Khorn and ML Montis

[consistent]

Well I had a chance to compare my Khorns to Martin Logan's Montis. They retail about the same in the US and just maybe the Khorn is a little cheaper. Here in Aus the Khorn is more expensive.

 

The look: firstly and foremost craftsmanship v's machine shop. People build the Khorn and machines build the Montis (with some human intervention). Both in their own way are impressive, the Khorn commands respect and the Montis admiration

 

The sound: not as 'chalk and cheese' as I thought! The Khorn will always have the 'jump factor', the sheer exhilaration and stridency that very few speakers have, also the low, low distortion that you only recognise when you listen to other speakers. If you want the musicians in the room with gusto, the Khorn has this in spades. The Montis however is more laid back but has detail, front, centre, sides and rear that the Khorn does not have. They can get cranking when you throw hard rock at them but they don't jump at you like the Khorn. The bass on the Montis is not bad at all for a small box of technology but the Khorn just has the reality of the drummer in the room.

 

Verdict: Horses for courses, I do like the Montis especially on jazz, artists are more articulate at normal listening levels but the Khorn will always remain awesome.

 

cheers

 

[Chris A]

http://www.stereophile.com/content/martinlogan-montis-loudspeaker-measurements

 

If you will not be offended, just some observations on this smaller MartinLogan loudspeaker, since I was a planar loudspeaker owner for many years, i.e., Magnepan MG-IIIa's:

 

When you curve an electrostatic loudspeaker panel in order to get more coverage laterally from the front of the radiator so that you can toe-in the loudspeaker for better in-room imaging and soundstage, the backwave is no longer a plane wave but rather becomes "beamy".  Now you have an issue with what to do with the acoustic treatment on the front wall in terms of diffusers, not absorption.  Selecting the right room and placement in-room for planars, including distance from front and side walls, angular toe-in, distance from back wall, and listener position becomes even more critical than KHorns (i.e., in two front corners with no acoustically reflective objects within about 4 feet).  "Head in a vice" will likely still be a bit of an issue with this electrostat even though it's curved, for center field stereo imaging and soundstage.  There also will be significant amounts of compression distortion heard that softens the attacks, since the electrostatic panels do not have sufficient SPL dynamic range before AM distortion and limited diaphragm travel become significant (not to mention input power requirements become enormous because of low loudspeaker efficiency).  At low SPLs, though, planars are very entertaining-great for background music while conversing, or listening at well below concert levels without conversation, or small, lower SPL ensembles like jazz ensembles and string quartets.

 

Allowing the high frequency SPL to droop like this loudspeaker exhibits will give it a laid back sound--a feature that my Magnapans didn't have.  The direct radiating bass from 300 Hz and below will also sound more opaque relative to the electrostatic panel at higher SPLs and on bass-heavy material-especially at the crossover passband (the Magnapans I owned had planar bass panels--not cone type). Setting this loudspeaker's bass module attenuation to get flatter response will probably result in the loudspeaker sounding thin in addition to laid back.  If the bass module is set at "0", the tonal balance will clearly be shifted toward bass-heaviness, if the measurements shown were done from the listener's position.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Chris A

[wvu80]

Mr. Consistent, nice review from down under!  :emotion-21:   Your compare and contrast of a higher end Martin Logan to a Khorn is one most of us here will never be able to do.

 

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/martinlogan-montis-loudspeaker-measurements

 

If you will not be offended, just some observations on this smaller MartinLogan loudspeaker, since I was a planar loudspeaker owner for many years, i.e., Magnepan MG-IIIa's:

 

(respectful snip)

 

Allowing the high frequency SPL to droop like this loudspeaker exhibits will give it a laid back sound--a feature that my Magnaplanars didn't have.  The direct radiating bass from 300 Hz and below will also sound more opaque relative to the electrostatic panel at higher SPLs and on bass-heavy material-especially at the crossover passband (the Magnaplanars I owned had planar bass panels--not cone type). Setting this loudspeaker's bass module attenuation to get flatter response will probably result in the loudspeaker sounding thin in addition to laid back.  If the bass module is set at "0", the tonal balance will clearly be shifted toward bass-heaviness, if the measurements shown were done from the listener's position.

 

Likewise Chris, your analysis was good, and I am a former Magnapan owner.  Your review was analytical (like me!) but I'm not sure what you were trying to say (like me!    )

 

I think you are saying the ML's have another level higher to go, that the magnaplaners are capable of more punch than Mr. Consistent first described.  If my understanding is off, could you clarify a bit, please?

Edited October 17, 2014 by wvu80

[Chris A]

I really wasn't trying to say much other than "choices must be made".  Choices must be made for cornerhorns, too. 

 

I chose to move on to horn-loaded loudspeakers since I always missed the ability to play music at anything approaching concert level without the attendant modulation and compression distortion, the extreme sensitivity to where I sat, and where the speakers had to be located and pointed out in the middle of the room for good imaging performance. This even for a room tailor-made for planar loudspeakers,  such as vaulted ceiling, no near-field reflections, fully carpeted floor, loudspeakers 6+ feet from surrounding walls, etc.

 

The choices that I've made now suit my needs much more: full range SPL reproduction (soft to loud) with negligible modulation distortion.  I play small ensembles, large orchestras, popular and rock music, and movies with the same high level of satisfaction.  The soundstage, imaging, detail, dynamics, etc. reflect what is actually on the recording. 

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

Edited October 17, 2014 by Chris A

[russ69]

I walk on both sides of this fence and I can say that the two loudspeakers ARE really chalk and cheese. Planers and horns are certainly dramatically different solutions with much different characteristics. 

[consistent]

The Montis is surprisingly easy to set-up and does have more dynamics than a std panel speaker (that most people would have come across in the past) and most box speakers. When you throw them up agaisnt horns you do notice compression factors but a good clean, fast and powerful amp will help overcome to some extent. I am using the Bryston 4bSST2.That's why I am surprised that the difference is not as big as I thought it would be. Like any speaker, a good room room placement with specific treatments will enhance the experience.

[Edroom]

I don't have the Montis, but I do have ML Sequels, had Maggie's mg2's and I have Klipschorns. I find that the Martin Logan's along with many other speakers, most notably to me ADS 1590's and KEF 107's have amazing high end detail and silky smooth midrange which the Klipschorn does not. But after extended listening sessions the klipschorn has a fullness of sound that much closer resembles live music which the others can not compete with.

Just my 2 cents

Ed

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk