Auditioning the MEG RL-901K

Hi Folks,

Earlier today I met Simon (Tenson) at KMR Audio in Whetsone to have a listen to the MEG RL901K's. Thanks to North London traffic I was fashionable late.

KMR is a very large split level Shop, the MEG's where set up on the upper level, where sadly the floor is suspended wood flooring, which prooved highly resonant.

Set right next to the MEG's was a pair of PMC IB2's, ATC's where not available, but for quick comparison we also switched to PMC AML-1's in nearfield setup. Setup was (IMHO) sub-ideal and especially the resonating floor really messed up certain ranges of frequency (lower mid, upper bass). Also, the setup had no sidewalls, so some aspects of difference in performance accruing from the variations in dispersion pattern where not notoable, also, the placements of the monitors was a bit wide for the listening distance available and toe in was insufficient for a really steady image except right down the middle.

CD Player was an Alesis Mastering Recorder and the analogue signal from this was routed through a big SSL Mastering desk for level control.

I brought mostly classical and acoustic music, Simon supplied something harder and some of his own Bands recording he did (pretty good stuff I would like to add, both recordings and music). We spend about 2 Hours playing a lot of different music, I'm sure Simon will add some comments too, I'll keep it brief.

I found the MEG's to offer what I expect from a high performance monitor, they had no obvious limits or weakness, except possibly a lack of extremely low (sub 30Hz) bass. They will play as loud as anyone would want even in large spaces and they do so extremely cleanly, without any audible compression, edge or congestion creeping in at high levels. What I noticed most was the "open window" feeling, which made the IB2 by comparsion sound opaque and plodding, the MEG mostly removed the feeling of listening to speakers, while the IB2's made their presence as speakers very much known.

With some recordings the "editing" applied by the IB2's was very welcome, but the inability to hear the complete recording would make them problematic for use as quality control monitor during recording or preior to any final mixdown. In many ways the MEG's share the openness and delicacy I am used to from the top of the High End large format speakers (largest Wilson, JM-Labs etc.), but with a truely "FLAT" tonal balance (which ALL HiFi Speakers I am familiar with seem to be unable to achieve).

This "Flat" balance is mostly what disqualifiess the MEG's for me personally from use at home, as they sound brighter than I like. Surprisingly this brightness does not translate in harshness or induces listener fatigue though, maybe one could get used to it, might be like moving from the first row to the conductors podium.

I would not personally use either the MGE or the two PMC Monitors auditioned at home, if I had to choose one for home however I would probably select the MEG's, on the condition that I must be allowed a high quality equaliser in the system, ideally a Cello Palette. In fact, a nice set of sources, a Cello Palette (or in a pinch a digital EQ) and a pair of MEG 901K's would do me fine, something I'd not say about too many systems/speakers .

Oh yes, the combination of the MEG's and their stands is spectaculary ugly.

After the time KMR we dropped back to my place for a listen. Sadly the Vinyl frontend was off-line (Phono Stage PSU broken), so it was digital only, I'll let Simon comment on the sound if he likes.

Ciao T

PS: For reference, the system listened to at my place was:

CD-Players:
========

1 - Pioneer DV-505 DVD Player, heavily modified (Superclock, LC Audio Zap Filter, extensive application of Os-Con capacitors, C37 Laquer, Crystals and wooden disks etc....)

2 - Behringer DEQ2496 operated as DAC only, source is PC via optical S/P DIF (mainly home cinema), largely stock

Preamp:
=====

Music First Audio Passive Magnetic Preamplifier

Power Amplifiers:
===========

3D Acoustics by Shanling, stock (the very units reviewed by HiFi-World in fact), the main weak point in the system right now

Speakers:
=======

3D Sonics Transparence SE Prototypes (Dipoles using an 8" Fieldcoil Fullrange Drivers) with Visaton TL-16H Supertweeters (not the ones which will ship with 3D Sonics Speakers) and homebrew Subwoofer (dual 12" Pro Woofers, sealed 15" Cube, 250W Thomessen Plate Amplifier)

Cabeling is all 3D Sonics prototypes, except mains which is mostly Steinmusic from Germany.

 

Power amps used at the shop dem?

 

Hi,

All active, IIRC....

Ciao T

 

How interesting,
last Monday I also auditioned these speakers at the importer's show room and to tell the truth, I couldn't listen to them for a long time.
The room is used for exhibiting as many components possible and wasn't treated acoustically. The owner said that an acoustic treated room means a lot of investment and therefore the prices for the components which he imports would go up. He also intended to say also that people at home don't have acoustic treated rooms so what you hear in that room could be more like what you hear at home (I don't totally disagree with that).
And anyway he also offered me the chance to try these speakers at my place.

The speakers were placed 10 cm from the wall and at an height of about 1 meter. The system was as simple as a CD-Player, a passive preamp and the RL 901k. "Everything as linear as possible".
As said before and to be short the sound was horrible because it was confusing, no clear countor of the instruments and the low frequencies could have been much more controlled. The music which I was listening to quite loundly, was disturbing.

I listened to the following pieces:
-Hallelujah vom Messiah (Händel) with Gardiner and the English Baroque Solists (Philips 434 297-2)
- First movement of the trumpet concert of Stötzel played by Maurice Andre M.Andre (EMI CDC 7 47012 2)
- the beginning of the Toccata (dorisch) and Fuge BWV 538 with M-C. Alain, 1992 (Erato 450996719-2)

I would cretainly say that the sound in many rooms of hifi-Shows I went to, inclusive Bristol and Heathrow) were better than that.
We can certainly start a discussion on how important the acoustics are on the other side there seems to be people saying that the advantage of having studio monitors vs other kind of hifi speakers is that, thanks to there "radiation" characteristics, they are more easily adaptive to any kind of rooms.

