HiFi+ and the Marten Coltrane Supreme loudspeakers
I hope nobody thought we were just going to ignore this… 🙂
Most people tell me this was a pretty positive review. We certainly would like to thank Roy Gregory for taking the time and brain cells to describe what these speakers do, as well as putting it on the cover of the HiFi+ magazine this month.
But me, similar to the reviews of the smaller Marten Coltranes before this by Roy Gregory, Mike Fremer, and HP, I want them to describe what the speakers do that is unique. Not just describe it as yet another speaker that does X, Y and Z with music track A and B.
I can sense that they recognize there is a challenge here, to 1) describe these without damaging their relationships with other manufacturers and 2) not sound like they have gone off the deep end, lost too many marbles, and gone wacko like the guy at Audio Federation.
The problem with these speakers is that they are so competent, especially the Supremes as we call them here [and which is what the rest of this post is about, though everything applies to the Coltranes and little cousins, just there are more compromises and less absolutes], that they are completely shocking… or completely boring.
They are completely shocking because we have spent our lives playing with speakers that are colored. Colored neutral or colored sweet, colored impressive or colored dull. Finally there is the music, which has always been painted in the past with some kind of artist’s brush, the artist being the speaker manufacturer.
To be sure the underlying technology, drivers, crossover, cabinet all limit just what can be done compared to the Real Thing. But, given the technology, this is the way speakers should be built if people just want to hear what is upstream. If they do not, then that is OK, and there are a lot of speakers out there that sound great and we love them and we recommend and or sell a number of them.
They are completely boring because they just play what they are given. They don’t futz with the music and pump it up because they think they know what you should like – and it isn’t the actual music, it is how well the designer can SLAM the bass, or render exceedingly fine detail, or throw a gigantico soundstage or build a great looking cabinet or make tall tall speakers or …
They are boring because after you get them, you are done with speakers. Now, if you want to change the sound, you just change the upstream components.
They are a tabula rasa, which means, if I remember my Spanish [Latin] meaning clean slate. They are like a blank piece of paper: scary, challenging, boring, exciting… because it is now up to YOU to setup the components to make the sound you have always wanted.
And this is where the reviewers are at a disadvantage. They, have limited time and limited componentry to try with the speakers. They may have only one room. It took us one year [so far!], three different rooms, five different positions, dozens of combinations of best in-class amps and cables and sources, … and we are STILL just starting to get a handle on what they can do.
Like any good tool, the designer does their best, but they can barely imagine, if at all, what people will be able to do with it. This is true in software and I believe it to be true in high-end audio as well. We are, many of us, mapping new territory in high fidelity music reproduction using the best equipment available. How much fun is that? [that was a rhetorical question, but, just in case… it is a LOT of fun :-)].
So, I am definitely asking for too much from reviewers, but it would have been so great to have them talk about this in their reviews, how these are so, so, so balanced. Like wives versus girl friends, husband-material versus boy friend-material. Something that will stand by our system for years and years.
