I don't have any details on speaker sensitivity yet, though the midrange module was never the problem with the very low sensitivity of the 101 Es (it was the woofer and subwoofer that were the problems). I'll get specs and print them as soon as they are sent to me. And, of course, I'll be reporting on first impressions of the sound in just under a week, now.
Tom,
Yep! They're going up to the third floor. MBL has contracted with some piano movers I use--power-lifters all, who are not just strong but also incredibly adept at handling big, delicate stuff. Each main module of the Xes break down into two (roughly 101-sized) pieces that are supposedly manageable by three very strong guys who are used to hauling 1300-pound pianos up and down stairs. Each woofer tower breaks down into three pieces. Fitting the 101 Xes into the room will be interesting (though they are actually considerably smaller in footprint than the giant Symposium Acoustics Pans). I'm a little worried about the floor holding all this weight (though the guy who lived in this house before we did had a full-size 1000+ pound slate-bed pool-table in the middle of the same room on the third floor--so maybe I don't need to worry).
Just showed the photo to my wife. She now knows there are worse looking things than my Maggies that could live in our home.
I can't wait for your report. It will be interesting to read how the bass modules sound in your room compared to the Symposium Acoustics Pans bass towers.
Quote:Just showed the photo to my wife. She now knows there are worse looking things than my Maggies that could live in our home.
I can't wait for your report. It will be interesting to read how the bass modules sound in your room compared to the Symposium Acoustics Pans bass towers.
Heh-heh!
I gotta be honest, Larry: I think MBL Radialstrahlers are a lot cooler looking than Maggies, albeit in a vaguely sci-fi, vaguely adroid way.
I'm really looking forward to hearing them in my room, too--genuinely excited. I gotta think, based on past experience with MBLs, that their bass will be considerably better, deeper, and more dynamically powerful than that of the Pan, which is the one (current) area of relative weakness of that otherwise superb loudspeaker. OTOH, I'm not expecting the same incredibly neutral and colorless tonal balance from the 101Xes that I got from the Pans (and am now getting a large taste of from the Quad 2905s). When it comes to Radialstrahler loudspeakers, which excite the whole room (by design), you're dealing with a sui generis presentation with its own set of strengths (many of them unique, although some overlap those of conventional loudspeakers). Bottom line: Radialstrahlers are (or have been in the past) at least as capable of creating a lifelike semblance of vocalists and musicians as the best conventional speakers I've heard, but they do it in their own way and by their own means.
jvalin wrote:I gotta be honest, Larry: I think MBL Radialstrahlers are a lot cooler looking than Maggies, albeit in a vaguely sci-fi, vaguely adroid way.
My wife still has nightmares about Cabasse speakers taking over the listening room.
The 101Xes arrive on Saturday morning. I'll take pictures of them from shipping crates to full assembly and post the photos on this thread. It ought be interesting to see how these beasts go together.
jvalin wrote:the 101Xes arrive on Saturday morning. I'll take pictures of them from shipping crates to full assembly and post the photos on this thread. It ought be interesting to see how these beasts go together.
Jon, do you have someone who helps you with set-up, especially with beasts like the Symposium Acoustics Pans and the 101Xes?
I've also been wondering about your system maintenance routine. How often do you clean your terminal connections, check your turntable(s) to make sure that they are still level, etc? In general, what is your routine for making sure that every piece of equipment in your system is in top working order?
In the case of very large, complex speakers like the MBLs and the Symposiums, yes, I have plenty of help, starting with the three piano movers who will uncrate the 101xes and carry the pieces upstairs to my listening room. Then David Alexander of MBL USA and Jurgen Reis of MBL Germany (co-designer of the speaker) will assemble them and spend the better part of two days dialing the 101Xes in. (Most of the time, speaker designers like to arrive along with their flagships to make sure everything is copacetic. After they depart, I generally make adjustments to placement and room treatment.)
As for regular periodic maintenance, I handle that on my own. I do have a friend, Andre Jennings, with certain test gear that I don't have, who has been a tremendous help in setting up cartridges (or double-checking my setup). Other friends will often lend a hand if I have to move or reseat something that is unusually heavy.
"Digital finishes what the transistor began" James Boyk
Jonathan Valin -- Fri, 06/13/2008 - 15:36
I have an odd listening room, Larry, on the third floor of a townhouse that was built when Lincoln was president. Though its dimensions are strange--at 17' x 16' x 10.5', it is very nearly square--it sounds marvelous, possibly because of its very thick brick outer walls, plaster inner walls, and hardwood floors. My old listening room (in a different, far more modern house built in the 70s) was much larger (26' x 30' with a cathedral-like ceiling), but it didn't sound as good.
Thanks Jonathan. I have come to believe that one of the biggest problems in many rooms is the low ceiling, i.e., 8' give or take.
I am in the process of completely removating a house (if I survive...) , to including the addition of a dedicated room. The dimensions - - aprox. 22' wide, 29' long, and 11' high - -were arrived at by Alan Goodwin. There wil be no sheetrock, instead double layers of wood (staggered) for ceiling, walls and floor.
Jon, from some of the pictures you've posted it looks like you're not too concerned about cables crossing over each other. A while back there was an issue in audiophile circles about keeping interconnects and speaker cables from crossing, and keeping both as far away from power cords as possible. I remember the advice was if you had to cross a power cord, it should be done at a right angle to the cord.
I do try to keep cables as separated from one another as possible (or feasible) and use Dark Field cable elevators to isolate them from vibration and from each other (particularly power cords). However, I'm not insane about this sort of thing; plus, there are physical limits that dictate how much you can do in a relatively limited space--cable/interconnect size, thickness, and flexibility for one thing, and component I/O/power-outlet layout for another.
Tomorrow's the big day! I'll start posting pixs in a few hours.
Let me take you through a long, arduous, and very surprising day.
We'll start at 8:45am, with the arrival of a long-bed truck full of 101Xes.
While we waited for the piano movers to arrive, the driver began to unload the boxes and stage them on the street in front of my house.
Here is an open box containing the bottom section of one 101X. Net weight:500 pounds!
The three piano movers arrived around 9am and the real fun began. Here's the enemy--three floors of staircase with two staircases per floor.
The boys begin the climb.
One of them said it was like carrying an engine block up to the third floor.
As you can see, these are incredibly strong human beings. Here they are with the first base piece of the 101Xes, delivered safely to my listening room.
Here they are again, with the second base piece. Remember: They had to carry two of these, two top pieces ("only" about 300+ pounds apiece), and six subwoofers (ranging in weight from about 200 to 300+ pounds apiece) up these goddamn stairs.
Here are the two bases, awaiting their tops.
Not only did the movers have to carry the top pieces of each 101X upstairs, they had to lift the 300+ pound things overhead and fit them on top of the bases! Here they are settling one top piece into place, with the help of my friend David Alexander of MBL USA (David's wearing the white shirt and shorts with his back to the camera).
A finished 101X with an unfinished sub stack. The second piece had to be lifted and fitted atop the first piece and the third piece had to be hoisted on top of the other two!
After three-and-a-half hours of backbreaking work, the job was finished. Here is the left side 101X with complete sub stack. Though you may not be able to tell from the picture, there is about two-and-a-half feet between the sub stack and the sidewall.
Around four in the afternoon, Jurgen Reis of MBL Germany arrived from Germany to complete the setup process. Here you see him adjusting a test microphone.
Here he begins to take measurements of the right 101X, using pink noise and an RTA.
Even the initial (unsmoothed) 1/6th octave results were unusually flat for an as-yet-untweaked, unbroken-in omni speaker that was more or less sitting where the piano movers left it. (I should point out that the 101Xes are, by design, extremely tweakable. Each and every driver has its own range of adjustments. In other words both pairs of omni woofers, both pairs of omni mids, and both pairs of omni tweeters can be individually adjusted; plus all six woofers in the sub towers can be tweaked for output, Q, and phase [group delay].)
The woofers weren't on yet when this very first measurement was taken, and the output of the top-mounted tweeter wasn't measured, either. (Because of their 360-degree radiation, the spacing of their drivers, and the fact that they tend to cancel out room effect when they are played as a pair rather than individually, a single omni is a bear to measure with a directional mike. (A later measurement with woofers on showed that they also have exceptionally flat response in the bass, going down to 20Hz at the same levels as the midrange.) I'll do my own measurements when everything is tweaked in, including the room.
More surprising than anything else was the sound of the as-yet-not-fully-tweaked-or-broken-in 101Xes. Forget everything you may have heard at CES—I had to. Forget everything you've read, including everything I've written about the 101Xes (including what I wrote about its poor performance at CES and its excellent performance in Munich)—I had to. In all candor, this was the most surprising first listen I've ever had with any loudspeaker. It simply didn't sound at all like what I expected from shows, good or bad.
