• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

IK Multimedia iLoud MTM Review (active monitor)

bennybbbx

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 27, 2020
Messages
691
Likes
124
Location
germany
Hi,


The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:
Score no EQ:
With Sub:
Spinorama with no EQ:
  • Not as Flat as i would expect, maybe because the multimedia usage?
  • Still pretty good
  • As expected the power handling is not great but given the size...
View attachment 98846
Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height (MTM configuration...)
The wave guide seems to be not that efficient on the Vertical plan and/or the XO not optimized?
Pretty good on the horizontal plan
Given the very near field intended usage just ON should be considered?
View attachment 98848
View attachment 98856
EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
  • A few sharp adjustments that would need careful listening to validate.
  • Added a High Pass filter as the THD seems to indicate it could do with it.
  • Preamp gains not to be ignored, clipping may be an issue so the EQ might diminish even further the dynamic range of the speaker.
  • Too bad we don't have a measurement of the built in EQ, would have been interested to see what it does...
Score EQ LW: 5.76
with sub: 7.96
Score EQ Score: 6.27
with sub: 8.04
Code:
iLoud MTM APO EQ LW 96000Hz
December132020-110110

Preamp: -4.7 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 47.3 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.09
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 817 Hz Gain 1.5 dB Q 3.35
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1608 Hz Gain 2.5 dB Q 3.48
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3248 Hz Gain 1.35 dB Q 3.02
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 8410 Hz Gain 2 dB Q 1.19
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 18250 Hz Gain 4.39 dB Q 2.08

iLoud MTM APO EQ Score 96000Hz
December132020-105239

Preamp: -4.4 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 47.3 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.09
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 817 Hz Gain 1.63 dB Q 3.75
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1541 Hz Gain 2.6 dB Q 7.2
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2500 Hz Gain -2.13 dB Q 10.5
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2885 Hz Gain 1.44 dB Q 1.33
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 5359 Hz Gain -2.31 dB Q 2
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 6934 Hz Gain 1.67 dB Q 1.19
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 18262 Hz Gain 4.2 dB Q 2.48
View attachment 98841
Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 98845
Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 98844
Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 98843
Regression - Tonal
On is flat with the EQ Score
View attachment 98842
Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements
View attachment 98840
The rest of the plots is attached.

this EQ boost at 3 khz i need too. I use 3 khz Q2.4 and +1.4 db and look linear. i think a very important boost. this give even more stereo width and room depth. On 1.9 khz i use Q2.2 and -1.3 db and at 8.5 khz the -1.5 db Q 1.5 is not so important.
 

mohragk

Member
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
54
Likes
51
Location
The Netherlands
Anyone has both MTM and micro that can chime in?

I would want to purchase the smaller due to it being a home/desk setup if the micro can be pretty close to the MTM. Thanks

So, I've had the micros and later swapped them for the MTM's. I absolutely loved the micros and for their size and price, there is nothing much that can beat them. But I found that they had some weird phasing or echo effect. I imagine IK applies DSP heavily to get them to a certain performance level and in that, they overdid it. It's hard to describe but they sounded like there was some stereo enhancement effect applied, sort of.

My girl friend thought I was talking out of my ass, btw. They didn't hear anything wrong with them.

They are very nice and I do miss I sold them, cause they would have been great speakers to give to one of my future kids. I would say they're 90% of the way to the full MTM's, if that makes sense. I think the MTM's are a bit pricey in that regard and the Micros are the best bang for buck.
 

Pietro

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
25
Location
Slovakia
MTMs internal electronics

MTM board.jpg

we have some good and bad news :

DAC: AK4621 (S/N 115dB, THD 100dB)
Opamps: MC33079 (4.5nV/Hz, 7V/us)
DSP: STM32 /ARM/
AMP: TPA3116 (2x50W/4R, 0.1%THD@halfpower)
 

Acerun

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
1,105
Likes
491
Location
San Francisco
Did anyone pick up on whether Amir measured via a balanced input or unbalanced (I believe the MTM accepts both)? I'm wondering if output from an RME ADI-2 FS DAC via balanced cables and set to +19db would help with any volume issues?
 

