• Welcome to ASR. 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!

MartinLogan Motion® XT F100 vs Focal Aria 936

D

dman777

Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
145
Likes
38
I have a Yamaha r-n2000a amp which is (8/6/4/2 ohms) 100 / 130 / 185 / 215 W. I am looking to get tower speakers. I narrowed down my choices to ether MartinLogan Motion® XT F100 or the Focal Aria 936. They will be used with a REL t7/x sub which I currently own. This will be for my living room which is 12'x26' (about 310 square feet).


www.crutchfield.com

Focal Aria 936 (High-Gloss Black)

Floor-standing speaker
www.crutchfield.com www.crutchfield.com
www.crutchfield.com

MartinLogan Motion® XT F100 (Satin White)

Floor-standing speaker
www.crutchfield.com www.crutchfield.com

The Martin Logans are 4 ohms while the Focal are 8 ohms. Should I care about that since my amp does both?

Any thoughts, between these 2 speakers?
 
that amp should power either of them, no problem. I would audition both in your room and keep the one you like best. Crutchfield makes that really simple to do
 
I have the F200's and am extremely happy with them. The F100's should sound similar. They measure pretty flat in room which people will say sounds bright. They can be EQed easily but your amp doesn't have EQ so you may or may not like that brightness. One benefit they have is they don't really suffer from floor bounce and have a bit of low end boost built in

The red sweep is the average response of one of my F200's in room. You can see how there is a rise in bass starting at 200Hz. It works well as a sort of built in room curve. The black/green sweep is how I currently have them EQed.

Screenshot 2023-07-08 at 11.07.27 AM.png
 
Last edited:
Brian6751 said:
I have the F200's and am extremely happy with them. The F100's should sound similar. They measure pretty flat in room which people will say sounds bright. They can be EQed easily but your amp doesn't have EQ so you may or may not like that brightness. One benefit they have is they don't really suffer from floor bounce and have a bit of low end boost built in

The red sweep is the average response of one of my F200's in room. You can see how there is a rise in bass starting at 200Hz. It works well as a sort of built in room curve. The black/green sweep is how I currently have them EQed.

View attachment 298219
Click to expand...

Interesting.... I prefer the speakers to be on the bright side. I currently have the Sonus Faber Lumina IIs. The speakers can sometimes be to bright, depending on the source. But in contrast, I had the higher end Sonettos II and I thought the highs were to soft making the Lumina II more lively.

I am not a sound purist, I like the smiley face/v shaped curve in a EQ like sound. I prefer the speaker to be colored rather than neutral. I saw the review by Andrew Robinson that said that the F100 have a elevated bass and highs, making them sound like the live button on a amp (which I would like). But on the Kef R11 Meta review, he said that the Metas were more musical than the ML F100. I heard some Meta towers in a store and thought they were a little on the boring side.

Can you please tell me, is the sound stage and clarity good on F200s?
 
Sounds like you should really like the Martin Logan’s. I would say the soundstage and clarity are great. Imaging is excellent and they have very low distortion. I have them in an equilateral triangle aimed directly at me.

One word of caution; the F200’s are tall. If you are seated less than 11’ from them, you may want to consider the F100’s instead but YMMV
 
dman777 said:
But on the Kef R11 Meta review, he said that the Metas were more musical than the ML F100. I heard some Meta towers in a store and thought they were a little on the boring side.
Click to expand...
I'll never understand this reasoning...the content is what is supposed to be musical and exciting. The speakers are just supposed to play the content.

I would always pick the Kefs over ML because they are well engineered speakers and not a resonance fest -- you can easily EQ the Kefs if you want a colored sound.
 
rynberg said:
I'll never understand this reasoning...the content is what is supposed to be musical and exciting. The speakers are just supposed to play the content.

I would always pick the Kefs over ML because they are well engineered speakers and not a resonance fest -- you can easily EQ the Kefs if you want a colored sound.
Click to expand...
This is interesting.... I looked on listenup and crutchfield and I could not find EQ's for home amps. Why is this? Also, would a EQ lessen the sound stage/separation/imaging in the speakers?
 
Your integrated amp doesn’t have a tape loop so you can’t really put a EQ in line with it unless you used the external EQs DAC and looped back into one of the analog inputs. Your amp does have tone controls though and that can act as an EQ to change the bass and/or treble response
 
That may actually work since it passive as in no AD/DA conversation needed.
 
dman777 said:
This is interesting.... I looked on listenup and crutchfield and I could not find EQ's for home amps. Why is this? Also, would a EQ lessen the sound stage/separation/imaging in the speakers?
Click to expand...
Are you using analog sources or something? Many ways to apply digital EQ.
 
Brian6751 said:
Sounds like you should really like the Martin Logan’s. I would say the soundstage and clarity are great. Imaging is excellent and they have very low distortion. I have them in an equilateral triangle aimed directly at me.

One word of caution; the F200’s are tall. If you are seated less than 11’ from them, you may want to consider the F100’s instead but YMMV
Click to expand...
Or you can just use the attached F.A.S.T feet to point the tweeter down... problem solved.
 
dman777 said:
Interesting.... I prefer the speakers to be on the bright side. I currently have the Sonus Faber Lumina IIs. The speakers can sometimes be to bright, depending on the source. But in contrast, I had the higher end Sonettos II and I thought the highs were to soft making the Lumina II more lively.

I am not a sound purist, I like the smiley face/v shaped curve in a EQ like sound. I prefer the speaker to be colored rather than neutral. I saw the review by Andrew Robinson that said that the F100 have a elevated bass and highs, making them sound like the live button on a amp (which I would like). But on the Kef R11 Meta review, he said that the Metas were more musical than the ML F100. I heard some Meta towers in a store and thought they were a little on the boring side.

Can you please tell me, is the sound stage and clarity good on F200s?
Click to expand...
Same here. Decent sounding but I just seemed to prefer the F100's that were also being demoed.

Well, I will say, I had first compared the R11 non-meta to the F100 and F200 a couple years ago and the ML's seemed much more clear to my aging ears. I can't hear much above 9500 kHz. Recently, however, I compared the R11 Meta and ML F100 at Magnolia and I was surprised how close the R11 Meta sounded in clarity to the F100. The F100 still seemed to have a slight edge on dynamic transients. R7 Meta might be nice for me but I'm not wanting to spend that much right now. Thinking of KEF Q11 or Q7 Meta. I also considered the cheaper ML Motion Foundation F1 or F2, but I'm not feeling too great about that small amt tweeter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom