IK Multimedia iLoud MTM Review (active monitor)

[paudio]

Thanks mate.


Seems like something's gone wrong because it worked for the last two years and this suddenly happens.

How long and how cold? Seems strange. There wouldnt be a massive difference if it was just deformed. Is it the same with them powered on and off? Something looks to be pulling the whole dome in reverse.

 

[RickNRoll]

I had plans to "upgrade" from my KRK Rokit 5 G4 and save space om my desk at the same time so I ordered the Iloud MTM's. I a/b'd the monitors on a track I'm working on where I made subtile changes to the sound of the bassline with Waves vitamin and Denise XL vst's, mostly affecting the region between 50- 250hz. On the MTM's I could bearly hear the difference turning the vst's on and off - they sound quite muffled, but on the KRK's the difference was crystal clear. The MTM's will be going back. Too bad, they looked good.

You tried a test on one part of the total frequency responce that is typically most affected by the environment it is placed in.

My MTMs have been adjusted to compensate for the desk they are sitting on and that typical peak and trough have been eliminated. Flat is only flat in an anechoic chamber.

 

[Raz]

You tried a test on one part of the total frequency responce that is typically most affected by the environment it is placed in.

My MTMs have been adjusted to compensate for the desk they are sitting on and that typical peak and trough have been eliminated. Flat is only flat in an anechoic chamber.

It is not about flatness. You can eq a set of logitech speakers to be flat. They will still lack in detail. I could not hear the changes with my ear 5cm from the speaker on low volume. The environment will have minimal impact in that context. I heard the changes on the KRK's. From listening position as well as 5cm from the speaker on really low volume. I have headphones that are not detailed enough for this as well. Those phones sound good in other contexts though, like casual listening. For me the MTM's lack in detail. If they work for someone else then great.

 

[RickNRoll]

"And of course it’s loud, with 100W RMS total power per speaker and 103dB SPL maximum sound pressure, delivering the proven volume the iLoud brand is known for."

When I see that graph and the above write-up to follow all I ask myself why are people are even talking about this speaker? It doesn't work properly as @amirm proved it and its published specs are pure fabrication. Are we going to say, maybe it was a faulty unit, or ask him to re-test -- again!

For a speaker to go loud it should not go down in the bass. More bass = less volume capacity. If your brand is about loudness than don't market speakers that go down in bass. Richard Small wrote the book on how speakers operate 50 years ago! I have a signed copy!

Almost all manufacturers are aspirational when it comes to power rating for speakers. That's why people measure them independently. The volume is good for me as desktop monitors, which is what they really are. I have compared them to more power monitors that have way more volume than I need and have less defined stereo image and high end.

 

[Raz]

I just bought a pair of Genelec 8010a. The difference in terms of detail compared to the MTM's is astonishing. The 8010's whipe the floor with my KRK's in that regard as well.

 

[Berwhale]

I just bought a pair of Genelec 8010a. The difference in terms of detail compared to the MTM's is astonishing. The 8010's whipe the floor with my KRK's in that regard as well.

Define 'detail'.

 

[Raz]

Define 'detail'.

I made subtile changes to the sound of the bassline on a track with Waves vitamin and Denise XL vst's, mostly affecting the region below 250hz. On the MTM's I could bearly hear the difference turning the vst's on and off - the MTM's sounded quite muffled. Even on my KRK G4 5's the difference was very clear. On the 8010 it was even a step above the KRK's. Pure magic.

 

[solderdude]

Did you calibrate the MTM using the provided mic ?

 

[Raz]

Did you calibrate the MTM using the provided mic ?

No, but I know my mixing environment. All these speakers are "flat" out of the box and I evaluate them at really low levels to have minimum impact from the surrounding. On the MTM's I could barely hear the changes even with my ear pressed against the speaker (kind of wearing them like headphones). People talk alot about "flat frequency response" like it's the holy grail. You can eq a pair of low budget Logitech speakers to be flat, but they're probably still gonna sound like crap.

 

[Berwhale]

I made subtile changes to the sound of the bassline on a track with Waves vitamin and Denise XL vst's, mostly affecting the region below 250hz. On the MTM's I could bearly hear the difference turning the vst's on and off - the MTM's sounded quite muffled. Even on my KRK G4 5's the difference was very clear. On the 8010 it was even a step above the KRK's. Pure magic.

Interesting. The 8010a has a bit of bass boost, but the MTM extends way lower...

What do you think your VST is adding or removing from the sound that is not captured in the spinoramas above? Distortion maybe?

The 8010A distorts quite badly at a much lower volume than the MTM (it's not it's fault, it's only little!)

 

[Raz]

Interesting. The 8010a has a bit of bass boost, but the MTM extends way lower...

What do you think your VST is adding or removing from the sound that is not captured in the spinoramas above? Distortion maybe?

