Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Martin Logan Mikros 90 On-Ear Headphones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Martin Logan Mikros 90 On-Ear Headphones - Page 48

post #706 of 5823
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredatorZ View Post


I have both, and got great deals on them, which made the choice to purchase them much easier. They are both excellent headphones, the Sens are more stable on my head, so they work a little better for when I'm moving around, I love the sound of both so you really cant go wrong with either one. The Mikros has a more refined bass, that goes quite a bit deeper, it can be an incredible experience. The amperiors have a more modular look, they have been discontinued / replaced with a re cabled model model with the same aluminum cup, for a lot more money. If you are getting them to listen to at home, I'd highly recommend the Martin Logans, if you plan on getting out and about, or for work like me, the Amperiors are a great choice, for ergonomics and great sound, Sennheiser has sold a ton of these in various HD25 models, and the amperiors are the best upgrade so far in the model development.
Thank you for helping ūüėä
Can I ask you which is better in realism of sound??! And Who wins in the following kind of music:
1- Pop - Hip Hop
2- Rock - Metal
3- Classical - Jazz

Thank you another time! ūüėä
post #707 of 5823
Quote:
Originally Posted by nehcrow View Post
 

Im going to try the Mikros 90 one day but I highly highly doubt it can beat a properly amped HE-6. 

Intend to post some impressions from my listening notes while a/b-ing the two on another thread.

 

The HE-6 were amped with either the (Class AB/50WPC) Linn Intek or the (Class A/100WPC) Qinpu A-1.0X integrated, straight from the speaker outputs, via a (highflight) 4-pin balanced XLR adapter.  I had owned and greatly enjoyed the HE-6 for about a year-and-a-half, having done a good portion of my amplifier experimentation with the HE-5LE (another nice set of headphones) prior to getting the HE-6.  I was on the verge of buying the Krell S300i solely for driving the HE-6.  When comparing HE-6 v. Mikros 90, the HE-6 were amped with the Intek as described above, while the Mikros 90 were simply run from the headphone out from the Linn.  I actually have come to prefer the MLs amped with the Fitz-improved Bada PH-12.  So, the Mikros 90 were not optimally amped when I did the comparison.  

 

The HE-6 do some things better, admittedly, but for me it was chiefly the tonal purity/complexity and the acoustic/spatial realism of the Mikros 90 that got my attention and ultimately "won the day".  For me, the Mikros 90 offer a unique synergy which, as a whole that musically transcends the sum of its technological parts, no other headphones I have tried can quite match.  This is in addition to what I believe are the MLs superior capabilities--alongside other well-regarded products that I have spent some time with--in detail retrieval, resolution, balance and coherency.  For me, though perhaps not for you or others who visit this thread, the MLs nail just about every critical point on the checklist of my listening preferences.  (They even added things to the list that I hadn't thought of before.)

 

If I have sounded unduly hyperbolic, then that is simply me.  But I am genuinely excited about these headphones.  For me, they represent a pinnacle in my 15-20 year sojourn for a set of headphones that I can put on, relax and enjoy the music with, but from which I can still get my "detail/geek/critical listening" fix.  

 

Too, I feel there is an injustice that needs to be addressed: How headphones THIS good can be dismissed by the Head-Fi community, while other products of inferior grade--including some longstanding "darlings" in the marketplace--gain/retain popularity.  The latter case is, I believe the more extreme example of "hype", because it dishonestly touts as "superior" something which is, in fact, substantially inferior.  Maybe that is why I strain my vocabulary and my vocal chords a bit too much for some folks here.  There is an inertia that needs to be overcome.  

 

So, if you haven't already, my advice to you is:

 

*purchase or borrow a pair of the Mikros 90,

*match them up as best you can with your topflight gear--e.g. the gear with which drive your premier full-sized cans,

*allow adequate time for "burn-in" (be it virtual or real),

*get them properly positioned on your head,

*listen critically, with an open ear (and mind), to everything you hear,

*come back and post your impressions on this thread.

 

You may not wax annoyingly hyperbolic like me, or go gah-gah (like me) over the Mikros 90.  But I am willing to bet that you will come away from the experience having gained at least a modicum of respect for a fine product that has been heretofore largely neglected and unjustly poo-pooed by this listening community.


Edited by pataburd - 1/31/14 at 10:53pm
post #708 of 5823
Round 4!:

When I first got the Mikros, it sounded bad. The bass was emphsized, the soundstage was downright microscopic, and they sounded congested.

The FC300 trashed it by a lot. Later into use, the Mikros caught up to the FC300, not quite reaching it. The headphones began to work against each other. I began to hear the midrange recession from the FC300, and slightly less detailed treble. I could hear the lower treble spike from the Mikros (very annoying), overemphasis of mids, and a smaller soundstage.

Later into use however, these have started to work with each other. They both sound great.

The Mikros wins in treble and mids, while the Mikros wins in bass and presentation.

I don't know which I like more. Maybe the FC300 due to comfort but really idk.

