Monitor Audio Platinum 3G

[kemmler3D]

The problem is when people listening a speaker, there is a highly possibility that the listening room didn't had professional acoustic treatment in that room.

It's shockingly common. When I once visited the "high end suites" at CES in las vegas, there were ~$100K setups in hotel rooms for demos. All but one room had ZERO acoustic treatment. The one that had acoustic treatment boasted about 16 square feet of 2" foam. All of the setups sounded more like the room than the setup. Boxy, honky midrange, bass a total question mark.

Accounting for an unfamiliar room in a listening test is almost impossible... accounting for a familiar one is hard enough. Measurements can tell you a lot that listening in an unfamiliar untreated room won't tell you.

To abuse the story metaphor a bit more, listening in an untreated, unfamiliar room is like watching a movie with the sound off, with subtitles in your second or third language, and you started the movie about halfway through and missed a lot of plot points. You may get the gist of the story well enough, but you are bound to miss some important details.

 

[Bozon]

Canton reference frist need to measure on par of Kef reference if you want to compare. Even the monitor 7G have less distortion in the mid range vs Canton reference 7K, they are a better contender. For now Canton need to work a lot in their directivity, cabinet and distortion if they want to be comparable with Kefs.

Kef reference are one of the best measure speaker, while the canton references not, even the new vento 100's have a little bit better distortion and bit better directivity than these canton reference, the current Reference from Canton are not even near of that kef level. Maybe their measurements are in par with Q series.

Sorry but having high distortion, bad directivity and high Q resonances in the cabinet is not what Kefs are.

Canton's Reference have very good objective performance:

Canton Reference 7K loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Canton Reference 7K's frequency response in the farfield. My reference axis for the measurements was level with the center of the midrange unit, which is 36" from the floor, the height of my...

www.stereophile.com

"The Canton Reference 7K's excellent measured performance belies its relatively affordable price.—John Atkinson"

https://stereo-magazine.com/archive/articles?tx_archive_pi1%5Baction%5D=download&tx_archive_pi1%5Barticle%5D=66507&tx_archive_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=Archive&cHash=4b38e4b6ba5e4e3b21252a7138117c2b

THD 0.3%, 0.1%, 0.1% (63 / 3k / 10k Hz)

"Sound Quality 95% OUTSTANDING"

I evaluated side by side the Canton's vs the KEF's Reference. The Kef is marginally better sounding (maybe 5% better). The same conclusion I archived after auditioning the MA Platinum. A little better, but that marginally better performance comes with a hefty price tag. I am talking about price/performance not absolute performance here. Canton's Reference is a much better value product overall.

BTW: The mid range on the Silver's 7G is actually very poor. Has a very ugly dip on response and it is very audible. I auditioned the 200, 300 and 500 models. The best of the pack is the 500 but I found various sound flaws on all of them when I tested them. I was very interested on buying them but returned home disappointed. They sound like they have a "veil" over, like if a blanket was over the drivers. Side by Side with the Platinums on the store, with the same amplifier (Hegel H390) the Silver 7G sounded like a bad joke.

 

[Bozon]

... But Andrew Robinson does?... What kind of joke is that?

Seriously, another new guy coming from nowhere, explaining how wrong we all are and how "measurements (that he doesn't understand one bit) don't tell the real story". The way I see it: either a conscious troll, or another unconscious Dunning Kruger effect victim.

I have been an audiophile for more than 20 years. It is true that those are my firsts post in here. But I have been following this web site for years. And purchased some of the recommended products in here. Topping DACs, Benchmark's AHB2 amplifier, Gustard's X26 pro DAC.


Let me be clear here. I don't disregard measurements, I actually have measurement equipment and use it very often to calibrate my room. And I am Civil Engineer myself.

My point is regarding the hype of the MA's silver 7G Performance. Unless the samples they distribute to the reviewers are not "golden samples" it is very clear to me that the product doesn't perform as expected. I went to buy a pair a month a go, returned home very disappointed. Certainly the Platinum Series is a LOT better.