Berwhale

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
3,968
Likes
4,972
Location
UK
Did anyone pick up on whether Amir measured via a balanced input or unbalanced (I believe the MTM accepts both)? I'm wondering if output from an RME ADI-2 FS DAC via balanced cables and set to +19db would help with any volume issues?

I happened to measure my MTMs yesterday to see how loud they would go (measured whilst playing 'Go' by The Chemical Brothers with a UMIK-1 at the listening positing - 80cm from the monitors)...

1621792811077.png


I was driving the MTMs unbalanced from my Topping stack with 6db gain on the amp (MTMs are set to +4dBu). My MTMs are augmented with a Presonus Eris Sub8 and high passed at 80hz which I believe will have helped the MTMs quite a bit.

I'm pretty sure I could hear distortion at this volume, I wouldn't usually play them this loud. A loud, but comfortable, volume for me is around 80dB(C).

I would image that increasing the input voltage by driving them with a balanced connection is just going to get you to the distortion more quickly.
 

bennybbbx

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 27, 2020
Messages
691
Likes
124
Location
germany
@Berwhale what setting the volume knob of the MTM you have for this test ?. middle ?. when set to lowest it produce on lower loudness distortions . when set to middle it is 6 db louder as when set to lowest. because you have unbalanced i think you need volume knob on mtm set to max to reach maximum loudness because balanced have more level.
 

Berwhale

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
3,968
Likes
4,972
Location
UK
Volume pot on the back is actually the "sensitivity". It adjusts the volume of the input signal to 0dB. It cannot conjure a greater headroom..

Yes, my understanding is that 'volume' should be used balance a pair of MTMs, rather than control their absolute volume.
 

bennybbbx

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 27, 2020
Messages
691
Likes
124
Location
germany
Volume pot on the back is actually the "sensitivity". It adjusts the volume of the input signal to 0dB. It cannot conjure a greater headroom..

did you have the mtm and have you test it ?. I have the mtm and i have test it longer time ago with a 500 hz sine tone, and put level of 1 speaker to max other to min. and hear when the sine tone clip with ear protect on. the mtm get louder with lesser distortion when knob is in middle. for unbalanced i think need set to 2 or 3 o clock to reach max.

maybe the knob sit in the digital part and do not boost or reduce the analog signal. so they can save the cost of a analog amp with level adjust. avoid this amp also avoid additional analog noise

or my mixer or t racks mini dsp do clipping before the mtm reach their max level.

anyway it is always usefull to test with the volume knob on diffrent positions when you get not the volume it should get. when you connect 1 speaker with a unbalanced cable 1 speaker with a balanced cable then the speaker that is connect with the unbalanced cable have 3 db less volume in compare to the same speaker that is balanced connect.

I notice this, because first i have only 1 stereo cable and 1 mono cable. for balanced need stereo cable :D
 
Last edited:

zheka

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Messages
59
Likes
40
Anyone has both MTM and micro that can chime in?

I would want to purchase the smaller due to it being a home/desk setup if the micro can be pretty close to the MTM. Thanks
I have both, they are very different animals, one is a tiny 2-way front ported design, the other is a much larger MTM back ported one. There shouldn't be any contest between them, the MTMs are way better and it really comes down to the significant price difference. Bear in mind that it's best to connect the MTMs to an interface with balanced outs, while the Micros don't need this, so extra costs may need to be factored in.

Some thoughts about the two:

The Micros have an exceptional tight low end for their size with a Hi-Fi bump, so they are not really accurate, but very pleasing with bass-heavy music. They still sound small though in terms of imaging, still smaller than speakers with 4'' woofers.

The MTMs are an improvement in almost every respect, clarity, accuracy, imaging, low end extension (though without the bump) etc., also coming with the very useful added feature of a basic calibration. Difficult to compare apples with oranges, but they should be equivalent at least with a 5'' 2-way design.

