• 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!

Monitor Audio Silver 100 Review (Speaker)

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 15 5.4%

  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 62 22.3%

  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 165 59.4%

  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 36 12.9%
  • Total voters
    278
Last edited:
Xmech team said:
That hump though... I wonder how much it impacts performance, especially for a tower. Would like to see directivity index though.
Click to expand...
It is just an artefact from the non-correct addition of the nearfield bass measurements to the windowed measurement above at all Stereophile measurements, the Soundstage one is less flawed there:

fr_listeningwindow.png
 
Last edited:
Inner Space said:
Again I agree, but the advanced and committed hobbyists here aren't "normal" in their relationships with their systems anyway.

Yes, and my point is that your choice is so much wider than when feeling obliged to cleave to the reflection dogma.

Only by those who haven't tried such spaces.
Click to expand...
I can confirm from personal experience that sound absorption vastly improves stereo (and multichannel) playback. I have listened in my old listening room (20 x 28 x 10ft) while it was being constructed, from no absorption to most of the walls having 5 1/2in of rock wool and front half of the ceiling 11 inches of rock wool, all the way up to a large anechoic chamber, More absorption = better sound. Also, when available, better and better reconstruction of the recording venue ambiance. Of course, even that much absorption does not do much for very low frequencies, but every little bit helps:)
 
 
Jayesh said:
SoundstageNetwork has now posted their reviews of the silver 500 7g and the Silver 300 7g

500 7g Review: https://www.soundstagehifi.com/inde...1653-monitor-audio-silver-500-7g-loudspeakers

500 7g measurements: https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153

300 7g review: https://www.soundstageaccess.com/in...1175-monitor-audio-silver-300-7g-loudspeakers

300 7g measurements: https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153
Click to expand...
I've always been a fan of the Bronzes and Silvers, although they've both creeped up in price over the years. I'd like to see both Stereophile and Soundstage review the new Silver 7G bookshelf models too. I find the new Bronze series to be disappointing, as they seem to be voiced more like B&Ws, with a rather V shaped sound, with recessed mids and a too hot tweeter, two attributes that I didn't experience from the older Bronzes, which, like these new Silvers, were well balanced. Apparently MA has seen how well this type of design does in the market place, judging by Klipsch's and B&W's popularity in the under $1000 market segment
 
dgmen said:
I've always been a fan of the Bronzes and Silvers, although they've both creeped up in price over the years. I'd like to see both Stereophile and Soundstage review the new Silver 7G bookshelf models too. I find the new Bronze series to be disappointing, as they seem to be voiced more like B&Ws, with a rather V shaped sound, with recessed mids and a too hot tweeter, two attributes that I didn't experience from the older Bronzes, which, like these new Silvers, were well balanced. Apparently MA has seen how well this type of design does in the market place, judging by Klipsch's and B&W's popularity in the under $1000 market segment
Click to expand...

The new Bronze series is not V shaped at all, it is pretty flat. Here is the Bronze 6G 100 :

fr_listeningwindow.png


It has nothing in common with Klipsch or B&W.

SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com - NRC Measurements: Monitor Audio Bronze 100 Loudspeakers

www.soundstagenetwork.com www.soundstagenetwork.com
 
I had the Silver 100 6G for a while and I ended up selling it and buying the Diamond 230. The Silver sounded good on songs without bright highs. The bass was nice, the clarity was good, but on 20-30% of the tracks they became annoying because the highs were emphasized a lot and sounded like they were their separate thing that attracted attention and pierced the ears.
The Bronze is the same (despite somebody saying otherwise a few messages behind), the Silver 7G is almost the same. The waveguide of the 7G doesn't mitigate the problem well enough (maybe it's too shallow), and the 3-5kHz area has a very wide dispersion compared to the woofer. The 3kHz spike seems especially harsh, but in fact all high frequencies are too loud, the presence zone above 3kHz and the sibilance zone, too. Even with the dispersion problems, if the tweeter had been 2-3dB lower in output, maybe the speakers would have been usable on aggressively mixed tracks, too.
In comparison, the Wharfedale Diamond 230s sound more natural and are easy to listen to even on recordings with aggressive treble. You lose some detail on tracks that are perfectly balanced, but in exchange, you are able to listen to any music. And a lot of amazing music has aggressive treble, harsh mid-highs or sibilance.
 
pathtonowhere said:
The Bronze is the same (despite somebody saying otherwise a few messages behind), the Silver 7G is almost the same. The waveguide of the 7G doesn't mitigate the problem well enough (maybe it's too shallow), and the 3-5kHz area has a very wide dispersion compared to the woofer. The 3kHz spike seems especially harsh, but in fact all high frequencies are too loud, the presence zone above 3kHz and the sibilance zone, too. Even with the dispersion problems, if the tweeter had been 2-3dB lower in output, maybe the speakers would have been usable on aggressively mixed tracks, too.
Click to expand...
All these are very specific... Do you have any measurements ?
 