Regarding Andrew Robinson's review, I found my own conclusions for he 7G in line with his review in this particular case.

 

[Bozon]

The problem is when people listening a speaker, there is a highly possibility that the listening room didn't had professional acoustic treatment in that room.

You listen to speakers on real, home listening rooms not anechoic chambers. When I evaluate speakers I try to do it on the same place, same electronic and most of the time, if possible on my listening room (some local dealers allow that on my city).

 

[Bozon]

Ridiculous statements on all accounts.
Ask Kal Rubinson, any other experienced reviewer or anyone who have heard the same speaker in different rooms and they will tell you that how the speaker interacts with room is why it sounds the way it sounds.
Not a single person has ever heard a difference between amps, DACs, CD players and cables in a third party double blind ABX test.

I never wrote anything of the sort.

Again not a single person ever has been able to distinguish cheap drivers from expensive ones in any listening test.
It's all about the whole speaker design with crossovers and cabinets and not just drivers.
Many cheap drivers measure better than expensive ones and you'd be surprised how cheap drivers some expensive speakers have in them.
Of course driver types at least at their extreme have their own sound signature. Electrostatic, ribbon, AMT, compression driver, metal, ceramic, fabric and so on.
What I mean by "their extreme" is that there's metal drivers that sound like fabric drivers and vice versa, but the most "metallic" sounding metal driver won't sound the same as the most "fabric" sounding fabric driver. But that's just one driver and most speakers have at least two and then there's crossovers and the cabinet all of which contributes to the sound at least as much if not more.

Are you really disregarding all the research effort made from very prestigious manufacturers and talented engineers around the world to improve their drivers? please be serious...

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Canton's Reference have very good objective performance:

Canton Reference 7K loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Canton Reference 7K's frequency response in the farfield. My reference axis for the measurements was level with the center of the midrange unit, which is 36" from the floor, the height of my...

www.stereophile.com

"The Canton Reference 7K's excellent measured performance belies its relatively affordable price.—John Atkinson"

https://stereo-magazine.com/archive/articles?tx_archive_pi1%5Baction%5D=download&tx_archive_pi1%5Barticle%5D=66507&tx_archive_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=Archive&cHash=4b38e4b6ba5e4e3b21252a7138117c2b

THD 0.3%, 0.1%, 0.1% (63 / 3k / 10k Hz)

"Sound Quality 95% OUTSTANDING"

I evaluated side by side the Canton's vs the KEF's Reference. The Kef is marginally better sounding (maybe 5% better). The same conclusion I archived after auditioning the MA Platinum. A little better, but that marginally better performance comes with a hefty price tag. I am talking about price/performance not absolute performance here. Canton's Reference is a much better value product overall.

BTW: The mid range on the Silver's 7G is actually very poor. Has a very ugly dip on response and it is very audible. I auditioned the 200, 300 and 500 models. The best of the pack is the 500 but I found various sound flaws on all of them when I tested them. I was very interested on buying them but returned home disappointed. They sound like they have a "veil" over, like if a blanket was over the drivers. Side by Side with the Platinums on the store, with the same amplifier (Hegel H390) the Silver 7G sounded like a bad joke.

These words have the same weight as if I say the Q750 is 12,2% better than the Canton reference 7k.
That being said, i don't know why you only post that review, and not the official from the Canton website too.

Here we can see the mess on the directivity. Maybe the Q series is equivalent here, not even close to the R or Reference line from Kefs.

Canton Reference 7K Loudspeaker Lab Report

Lab Report Measured on the Reference 7K's midrange axis – its most likely listening position – the loudspeaker's forward response [Graph 1] indicates both a boost to bass (below 500Hz) and treble (above 8kHz). It's also worth noting that the –1.5dB dip just prior to the 3kHz crossover increases...

www.hifinews.com

Of course, not even close to sounds like a neutral speaker.

And here the cabinet/drivers. Apparently there is a thing in the cone itself, also the high distortion raise is nearly the same area.

