(go to the Italian version) 

For the last couple of months, I have been listening to amplifiers. But this is a loudspeakers review, I hear you saying. Yes, you are right.
For the last couple of months, I have been listening to music. I hear you saying the same thing as before. My answer is the same.
Well, I am going to keep on listening to amps and music, mostly to music: if I can afford them, I am going to buy the review samples.
See ya, review ends here.

Well, letting the three lines review aside (an artifice I have used at least thirty times, maybe I am getting old and monotonous, and not a bit boring), I’ll tell you how I got here.

On the face of it, the speaker itself doesn’t seem so exotic: considering that, a bit below the reflex port, the cabinet is a plinth (partly filled with compressed sand, partly solid wood composite), this is a standmount monitor with an integral stand. The appearance is better than almost any standmount, in my opinion. From the designer’s point of view, integrating the stand means controlling its shape, height, resonance or not, everything.

Under the speaker, and here that obsession begins, are some of the sharpest spikes I have ever seen, almost lethal weapons. Each spike is to be inserted into a wooden cone frustum, which contains a threaded brass insert; then you mount a nut above the sike, then you place a self adhesive Zorbex disc on it. Then you mount them all below the speaker, controlling that the speaker is level. You can choose if you want to mount three or four of them; I used four, as I have a fifteen months old kid around. The speaker is stable enough not to worry for the kid; the problem is levelling it, as you have to dismount the spikes (and guess how much you need to lower or heighten them) to adjust them…

The finish of the version which was sent in for the review (of my version, I hope) is the “utility” one, a studio black which seems to be quite resistant to scratches and marks. The manufacturer tells me that the lacquered, luxury finish sounds different, and that some more components are cryogenically treated because of this, and some screws are more tightened. I see your faces, yes, I see them. There are some audiophiles who feel that cryogenic treatment is voodoo; but a manufacturer changing the tightening force on the screws of a product according to the finish seems quite amazing. Well, that’s Merlin, to you and me. And judging by what I am hearing, I find it difficult to object. I think that, starting with an excellent design of course, this kind of accurate optimisations, made by the manufacturer, can bring to a superior outcome.

There are some fundamental things to say about the design: it is a critically damped reflex (so more damped than most speakers on the market today); the midwoofer sports a quite low, very low for its dimensions, resonance frequency; the woofer and the tweeter are crossed over at 2300 Hz with a 12 dB/oct network. There are some compensation networks on the crossover, I have been told (I didn’t open the speakers, as I was not sure I would have been able to apply the same strength to the screws putting them back in place – I’m joking, but not that much: before trying improbable tweaks, try to experiment with the strength on your speakers screws, but pay attention, as you risk damaging the drivers or the cabinet, or both, if you use too much strength; you also risk damage to the drivers if the screwdriver gets pulled by the magnetic circuit. No responsibility accepted). And there is the (somewhat controversial) external Zobel network, a resistor and a capacitor which are to be mounted across the tweeter cable terminals, if you use, as you probably should, single wiring.

The Cardas cable terminals are those in which the two poles of the speaker cable are to be inserted at the same time. I guess they sound good; I must be the only one in the world to think they are not that comfortable to use, especially if the cables aren’t terminated with forks (bananas can’t be officially used, though I managed to get a connection with very small ones). There are two (pairs of) terminals, but bi-wiring isn’t compulsory – it seems to be mildly discouraged (you shouldn’t, in any case, use shotgun speaker cables, or use a cable in which the resistance of the tweeter cable is equal or less than the resistance of the woofer cable: you would  lose homogeneity). In place of two speakers cables, you are advised to use Merlin jumpers, which are made of Cardas wire (the same used internally), terminated with round connectors, lead-free soldered. In a document I received with the speakers, there is a prescribed order in which the various connections are to be placed. I am afraid to tell you that the order makes a (slight, but audible) difference.

And then there is the BAM, the Bass Augmentation Module. It’s a smallish and well finished box, with an external switching PSU – which is really a battery charger – that needs to be inserted in the signal path of your system. It can be described as an equalizer, extending the frequency response in the bass region (+5.3 dB at 35Hz), operating as a subsonic filter at 28 Hz and incorporating a low pass filter well above the audible frequencies (as an anti-EMI filter: Merlin focuses a lot on the need to reduce to a minimum all spurious noises). The main circuit is (ah, the shock, the horror!) op-amp based. I have the single-ended version; there is a balanced version (all circuits are doubled, so it’s a real differential circuit, not some kind of faked one), and a so-called dual-ops version, which sports both single-ended and balanced connections (I think you cannot use both inputs/outputs at the same time, in that version). In a single source system, you should connect the BAM between your source and the preamp or integrated amp; in a multiple source system the preferred option is to use a tape or processor loop, if it is available (the only problem I see is for those who have a multiple  source system and an integrated amp without a tape loop: they will end up connecting and disconnecting the interconnects “on the fly”, an exercise which should be done with great care, muting the amp, etc., to avoid potentially damaging transient noises).

The cabinet, very solid and resonance-damped, is built with a particular wood composite, a kind of top-grade MDF if you will, used in many layers. Corners are bevelled, the finish is first-rate. The cable terminals are on the top part of the back panel. The metal (brass, I think) bars on the baffle and on the top side seem to have a tuning/strengthening function. They also play a good role for the appearance of the speakers; I find the speakers quite pleasing to look at and unobtrusive.

This latest iteration of the VSM project was triggered by the ROHS EU normative. This law, to which all electronics manufacturers who want to export to the European Union must comply, prohibits the use of a number of substances, which are considered dangerous for the health of the workers or the users. Among the substances is lead; experimenting with lead-less solder, Merlin noticed that the sound got better. The current versions of the VSM and the TSM are lead-less. I am told that the purity of the sound of these latest versions is improved, by a consistent margin, and that even the tonal balance of the speakers has slightly changed, becoming a bit warmer and more mid-bass oriented.