Antother interesting point which I noticed with the Toccata (dorisch) is that the speakers came to some limits at the end of those long very low notes. Could this be something to do with the amplification in those small boxes? Wouldn't the sound be better if using real good amplifiers?

Anyway I know definitevely that I have to hear these speakers again. Maybe with better electronics behind or with better room. I know many people who find these speakers fine but I also heard one person who believe that the amplification is the weak point of them.

I wish when I come over for the Heathrow show that Simon could demo me these speakers as reported from 3DSonics so maybe I can change my impression about them.

my best regards

titian

 

Hi,

The close proximity to the wall would defeat the cardiode operation of the LF section and lower midrange section, more distance than that is (IMHO) needed. We listened with probably more like 1.5m to the rear wall (no side walls anywhere near). Also, the hight of the MEGs was too low, they should be used on the stands that come for them, it's intended to be like that, If you place them as low as was the case you should turn them upside down to get on the right listening axis.

It makes me wonder why most studio people are so bad setting up speakers? At KMR I figured we got at best 70% of what the speakers had to offer, DISCOUNTING the resonating floor.

One of the pieces I used was the #3 by Saint Saen on eloquence and we played this very loud, in a very large space. Even the com bination of long sustained Organ pedal notes PLUS timpanys was handled just fine.

Hmm, I don't know if MEG have changed their amplifiers much sinde the late 80's, I doubt it though and back then they where quite decent. No doubt it is possible to better them, as it is possible to better the MEG's.

KMR are in North London, on literally the opposite end of a very large city. If you stay an extra day after the show we could invade KMR again and maybe ask if I can make some small setup changes and take my CD-Player and Music First Audio Passive Pre (both are balanced, so no trouble there), which might give us a better handle on what happens.

Ciao T

 

Active with flying mole or with bryston? I dont believe the ib2s come with bryston usually - they used to use the power pacs but then switched to flying mole and just leave bryston to the mb2 and bb5. Any idea which it was? Maybe I should give them a listen

 

Hi,

Really no idea. maybe Simon checked, he headed off for a while so his comments will be next week or so.

Ciao T

 

Hi,

I am quite familiar with the 100 and up, and you are right, no amount of equalisation would make them enjoyable to me as speaker at home.

The reason I wanted a Cello Palette (or a Weiss) EQ with the MEG's is simple and the same one for which Mark Levinson conceived the Palette (and also the one that has me argue for as high a degree of neutrality as possible in Studio Monitors), namely that over the years the "monitors" used by engineers have shown often drastic deviations from neutrality resulting in recordings that show in many cases as a result "inverse" distortions in tonal balance.

If you use a speaker that is equally deviating from neutral as the Monitor, that is fine, but as the differences in the midband between different unacceptable (IMHO) monitors often amount to as much as 12db. Take the ATC's and their exeggarated "BBC dip" on one side (which is around 6db below the average SPL in the midrange) and on the other old JBL's with an upper midrange boost by 3-6db or so and you have overall 9-12db of net difference in tonality in the range where the human ear is most sensitive, DESPITE having used speakers that measure "+/-3db" throughout the midrange.

With speakers that are truely flat (and not tuned towards an easy listening balance as many supposed monitors are stupidly tuned, compromising neutrality) the ability to correct for these differences becomes essential and the Cello Palette (which BTW is not a "graphic EQ") is in my experience the most ergonomic way to rebalance recordings tonality.

Ciao T

 

The ATCs are flat & very accurate, to my ears. What experience do you have of hearing live recordings played back through ATCs?

 

We know that you think ATCs are unacceptable, although you failed to present a cogent argument in support of that opinion. Suggesting that ATC actives have a 'recessed' midband, now? I've seen it all.

 

Not my experience. Most of the recordings which I have (3000+ records/CDs) sound tickety-boo.

 

Hi,

While you remain sitting in "Disco Towers", ponder this:

In this world there are two kinds of people, those that get it and those that don't. If the meaning of this is not immediatly obvious, count yourself to the latter.

L8er T

 

I'm one of "those who has been present at a live recording in his own listening room and who has heard the recording played-back through his ATC monitors almost straight away".

I guess you know best.

 

Oh bubby dont start again. ATC deviate significantly from neutrality. That is sounded the same in your room recorded as it did live means little if anything.

 

Silly me, obviously not listening correctly to the recessed, distorted ATC midrange, which has been roundly rejected by all right-thinking ham-shankers. If only I had some real experts on hand to guide me with my audio selections......Hang on! .... What luck!!....etc.

 

Hi,

Would you mind providing some data, eg what was recorded, how and by whom? We all can make wild claims (like "they recorded Pink Floyds last album right in my living room and it sounded the same on my ATC as it did live!".

Substantiating them may be a trifle more difficult.

Ciao T

 

A band you've never heard of recorded some test tracks at my place. Data? If you think I'm just making this up, that's OK.

Funny you should mention Pink Floyd in an ATC context, though. Their albums are fairly well-recorded & mastered, aren't they?

 

What experience do you have, other than the one recording at your place, where you have heard the original live band and then the recording played back? Please tell us the recording studios that you did this in to back up your claims and inference that you have this experience.

As this thread is about MEGS do you have any comments other than promoting your unsubstantiated views of ATCs?

 

It was recorded in my living room, and there were photos & a thread at the time on the old Mana forum. If you don't believe it, that's perfectly OK with me.

The MEG discussion seemed to have ground to a halt, let's hear more about those...

 

Bub I do believe you that a band recorded in your lounge. I was interested to know if this was your only reference point for knowing that your ATCs were accurate or not. You did ask others where they had heard recorded live music after all.

I could not find your thread on mana. Would you say that the reproduced sound through your system sounded the same as the band playing live? Do you remember what instruments were used and what they recorded to?