First of all, the 101X was so much more neutral in balance (far more neutral than the 101 Es) than I expected that I never quite got past my shock. It didn’t seem to have any of the of the gross frequency-response lumpiness—the darkness or over-ripeness or hard aggressiveness or searing treble or bloated bass—that I had (secretly) expected to hear from it on the basis of show listening. Indeed, if the 101X sounded like anything else (and it didn't really, including anything else from MBL that I've had in my home or heard at shows), it sounded a bit like a gigantic Magico Mini II, which is to say that it sounded—on first blush—solidly and impressively and, once again, totally unexpectedly (at least to me) uncolored, undistorted, and relatively “flat.”
Of course, Radialstrahlers always sound boxless (they have none) and incomparably big, open, and spacious. But these things sounded even bigger, more open, more spacious—and not by a little bit. Plus, on the right tracks at the right volume, they had simply sensational dynamic range and scaling—truly lifelike speed, pace, and impact even on instruments (like huge drums or plucked bass guitar) that are nearly impossible to scale realistically in a home. At the same time they had much of the same "you are there" presence on voice and guitars and pianos that great planar or electrostatic speakers seem to own.
I've just begun to listen, of course. I don't know about timbres and textures, yet, save that they certainly seem to be better (which is to say more neutrally presented) than what I'm used to from MBL based on the few hours of music I’ve listened to. I don't know about imaging. I don't yet know about how the 101xes fare with wide varieties of music or how they fare with different media (like LPs which I haven’t yet listened to) or how they handle different levels of playback, although I already know that (like all MBLs) they certainly enjoy being played loud, where they can pressurize the entire room like no other kind of speaker and make it seem as if you are being immersed in the acoustic of the recording. I don’t know about low-level resolution (although this has seldom been a serious problem with Radialstrahlers). I don’t know much, save that these speakers are far, far better than I expected them to be in the areas where I expected them to be weak and far, far better than I expected them to be in the areas where I expected them to be strong.
I’ll report again soon, after Jurgen completes his tweaking and I’ve done more than an afternoon and an evening’s listening.
Quote:JV, when you were in Germany, what was the claimed improvement for the mid module-efficiency, etc?
Rupe,
I can finally answer your question. Jurgen tells me that the 101Xes are about 6dB more sensitive than the 101 Es. Their impedance is quite uniform, so they aren't tough to drive, although they still need and like power, even with the 6dB increase in sensitivity.
The Mark II versions of the 101 Es themselves have not increased in sensitivity due to the changes to the drivers.
Today, Jurgen did more tweaking, which resulted in sizable,asymmetrical changes in speaker and sub placement, elaborate individual Radialstrahler driver adjustments, changes to the Q and group delay of each of the incredible sub stacks, and adjustments to the "ambience" tweeter (a very high-quality cone tweeter which is mounted on the very top of the Radialstrahler "enclosure").
I found out today that the huge bottom and top caps of the Radialstrahler “enclosures” are very densely constructed of birch plywood, thick brass plates, and aluminum in a constrained layer package that, along with the thick stainless-steel struts and powder-coated solid brass cross-bracing, is a large reason why each of these Radialstrahler towers weighs more than a quarter-of-a-ton. I also found out that the six hefty subwoofer enclosures, which weigh approximately 500 pounds per side (with three subs stacked per side), are made from birch ply and aluminum, that the German-designed side-firing subwoofers (two per enclosure in a push-push configuration) use aluminum cones and incredible wide and flexible surrounds, and that they are cross-connected with thick aluminum rods to prevent them from passing any vibration to each other or to the already inert cabinets.
I’d have to say that, after Jurgen’s adjustments, this is the most seamless blend of subwoofer and “satellite” I’ve heard in a lifetime of frustrating attempts to mate subs and sats. (Jacob take note!) Some of you already know how dubious I am about subwoofers, but I would challenge anyone to tell me that he or she can “hear” these subs as a separate element —as they are currently configured. This is an astonishing achievement, even more astonishing when you consider that you’re mating these largish (12') cones to extraordinarily “fast” omnidirectional drivers and that you’re doing this without any DSP. Tremendous bass—not just in the sense of drive, extension, pace, and impact (which the 101 Es have galore all by themselves) but in the sense of a seamless blending of sub and sat (which the 101 Es are also good at, but nowhere near this good), fine resolution of detail, grip and control throughout the entire range in which they play, and lack of driver/port/enclosure coloration.
I love the photos of the MBL's being installed in your home. Somehow this gave me a look behind the curtain of how you get equipment installed.
Man, that final photo of the 101x's fully set-up is sweet. They look gorgeous.
I'm glad you shared some of your initial impressions (I know some people don't apparently like this). Unless I marry rich or strike it big at some point, I will never own anything like the MBL 101X's. But I enjoy reading about them. Right now, I'm aspiring to own the 121's!
Man, you ought to throw a dance party with those things and invite a bunch of TAS readers along. I'd get in my car from Philly and drive to Ohio.
Hey, are those the 9011 amps in the final set-up? Have their been any changes to them since you last wrote about them? Because the 101x's are more sensitive than the 101e's, I'm curious if you're gonna try your beloved Audio Research 610T's on the 101x's?
Anyway, as they say in the twelve-step groups, keep sharing, keep coming back! ... I'm loving this.
Quote:Hey, are those the 9011 amps in the final set-up? Have their been any changes to them since you last wrote about them? Because the 101x's are more sensitive than the 101e's, I'm curious if you're gonna try your beloved Audio Research 610T's on the 101x's?
First, thanks for the kind words, Phillyman! And if you're ever in Cincy, by all means stop in.
Second, yes, those are 9011 amps. As far as I know, MBL hasn't changed them and they still sound great, albeit less dark with these speakers. Indeed, I'm beginning to wonder how much of the characteristic balance of MBL electronics was due to the darker-balanced 101Es.
As for the 610Ts...of course I'm going to try them with the 101Xes (and the Ref 3, too). Indeed, I look forward to seeing how the 101Xes do with tubes (and vinyl, which I still haven't listened to).
Jon: As I recall (from Jurgen at CES), aren't those monsters supposed to be bi or triamped for optimized peformance? If so, are you getting another 1-2 pair of 9011's (and a slew of dedicated 30 amp lines to your listening room...) to do this?
btw, great job on the photo essay! I felt as though I was right there with you and the "Rock of Gilbralter" piano movers. Have you checked with a structural engineer to make sure your floor won't cave in under the weight?
Bi-amping this system is certainly an option, but, no, it is not a necessity, especially in a room the size of mine. The primary reason for using two sets of 9011 amps is to provide enough power to fill a very large room (like a show room in Vegas). As the subwoofers are powered and the 9011s are equipped with two sets of outputs (making bi-wiring the Radialstrahler array a snap), there seemed to be no good practical or sonic reason to add a second set of amps. The results, thus far, have borne this out, satisfying me, Jurgen, and David quite beyond expectations. Trust me, Syd: You haven't heard these speakers yet.
As for cave-ins, old houses like the one I'm in were so massively overbuilt that I don't think that's likely to happen. At least, I hope not!
And, no, Zeb, I doubt if I am popular with movers, although the piano guys sure were good sports about it.
You got my juices flowing now Jon! I wish I could just drive over and share this experience with you...
I'm getting the sense that this may become your new "no holds barred" reference standard speaker system given your preliminary findings. We'll see if my instincts serve me well as you continue to formulate your impressions over time.
Quote:I'm getting the sense that this may become your new "no holds barred" reference standard speaker system given your preliminary findings.
I'm not nearly ready, yet, to make this kind of judgment. Let's face it: I'm coming off two speakers (the Symposium Acoustics Panoramas and the Magico Mini IIs) that were standard-setters in planars and cones (and just got a third, the Quad 2905, that is a standard-setter in 'stats).
There is still too much else to assess to pass judgments, save to say that these are far and away the best omnis I've ever heard, the best speakers MBL has ever made, and clearly "up there" high among the very best transducers (lots of) money can buy.
I'm told that the entire allotment of 101Xes for 2008 has already been sold, and that half of the allotment for 2009 has already been pre-sold. In this market, that's impressive.
I should add this: I can now fairly safely report that center imaging is much improved over the 101Es. Indeed, the slight bloat and swimminess that you used to hear on the 101s is just...gone. Images are still life-sized, of course (a very good thing) but they aren't unstable (on-axis or off). Plus, the soundstage is, as was always the case with MBLs, phenomenally wide, deep, tall, and immersive--like a surround-sound stage without the extra speakers. Resolution is incredible: On records I know by heart, like The Summit on Artanis, Dean Martin's and Frank Sinatra's and Sammy Davis' voices are astonishingly present, detailed, and realistic, with a higher sense of how they were using their hand-held mikes to add expressiveness to notes and phrases than I've heard before.