Cabinet modes are well controlled but mild, high-Q resonances in the cones are visible at 3-6kHz.



Here is the canton reference 3k, even that big and expensive speaker have the distortion thing, this mid range is high distortion and it's on the entire Canton reference line. (of course, not neutral like any reference from canton)

2nd (yellow) and 3rd (orange) harmonic distortion

As you can see here, part of that more pronounced (but still not drastic) distortion goes to the 2nd harmonic, but in the area around 2 kHz it is already the 3rd harmonic, which people often associate with a feeling of hardness.
Total harmonic distortion (green line)

Overall distortion stays within normal limits, however between 700 and 3,000 Hz it oscillates above the 1% mark, which is rather strange.

You listen to speakers on real, home listening rooms not anechoic chambers. When I evaluate speakers I try to do it on the same place, same electronic and most of the time, if possible on my listening room (some local dealers allow that on my city).

Can you point me where I say anechoic chamber?, we do prefer Klippel , R and Reference line was measured using Klippel NFS robot.

 

[Bozon]

These words have the same weight as if I say the Q750 is 12,2% better than the Canton reference 7k.
That being said, i don't know why you only post that review, and not the official from the Canton website too.

Here we can see the mess on the directivity. Maybe the Q series is equivalent here, not even close to the R or Reference line from Kefs.

Canton Reference 7K Loudspeaker Lab Report

Lab Report Measured on the Reference 7K's midrange axis – its most likely listening position – the loudspeaker's forward response [Graph 1] indicates both a boost to bass (below 500Hz) and treble (above 8kHz). It's also worth noting that the –1.5dB dip just prior to the 3kHz crossover increases...

www.hifinews.com

Of course, not even close to sounds like a neutral speaker.

And here the cabinet/drivers. Apparently there is a thing in the cone itself, also the high distortion raise is nearly the same area.

Cabinet modes are well controlled but mild, high-Q resonances in the cones are visible at 3-6kHz.



Here is the canton reference 3k, even that big and expensive speaker have the distortion thing, this mid range is high distortion and it's on the entire Canton reference line. (of course, not neutral like any reference from canton)

2nd (yellow) and 3rd (orange) harmonic distortion

As you can see here, part of that more pronounced (but still not drastic) distortion goes to the 2nd harmonic, but in the area around 2 kHz it is already the 3rd harmonic, which people often associate with a feeling of hardness.
Total harmonic distortion (green line)

Overall distortion stays within normal limits, however between 700 and 3,000 Hz it oscillates above the 1% mark, which is rather strange.



Can you point me where I say anechoic chamber?, we do prefer Klippel , R and Reference line was measured using Klippel NFS robot.

That 1% distortion number is irrelevant/inaudible at any healthy normal listening level:

https://i.imgur.com/tlefcFa.png

It has to do with the mid range driver design. The Canton Reference timbre is very natural. Kef's UniQ driver has a lot of wheezing.

I had the Q350 for a while and heard the 750 and 950 on store. Those speakers are a far cry from the Canton's Reference Sound.

Regarding the resonance mode: Your own pasted statement qualified it a "mild". A.k.a very much inaudible.

The Canton Reference 9k (the model I currently own) has an excellent FR in my room:

https://i.ibb.co/KwbKsZq/Canton-Reference-9k.jpg

My room has a strong mode at 58 Hz That's the peak on the measurement I took. For the two channels on their respective spots.

By the end of this week or maybe next I will have the 7K model. I liked the 9K so much that I decided to upgrade to it's bigger bro!

 

[tuga]

As an owner of Platinum 1 speakers, 6k usd for a pair of PL100 3G bookshelfs, I would prioritize other brands with well known measurements.

I found the Platinum Is somewhat ear-bleeding (particularly the PL100s) but the IIs are an improvement.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Regarding the resonance mode: Your own pasted statement qualified it a "mild". A.k.a very much inaudible.