I have to sell/return one of them though if I want some others (Thinksound On1, RE700, K545). Not sure which yet.
post #709 of 5823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunks159 View Post

The Mikros wins in treble and mids, while the Mikros wins in bass and presentation.

I don't know which I like more. 

 

:D

post #710 of 5823
Lol, meant to say the FC300 wins in bass and presentation. Neither is tighter or deeper, its just that the FC300 distributes the bass better.
post #711 of 5823

:blink:‚Äč

post #712 of 5823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunks159 View Post

Lol, meant to say the FC300 wins in bass and presentation. Neither is tighter or deeper, its just that the FC300 distributes the bass better.

 

I think I know what you mean.......they have similar bass but the Onkyo has more of it, more present overall?

post #713 of 5823

I have been a fan of ML quasi-dipole electrostatic speakers for the last 20 years. I started out with the little Aerius I and then the SL3. These speakers are amazing for their fast and accurate reproduction of recording music as long as they are paired with proper amplifier(s) and speaker position. They are not perfect and not for every one. I would not listen to ML with heavy rock, rap, techno...but rather with Classical music and Jazz. Fans of Diana Krall, Patricia Barber, Madeleine Peyrous...etc will enjoy the larger than life vocals and the accuracy separation of the instruments.

 

Having said that, I would not expect heavy bass on these transducers from ML. I have a pair on the way from Amazon for $90.00 that is such a good deal that I cannot pass on. I know what I would expect from ML house sound even though I do not like the entry level ML home theater speakers. Cannot wait to put Diana Krall, or David Sanborn for a test drive with the Mikros 90.

post #714 of 5823
Can't justify keeping the x1 when the mikros90 slaughters them in everything ūüėé
post #715 of 5823
Quote:
Originally Posted by mochill View Post Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Can't justify keeping the x1 when the mikros90 slaughters them in everything ūüėé

 

 

Note to wayne...

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
grain. of. salt. grain. of. salt. grain. of. salt.

 

Lol mochill!

post #716 of 5823
Bag of saltūüėĀ
post #717 of 5823

Lol!  That either tells me that you've got a really good sense of humour, or it tells me that you have been joking about how stupendously wonderful the 90's are. Either way, we can both agree that salt is good!

post #718 of 5823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trunks159 View Post

Round 4!:

When I first got the Mikros, it sounded bad. The bass was emphsized, the soundstage was downright microscopic, and they sounded congested.

The FC300 trashed it by a lot. Later into use, the Mikros caught up to the FC300, not quite reaching it. The headphones began to work against each other. I began to hear the midrange recession from the FC300, and slightly less detailed treble. I could hear the lower treble spike from the Mikros (very annoying), overemphasis of mids, and a smaller soundstage.

Later into use however, these have started to work with each other. They both sound great.

The Mikros wins in treble and mids, while the Mikros wins in bass and presentation.

I don't know which I like more. Maybe the FC300 due to comfort but really idk.

I have to sell/return one of them though if I want some others (Thinksound On1, RE700, K545). Not sure which yet.

Keep us posted.

 

When I a/b-ed the Mikros 90 and the M500, both were breaking in.  It took about 150+ hours or so on both headphones before I could make a clear judgment based on consistent, long term comparisons.  During break-in, for example, I perceived that the KEFs were clearly not as extended and flat from top-to-bottom as the MLs.  I was also able to better discriminate how the Mikros 90 rendered 3-D space versus the M500 and so on.  The M500 have a sweet, liquid midrange (very seductive) and alluring warmth which I saw as their strongest points.  But there were--for my ears, anyway--more things weighing into my decision that favored the Mikros 90.  The fact that I had the Mikros 90 before I bought the M500 may have affected my respective "comfort level" with each product. and may have contributed some bias, too.

 

It was different with the HE-6, because I had put in about a year and a half with them already, and was very familiar with their sonic signature.  So it was easy for me to find the major points of distinction.  People may tattoo me as a nut case for what happened next, but my coming to prefer the MLs didn't take much time at all.

 

It's a funny, subjective business, this.  Who knows?  I might pick up a set of headphones tomorrow--the same headphones I did not like six months earlier--and suddenly gain a fresh appreciation for them.  That actually happened with the Ultrasone PRO2500 and PRO750. After initially a/b-ing the two, I kept the 750.  A year or so later, I a/b-ed them again and ended up with the 2500!  

 

The good news is that you can, if need be, re-purchase tomorrow what you sell today.  (If you sell the MLs, hopefully they will stay in the market.)


Edited by pataburd - 1/31/14 at 6:52pm
post #719 of 5823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle View Post

I think I know what you mean.......they have similar bass but the Onkyo has more of it, more present overall?
No. Think of the difference between the bass coming from an open can and a closed can. More air is moved in an open can, giving them a more natural feel.
post #720 of 5823
Mmmmmmmūüėčsalt.....but yeah they are very wonderful oemūüėéūüėä get them before they are gone wayne:'(
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Martin Logan Mikros 90 On-Ear Headphones