I don't have measurements, I've listened to them and then returned them because they were too similar to the 6G version. In the 3-5kHz range, if you have no room treatment, you just end up listening more to the walls than to the speakers themselves. If you have treatment on the side walls/ceiling and a rug on the floor, they become listenable, although on some tracks they're still a bit too aggressive on treble. Despite what Subway2400 wrote, all Monitor Audios are aggressive on treble and somewhat V-shaped, with very few exceptions, Bronze BX2 (5G) being on of them. Even the Bronze 100 for which he posted the measurements are a bit too bright, you can see it if you compare it to other speaker measurements on that site, and especially on the 15+ degrees charts, where the 3kHz boost is obvious relative to the midrange.

So, at least for me, the Silver 100 7G which I tested would only work with about 3-4 square meters of absorbent treatment on each sidewall and on the ceiling, and with a rug on the floor, otherwise the room will ring too much on some tracks. The waveguie should have been a bit larger/deeper and maybe, at least for some listeners, the tweeter output 2-3dB lower.

PS: And, yes, relative to the B&W models with the 7kHz mega-peak, the MA models are less V-shaped. Any speakers are less V shaped than those B&W. I don't even count those as normal speakers, I just consider them defective junk, those were a April Fools Day joke, I have no idea who would listen to those, 10dB spike at 7kHz is unlistenable under any circumstance except being completely deaf
 
Last edited:
pathtonowhere said:
I had the Silver 100 6G for a while and I ended up selling it and buying the Diamond 230. The Silver sounded good on songs without bright highs. The bass was nice, the clarity was good, but on 20-30% of the tracks they became annoying because the highs were emphasized a lot and sounded like they were their separate thing that attracted attention and pierced the ears.
The Bronze is the same (despite somebody saying otherwise a few messages behind), the Silver 7G is almost the same. The waveguide of the 7G doesn't mitigate the problem well enough (maybe it's too shallow), and the 3-5kHz area has a very wide dispersion compared to the woofer. The 3kHz spike seems especially harsh, but in fact all high frequencies are too loud, the presence zone above 3kHz and the sibilance zone, too. Even with the dispersion problems, if the tweeter had been 2-3dB lower in output, maybe the speakers would have been usable on aggressively mixed tracks, too.
In comparison, the Wharfedale Diamond 230s sound more natural and are easy to listen to even on recordings with aggressive treble. You lose some detail on tracks that are perfectly balanced, but in exchange, you are able to listen to any music. And a lot of amazing music has aggressive treble, harsh mid-highs or sibilance.
Click to expand...
I have the MA Silver 7g and they do not sound shrill. They sounds awesome. What amp?
 
hifi72 said:
I have a similar experience here. I have the Silver 300 7G's and I find them well balanced, if anything, a touch warm sounding.
Click to expand...
I know sometimes i think I am missing detail and run my jbl s38 in my other system to check and realize the detail is all there but it is not overpowering.
 
Just bought the Silver 100 6G model , I must say they have great sound, I think it is a fantastic speakers and it is match very well with my ADCOM GFA 555MK2.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20240621_200137.jpg
    IMG_20240621_200137.jpg
    165.2 KB · Views: 115
This is the estimated in-room response of the older Silver RX1 vs Silver 100:


Estimated inroom response RX1 vs Silver 100.png


RX1 is smaller, so the bass response is different.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like the Silver 100 since RX1 is already a bit bright.

Also interesting to see that Silver 100 has a woofer resonance, while the older RX1 looks better.


RX1 nearfield 20hz to 30khz.png


Monitor Audio Silver 100 Measurement Driver Frequency Response stand-mount Bookshelf Speaker.png




www.audiosciencereview.com

Monitor Audio RX1 Spinorama measurements (CTA-2034)

Here are some measurements of the Monitor Audio Silver RX1 bookshelf speaker. It was released in 2010 and discontinued in 2014. The MSRP was $675 / pair. It's a very nice looking speaker, with real wood veneer and excellent build quality. My measurements are quasi-anechoic, with...
www.audiosciencereview.com www.audiosciencereview.com
 
Last edited:
Ageve said:
This is the estimated in-room response of the older Silver RX1 vs Silver 100:


View attachment 394379

RX1 is smaller, so the bass response is different.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like the Silver 100 since RX1 is already a bit bright.

Also interesting to see that Silver 100 has a woofer resonance, while the older RX1 looks better.


View attachment 394404

View attachment 394405



www.audiosciencereview.com

Monitor Audio RX1 Spinorama measurements (CTA-2034)

Here are some measurements of the Monitor Audio Silver RX1 bookshelf speaker. It was released in 2010 and discontinued in 2014. The MSRP was $675 / pair. It's a very nice looking speaker, with real wood veneer and excellent build quality. My measurements are quasi-anechoic, with...
www.audiosciencereview.com www.audiosciencereview.com
Click to expand...
I have the Silver 100 7g and love them. Interestingly they started out slightly bright then mellowed out and are anything but bright. They sound excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ageve
  • Poll
Monitor Audio RX1 Spinorama measurements (CTA-2034)
Replies
8
Views
2K
Matias
Matias
amirm
  • Poll
CSS Criton 3TD-X Kit Speaker Review
9 10 11
Replies
219
Views
29K
musicisair
M
amirm
  • Poll
Fluid Audio FX50V2 Monitor Review
2
Replies
38
Views
20K
Fredygump
F
A
Speaker Review Anechoic Measurements- Grossly Inadequate and Why
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
krabapple
K
amirm
  • Poll
Theory Audio SB25 Speaker System Review
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
26K
Iansl
I
Back
Top Bottom