No.. It's says:
''cabinet modes are mild'', true. The cabinet it's self is good enough

But the about the resonances in the cone is..:
'' high-Q resonances in the cones are visible at 3-6kHz ''

Cabinet modes are well controlled but mild, high-Q resonances in the cones are visible at 3-6kHz

 

[Recluse-Animator]

Are you really disregarding all the research effort made from very prestigious manufacturers and talented engineers around the world to improve their drivers? please be serious...

Improving a driver has more to do with what we can't hear from the driver within it's limits.
Improving a driver is not about changing it's sound signature, but to improve upon it's limits.

 

[Bozon]

No.. It's says:
''cabinet modes are mild'', true. The cabinet it's self is good enough

But the about the resonances in the cone is..:
'' high-Q resonances in the cones are visible at 3-6kHz ''

On the same article you are looking you can see the THD figures a 90dB:

"0.25% / 0.4% / 0.7% - THD 100Hz/1kHz/10kHz (for 90dB SPL/1m)"

90dB is actually a very high SPL level. On a typical home listening room your per speaker SPL will probably be between 55-65 dB.

At 65dB the THD is mostly invisible on the measurement graph:

https://imgur.com/tlefcFa

So those supposedly high distortion numbers are completely irrelevant. It is true that Kef Reference and R had better THD at that high SPL level. But I really don't care (and nobody should) because my ears can't tolerate a 90 dB per speaker listening session on my living room.

 

[Bozon]

Improving a driver has more to do with what we can't hear from the driver within it's limits.
Improving a driver is not about changing it's sound signature, but to improve upon it's limits.

Absurd, nobody will work on improving drivers performance if the performance improvement is not audible.

Regarding sound signature. I think driver improvements try to improve THD, impulse response, neutrality and resonances. Kef's Meta development actually absorbs resonances and improves the driver response. I had the original LS50 and the Metas too. The improvements are very, very audible which is mostly the same speaker with a driver evolution. I confess I never liked the original LS50, but I did like the new Meta very much.

 

[Bozon]

I found the Platinum Is somewhat ear-bleeding (particularly the PL100s) but the IIs are an improvement.

yeah, the old MA house (bright) sound is mostly gone now. Currently I can only see brightness on the phasing out Gold series. The PL100 II is not bright at all.

 

[Beave]

90dB is actually a very high SPL level. On a typical home listening room your per speaker SPL will probably be between 55-65 dB.

Source for this claim?

 

[Recluse-Animator]

Absurd, nobody will work on improving drivers performance if the performance improvement is not audible.

Regarding sound signature. I think driver improvements try to improve THD, impulse response, neutrality and resonances. Kef's Meta development actually absorbs resonances and improves the driver response. I had the original LS50 and the Metas too. The improvements are very, very audible which is mostly the same speaker with a driver evolution. I confess I never liked the original LS50, but I did like the new Meta very much.

THD and impulse response is not audible within the drivers limits.
Kef's Meta introduces a complete new artifact into the design and should be considered as an new design or at least a redesign and not just an improved one.
It still sounds like a Kef.
Its like adding a turbo or supercharger to an engine instead of doing minor internal changes.
Also did the Meta versions not have crossover changes?

 

[bo_knows]

Yes. Here in the US, I think I might look more strongly at the new PSB Synchrony T600, instead. And, priced at $8,999 USD/pair, the T600 is much more affordable than the Platinum 200. This may be the best PSB tower speaker yet. The bass performance is said to be fantastic.

View attachment 232619

Look at those isolation feet!

 

[bo_knows]

New flagship series from Monitor Audio called Platinum 3G. So many pretty pictures and a shame there is no dispersion or spin graph... They also lost the front baffle leather and now look like the Gold series with some details different.

Platinum Series 3G | Hi-Fi Speakers | Monitor Audio

Including floorstanding, standmount and centre speakers, the Monitor Audio Platinum Series 3G delivers exceptionally lifelike sound for music and films.

www.monitoraudio.com

View attachment 232125

View attachment 232124

Nice feet option for a wood floor. I like the look as well.