It's interesting Jon, because the first time I heard them was 1.5 years ago at the Venetian (when they were first introduced) they were in a room on the 29th floor and not in the g-d forsaken ballrooms downstairs. They were pretty well dialed in after about a day or so, and I did get that unbeleivable dynamic, immersive and realistic effect that you are describing as well. What I also got was a bit of brightness that may have been due to all the glass in the hotel room and/or the fact that the tweeters weren't broken in yet.
That being said, it was an earlier version of the speaker and I'm sure they were not dialed in to the degree that they are in your listening room. So I beleive you when you say that I have not heard this speaker yet, but I am curious to know whether you are experiencing any high frequency brightness at this stage.
I am also curious as to know a little bit more about your listening room, as I would like to understand more about the acoustical environment your 101X's are playing in.
Specifically:
(1) What are the room dimensions?
(2) Has the room been treated acoustically? If so, how?
(3) How many windows, door openings and other "interesting" acoustical influences are there?
(4) What kind of furniture is in the room and how is it laid out?
Other than the room dimensions, I few more pcitures should answer the other questions pretty clearly (and save a bunch of typing if you prefer, or not). If you have already posted this information elsewhere, just drop in the link and point me to it.
Thanks again for sharing so much with your forum buddies! Your interactive/visual style really lends itself to sharing the excitement and experience with you, or as they say, living vicariously through you...
Quote: I am curious to know whether you are experiencing any high frequency brightness at this stage.
The speaker you heard in the Venetian two years ago (which you half-liked and I hated) was, according to Jurgen, an unfinished prototype. It did not have the new tweeter and midrange, the new formers and voice coils, the new crossovers and Mundorf and Intertec caps, the new ambience tweeter, quite the same frame and stand and build--in other words, what you heard was not what I'm listening to.
But, in a way, this is beside the point. It isn't the change in the speaker that astonishes me (I heard this same speaker at CES and Munich), it is the incredibly surprising neutrality of its overall balance, the sensational disappearing act of the woofer stack, the suddenly far more precise center imaging (due undoubtedly to the D'Appotito array), the seamless blending of the drivers. Dynamics, immersiveness, soundstaging are givens with MBLs. It's the rest I didn't expect.
To answer your question, thus far I hear no excess high-frequency brightness--just a very neutral, very realistic balance, reminiscent (as I've already said) of a gigantic Magico Mini (and by that I also mean extremely coherent like a great two-way, although in this case that coherence extends right down to 20Hz). Because of their horn-like transient speed and phenomenal dynamic range and scaling, MBLs do tend to sound a bit more "dynamic" than certain other speakers, particularly on peaks where they simply don't soften and compress the leading edges of transients. But this is just part of the MBL package. If you want a polite speaker, don't apply here.
You'll find answers to your other questions about room size and treatment on other threads in the Speakers section.
Wow, I knew the speaker I heard 2 years ago was a prototype, but I did not realize how much of a prototype it was until you itemized the differences.
Question: If what you are listening to now is the same speaker you heard at this past CES (which I also heard), how do you compare its performance in the Venetian Ballroom (which in my opinion was rather challenged) to what you are now hearing in your room? Given the two radically different acoustical environments, the differences in the systems performance/presentation would be interesting to undertand.
jvalin wrote:Today, Jurgen did more tweaking, which resulted in sizable, asymmetrical changes in speaker and sub placement...
Interesting, Jon. I'm curious if you found any of the other speakers that you've recently had in your room required asymmetrical placement. What measurements did Jurgen use to find the new positions?
Quote:If what you are listening to now is the same speaker you heard at this past CES (which I also heard), how do you compare its performance in the Venetian Ballroom (which in my opinion was rather challenged) to what you are now hearing in your room? Given the two radically different acoustical environments, the differences in the systems performance/presentation would be interesting to undertand.
Setup, room, acoustic treatment, long experience with the listening space, good kharma...all I can tell you is that this just doesn't sound like what you heard last year at CES or what I heard at Munich and CES. It sounds (and I would bet measures) much flatter, more nearly dead-center neutral, more seamless, more colorless, more realistic--not just to me, but to Jurgen and David, both of whom left today quite happy about and satisfied with the sound I'm getting. Let's face it that dungeon in the Sands Expo center was a terrible spot and setup was miserable (the speakers weren't assembled or wired properly).
I did not realize that the speakers were not assembled properly at this past CES. That does explain a lot. I suppose that's the price one pays for not having Jurgen around... I envy the listening sessions you are about to embark on. I look forward to reading your upcoming posts and your eventual full review of this system.
I've now begun to listen to vinyl through the MBL101Xes via my Walker Black Diamond record player equipped with a swell new cartridge that I'm currently worn to secrecy about. (Lest I incite Elliot and the Signal Collector to riot again, let me assure you that this cartridge is manufactured by a well-known company and I will go into detail about it when the distributor gives me the O.K.)
As was the case with digital, my first impressions of the 101Xes playing back vinyl are entirely positive. Indeed, the sound on Hugh Masekela's "The Coal Train" from Hope (Analogue Productions 45rpm) was as good as (and in the respects detailed below better than) the best I've gotten from pop vinyl in my listening room. Goosebump-raising high fidelity.
Given a certain level of gain (about 85dB+ average SPLs), the 101Xes are simply less compressed on hard transients (like Masekela's whoops, trills, and clicks) than other superb speakers, including the Symposium Acoustics Pans and the Magico Mini IIs and, for that matter, MBL’s own 101 Es. They just don’t give up (or break up) on a note, no matter where it is pitched or how long or powerfully it is sounded. And the way they image and soundstage...ersatz or not, it is simply astonishing to hear how completely these giant Radialstrahlers fill up the back half of your listening room. Of course, you do have to play them louder (as you also did with the 101 Es) to achieve this almost magically wide, tall, deep, immersive, nearly life-sized, three-dimensional diorama of a soundstage. Contrary to some opinion, the 101Xes (and other MBLs) don't do this trick with every disc, only with those that have outstanding staging to begin with, but once you experience it, it's difficult to talk about the "three-dimensional presence" or the "staging" of other kinds of speakers in the same breath with Radialstrahlers. It just isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison.
As for tonal balance, I haven’t done measurements yet, but this is, once again and far and away, the most neutral-sounding Radialstrahler MBL has yet produced, capable of extraordinarily natural timbres and textures on all instruments, including bass-range instruments, which they reproduce with a size, speed, and impact that are closer to the real thing than anything I’ve had in my home save for the Nearfield Acoustics Pipedreams (whose woofers didn’t mesh with their main towers nearly as seamlessly as those of the 101xes do). The Symposium Pans and the Quad 2905s (and possibly the Mini IIs, although the 101Xes actually sound closer in balance to the Magicos than they do to these other two superb speakers) may (repeat, may) have a very slight edge in transparency to sources, driver coloration, very low-level resolution at low SPLs, and transient speed (don’t forget the Pans were the best speakers I’d heard in these regards and the Quads the best ’stats I’ve heard to date), but on pop music neither can carry these virtues (including very low-level resolution and transient speed) to higher, more lifelike volumes the way the 101Xes can (and neither can compete with the 101Xes in the bottom octaves and, in respect to sheer authentic power, in the top ones). At low-to-moderate volumes on pop music the Pans and Quads are at least fully competitive with the Radialstrahlers in every area but staging, dimensionality, and bass. But at moderate-to-loud volumes, the 101Xes come fully into their own.
It remains to be seen whether: (1) the 101Xes can do all the things they do on pop vinyl with large-scale and (particularly) small-scale classical music and folk music recordings; (2) the 101Xes can do all the things they do with amplifiers other than the $100k MBL 9011s (for the record, the 101s couldn’t); (3) exactly how the 101Xes compare with the best of the competition at various volume levels on a wide variety of musical material; and (4) whether my initial enthusiasm for the 101Xes will be borne out by long-term listening. The answers to these questions will determine whether these sensationally impressive speakers are truly as great as I think they may be--and whether they become my new references.
jvalin wrote:
It remains to be seen whether: (1) the 101Xes can do all the things they do on pop vinyl with large-scale and (particularly) small-scale classical music and folk music recordings; (2) the 101Xes can do all the things they do with amplifiers other than the $100k MBL 9011s (for the record, the 101s couldn’t); (3) exactly how the 101Xes compare with the best of the competition at various volume levels on a wide variety of musical material; and (4) whether my initial enthusiasm for the 101Xes will be borne out by long-term listening. The answers to these questions will determine whether these sensationally impressive speakers are truly as great as I think they may be--and whether they become my new references.
I like the way you structured the framework you will use to comapare the 101Xes to other speakers.
With respect to your initial impressions on vinyl playback, how do the speakers perform with respect to qualities that are more "specific" to the vinyl experience (e.g., being more laid back, natural, smooth, etc.) as compared with the other speakers you mentioned (Pan's, Quads, Magico Mini's, etc.)?
