Not much discussion around MBL


Must not be alot of ownership by frequent posters.  They are pricey - I have  heard several models many times and have always been impressed - would love to own a pair.  Not sure I could commit.
pops
I have an MBL dealer near me so I have seen quite a lot of them over the years.  Always enjoyable!

A little new blood around here would not hurt!

Happy Thanksgiving!!!
When I heard them they sounded very colored...... a wwII German tank

Maybe you should have your hearing checked.  
I had the displeasure to in an exhibit at CES that was located right next door to the MBL room. Thump, thump, thump, thump!!
Well, if you want some talk on MBLs...here’s a bunch :)

I own MBL speakers. (As well as currently owning Thiel 3.7 and 2.7 speakers, Spendor, Waveform, Hales...and like many here I’ve owned plenty of different speaker types and brands).

The first time I heard MBLs, as I remember, was at a CES show, around 2000 or so, so it was the 101Ds at the time.

I remember walking past various rooms and coming from one room was the sound of what actually seemed like a live band, playing jazz. Once inside I saw the MBL 101s and, as cool as they looked, the sound blew my mind. It wasn’t simply the spacious quality. It was the sound quality.
I’d heard every design under the sun playing at that show, and all sounded like hi-fi systems. This was the first time I’ve ever heard drums actually sound like live drums. The cymbals in particular. They weren’t that reduced, diminished "coming from a tweeter" sound exhibited by almost all the other speakers - so many hi-fi systems seem to make higher frequency sounds tinier than they are. They actually sounded like big, round, full cymbals - to the point breaking it into hi-fi speak didn’t make sense - they just sounded like real drum cymbals (and snare, etc).
And many of the other instruments had a similar tonal and dynamic realism.

So I think my initial interest in MBL started there. I later heard the MBLs at Absolute Sound reviewer Michael Gindi’s place, in a hilariously small but well treated room. Again: the most astonishingly realistic sound I’ve ever heard from a sound system. And since I’m a "timbre-first" guy, not a soundstaging-first guy, it’s not the spaciousness that got me so much as the sheer timbral realism and presence.

I’ve heard the MBLs sound not-great in some shows. But various auditions and other encounters in good set ups continued to give me the impression they are damned special.

I lost out on an auction of the 101Ds (or was it Es?) years ago. But happened upon a good bargain for the smaller stand mounted 121 speakers, which I’ve owned now for several years. They have the mid and tweeters of the big units and have the same MBL "voice" and attributes.

I switch around my speakers but every time I play the MBLs they still blow my mind. Yes, the soundstaging, disappearing act, imaging and 3D sound are almost second to none, but it’s also the qualities of timbre and resolution that make them so special in my experience. They have just about the most effortless super-resolution I’ve heard - where for instance fingers plucking a classical guitar aren’t just "wow listen to that tweeter, I can hear the fingers on the strings" in a sort of pushed-resolution way. Rather, fingers simply *become* a natural fleshy presence plucking the string, like when I play my guitar.

And, again, in my obsession with vocal and instrumental timbre: the one aspect of hi-fi that has most disappointed me is how reproduced sound becomes homogenized. The really specific tonal colors and differences between metal, plastic, wood, brass etc just aren’t totally there even with the most expensive systems I’ve heard (or, very rarely). To my ears, the MBLs create a wider rainbow of instrumental timbre than just about any speaker I’ve encountered. A cymbal, or a drum rim, really does sound metallic, wood like wood, plastic like plastic etc. Unlike most speaker systems where, once I’ve listened for a little while I can predict how drums, sax etc will sound, I actually get a continued sense of "surprise"
with the MBLs, when new instruments enter the mix, or from one track to another.

I’ve been auditioning plenty of excellent speakers again, recently, from Audio Physic, Magico, Rhaido, Audio Note and various others, and they are terrific. But to my ears, I still find some aspects of the MBL more impressive, particularly the chameleon believability of the sound.  I recently owned Harbeth SuperHL5Plus speakers,  Harbeth speakers being renowned for natural vocal reproduction.  They were indeed pretty special for vocals.  But not in the league with the MBLs which can sound spooky-real with voices.

Also, unrealistically sized imaging - e.g. the "superwide singer" effect Audio Doctor speaks of, isn’t mirrored by my experience with the larger MBLs over the years, or with my pair. Of course you can set up many speakers to produce spreading of the imaging. But MBLs can be set up to image quite realistically. If they had imaged unrealistically I’d never have thought the sound realistic in the first place. Vocalists, or other instruments on my MBLs, are no more unrealistically large than on my Thiel speakers, and the Thiels as good as they are, and as great as their reputation for resolution and precision, can not produce the realism I can hear on the MBLs.




I have some bad news. I was in the room next to the MBLs in 2000, the same year you heard them. Not only did I have to put up with the loud thumping for two days but I went next door to see what all the fuss was about. The sound in the MBL was was quite tedious and loud. I trust they sounded better at your home. I was with John Curl and Bob Crump that year, and in the system was their Bar B Que amp and Blowtorch preamp and Number Cruncher DAC. Now, THAT was a good sounding system! No offense.