• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

MartinLogan Motion 4i Review (bookshelf speaker)

martijn86

Active Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
120
Likes
221
Location
The Netherlands
#21
Well it really needs a 200 hz crossover. :(
It would've been better if it was advertised as a specialty surround (effects) speaker. The way it's meant to be wall mounted and the fact that it's only effective at frequencies that you can locate. That wouldn't be as bad. You could at least conclude that it is built for a specific purpose.

Selling this as if you get the high end electrostatic MartinLogan sound at a low cost is just false advertising. You're just shipping a 'white van speaker' to someone that probably doesn't know what a good speaker is supposed to sound like. That's terrible for a company like MartinLogan.
 
Last edited:

FeddyLost

Active Member
Joined
May 24, 2020
Messages
197
Likes
109
#22
Fashion satellite as it is.
No other real value in these speakers, i suppose.
Ultra compact 4" bookshelf speaker should be little more balanced allover if it's not just satellite. Maybe at cost of 82 db sensitivity, but more linear below 200.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
2,437
Likes
2,321
Location
Oxford, England
#23
This speaker would perform better if measured in 2pi space.
It would be interesting to see even a simple REW measurement with the speaker against the wall.

This is in line with many people's criticism of how speakers are evaluated in Harman's speaker shuffler room...
It makes absolutely no sense to position/measure a wall-mount speaker away from the wall if it wasn't designed for such placement.
 

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
11,185
Likes
11,217
Location
Riverview FL
#24
No comments, presume MLs are revered in the US I suppose
I've had a pair of reQuest for 23 years.

They're my mains.

1609069136777.png


(not my picture, but, same thing)
 
Last edited:

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,014
#25
It would be interesting to see even a simple REW measurement with the speaker against the wall.

This is in line with many people's criticism of how speakers are evaluated in Harman's speaker shuffler room...
It makes absolutely no sense to position/measure a wall-mount speaker away from the wall if it wasn't designed for such placement.
Exactly. Only thing here is that ML markets it as an on-wall or standmount speaker. ML therefore has only themselves to blame IMO when it is judged it as such...
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
50
Likes
36
#26
Gosh, what were they thinking with that tilting up response? Sounding good in a showroom?
Excuse me Amir, but these are the most obvious satellite speakers you've tested. Previous NHTs at least have "bookshelf"-like look:)
Sure you can buy them and use even as a floorstanders but in real life these are just cheap multichannel satellites.
I also suspect that they're designed to be used rather off-axis.

Their electrostatic models sound amazing despite poor measurements, they are lightyears ahead of typical pair of boring $2-3k "traditional" speakers IMO. Yep sure, the sound is not flawless, it's a bit specific but very exciting.

I also suspect that AMT-based Logans are something like Emotiva, an "optimal price" Chinish designs.
 
Last edited:

YSC

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
970
Likes
638
#27
Exactly. Only thing here is that ML markets it as an on-wall or standmount speaker. ML therefore has only themselves to blame IMO when it is judged it as such...
it is, but didn't you feel it would be interesting if measured against the wall to see what it can achieve? I am not sure how much extra effort this will take Amirm, but if it's not too troublesome as a 100% geek I would be interest to see such measurements to be done.
 

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
3,433
Likes
8,007
Location
Land O’ Lakes, Florida
#28
Sure you can buy them and use even as a floorstanders but in real life these are just cheap multichannel satellites.
Satellites means all speakers in a surround setup, I presume you mean surrounds. The thing is, ML markets them as both, not just in writing but in photos too:

and I know on the home theater subreddit I have seen a user or two ask about them for their mains.
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,014
#29
it is, but didn't you feel it would be interesting if measured against the wall to see what it can achieve? I am not sure how much extra effort this will take Amirm, but if it's not too troublesome as a 100% geek I would be interest to see such measurements to be done.
Absolutely.

FWIW, I’m sure we’d see a flatter overall response, although with a depth of about 14.5cm, this speaker is not quite wide enough to properly mitigate the cancellation that will be caused by the reflection off the wall it’s mounted on, which will occur at about 600Hz (as a rule of thumb, an on-wall speaker should be at least 150% as wide/tall as it is deep).
 

