Monolith by Monoprice Announces MTM 100 Watt Bluetooth aptX HD Powered Desktop Speakers

[SOAREVERSOR]

Yeah, it can be done, just requires clever design. 4" full range Ti driver in a TL that has an F3 of 49Hz for example.

You get the extension but it comes at the cost of size and of course limited output so nothing is free.

Nobody who can build their own speakers is buying monoprice. They are buying say hivi speakers and doing it in their garage. Now let me show you my early 2000s altoids amp.

 

[Kaleid]

Nobody who can build their own speakers is buying monoprice. They are buying say hivi speakers and doing it in their garage. Now let me show you my early 2000s altoids amp.

What? Why wouldn't they? Just because people can build speakers doesn't mean that they are competent at it. Doubtful most can come even close to what this brand does (with that said, these speakers could be bad..ofc)

 

[Operandi]

Nobody who can build their own speakers is buying monoprice. They are buying say hivi speakers and doing it in their garage. Now let me show you my early 2000s altoids amp.

Most Monoprice stuff is pretty well regarded, Monolith is the brand name they use for higher-end gear to differentiate their products.

If you can build your own speakers your aren't buying anything, your build your own. I only linked to the 4" DIY design to illustrate why the dual 4" woofers and passive radiators of the Monolith are a good idea and that you don't need large drivers to get decent low-end extension.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

What? Why wouldn't they? Just because people can build speakers doesn't mean that they are competent at it. Doubtful most can come even close to what this brand does (with that said, these speakers could be bad..ofc)

I assumed competency in building speakers. I've done it. But I don't have the tools or space now. And contra the impression you might have I'm not shitting on monoprice they make great stuff that punches well above the price. I have a pair of their "studio monitors" that are sold as speakers (they don't have the digital in just line in, and were once called monitors of all things) hooked up to the little lady's DAC unit for her macbook pro so she can do her cooking videos and stuff with her sisters. While me and the brothers in law play games in the other room. They are cushioned on just foam pads off the upliftdesk. They do have bluetooth, and they work great. Most of my cables are monoprice. I genuinely like and recommend monoprice to people. I'd recommend them over most brand names. I own tons of stuff from them.

Thing is now and then a company just churns out a thing that is rather confusing as to what it is. It's a sort of schizophrenic product. And monoprice has before moved stuff all over their product stack calling it different things at times. That's my knock on it. They do tend to do this a lot. Hence "man bear pig" takes on this.

They sell near field monitors as speakers. They sell near field monitors that have crap like digital in that nobody would use. They call stuff "powered speakers" "powered computer speakers" and "powered multimedia speakers" in different parts on their page and it's the same damn fucking product. They sell speakers as monitors. Myself, and probably zlobby as well, are mostly mocking their branding and marketing team because it's never made an ounce of sense. Hell they brought in Alex Cavalli he of amazing dacs and amps and DIY kits and keep his legend (along with drop) alive. What I'm saying is monoprice is highly regarded in audio as they are cables. Good stuff that get's almost there at a fraction of the cost and does well enough for 99.99999999999% of people and they also make industrial versions I can order for work and run it through walls in secure buildings. Great shit!

Their team that picks and builds their products, flawless. Their marketing team is a laughing stock. Which leads to situations like this.

 

[Chrispy_]

you can't say they are over priced based on the size of the drivers they use.

I said absolutely nothing of the sort! You are making some incorrect assumption there.

My comment "Given the limitations of so much going on in a couple of cabinets" implies that the cabinets themselves are too cramped to have great acoustic performance. Yes, you can get great speakers with small drivers in compact cabinets, but these things cannot defy the laws of physics. Either all the drivers share an internal chamber, and that has specific tradeoffs, or they are isolated from each other (the passive radiator will need to share a chamber with the largest woofer) which puts these outside the sweet spot for enclosed-volume-to-driver-excursion ratio.

If they're of high enough manufacturing quality, which I don't doubt from Monoprice, then they can sound pretty good, but they will always be a compromise with a design like that, and $500 is a lot to pay for compromised sound.