The 8010A distorts quite badly at a much lower volume than the MTM (it's not it's fault, it's only little!)

To me, comparing speakers just by looking at the frequency response is like comparing two tv screens just by just looking at the color fidelity, not taking in consideration that one screen is HD ready and the other is 8k. To my ears the MTM's sounds like a Multimedia speaker with a really beneficial Dsp at work. I could hear the changes on my KRK G4 5's as well.

 

[Berwhale]

To me, comparing speakers just by looking at the frequency response is like comparing two tv screens just by just looking at the color fidelity, not taking in consideration that one screen is HD ready and the other is 8k. To my ears the MTM's sounds like a Multimedia speaker with a really beneficial Dsp at work. I could hear the changes on my KRK G4 5's as well.

The transducers in a speaker emit an analogue waveform, which by definition has infinite resolution. How is this analogous to an image emitted from a TV screen with a fixed resolution?

 

[solderdude]

No, but I know my mixing environment.

Why would you not use this one feature that makes a lot of difference and is the main reason to use the MTM.
It is very easy to do. Did you try it ? You can always go back to the usual presets.

 

[Raz]

The transducers in a speaker emit an analogue waveform, which by definition has infinite resolution. How is this analogous to an image emitted from a TV screen with a fixed resolution?

But if your speaker is built out of low quality parts it will effect the sound coming out of it. It was a metaphor.

 

[Berwhale]

But if your speaker is built out of low quality parts it will effect the sound coming out of it. It was a metaphor.

Why wouldn't this be reflected in the measurements? Is there something in the 'sound coming out of it' that can't be measured?

 

[Raz]

Why would you not use this one feature that makes a lot of difference and is the main reason to use the MTM.
It is very easy to do. Did you try it ? You can always go back to the usual presets.

I hear you and I'm aware of this feature but it would not fix the issues I had with the MTM's. I isolated the frequency area between 100-250 Hz with lp and hp on the bassline to analyze the subtile harmonic distortion and phase invertion to specific frequencies (among other things) that the plugins ad to the signal. On the KRK's and Genelec the changes were clearly audible (crystal clear on the Genelec) but not on the MTM's. I honestly don't see how eq would change that? I don't hear these differences on some of my headphones either. Sound quality ain't all about frequency response.

 

[solderdude]

It would be interesting if you posted a short excerpt of the issue you talked about. With and without that change. Curious if I can hear a difference on my MTM and other speakers/headphones.

 

[Raz]

Why wouldn't this be reflected in the measurements? Is there something in the 'sound coming out of it' that can't be measured?

It is my experience that if two sounds or instruments are overlapping in frequency range (and stereo placement), there are variations in how good different speakers handle it. Especially in lower frequencies in electronic dance music. maybe one issue is that the woofer needs to retract and extend very quickly? That would be effected by build quality yes? Now how do you measure that with Klippel?

 

[Raz]

It would be interesting if you posted a short excerpt of the issue you talked about. With and without that change. Curious if I can hear a difference on my MTM and other speakers/headphones.

Sorry, I can't do that until the track is released. The bassline is a wav-file now and I don't have the original saved.
I could try to mimic the procedure, but I don't have the MTM's any longer so I would not know if the result would be the same.

 

[mohragk]

I hear you and I'm aware of this feature but it would not fix the issues I had with the MTM's. I isolated the frequency area between 100-250 Hz with lp and hp on the bassline to analyze the subtile harmonic distortion and phase invertion to specific frequencies (among other things) that the plugins ad to the signal. On the KRK's and Genelec the changes were clearly audible (crystal clear on the Genelec) but not on the MTM's. I honestly don't see how eq would change that? I don't hear these differences on some of my headphones either. Sound quality ain't all about frequency response.

Speaker frequency response while uqually good in the MTM's and Genelecs, they are different from each other. In fact, the range you're describing is boosted in the Genelecs, but more flat in the MTM's. This means that you would more clearly hear differences in that region because there is less masking. With the MTM's, the response around that range is more prevelant in comparison, which means it's harder to discern.

And this might be why some speakers that don't have a flat response, are still useful for certain applications. Maybe they more clearly reveal a certain section of the frequency range for that application. Like speech. The BBC dip follows that idea to a pretty extreme extent.

Another thing in this regard is that the 8010s don't provide as much bass response, which means the rest of the spectum is easier to discern. Your brain doesn't have to "filter out" the bass when trying to listen to that trumpet. Again, masking is at work here. This effect is dramatically exacerbated when using it in a non-ideal room (which all rooms are), because every room has modes that dramatically increase bass response for certain frequencies.

Does that make the MTM a worse speaker? Of course not. In fact, it provides a broader frequency range while still providing a comparable deviation from the ideal. It's objectively better.