AVS Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was able to audition a couple sets of speakers yesterday and really liked the Motion 10's. I listened to a pair of ERA's (D5's) alongside of the MartinLogans. I liked the ERA's also, but I felt like the imaging of the MartinLogans was a bit better.


I'd love to hear comments from anyone that has these, or any other pair of speakers near the $1000-$1200 price range.


Also, are floorstanders generally better at imaging than bookshelves? Does it have anything to do with the fact that they have an extra driver?


I want something that sounds good even at lower volumes. I'm doing a 2.1 setup and will my listening and preference will be music 70% movies 30%


Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
Be sure to have plety of good clean power for the ML's and you will be rewarded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,211 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by FunHouse Austin /forum/post/19598438


Be sure to have plety of good clean power for the ML's and you will be rewarded.

While this is true for all speakers (clean power) the motion series is fairly efficient, especially the 12's at 92db. A typical japanese receiver will usually do these justice easily
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,063 Posts
The money...that IS the question.


The OP says he is comparing speakers at $1000-1200 per pair, and Amazon is selling the Martin-Logan Motion 10 for $159 each. HUH? that confuses me a bit...lol. I can't imagine a better speaker for $159 each than the Martin-Logan Motion 10. If you can get them for that price ( or less), it seems like a wonderful deal.


If we are really talking about the best for $1200, it will be hard to beat the PSB Image T6 for $1039/pair at Saturday Audio. Both Stereophile and The Absolute Sound have repeatedly given them rave reviews and rated them best in their class. Check out the Stereophile review for full specs and test data.


Imaging; in general, the reviewers and professionals who are freaks about imaging are quick to say that 2-way monitor (bookshelf) speakers are, in general, the very best at imaging.That seems to be the expert concensus, if you have read a few hundred reviews over the years and absorbed the commentary, as I have. Read the reviews and you will see what I mean.


On the other hand, there are many floorstanding speakers that are very good at imaging, and there are lots of bookshelf / monitor speakers that are poor. In general, though, the best speakers I have heard for good stereo imaging are well-designed, use expensive components, and cost quite a bit of money. You can certainly cite some exceptions though.


Careful listening, with good-quality electronics driving the speakers ( NOT some HT receiver) is the best way to find out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subdusted  /t/1295500/martin-logan-motion-10s-or#post_22296861


However, they are excellent speakers for the money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,063 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subdusted  /t/1295500/martin-logan-motion-10s-or#post_22296859


Not really. Despite the specs they like power.. and will shine only with decent amplification. Especially in bass department.


I agree.


An amplifier like the Music Hall A70.2 or the Musical Fidelity M3i will bring out the best in many speakers whereas almost no HT receiver (with the possible exception of the Cambridge 650R) will do so.Those are just two relatively affordable examples out of the many good integrated amplifiers available.


Virtually all HT receivers have pitifully small power supplies, which cannot provide adequate current to drive even two channels adequately in the bass. This is why a subwoofer is almost always needed with an HT receiver, even when front speakers are used that are supposed to have decent bass. You should be aware that HT receivers give RMS power figures only for a frequency of 1000 Hz, which ain't bass. If they gave actual power output figures for 50 Hz, with an actual speaker for a load, they would be pathetic.


Back in the good old days (yes Grandpa), subwoofers were almost unheard of because amplifiers actually could provide enough LF current to provide some decent bass, and speakers actually had 10" and 12" bass drivers to produce good bass. When you take the prices of that equipment and adjust for inflation to today's dollar, those amplifiers cost something like $1000 to $5000 for a two-channel amplifier with just basic features.


High-quality integrated amplifiers (like the ones I mentioned) DO have much larger power supplies and CAN provide enough speaker drive current for decent bass, but they do cost a lot more than $1000, and that is sticker shock to people used to thinking that they are getting something decent when they spend $600 on a receiver that has five (or 7) $20 amplifier circuits and a $40 power supply. When you realize how little money actually goes into the amplifier and power supply of a typical HT receiver, it is really a miracle that anything remotely listenable comes out. It is rather sad, though, that there are people who think that this kind of equipment is capable of producing enough output current for good sound quality.


Unfortunately, the typical receiver is pathetically underpowered in order to provide the latest Howdy-Doody room correction as a band-aid to attempt to partially make up for the lousy amplifiers they contain. Better amplifiers aren't as exciting to the Yahadenho advertising and marketing boys as a five-page list of gee-whiz features. Guess where the money goes...and does not go.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top