 

[MarcT]

Nice feet option for a wood floor. I like the look as well.

Yes, those brown ones look great. I just don't get white speakers, though.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

On the same article you are looking you can see the THD figures a 90dB:



90dB is actually a very high SPL level. On a typical home listening room your per speaker SPL will probably be between 55-65 dB.

At 65dB the THD is mostly invisible on the measurement graph:

https://imgur.com/tlefcFa

So those supposedly high distortion numbers are completely irrelevant. It is true that Kef Reference and R had better THD at that high SPL level. But I really don't care (and nobody should) because my ears can't tolerate a 90 dB per speaker listening session on my living room.

Sorry but im not probably between 55dB, you are probably much higher, at SPL 55dB the fletcher curve still affect to much.
You probably are between 80 and 85dB. Nobody are going to gives you a 65dB measurements... You are going to recreate smartphones spl level to make the canton looks better?

Yeah and the same distortion from the article, are also one of the highest %, in this price point speakers tend bo be low distortion at this price point.
Even the ls50m is at 0.1% at 3khz.

The R and the reference have better thd at any SPL level, not only in high spl. Distortion graph can be readed in multiples ways, these speaker will play cleaner. Lower distortion+better overall cabinet+drivers mounting. Both speaker have their coloration the R and the Canton reference, the neutral speaker is the reference from kef.

having higher distortion, worse Fr/directivity (at least you never touched the direcvitity mess, yo are never going to get a neutral sounding with a directivity like that), plus you shared measurements that clearly show the reference have more a U Fr than a neutral FR, far away of what a neutral speaker sounds like, why these kind of stuff is in the kef reference tier?
Reviwers tend to say the cantons colorations is a kind of V or U Neutral FR, wich is not neutral.
So only because you buy the speaker that make them better? Even having the 9K you cannot detect the highly coloration man. And you insist as describe them as neutral.

So we got:
Weird mid range design that end in Higher mid-range distortion vs competition at this price. Ref 7K
Bad directivity for its price. Ref 7K

Because of the direcvitity, we got even more coloration , i still dont get why you point these as neutral speaker. You even share your not-neutral measurements and still thinks its neutral

There is no single objetive point for being comparable with the reference from kef.

Is more like you like the R coloration or the canton ref coloration?, some of them will prefer the kef R coloration(a bit too smooth in the top end and some extra pressence in the treble), that being said the R series sells a lot more than the cantons.

The R7 weight 31.4 and its something between the 8k and the 7K. These speaker are in the same tier even the weight is similar, but the reference is a flawless 50kg speaker, and also measures better Than the R and the reference.

Measurements are the real history and worth the effort for make these "tiers" of performance by its measurements.

If is not on the measurements is just your imagination.
Of course rooms tend to change much more the sound of speakers.

 

[Bozon]

Source for this claim?

SPLs over 70 db are risky:

Too Loud, Too Long—Learn about the factors affecting noise-induced hearing loss

The extent of noise-related damage to your hearing depends on three factors: decibel level, distance, and time. Learn how loud noises can put children’s hearing at risk over time.

www.noisyplanet.nidcd.nih.gov

On a stereo system you will have a combined SPL from both speakers outputs at listening point.

The method to determine your per speaker SPL at listening room would be:

1. Put some pink noise on your player
2. Adjust volume to a normal or a little over listening level on your listening point (this would be with both channels driven at the same time)
3. Change the pink noise for intense sounding music (for example heavy metal) to confirm the volume is comfortable. Re-adjust if needed
4. Turn off one channel (L or R)
5. Play pink noise again.
5. Measure per speaker SPL at 1 Meter distance from the non-disconnected speaker. Repeat for the other one if you need to reconfirm.

I have experimented with the SPL at the listening point. At what I consider a very loud level and uncomfortable, my measurements are about 70 db combined.

Of course there are exceptions. If you have a large listening room and you are far from the speakers you will probably crank the volume more.