Robbo99999

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
1,995
Likes
1,559
Location
UK
#30
Well, if I'm being positive I'd say that because this speaker has good directivity and the frequency response looks quite EQ'able, then this speaker could be ok if you're not particularly interested in bass (because it doesn't really have any) or loud playback levels due to the distortion. I'm guessing it could be used quite effectively EQ'd as a surround speaker in home theatre use, although the high distortion at loud volumes could be an issue as it seems to encroach above normal non-locateable sub crossover levels. $188 for one speaker, perhaps there's better options out there. Good directivity has got to be it's best feature.
 
Last edited:

YSC

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
970
Likes
638
#31
Absolutely.

FWIW, I’m sure we’d see a flatter overall response, although with a depth of about 14.5cm, this speaker is not quite wide enough to properly mitigate the cancellation that will be caused by the reflection off the wall it’s mounted on, which will occur at about 600Hz (as a rule of thumb, an on-wall speaker should be at least 150% as wide/tall as it is deep).
I can’t be sure about the reflection but ain’t the reflection be only applicable to bass frequency and the mid to high frequency be more directional?
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,014
#32
I can’t be sure about the reflection but ain’t the reflection be only applicable to bass frequency and the mid to high frequency be more directional?
The primary cancellation will occur at approximately the frequency of wavelength 4x the distance from the front of the baffle to the wall (i.e. because at this frequency the reflection will be perfectly out of phase with the direct sound).

4 * 14.5cm = 58cm, which is the wavelength of frequency of approx. 600Hz.

A flat baffle will control directivity down to approximately 140/w (in Hz, where w = baffle width in metres).*

As you can see, as baffle width approaches 1.5 * baffle depth, directivity control approaches the frequency of the primary cancellation.

Following from this, in order to properly mitigate this cancellation, baffle width should be >1.5 * baffle depth.

In the case of this ML, baffle width and depth are approximately equal. You can see from the polar response plots that the baffle provides some degree of directivity control down to 600Hz, but not quite enough to prevent significant cancellation from occurring. If the baffle were 50% wider, or the box 33% shallower, directivity control would be (close to) sufficient to prevent significant cancellation.

*This is actually a special case of Keele's formula for rectangular CD horns, which states that: F = K/(a*w), where K = 25,306, a = coverage angle (degrees), and w = baffle width (metres).
 

Joachim Herbert

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
184
Likes
302
Location
Munich, Germany
#33
I've had a pair of reQuest for 23 years.

They're my mains.
I had the pleasure to own a pair of these for five years or so. Plus a pair of cls2, which were a little bass shy but great speakers once liftet 15 inches above ground. Great speakers both. But the company has been sold since then.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
50
Likes
36
#34
I presume you mean surrounds
I mean they are obviously designed to work a sub, not separately. For that purpose such no bass/LF slope can be actually a good thing.
Off-axis FR seem better, so... look at instruction pics posted before. That's just cinema pack for non-audiophile use.
 

Helicopter

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
1,699
Likes
2,180
Location
Michigan
#35
Thanks Amir! Now I know what to avoid if I decide to try an inexpensive AMT for some variety. What an utter failure.

The port is a clever idea, though they didn't actually implement it properly, and I don't see an advantage over a U-shaped or otherwise bent port.
 

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
11,185
Likes
11,217
Location
Riverview FL
#38
I had the pleasure to own a pair of these for five years or so. Plus a pair of cls2, which were a little bass shy but great speakers once lifted 15 inches above ground. Great speakers both. But the company has been sold since then.
They don't disappoint me, even after a visit to the yearly Audio Show.

My Audio buddy has a pair of CLS. He has them a little off the floor, flanked with a pair of Rythmiks.

As for the current product line, they've priced themselves beyond what I'd be willing to pay for what would probably be mostly a sideways move.

If I blow them up, which I haven't been able to, yet, I'll get something different, I think.
 

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
2,523
Likes
3,857
#40
Even one keeps saying it at least looks good. I'm sorry but I can't tell what part exactly looks good here? Those front screws being accentuated like that (and so many) and that weird thing on the bottom.

Doesn't really look all that good to me at all really.
 
Top Bottom