All of the superiorities of vinyl aren't just preserved by the 101Xes; they are downright highlighted by them. Bloom, air, body ,warmth, dimensionality, timbre, texture, treble-range sweetness and light, natural image size and outline, massive soundstage width and depth and height, low-level dynamic and timbral nuance...you name it, the 101Xes magnify it. At least, they do on pop. (I have the feeling that will also do this on classical, jazz, and folk LPs...but we will see for sure over the next few weeks.)
Dear Jon,
It is nice to see I made an impression, sorry a lasting impression on the way things are done. It sounds like you have your hands full with all of these production products. I heard the MBL's at the Venetian and my impression was in one word HORRIBLE. That room and the level they played them was unlistenable. It was very disappointing. I had to leave it was so annoying. I really wanted to hear them. It seems there are a lot of "super speakers" on the market and coming. I am off to Saint Etienne next week to hear the JM Labs Utopia series and the new Grands!
Stay away from the prototypes there is so much "real product" to play with!!!
Enjoy,
Elliot
Quote:That room and the level they played them was unlistenable. It was very disappointing
I agree with this, and said so in print. The 101X sounded terrible at CES, much better at Munich (although much different than what I'm hearing in my home).
Quote:Stay away from the prototypes there is so much "real product" to play with!!!
Well, folks, take a gander at this! It's no wonder the 101Xes sound so neutral.
This is how the MBL 101X measures in a real-life listening room, with MBL electonics, using Liberty Instruments' Praxis Suite software and a calibrated microphone. The divisions of the graph are 5dB, making this (outside the top treble) the flattest-measuring speaker I've ever had in my room! Virtually ruler-flat from 100Hz to 12kHz.
Remember, this plot was taken from a single spot about six feet from the Radilastrahler column. The bass, which is friggin' terrific here anyway (down maybe two to three dB referenced to 1kHz), actually isn't down at all. It is flat with the midrange, but because the woofers are housed in a separate column at a distance from the Radialstrahler column, it is hard to fully "include" their response (unless you cut and paste a separate plot) in a single-point measurement. I cannot explain the roll-off in the top treble (the speakers certainly don't sound rolled-off up there--in fact, as others have noted in other magazines, the MBL Radialstrahler tweeter is high among the very best). The contributions of the "ambience tweeter," located on top of the cabinet, cannot be measured from where the mike is located, although I don't think this is the issue. However, I suppose better a 4-6dB roll on top than a 4-6dB rise.
Although I have my quibbles with measurements (even my own), this does help explain (and confirm) why I was so surprised by the way the 101Xes sounded in my room. (And why their balance reminded me of that of the superb Magico Minis IIs.)
What is the distance between the mid/tweeter "towers"? It can`t be much more than 5-6 feet? And, the room looks a little bit over crowed for the lack of a better word. Do you think that a bigger room is better for a large system like this? Or isn`t that an issue here?
I have absolutely no doubt that it sounds marvellous and it doesn`t look to bad either!
jvalin wrote:I've now begun to listen to vinyl through the MBL101Xes via my Walker Black Diamond record player equipped with a swell new cartridge that I'm currently worn to secrecy about. (Lest I incite Elliot and the Signal Collector to riot again, let me assure you that this cartridge is manufactured by a well-known company and I will go into detail about it when the distributor gives me the O.K.)
Goodness gracious, I hadn't thought we'd been so effective! But you seem to have taken the cautious approach this time.
"Riot" seems to reactionary and defensive a term to describe our reaction to what you were doing when you pre-crowned the new Best Speaker In The World while it was still but a zygote swimming in the amniotic fluid of your listening room.
What we attempted to do was communicate the idea that you stepped over a line, philosophically, that we believed existed at TAS. Namely, that only real products available commercially are reviewed in the pages (virtual and actual) of TAS.
While the Panoramas might have been miraculous performers, it remains that the one pair you had for 6 or so months were the only pair on earth, were prototypes, and there seemed to be very little chance that they would make it into production. To this day I will wager that these speakers will have a harder time making it into production than either you or Peter imagined (although I suspect Peter may be imagining the very same thing now).
Getting a product into the market place is incredibly difficult. You, as a writer, wouldn't necessarily understand the difficulties. It's not simple, it's not cheap, and it's not a timely process. That he had been playing with the protos for 20 years is not the equivalent of developing and preparing something for commercial release.
So .. we didn't riot. We just gave you a heads-up that what you were doing in your reporting and crowning of the Symposium proto project seemed a bit zealous, and inappropriate.
No manufacturer should be put in the position of having to handle the difficulties involved with bringing something as complicated as the Symposium loudspeaker to market while simultaneously having to live up to the orgasmic public pronouncements of a well-regarded reviewer - you increase the risk to the manufacturer, you increase the risk to any potential early adopter, you increase the risk to any potential investor in the company, and you increase the risk to your magazine's credibility.
That you didn't get those points, those very elemental pieces of the puzzle, was disconcerting to say the very least. Elliot and I made our positions very clear, we were very articulate, and we were professional in our approach.
"Riot" ... a bit of a romantic recollection on your part, IMHO.
I brought this piety on myself by cracking wise, so I can't complain.
However, this is a site devoted to the MBL 101Xes so let's stick to them.
Quote:What is the distance between the mid/tweeter "towers"? It can`t be much more than 5-6 feet? And, the room looks a little bit over crowed for the lack of a better word. Do you think that a bigger room is better for a large system like this? Or isn`t that an issue here?
Changa, the room is pretty damn loaded with (very heavy) stuff. "Overcrowded" would be the correct word.
The distance from the main towers to the listening position is a little more than 10 feet, from towers to back walls about 4.5 feet. (The speakers themselves take up a few feet.) The distance between the two Radialstrahler towers (they're not mid/tweet, Changa--they're actually woof/mid/tweet) is 7.5 feet (center-to-center). The room is small for such large speakers (though not as small as it seemed with the gigantic, winged Pans). BUT...my experience with MBLs (and I've heard the 101s, the 111s, the 116s, and the 121s at length, both in my house and at shows) suggests that they sometimes fare better in small-to-moderate-sized rooms, simply because they can fully "pressurize" such spaces, doing their "Radialstrahler" thing most effectively and creating an astonishingly "immersive" soundfield (as well as canceling out room modes). Indeed, part of the reason why MBL created the 101X was to fill up larger spaces at higher volumes as effectively as the rest of its line handles small-to-medium-sized spaces. This said, Jurgen and David agreed that this was the best they'd heard the 101Xes sound, despite the room-size limitation. You can see how well the 101Xes measure in it, and the Magico-like "neutrality" of its tonal balance is new to my experience of MBLs (though they've always been lovely at timbres).
I have to say that this relatively little room has sounded great with every speaker I've tried in it. Something about it supports very low bass in a way that, frankly, it shouldn't. My friend Alon Wolf thinks it's the structure of the house--which was built in 1864 and is extremely solid, with many feet of brick outerwalls, thick genuine plaster and lath inner walls, and (I sincerely hope) very solid wooden floors. It seems to "hold" bass in the way modern construction often doesn't.
The Signal Collection wrote:
"Riot" ... a bit of a romantic recollection on your part, IMHO.
Chris
Romantic or not, I ask that you please leave this discussion (which has been vetted quite thoroughly and aggressively elsewhere on this forum by you, Jon, Elliott and others) out of this thread so that we may continue to focus on the MBL 101 Xes, which is the point of this thread.
Dear Syd,
Lighten up man. Don't you have a sense of humor?
Chris is obviously having some fun and so was I.
I am sure Jon can handle himself and please don't walk so closely behind him, he may stop short and you can find yourself in a very compromising position.
E
Syd wrote:The Signal Collection wrote:
"Riot" ... a bit of a romantic recollection on your part, IMHO.
Chris
Romantic or not, I ask that you please leave this discussion (which has been vetted quite thoroughly and aggressively elsewhere on this forum by you, Jon, Elliott and others) out of this thread so that we may continue to focus on the MBL 101 Xes, which is the point of this thread.
Syd,
Jonathan brought up the "Riot" - please bring your concerns to the management.
JV, when you were in Germany, what was the claimed improvement for the mid module-efficiency, etc?
I hope you don't have to get these up to the third floor!
Rupe,
I don't have any details on speaker sensitivity yet, though the midrange module was never the problem with the very low sensitivity of the 101 Es (it was the woofer and subwoofer that were the problems). I'll get specs and print them as soon as they are sent to me. And, of course, I'll be reporting on first impressions of the sound in just under a week, now.
