I have owned the GX100 now for a year or so - what I have found is that if toed in too much you lose treble detail and the soundstage is rich but compressed.
However if toed in not quite enough you lose the stereo image richness and its thinned out.. (This could be my rooms effect on the sound of course)
Its a real fine line to get them perfect where they properly sing. I think thats why their stands are designed the way the are - so you can move the speakers on top of them in small amounts. Sometimes its a fraction of a movement that makes a big difference with them.
However once you get them right and you get right whats before them (they will show it up bad if it is) you get a very rich and vivid presentation that I cant see how thats not"engaging" ?
I have not heard the others that they are now compared to...
I do use mine in 2.1 with a sub - setup very well, makes a big difference.
For potential buyer, do audition carefully with as many disc as possible, as these speaker can be harsh and bright even when partner with tube amplifier.
I almost wanted to buy the GX50 or LS50 but after listening to both speaker, I did't like them even when partner with very expensive VTL tube amp. In the end I settle for PMC DB1i which I found very smooth and accurate sounding minus the harsh or bright sound.
After owning for a year, I've just decided to tolerate the MA GX50.
The ribbon transducer still gets shrill when high frequencies appear on a recording. I never get this from dome / nautilus tweeters.
The mids are wonderful and better since I added a psx-r to the Cyrus 8xpdQX
The base is very strong at any volume, perhaps too strong. Using the bungs spoils the speakers. They are 2ft from the wall. I'm a believer that front ported speakers are best for base.
But I realised my mistake. I'm using all digital sources into the Cyrus QX DAC card. This is bright sources, into a bright DAC with a bright amp. The GX50 are also bright. So a case of too many brights and a lesson learned by not auditioning the speakers with the same amp as i own.
I have moved these speakers into an Audiolab 8200CD and 8200A system and some of the brightness and the shrill treble response has been removed. I have to leave the filter on Optimum Transient mind. Base response still packs a punch though.
Since 2006 I've been constantly trying to find a pair of standmount speakers that would balance speed, refined treble and unobtrusive base.
My first pair of decent speakers were B&W CM1; they're fine at lower volumes on a moderate 30-40 w amp but the bass always took over at higher volumes.
In 2009 I bought some MA RX2. The tweeter is much better than CM1 and the larger mid / low driver gave a fuller sound. But over time the change to 6 ohm manifested in the music (too excited).
In 2010 I bought some B&W 685. These are well balanced, front ported and rarely offend ... apart from where they are obviously too slow to reproduce dance music well.
In 2011 I auditioned B&W PM1 and was solely reminded of a CM1 / 685 highbrid rather than any feed down from higher models.
I auditioned MA GX50 and GX100 last summer, went for the GX50 as they sounded better balanced. They're reassuringly heavy / braced, the ribbon tweeter is the best of all the speakers I mention here. The mid / low driver is clear and packs a massive punch for it's size. The grilles are awful though. Again at higher volumes all goes wrong, the tweeter screeches and the bass masks the mids. These speakers are reproducing from Cyrus CD transport into an 8xpdQX.
I live in a 3 story house and effectively have two systems in medium sized rooms with similar accoustic properties. All my speakers are well positioned on quality stands.
Incridibly well buit and finished, with unbeliavable tight and deep bass for their size, not to mention their exciting caracter, these speakers sound too bright and agressive through the midrange, even after proper break in.
I tried Naim Nait 5i, CA 840AV2, as well as a warmish hibrid 30watts amp, and the result was headache and dismay, unfortunately. And my room is pretty well damped, for the record.
To get things worse, they never sounded natural, or refined to me, lacking a bit of warmth, to say the least.
Got back to my B&W 685, which, even being entry level, present a more refined treble, and bags of warmth, at least to my ears. It's a shame, because, without that piercing and fatiguing midrange, they would really shine. Perhapss a second edition might get things right?
Login or register to post comments
A seriously talented performer that has a few design issues
This is a top-notch surround package for the money. It’s a worthy alternative to the award-winning KEF R100 5.1
A great amp with some notable musical skills, but it loses a star compared with its better-performing, better-specified rivals
© 2014 Haymarket Publishing