 

[Operandi]

I said absolutely nothing of the sort! You are making some incorrect assumption there.

My comment "Given the limitations of so much going on in a couple of cabinets" implies that the cabinets themselves are too cramped to have great acoustic performance. Yes, you can get great speakers with small drivers in compact cabinets, but these things cannot defy the laws of physics. Either all the drivers share an internal chamber, and that has specific tradeoffs, or they are isolated from each other (the passive radiator will need to share a chamber with the largest woofer) which puts these outside the sweet spot for enclosed-volume-to-driver-excursion ratio.

If they're of high enough manufacturing quality, which I don't doubt from Monoprice, then they can sound pretty good, but they will always be a compromise with a design like that, and $500 is a lot to pay for compromised sound.

Thats exactly what your said.

You can do sooooo much better than this for a lot less money. Thinking about all the parts in my desktop setup here, I basically have the same input functionality at the same price, but using actual, pro-grade 8" studio monitors.

You are basing the quality of speaker on the size of the drivers and making assumptions about how its compromised which you can't do. Every design decision is a compromise; if your monitors are using an 8" woofer crossed over to a small dome tweeter thats pretty big compromise right there as getting a tweeter that can play low enough to be crossed over to driver that big is a big ask, and getting a woofer that big to play cleanly that high is an equally big ask. Also there is going to be phase and dispersion issues with a speaker like that (which is also physics), all for $250 per speaker which considering an 8" woofer isn't much.

The Monolith is a MTM design so both 4" woofers would be covering the same range and sharing the same cabinet volume with passive radiator, there would be no reason to build an internal space for each one. The other advantage of using small woofers in a arrangement like this (aside from the small footprint) is that it keeps the center to center spacing between the tweeter and woofers small so this will be far more friendly to cramped spaces than a traditional 6"+ monitor is going to be which for the intended market (people with a average desk vs. carefully planned studio setup) makes sense.

Point is Monolith made some good design decisions here, and using small drivers does not equal a compromised design. How good it is will remain unknown until someone actually reviews it so wait till then before talking about how compromised it is.

 

[Chrispy_]

Thats exactly what your said.

You are basing the quality of speaker on the size of the drivers and making assumptions about how its compromised which you can't do. Every design decision is a compromise; if your monitors are using an 8" woofer crossed over to a small dome tweeter thats pretty big compromise right there as getting a tweeter that can play low enough to be crossed over to driver that big is a big ask, and getting a woofer that big to play cleanly that high is an equally big ask. Also there is going to be phase and dispersion issues with a speaker like that (which is also physics), all for $250 per speaker which considering an 8" woofer isn't much.

The Monolith is a MTM design so both 4" woofers would be covering the same range and sharing the same cabinet volume with passive radiator, there would be no reason to build an internal space for each one. The other advantage of using small woofers in a arrangement like this (aside from the small footprint) is that it keeps the center to center spacing between the tweeter and woofers small so this will be far more friendly to cramped spaces than a traditional 6"+ monitor is going to be which for the intended market (people with a average desk vs. carefully planned studio setup) makes sense.

Point is Monolith made some good design decisions here, and using small drivers does not equal a compromised design. How good it is will remain unknown until someone actually reviews it so wait till then before talking about how compromised it is.

You're still making assumptions. At no point have I implied driver size is related to sound quality - that's entirely on you.

I merely stated that my own desktop setup is 8" monitors, as most of the best-performing monitors in the ~$500/pair price range test and review (multiple publications/sites) best in their 8" variant, such as the HS8 or LSR 308.

5"- 8" active monitors are unanimously the choice for pretty much any professional recording studio worth a damn, and those who care about quality know that DSP for room correction is just as important as the monitors themselves. Noaudiophile.com is vehemently anti-MTM as a sole solution and deep-dives into the physics of why in painstaking and interesting detail. His specialty is in creating custom DSP curves to fix compromised designs so you can actually see from how many separate EQ filters and pass/blcok DSP compensation is needed. Hell, there are some really interesting reads on his site about trying to tame nightmare retro MTM classics like the Bose 901 with his modern digital DSP expertise. He can fix them with experience and (expensive) modern EQ tech, but that's not something you can expect on any MTM, especially not anything at this price range.