Tom,
Yep! They're going up to the third floor. MBL has contracted with some piano movers I use--power-lifters all, who are not just strong but also incredibly adept at handling big, delicate stuff. Each main module of the Xes break down into two (roughly 101-sized) pieces that are supposedly manageable by three very strong guys who are used to hauling 1300-pound pianos up and down stairs. Each woofer tower breaks down into three pieces. Fitting the 101 Xes into the room will be interesting (though they are actually considerably smaller in footprint than the giant Symposium Acoustics Pans). I'm a little worried about the floor holding all this weight (though the guy who lived in this house before we did had a full-size 1000+ pound slate-bed pool-table in the middle of the same room on the third floor--so maybe I don't need to worry).
Jon
Just showed the photo to my wife. She now knows there are worse looking things than my Maggies that could live in our home.
I can't wait for your report. It will be interesting to read how the bass modules sound in your room compared to the Symposium Acoustics Pans bass towers.
Quote:Just showed the photo to my wife. She now knows there are worse looking things than my Maggies that could live in our home.
I can't wait for your report. It will be interesting to read how the bass modules sound in your room compared to the Symposium Acoustics Pans bass towers.
Heh-heh!
I gotta be honest, Larry: I think MBL Radialstrahlers are a lot cooler looking than Maggies, albeit in a vaguely sci-fi, vaguely adroid way.
I'm really looking forward to hearing them in my room, too--genuinely excited. I gotta think, based on past experience with MBLs, that their bass will be considerably better, deeper, and more dynamically powerful than that of the Pan, which is the one (current) area of relative weakness of that otherwise superb loudspeaker. OTOH, I'm not expecting the same incredibly neutral and colorless tonal balance from the 101Xes that I got from the Pans (and am now getting a large taste of from the Quad 2905s). When it comes to Radialstrahler loudspeakers, which excite the whole room (by design), you're dealing with a sui generis presentation with its own set of strengths (many of them unique, although some overlap those of conventional loudspeakers). Bottom line: Radialstrahlers are (or have been in the past) at least as capable of creating a lifelike semblance of vocalists and musicians as the best conventional speakers I've heard, but they do it in their own way and by their own means.
jvalin wrote:I gotta be honest, Larry: I think MBL Radialstrahlers are a lot cooler looking than Maggies, albeit in a vaguely sci-fi, vaguely adroid way.
My wife still has nightmares about Cabasse speakers taking over the listening room.
Heh-heh!
The 101Xes arrive on Saturday morning. I'll take pictures of them from shipping crates to full assembly and post the photos on this thread. It ought be interesting to see how these beasts go together.
jvalin wrote:the 101Xes arrive on Saturday morning. I'll take pictures of them from shipping crates to full assembly and post the photos on this thread. It ought be interesting to see how these beasts go together.
Jon, do you have someone who helps you with set-up, especially with beasts like the Symposium Acoustics Pans and the 101Xes?
I've also been wondering about your system maintenance routine. How often do you clean your terminal connections, check your turntable(s) to make sure that they are still level, etc? In general, what is your routine for making sure that every piece of equipment in your system is in top working order?
Larry,
In the case of very large, complex speakers like the MBLs and the Symposiums, yes, I have plenty of help, starting with the three piano movers who will uncrate the 101xes and carry the pieces upstairs to my listening room. Then David Alexander of MBL USA and Jurgen Reis of MBL Germany (co-designer of the speaker) will assemble them and spend the better part of two days dialing the 101Xes in. (Most of the time, speaker designers like to arrive along with their flagships to make sure everything is copacetic. After they depart, I generally make adjustments to placement and room treatment.)
As for regular periodic maintenance, I handle that on my own. I do have a friend, Andre Jennings, with certain test gear that I don't have, who has been a tremendous help in setting up cartridges (or double-checking my setup). Other friends will often lend a hand if I have to move or reseat something that is unusually heavy.
Jon
Jon:
I apologize if this has already been asked and answered, but what are the dimensions of your room?
Best regards,
Larry
"Digital finishes what the transistor began" James Boyk
I have an odd listening room, Larry, on the third floor of a townhouse that was built when Lincoln was president. Though its dimensions are strange--at 17' x 16' x 10.5', it is very nearly square--it sounds marvelous, possibly because of its very thick brick outer walls, plaster inner walls, and hardwood floors. My old listening room (in a different, far more modern house built in the 70s) was much larger (26' x 30' with a cathedral-like ceiling), but it didn't sound as good.
Thanks Jonathan. I have come to believe that one of the biggest problems in many rooms is the low ceiling, i.e., 8' give or take.
I am in the process of completely removating a house (if I survive...) , to including the addition of a dedicated room. The dimensions - - aprox. 22' wide, 29' long, and 11' high - -were arrived at by Alan Goodwin. There wil be no sheetrock, instead double layers of wood (staggered) for ceiling, walls and floor.
Regards,
Larry
"Digital finishes what the transistor began" James Boyk
Post some pix of your room when it is done (or when it is being constructed).
Jon, from some of the pictures you've posted it looks like you're not too concerned about cables crossing over each other. A while back there was an issue in audiophile circles about keeping interconnects and speaker cables from crossing, and keeping both as far away from power cords as possible. I remember the advice was if you had to cross a power cord, it should be done at a right angle to the cord.
Larry
Larry,
I do try to keep cables as separated from one another as possible (or feasible) and use Dark Field cable elevators to isolate them from vibration and from each other (particularly power cords). However, I'm not insane about this sort of thing; plus, there are physical limits that dictate how much you can do in a relatively limited space--cable/interconnect size, thickness, and flexibility for one thing, and component I/O/power-outlet layout for another.
Tomorrow's the big day! I'll start posting pixs in a few hours.
JV
Let me take you through a long, arduous, and very surprising day.
We'll start at 8:45am, with the arrival of a long-bed truck full of 101Xes.
While we waited for the piano movers to arrive, the driver began to unload the boxes and stage them on the street in front of my house.
Here is an open box containing the bottom section of one 101X. Net weight:500 pounds!
The three piano movers arrived around 9am and the real fun began. Here's the enemy--three floors of staircase with two staircases per floor.
The boys begin the climb.
One of them said it was like carrying an engine block up to the third floor.
As you can see, these are incredibly strong human beings. Here they are with the first base piece of the 101Xes, delivered safely to my listening room.
Here they are again, with the second base piece. Remember: They had to carry two of these, two top pieces ("only" about 300+ pounds apiece), and six subwoofers (ranging in weight from about 200 to 300+ pounds apiece) up these goddamn stairs.
Here are the two bases, awaiting their tops.
Not only did the movers have to carry the top pieces of each 101X upstairs, they had to lift the 300+ pound things overhead and fit them on top of the bases! Here they are settling one top piece into place, with the help of my friend David Alexander of MBL USA (David's wearing the white shirt and shorts with his back to the camera).
A finished 101X with an unfinished sub stack. The second piece had to be lifted and fitted atop the first piece and the third piece had to be hoisted on top of the other two!
After three-and-a-half hours of backbreaking work, the job was finished. Here is the left side 101X with complete sub stack. Though you may not be able to tell from the picture, there is about two-and-a-half feet between the sub stack and the sidewall.
Around four in the afternoon, Jurgen Reis of MBL Germany arrived from Germany to complete the setup process. Here you see him adjusting a test microphone.
Here he begins to take measurements of the right 101X, using pink noise and an RTA.
Even the initial (unsmoothed) 1/6th octave results were unusually flat for an as-yet-untweaked, unbroken-in omni speaker that was more or less sitting where the piano movers left it. (I should point out that the 101Xes are, by design, extremely tweakable. Each and every driver has its own range of adjustments. In other words both pairs of omni woofers, both pairs of omni mids, and both pairs of omni tweeters can be individually adjusted; plus all six woofers in the sub towers can be tweaked for output, Q, and phase [group delay].)
The woofers weren't on yet when this very first measurement was taken, and the output of the top-mounted tweeter wasn't measured, either. (Because of their 360-degree radiation, the spacing of their drivers, and the fact that they tend to cancel out room effect when they are played as a pair rather than individually, a single omni is a bear to measure with a directional mike. (A later measurement with woofers on showed that they also have exceptionally flat response in the bass, going down to 20Hz at the same levels as the midrange.) I'll do my own measurements when everything is tweaked in, including the room.
More surprising than anything else was the sound of the as-yet-not-fully-tweaked-or-broken-in 101Xes. Forget everything you may have heard at CES—I had to. Forget everything you've read, including everything I've written about the 101Xes (including what I wrote about its poor performance at CES and its excellent performance in Munich)—I had to. In all candor, this was the most surprising first listen I've ever had with any loudspeaker. It simply didn't sound at all like what I expected from shows, good or bad.