Both have low levels of hiss, with the Micros having a more noticeable one.
I too have both and I agree with @khark 100%. If you do not care about portability and BT, MTMs are a significant step up.
 

Berwhale

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
3,968
Likes
4,972
Location
UK
And significantly larger it looks like

The MTMs are still relatively compact when compared to most of their peers (an exception would be the smaller Genelecs). The tall, but narrow, MTM configuration makes them a particularly good match for an UWQHD monitor. I have mine on microphone stands with a base diameter of 14cm (5 1/2"), so they are pretty efficient from a desktop space use perspective.
 

Pietro

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
25
Location
Slovakia
Can you comment please on the componentry?
DAC: AK4621 quite decent converter (approximately at the "Focusrite scarlett" level )
Opamps: MC33079 good for this purpose, approximately at NE5532 or NJM4580 level
AMP: TPA3116 probably the biggest disappointment, a discrete amplifier based on this IC would probably end up in the lower orange category. But it is true that when measuring the distortion profile at lower SPL, it did not have a significant negative effect.
 

intelfx

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
7
Likes
0
I've just got a pair of these as my desktop speakers. Note, I'm not doing any sound engineering/studio work or anything — a more audio-savvy friend heavily recommended them to me and I just didn't feel like researching anything else.

Question: I've read in this thread that selection of the "LF extension" point somehow influences the speakers' dynamic range or otherwise "helps" them. How does that work?
 
Last edited:

engineer

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2021
Messages
36
Likes
4
Hi, I am choosing speakers for a PC at a price of 350 €/ piece and I was interested in IK iLoud MTM. But at this price level are also a Kali In-5 monitor. Which speakers would you recommend? I prefer a musical sound over analytical.

Btw.: I tried Adam A5X, but I didn't like the sound (from tweeter).
 

earlevel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
558
Likes
782
Chroma pretty much nailed it, I'll add that, with just what comes in the box, you can aim these right at your ears. That won't be true of most traditional boxes, on a typical desk, flanking your computer display. So be sure to ask yourself exactly what you'll need to do to get the Kali's in the proper orientation. For me it was a big deal, I didn't want to make my computer desk awkward to accommodate the speaker. At the same time, I didn't want to give up too much on sound—these are comfortable on the ergonomics, and still manage to be a good listening reference, so the tradeoffs worked well for me. You may have a different situation.

And, with just what comes in the box, you can equalize to room, so pretty decent value.

I've had mine for nine months, the loudness thing was initially an annoyance, not being able to crank certain types of music as much as others. But that was mostly under "impress your friends" circumstances, where you're playing music way louder than you normally would, just to see how far much bigger than their size they sound. Most types of music can play way louder than is comfortable, it's the bass-heavy stuff, especially when accompanied by a more delicate top end that makes you want to bring the volume up. And the issue is mainly when you want the advertised "40 Hz". It just take too much from the amplification to DSP-it up to a flat 40. Move it up to 50 and you'll rarely overdrive at any level you want to listen at. IK was simply overly eager to impress people with "40-20k"—it does it, just not very loud if the source material really has a lot down there (most music doesn't).

But the bass control works on top of the cal. Depending on your calibration, it may set you to 40 Hz—if it does, you can bump it up to 50 Hz. My cal set it to 50, but if it hadn't I'd probably move it there—I'm never wanting for loudness. And, most types of music aren't that bass heavy to start with. You can absolutely rip your ears off with metal and classic rock, most pop, and classical and jazz don't have deep.
 

Berwhale

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
3,968
Likes
4,972
Location
UK
Hi, I am choosing speakers for a PC at a price of 350 €/ piece and I was interested in IK iLoud MTM. But at this price level are also a Kali In-5 monitor. Which speakers would you recommend? I prefer a musical sound over analytical.

Btw.: I tried Adam A5X, but I didn't like the sound (from tweeter).

The IN-8's didn't measure great... Kali Audio IN-8 Studio Monitor Review | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

Did you hear hiss from the A5X when nothing was playing? The MTMs are pretty good in this respect.
 
Top Bottom