I do happen to have a half-decent MTM using 3" kevlar and 1" silk dome in my HT setup and it's great but utterly incomplete and non-linear in isolation. I would call that compromised.
My sub is dual 8" instead of a 12" due to size constraints and it's also compromised. My desktop setup - 8" monitors, CA USB DAC, a JBL patch/mixer, and an AptX bluetooth module basically repeat the functionality of this Monoprice setup but using higher-quality parts with higher-quality, more expensive materials.

Even without seeing a review or listening to these myself, I know enough about mid-range audio gear to see two telltale signs of cheap and nasty:

• Poly drivers are cheap. They can still sound decent, but they're exclusively used in sub-$200 speakers from what I can tell. My Q-Acoustics stuff use polymer drivers on the rear surrounds and they were £80, not $500. M-Audio, KRK, Mackie all also use polymer drivers, but only in their entry-level "multimedia" products, not audiophile or pro-grade stuff.
• The passive radiator on the right speaker is also on the left, because Monoprice were too cheap to make a dedicated left and right cabinet. This ABSOLUTELY affects the balance, room-modes, and makes correction of such a setup a nightmare. Not impossible, but almost certainly not what most buyers will want to waste a day doing.

Finally, and perhaps the most damning criticism I have of MTM setups is that they are bad for nearfield desktop listening when this large, because the acoustic lobing from having two mid drivers doing the exact same thing per channel will give you some dramatically different sound even if you move your head a only a couple of inches either way. For 4" MTM, the lobing phenomenon effectively makes stable frequency response impossible withing a 4-5' distance of each unit. The reason they're usually reserved for floorstanding speakers is no coincidence, it's because you're not going to be using floorstanding speakers for nearfield monitoring!

 

[Operandi]

You're still making assumptions. At no point have I implied driver size is related to sound quality - that's entirely on you.

This started with assumptions about this speakers performance by looking pictures and spec sheets which you can't do.

Finally, and perhaps the most damning criticism I have of MTM setups is that they are bad for nearfield desktop listening when this large, because the acoustic lobing from having two mid drivers doing the exact same thing per channel will give you some dramatically different sound even if you move your head a only a couple of inches either way.

Depends on the crossover design but with small woofers like that if it was designed properly it should be ok.

Even without seeing a review or listening to these myself, I know enough about mid-range audio gear to see two telltale signs of cheap and nasty:

• Poly drivers are cheap. They can still sound decent, but they're exclusively used in sub-$200 speakers from what I can tell. My Q-Acoustics stuff use polymer drivers on the rear surrounds and they were £80, not $500. M-Audio, KRK, Mackie all also use polymer drivers, but only in their entry-level "multimedia" products, not audiophile or pro-grade stuff.
• The passive radiator on the right speaker is also on the left, because Monoprice were too cheap to make a dedicated left and right cabinet. This ABSOLUTELY affects the balance, room-modes, and makes correction of such a setup a nightmare. Not impossible, but almost certainly not what most buyers will want to waste a day doing.

Poly drivers are usually used in cheap speakers because its easy to work with and most companies will go with a higher-end form of paper for a damped cone material but it really is just a material choice, it dosn't mean anything on its own. Morel for example us Poly on a lot of their high-end drivers, like $150-$200 per woofer.

I wonder if that passive radiator is error in the press photo or its really like that? Either way its the same thing as a port, at the frequencies its involved in as long its away from any room boundaries it dosn't really matter where it is in the cabinet.

 

[Chrispy_]

This started with assumptions about this speakers performance by looking pictures and spec sheets which you can't do.

Depends on the crossover design but with small woofers like that if it was designed properly it should be ok.