First of all, the 101X was so much more neutral in balance (far more neutral than the 101 Es) than I expected that I never quite got past my shock. It didn’t seem to have any of the of the gross frequency-response lumpiness—the darkness or over-ripeness or hard aggressiveness or searing treble or bloated bass—that I had (secretly) expected to hear from it on the basis of show listening. Indeed, if the 101X sounded like anything else (and it didn't really, including anything else from MBL that I've had in my home or heard at shows), it sounded a bit like a gigantic Magico Mini II, which is to say that it sounded—on first blush—solidly and impressively and, once again, totally unexpectedly (at least to me) uncolored, undistorted, and relatively “flat.”
Of course, Radialstrahlers always sound boxless (they have none) and incomparably big, open, and spacious. But these things sounded even bigger, more open, more spacious—and not by a little bit. Plus, on the right tracks at the right volume, they had simply sensational dynamic range and scaling—truly lifelike speed, pace, and impact even on instruments (like huge drums or plucked bass guitar) that are nearly impossible to scale realistically in a home. At the same time they had much of the same "you are there" presence on voice and guitars and pianos that great planar or electrostatic speakers seem to own.
I've just begun to listen, of course. I don't know about timbres and textures, yet, save that they certainly seem to be better (which is to say more neutrally presented) than what I'm used to from MBL based on the few hours of music I’ve listened to. I don't know about imaging. I don't yet know about how the 101xes fare with wide varieties of music or how they fare with different media (like LPs which I haven’t yet listened to) or how they handle different levels of playback, although I already know that (like all MBLs) they certainly enjoy being played loud, where they can pressurize the entire room like no other kind of speaker and make it seem as if you are being immersed in the acoustic of the recording. I don’t know about low-level resolution (although this has seldom been a serious problem with Radialstrahlers). I don’t know much, save that these speakers are far, far better than I expected them to be in the areas where I expected them to be weak and far, far better than I expected them to be in the areas where I expected them to be strong.
I’ll report again soon, after Jurgen completes his tweaking and I’ve done more than an afternoon and an evening’s listening.
Quote:JV, when you were in Germany, what was the claimed improvement for the mid module-efficiency, etc?
Rupe,
I can finally answer your question. Jurgen tells me that the 101Xes are about 6dB more sensitive than the 101 Es. Their impedance is quite uniform, so they aren't tough to drive, although they still need and like power, even with the 6dB increase in sensitivity.
The Mark II versions of the 101 Es themselves have not increased in sensitivity due to the changes to the drivers.
Jon
The all-MBL system in my listening room.
Today, Jurgen did more tweaking, which resulted in sizable,asymmetrical changes in speaker and sub placement, elaborate individual Radialstrahler driver adjustments, changes to the Q and group delay of each of the incredible sub stacks, and adjustments to the "ambience" tweeter (a very high-quality cone tweeter which is mounted on the very top of the Radialstrahler "enclosure").
I found out today that the huge bottom and top caps of the Radialstrahler “enclosures” are very densely constructed of birch plywood, thick brass plates, and aluminum in a constrained layer package that, along with the thick stainless-steel struts and powder-coated solid brass cross-bracing, is a large reason why each of these Radialstrahler towers weighs more than a quarter-of-a-ton. I also found out that the six hefty subwoofer enclosures, which weigh approximately 500 pounds per side (with three subs stacked per side), are made from birch ply and aluminum, that the German-designed side-firing subwoofers (two per enclosure in a push-push configuration) use aluminum cones and incredible wide and flexible surrounds, and that they are cross-connected with thick aluminum rods to prevent them from passing any vibration to each other or to the already inert cabinets.
I’d have to say that, after Jurgen’s adjustments, this is the most seamless blend of subwoofer and “satellite” I’ve heard in a lifetime of frustrating attempts to mate subs and sats. (Jacob take note!) Some of you already know how dubious I am about subwoofers, but I would challenge anyone to tell me that he or she can “hear” these subs as a separate element —as they are currently configured. This is an astonishing achievement, even more astonishing when you consider that you’re mating these largish (12') cones to extraordinarily “fast” omnidirectional drivers and that you’re doing this without any DSP. Tremendous bass—not just in the sense of drive, extension, pace, and impact (which the 101 Es have galore all by themselves) but in the sense of a seamless blending of sub and sat (which the 101 Es are also good at, but nowhere near this good), fine resolution of detail, grip and control throughout the entire range in which they play, and lack of driver/port/enclosure coloration.
Jon,
I love the photos of the MBL's being installed in your home. Somehow this gave me a look behind the curtain of how you get equipment installed.
Man, that final photo of the 101x's fully set-up is sweet. They look gorgeous.
I'm glad you shared some of your initial impressions (I know some people don't apparently like this). Unless I marry rich or strike it big at some point, I will never own anything like the MBL 101X's. But I enjoy reading about them. Right now, I'm aspiring to own the 121's!
Man, you ought to throw a dance party with those things and invite a bunch of TAS readers along. I'd get in my car from Philly and drive to Ohio.
Hey, are those the 9011 amps in the final set-up? Have their been any changes to them since you last wrote about them? Because the 101x's are more sensitive than the 101e's, I'm curious if you're gonna try your beloved Audio Research 610T's on the 101x's?
Anyway, as they say in the twelve-step groups, keep sharing, keep coming back! ... I'm loving this.
Quote:Hey, are those the 9011 amps in the final set-up? Have their been any changes to them since you last wrote about them? Because the 101x's are more sensitive than the 101e's, I'm curious if you're gonna try your beloved Audio Research 610T's on the 101x's?
First, thanks for the kind words, Phillyman! And if you're ever in Cincy, by all means stop in.
Second, yes, those are 9011 amps. As far as I know, MBL hasn't changed them and they still sound great, albeit less dark with these speakers. Indeed, I'm beginning to wonder how much of the characteristic balance of MBL electronics was due to the darker-balanced 101Es.
As for the 610Ts...of course I'm going to try them with the 101Xes (and the Ref 3, too). Indeed, I look forward to seeing how the 101Xes do with tubes (and vinyl, which I still haven't listened to).
Jon: As I recall (from Jurgen at CES), aren't those monsters supposed to be bi or triamped for optimized peformance? If so, are you getting another 1-2 pair of 9011's (and a slew of dedicated 30 amp lines to your listening room...) to do this?
btw, great job on the photo essay! I felt as though I was right there with you and the "Rock of Gilbralter" piano movers. Have you checked with a structural engineer to make sure your floor won't cave in under the weight?
Great stuff! Thanks for posting those pictures - I bet you're popular with movers :)
Can't wait for the rest.
Bi-amping this system is certainly an option, but, no, it is not a necessity, especially in a room the size of mine. The primary reason for using two sets of 9011 amps is to provide enough power to fill a very large room (like a show room in Vegas). As the subwoofers are powered and the 9011s are equipped with two sets of outputs (making bi-wiring the Radialstrahler array a snap), there seemed to be no good practical or sonic reason to add a second set of amps. The results, thus far, have borne this out, satisfying me, Jurgen, and David quite beyond expectations. Trust me, Syd: You haven't heard these speakers yet.
As for cave-ins, old houses like the one I'm in were so massively overbuilt that I don't think that's likely to happen. At least, I hope not!
And, no, Zeb, I doubt if I am popular with movers, although the piano guys sure were good sports about it.
You got my juices flowing now Jon! I wish I could just drive over and share this experience with you...
I'm getting the sense that this may become your new "no holds barred" reference standard speaker system given your preliminary findings. We'll see if my instincts serve me well as you continue to formulate your impressions over time.
Quote:I'm getting the sense that this may become your new "no holds barred" reference standard speaker system given your preliminary findings.
I'm not nearly ready, yet, to make this kind of judgment. Let's face it: I'm coming off two speakers (the Symposium Acoustics Panoramas and the Magico Mini IIs) that were standard-setters in planars and cones (and just got a third, the Quad 2905, that is a standard-setter in 'stats).
There is still too much else to assess to pass judgments, save to say that these are far and away the best omnis I've ever heard, the best speakers MBL has ever made, and clearly "up there" high among the very best transducers (lots of) money can buy.
I'm told that the entire allotment of 101Xes for 2008 has already been sold, and that half of the allotment for 2009 has already been pre-sold. In this market, that's impressive.
I should add this: I can now fairly safely report that center imaging is much improved over the 101Es. Indeed, the slight bloat and swimminess that you used to hear on the 101s is just...gone. Images are still life-sized, of course (a very good thing) but they aren't unstable (on-axis or off). Plus, the soundstage is, as was always the case with MBLs, phenomenally wide, deep, tall, and immersive--like a surround-sound stage without the extra speakers. Resolution is incredible: On records I know by heart, like The Summit on Artanis, Dean Martin's and Frank Sinatra's and Sammy Davis' voices are astonishingly present, detailed, and realistic, with a higher sense of how they were using their hand-held mikes to add expressiveness to notes and phrases than I've heard before.
