :ROFL:

It was dire, Rich. Seconded by the chap I was with. Dull meets the description well. Add ill-defined bass and a high yawn factor, and we've pretty much covered it.