Poly drivers are usually used in cheap speakers because its easy to work with and most companies will go with a higher-end form of paper for a damped cone material but it really is just a material choice, it dosn't mean anything on its own. Morel for example us Poly on a lot of their high-end drivers, like $150-$200 per woofer.

I wonder if that passive radiator is error in the press photo or its really like that? Either way its the same thing as a port, at the frequencies its involved in as long its away from any room boundaries it dosn't really matter where it is in the cabinet.

I mean, you seem intent on defending this thing despite the fact that it's very obviously built down to a price, not up to a standard. If that's the hill you want to die on, then don't let me stop you - I'm clearly not going to change your mind so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Perhaps it will sound good, but the laws of physics say that it's not going to be accurate, especially for the nearfield listening experience that it's clearly targeting with those product shots either side of a Macbook! To me, innacurate sound is not good sound. It's situationally okay at best.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

I mean, you seem intent on defending this thing despite the fact that it's very obviously built down to a price, not up to a standard. If that's the hill you want to die on, then don't let me stop you - I'm clearly not going to change your mind so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Perhaps it will sound good, but the laws of physics say that it's not going to be accurate, especially for the nearfield listening experience that it's clearly targeting with those product shots either side of a Macbook! To me, innacurate sound is not good sound. It's situationally okay at best.

It's really the product shot that's the kiss of death here. It's also funny cause monoprice makes perfectly good products that function as nearfield monitors. I have a pair at home! Do they stack up to my HEDD units, well no but then again they are less than half for a pair than one HEDD item. Are they perfectly fine as near field monitors for the little lady making her cooking videos and doing her own audio and video editing you bet they are! She also has a Macbook Pro. It's all the more comedic because on their "powered desktop speakers" which if you ask them directly are "nearfield monitors" page there are vastly better products! See here https://www.monoprice.com/category/audio-video/speakers/powered-desktop-speakers Simply look at the fucking page, one of these things is not like the others!

It's all so silly. Monoprice is know for quality manufacturing and not fucking around. So why this?

 

[Chrispy_]

Maybe the product shot is the mistake. If these weren't pictured for nearfield use, I don't think there would be any complaints. I have no doubt they'd sound pretty great for their size but MTMs at desk height, not angled towards the listener are a big no-no.

Monoprice is know for quality manufacturing and not fucking around. So why this?

Perhaps there's a niche demand for these. We'll know for sure if or when they get discontinued.

 

[Operandi]

I mean, you seem intent on defending this thing despite the fact that it's very obviously built down to a price, not up to a standard. If that's the hill you want to die on, then don't let me stop you - I'm clearly not going to change your mind so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Perhaps it will sound good, but the laws of physics say that it's not going to be accurate, especially for the nearfield listening experience that it's clearly targeting with those product shots either side of a Macbook! To me, innacurate sound is not good sound. It's situationally okay at best.

I'm only defending it because people are ripping it apart based on what it looks like and reading the spec sheet which is just bad practice. At least give it a shot before passing judgment on it.

By physics you mean the MTM alignment? Its not that big of deal. Its not the ideal way to build a nearfield monitor but I've seen "professional" studio monitors that use it, I'm sure for the same reason Monolith did, it makes for smaller desktop footprint. The only other way I see that its a compromise is that its using a several smaller components (two small woofers and passive) instead of a single larger woofer but thats not a huge deal either and if it helps them get the smaller desktop footprint they wanted I'd say its good design.

 

[Chrispy_]

Yeah, it's the MTM that I'm dissing for nearfield.

Those MTM studio monitors you mention usually have orientation requirements and that orientation is horizontal to match human ears.

 

[Operandi]

Most studio monitors that are designed to horizontal are 3-ways from what I've seen. The reason being a 2-way MTM in horizontal layout will have issues with diffraction from the tweeter having such a wide effective baffle.

Ultimately though it just depends on how it was designed, specifically the crossover. Presonous make some MTM monitors that can apparently be used in either orientation and it doesn't look like there is any specific settings from orientation to another either. The Presonous is the only one I looked at, not sure if its the norm or not.