It's interesting Jon, because the first time I heard them was 1.5 years ago at the Venetian (when they were first introduced) they were in a room on the 29th floor and not in the g-d forsaken ballrooms downstairs. They were pretty well dialed in after about a day or so, and I did get that unbeleivable dynamic, immersive and realistic effect that you are describing as well. What I also got was a bit of brightness that may have been due to all the glass in the hotel room and/or the fact that the tweeters weren't broken in yet.
That being said, it was an earlier version of the speaker and I'm sure they were not dialed in to the degree that they are in your listening room. So I beleive you when you say that I have not heard this speaker yet, but I am curious to know whether you are experiencing any high frequency brightness at this stage.
I am also curious as to know a little bit more about your listening room, as I would like to understand more about the acoustical environment your 101X's are playing in.
Specifically:
(1) What are the room dimensions?
(2) Has the room been treated acoustically? If so, how?
(3) How many windows, door openings and other "interesting" acoustical influences are there?
(4) What kind of furniture is in the room and how is it laid out?
Other than the room dimensions, I few more pcitures should answer the other questions pretty clearly (and save a bunch of typing if you prefer, or not). If you have already posted this information elsewhere, just drop in the link and point me to it.
Thanks again for sharing so much with your forum buddies! Your interactive/visual style really lends itself to sharing the excitement and experience with you, or as they say, living vicariously through you...
Quote: I am curious to know whether you are experiencing any high frequency brightness at this stage.
The speaker you heard in the Venetian two years ago (which you half-liked and I hated) was, according to Jurgen, an unfinished prototype. It did not have the new tweeter and midrange, the new formers and voice coils, the new crossovers and Mundorf and Intertec caps, the new ambience tweeter, quite the same frame and stand and build--in other words, what you heard was not what I'm listening to.
But, in a way, this is beside the point. It isn't the change in the speaker that astonishes me (I heard this same speaker at CES and Munich), it is the incredibly surprising neutrality of its overall balance, the sensational disappearing act of the woofer stack, the suddenly far more precise center imaging (due undoubtedly to the D'Appotito array), the seamless blending of the drivers. Dynamics, immersiveness, soundstaging are givens with MBLs. It's the rest I didn't expect.
To answer your question, thus far I hear no excess high-frequency brightness--just a very neutral, very realistic balance, reminiscent (as I've already said) of a gigantic Magico Mini (and by that I also mean extremely coherent like a great two-way, although in this case that coherence extends right down to 20Hz). Because of their horn-like transient speed and phenomenal dynamic range and scaling, MBLs do tend to sound a bit more "dynamic" than certain other speakers, particularly on peaks where they simply don't soften and compress the leading edges of transients. But this is just part of the MBL package. If you want a polite speaker, don't apply here.
You'll find answers to your other questions about room size and treatment on other threads in the Speakers section.
Wow, I knew the speaker I heard 2 years ago was a prototype, but I did not realize how much of a prototype it was until you itemized the differences.
Question: If what you are listening to now is the same speaker you heard at this past CES (which I also heard), how do you compare its performance in the Venetian Ballroom (which in my opinion was rather challenged) to what you are now hearing in your room? Given the two radically different acoustical environments, the differences in the systems performance/presentation would be interesting to undertand.
jvalin wrote:Today, Jurgen did more tweaking, which resulted in sizable, asymmetrical changes in speaker and sub placement...
Interesting, Jon. I'm curious if you found any of the other speakers that you've recently had in your room required asymmetrical placement. What measurements did Jurgen use to find the new positions?
Larry
Quote:What measurements did Jurgen use to find the new positions?
Long experience and his ears. What a concept, huh?
(My ears, too, as a confirmation.)
Quote:If what you are listening to now is the same speaker you heard at this past CES (which I also heard), how do you compare its performance in the Venetian Ballroom (which in my opinion was rather challenged) to what you are now hearing in your room? Given the two radically different acoustical environments, the differences in the systems performance/presentation would be interesting to undertand.
Setup, room, acoustic treatment, long experience with the listening space, good kharma...all I can tell you is that this just doesn't sound like what you heard last year at CES or what I heard at Munich and CES. It sounds (and I would bet measures) much flatter, more nearly dead-center neutral, more seamless, more colorless, more realistic--not just to me, but to Jurgen and David, both of whom left today quite happy about and satisfied with the sound I'm getting. Let's face it that dungeon in the Sands Expo center was a terrible spot and setup was miserable (the speakers weren't assembled or wired properly).
I did not realize that the speakers were not assembled properly at this past CES. That does explain a lot. I suppose that's the price one pays for not having Jurgen around... I envy the listening sessions you are about to embark on. I look forward to reading your upcoming posts and your eventual full review of this system.
Keep up the great work Jon!
I've now begun to listen to vinyl through the MBL101Xes via my Walker Black Diamond record player equipped with a swell new cartridge that I'm currently worn to secrecy about. (Lest I incite Elliot and the Signal Collector to riot again, let me assure you that this cartridge is manufactured by a well-known company and I will go into detail about it when the distributor gives me the O.K.)
As was the case with digital, my first impressions of the 101Xes playing back vinyl are entirely positive. Indeed, the sound on Hugh Masekela's "The Coal Train" from Hope (Analogue Productions 45rpm) was as good as (and in the respects detailed below better than) the best I've gotten from pop vinyl in my listening room. Goosebump-raising high fidelity.
Given a certain level of gain (about 85dB+ average SPLs), the 101Xes are simply less compressed on hard transients (like Masekela's whoops, trills, and clicks) than other superb speakers, including the Symposium Acoustics Pans and the Magico Mini IIs and, for that matter, MBL’s own 101 Es. They just don’t give up (or break up) on a note, no matter where it is pitched or how long or powerfully it is sounded. And the way they image and soundstage...ersatz or not, it is simply astonishing to hear how completely these giant Radialstrahlers fill up the back half of your listening room. Of course, you do have to play them louder (as you also did with the 101 Es) to achieve this almost magically wide, tall, deep, immersive, nearly life-sized, three-dimensional diorama of a soundstage. Contrary to some opinion, the 101Xes (and other MBLs) don't do this trick with every disc, only with those that have outstanding staging to begin with, but once you experience it, it's difficult to talk about the "three-dimensional presence" or the "staging" of other kinds of speakers in the same breath with Radialstrahlers. It just isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison.
As for tonal balance, I haven’t done measurements yet, but this is, once again and far and away, the most neutral-sounding Radialstrahler MBL has yet produced, capable of extraordinarily natural timbres and textures on all instruments, including bass-range instruments, which they reproduce with a size, speed, and impact that are closer to the real thing than anything I’ve had in my home save for the Nearfield Acoustics Pipedreams (whose woofers didn’t mesh with their main towers nearly as seamlessly as those of the 101xes do). The Symposium Pans and the Quad 2905s (and possibly the Mini IIs, although the 101Xes actually sound closer in balance to the Magicos than they do to these other two superb speakers) may (repeat, may) have a very slight edge in transparency to sources, driver coloration, very low-level resolution at low SPLs, and transient speed (don’t forget the Pans were the best speakers I’d heard in these regards and the Quads the best ’stats I’ve heard to date), but on pop music neither can carry these virtues (including very low-level resolution and transient speed) to higher, more lifelike volumes the way the 101Xes can (and neither can compete with the 101Xes in the bottom octaves and, in respect to sheer authentic power, in the top ones). At low-to-moderate volumes on pop music the Pans and Quads are at least fully competitive with the Radialstrahlers in every area but staging, dimensionality, and bass. But at moderate-to-loud volumes, the 101Xes come fully into their own.
It remains to be seen whether: (1) the 101Xes can do all the things they do on pop vinyl with large-scale and (particularly) small-scale classical music and folk music recordings; (2) the 101Xes can do all the things they do with amplifiers other than the $100k MBL 9011s (for the record, the 101s couldn’t); (3) exactly how the 101Xes compare with the best of the competition at various volume levels on a wide variety of musical material; and (4) whether my initial enthusiasm for the 101Xes will be borne out by long-term listening. The answers to these questions will determine whether these sensationally impressive speakers are truly as great as I think they may be--and whether they become my new references.
jvalin wrote:
It remains to be seen whether: (1) the 101Xes can do all the things they do on pop vinyl with large-scale and (particularly) small-scale classical music and folk music recordings; (2) the 101Xes can do all the things they do with amplifiers other than the $100k MBL 9011s (for the record, the 101s couldn’t); (3) exactly how the 101Xes compare with the best of the competition at various volume levels on a wide variety of musical material; and (4) whether my initial enthusiasm for the 101Xes will be borne out by long-term listening. The answers to these questions will determine whether these sensationally impressive speakers are truly as great as I think they may be--and whether they become my new references.
I like the way you structured the framework you will use to comapare the 101Xes to other speakers.
With respect to your initial impressions on vinyl playback, how do the speakers perform with respect to qualities that are more "specific" to the vinyl experience (e.g., being more laid back, natural, smooth, etc.) as compared with the other speakers you mentioned (Pan's, Quads, Magico Mini's, etc.)?
Syd,
All of the superiorities of vinyl aren't just preserved by the 101Xes; they are downright highlighted by them. Bloom, air, body ,warmth, dimensionality, timbre, texture, treble-range sweetness and light, natural image size and outline, massive soundstage width and depth and height, low-level dynamic and timbral nuance...you name it, the 101Xes magnify it. At least, they do on pop. (I have the feeling that will also do this on classical, jazz, and folk LPs...but we will see for sure over the next few weeks.)
Jon
Dear Jon,
It is nice to see I made an impression, sorry a lasting impression on the way things are done. It sounds like you have your hands full with all of these production products. I heard the MBL's at the Venetian and my impression was in one word HORRIBLE. That room and the level they played them was unlistenable. It was very disappointing. I had to leave it was so annoying. I really wanted to hear them. It seems there are a lot of "super speakers" on the market and coming. I am off to Saint Etienne next week to hear the JM Labs Utopia series and the new Grands!
Stay away from the prototypes there is so much "real product" to play with!!!
Enjoy,
Elliot
Quote:That room and the level they played them was unlistenable. It was very disappointing
I agree with this, and said so in print. The 101X sounded terrible at CES, much better at Munich (although much different than what I'm hearing in my home).
Quote:Stay away from the prototypes there is so much "real product" to play with!!!
Whatever, Elliot.
Well, folks, take a gander at this! It's no wonder the 101Xes sound so neutral.
This is how the MBL 101X measures in a real-life listening room, with MBL electonics, using Liberty Instruments' Praxis Suite software and a calibrated microphone. The divisions of the graph are 5dB, making this (outside the top treble) the flattest-measuring speaker I've ever had in my room! Virtually ruler-flat from 100Hz to 12kHz.
Remember, this plot was taken from a single spot about six feet from the Radilastrahler column. The bass, which is friggin' terrific here anyway (down maybe two to three dB referenced to 1kHz), actually isn't down at all. It is flat with the midrange, but because the woofers are housed in a separate column at a distance from the Radialstrahler column, it is hard to fully "include" their response (unless you cut and paste a separate plot) in a single-point measurement. I cannot explain the roll-off in the top treble (the speakers certainly don't sound rolled-off up there--in fact, as others have noted in other magazines, the MBL Radialstrahler tweeter is high among the very best). The contributions of the "ambience tweeter," located on top of the cabinet, cannot be measured from where the mike is located, although I don't think this is the issue. However, I suppose better a 4-6dB roll on top than a 4-6dB rise.
Although I have my quibbles with measurements (even my own), this does help explain (and confirm) why I was so surprised by the way the 101Xes sounded in my room. (And why their balance reminded me of that of the superb Magico Minis IIs.)
Jon, great story and highly interesting reading!
What is the distance between the mid/tweeter "towers"? It can`t be much more than 5-6 feet? And, the room looks a little bit over crowed for the lack of a better word. Do you think that a bigger room is better for a large system like this? Or isn`t that an issue here?
I have absolutely no doubt that it sounds marvellous and it doesn`t look to bad either!
Thanks again!
Changa
Jon,
Have you lost your sense of humor?
I was just playing with you over the prototypes.
Whatever?
I said good day, Sir!
LMAO
jvalin wrote:I've now begun to listen to vinyl through the MBL101Xes via my Walker Black Diamond record player equipped with a swell new cartridge that I'm currently worn to secrecy about. (Lest I incite Elliot and the Signal Collector to riot again, let me assure you that this cartridge is manufactured by a well-known company and I will go into detail about it when the distributor gives me the O.K.)
Goodness gracious, I hadn't thought we'd been so effective! But you seem to have taken the cautious approach this time.
But "riot" ?
Jonathan.
Dear Jonathan.
Dear, sweet, humble Jonathan.
"Riot" seems to reactionary and defensive a term to describe our reaction to what you were doing when you pre-crowned the new Best Speaker In The World while it was still but a zygote swimming in the amniotic fluid of your listening room.
What we attempted to do was communicate the idea that you stepped over a line, philosophically, that we believed existed at TAS. Namely, that only real products available commercially are reviewed in the pages (virtual and actual) of TAS.
While the Panoramas might have been miraculous performers, it remains that the one pair you had for 6 or so months were the only pair on earth, were prototypes, and there seemed to be very little chance that they would make it into production. To this day I will wager that these speakers will have a harder time making it into production than either you or Peter imagined (although I suspect Peter may be imagining the very same thing now).
Getting a product into the market place is incredibly difficult. You, as a writer, wouldn't necessarily understand the difficulties. It's not simple, it's not cheap, and it's not a timely process. That he had been playing with the protos for 20 years is not the equivalent of developing and preparing something for commercial release.
So .. we didn't riot. We just gave you a heads-up that what you were doing in your reporting and crowning of the Symposium proto project seemed a bit zealous, and inappropriate.
No manufacturer should be put in the position of having to handle the difficulties involved with bringing something as complicated as the Symposium loudspeaker to market while simultaneously having to live up to the orgasmic public pronouncements of a well-regarded reviewer - you increase the risk to the manufacturer, you increase the risk to any potential early adopter, you increase the risk to any potential investor in the company, and you increase the risk to your magazine's credibility.
That you didn't get those points, those very elemental pieces of the puzzle, was disconcerting to say the very least. Elliot and I made our positions very clear, we were very articulate, and we were professional in our approach.
"Riot" ... a bit of a romantic recollection on your part, IMHO.
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
I brought this piety on myself by cracking wise, so I can't complain.
However, this is a site devoted to the MBL 101Xes so let's stick to them.
Quote:What is the distance between the mid/tweeter "towers"? It can`t be much more than 5-6 feet? And, the room looks a little bit over crowed for the lack of a better word. Do you think that a bigger room is better for a large system like this? Or isn`t that an issue here?
Changa, the room is pretty damn loaded with (very heavy) stuff. "Overcrowded" would be the correct word.
The distance from the main towers to the listening position is a little more than 10 feet, from towers to back walls about 4.5 feet. (The speakers themselves take up a few feet.) The distance between the two Radialstrahler towers (they're not mid/tweet, Changa--they're actually woof/mid/tweet) is 7.5 feet (center-to-center). The room is small for such large speakers (though not as small as it seemed with the gigantic, winged Pans). BUT...my experience with MBLs (and I've heard the 101s, the 111s, the 116s, and the 121s at length, both in my house and at shows) suggests that they sometimes fare better in small-to-moderate-sized rooms, simply because they can fully "pressurize" such spaces, doing their "Radialstrahler" thing most effectively and creating an astonishingly "immersive" soundfield (as well as canceling out room modes). Indeed, part of the reason why MBL created the 101X was to fill up larger spaces at higher volumes as effectively as the rest of its line handles small-to-medium-sized spaces. This said, Jurgen and David agreed that this was the best they'd heard the 101Xes sound, despite the room-size limitation. You can see how well the 101Xes measure in it, and the Magico-like "neutrality" of its tonal balance is new to my experience of MBLs (though they've always been lovely at timbres).
I have to say that this relatively little room has sounded great with every speaker I've tried in it. Something about it supports very low bass in a way that, frankly, it shouldn't. My friend Alon Wolf thinks it's the structure of the house--which was built in 1864 and is extremely solid, with many feet of brick outerwalls, thick genuine plaster and lath inner walls, and (I sincerely hope) very solid wooden floors. It seems to "hold" bass in the way modern construction often doesn't.
The Signal Collection wrote:
"Riot" ... a bit of a romantic recollection on your part, IMHO.
Chris
Romantic or not, I ask that you please leave this discussion (which has been vetted quite thoroughly and aggressively elsewhere on this forum by you, Jon, Elliott and others) out of this thread so that we may continue to focus on the MBL 101 Xes, which is the point of this thread.
Dear Syd,
Lighten up man. Don't you have a sense of humor?
Chris is obviously having some fun and so was I.
I am sure Jon can handle himself and please don't walk so closely behind him, he may stop short and you can find yourself in a very compromising position.
E
Syd wrote:The Signal Collection wrote:
"Riot" ... a bit of a romantic recollection on your part, IMHO.
Chris
Romantic or not, I ask that you please leave this discussion (which has been vetted quite thoroughly and aggressively elsewhere on this forum by you, Jon, Elliott and others) out of this thread so that we may continue to focus on the MBL 101 Xes, which is the point of this thread.
Syd,
Jonathan brought up the "Riot" - please bring your concerns to the management.
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
it was a joke, Chris. And Syd, thanks for the moral support.
In any event, the "management" says let's stay on subject.
jvalin wrote:it was a joke, Chris.
In any event, the "management" says let's stay on subject.
No worries.
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
Post new comment