The user manual, the included documentation and Merlin’s web site contain a copious amount of setup and optimization advice;  Mr Palkovich himself often responds to user’s requests and questions (you can find messages by himself over at the AudioAsylum or in the Audiogon forums).
 

There are some unusual things in the way the VSMs are to be set-up. The first of them is, of course, the need to install the BAM, an operation which is probably similar to what was needed for the Kube-equipped KEF speakers; to this you might add the fact that the BAM is delivered with a tuning puck (which seems to be made of brass and wood and probably is from Walker). Another tuning device which is delivered with the speakers is a part of an ERS sheet, cut in three pieces: it is a kind of paper, which is purported to have an effect against EMI (if you look through it, you can see metal-like particles, and it is said to be conductive and mildly flammable). One piece is to be placed between the puck and the BAM, you are invited to experiment with the other two. I placed them over the cabinet of my digital transport, above the switching PSU and the digital output board. I think I detected a reduction in hash, a darker background.
Then you need to position the speakers and to install the above described spikes. I placed the Merlins exactly where I have found front-reflex speakers work best in my room (a slightly asymmetrical positioning, to compensate for the asymmetry of the room), and they worked very well from the start. Ideally, the Merlins should be placed at no more than 7 feet between them; the listening position should be farther than that (10 ft). But I know that some use them as near-field monitor; in my room the listening position is a bit less far from the speakers than prescribed, but I detected no problems; frequency response and driver integration were beyond reproach. As for toe-in, the accessories set includes an alignment tool to help you; the speakers should cross behind your listening position (I think the effect is that you listen about 10° off-axis); that’s the optimal axis for this design. Of course I tried to change the toe-in, but I only got a worsening in sound. Well, about the sound…

Let me begin by getting rid of the feature many will perceive as a limitation. The speakers are a two way with a 18cm midwoofer. A speaker this size does not have the ability to do the kind of “kick-in-the-stomach” bass a well damped and executed 12” or 15” woofer equipped three or more ways speaker can do  Mind you, the bass is deep, propulsive, authoritative and dynamic, but it is not as “physical” as the one from the fictitious speaker I evocated in the previous sentence. There seem to be a limit on the amount of “pressure” a 18cm driver can generate in the room. The 28 Hz high-pass – and the bass is that extended – makes me wonder if this limitation can be used as a feature by augmenting  the speaker with a good – make that great – subwoofer (I think I have been reading for years of a rumoured Merlin subwoofer…). Anyway, with the right amplifier, one that is not too damped, a bass of this kind becomes very credible and satisfying, even if you listen to a symphony orchestra, if you aren’t expecting bass spectaculars.

The positives? Whatever else, in two words. Even that kind of bass makes me compare the VSM to something that keeps surfacing to my mind while I listen to them: a full range electrostatic loudspeaker. The Merlins have a lot of sound features which beg for comparison with my Quad ESL988. Maybe the VSM lose a bit – with the right records and the right amplification for the Quads – of that sense of presence and immediacy the Quads are famous for, with small ensembles, for example. Maybe, from a certain frequency up, at urban SPLs, the Quads distort less, and probably this is also perceived as immediacy. But, to me, even if I cannot, for logistical reasons, afford the luxury of a direct comparison (but I have been using Quads for a while in the same system and room), the Merlins have more high-frequency and low-frequency extension, more punch and energy, a – significantly – better PRAT, a better sense of the “breath” of a performance, micro-dynamic and detail which, while being different (probably more finely etched, less “nonchalant”), are at least at the same level, the same ability to reproduce texture and colour. The soundstage? Well, as I was implying above, with the right records maybe the Quads present a more palpable reproduction of voices and instruments. But not all records are right, far from that; and the depth from the Merlin is at least equal to the Quads’, the height is more credible, the stage is less “U” shaped, the focus beyond the speakers is superior, the size of the venues seems to be better defined and the resolution of direct-reflected sounds is at least the same (and that’s a big compliment). And they are more universal; the Quads, in my experience, aren’t the best speakers to listen to organ and orchestral music, while the Merlins are, with the caveat exposed above, very very good at that. (Note to self: it might well be that the sense of presence is a byproduct of the more restricted bandwidth of the Quads: ever noticed how a wideband speaker, which is bandwidth limited because you cannot defeat physics, majors on “presence”?).

Leaving this comparison aside, resolution is one of the main strengths of the Merlins. They have a great ability to explain details and textures, to tell instruments and colours apart. They unravel the microevents, the movements, the spurious noises on the stage with an extraordinary accuracy. But the result is not pushed at you. They focus directly and surely on the core of the performance, on the music. I wrote in the first lines of this review that I am listening to music since they have entered my house. These speakers have a stupefying attitude to disappear in front of the music, de-emphasizing the mechanics of the reproduction. It’s as if the sensation of listening to live music was recreated with less impediment than usual. As I am, first and foremost, a music-phile, with speakers like these I find myself switching the system on even for a few minutes, even when I really should be doing something else, just to listen to some new record, or to play again some old favourite. My sound-analysis functions, those functions we audiophiles can sometime find to be an obstacle to the enjoyment of the message, get switched off.

I have had some fun with records that, in the period I was using the Quads, were a bit less easy to enjoy, such as organ recordings. And my admiration for this design has grown. Obviously, the physical sensation of the air moving in the lowest pipes was a bit missing – no speaker in my room has given that to me. It is replaced by a fullness, a substance I have never heard here. There’s an authority that doesn’t seem to depend from the air displacement, but from microdynamics and a macrodynamic which is really unsuspectable for the speakers’ size, and excellent in absolute terms.

I guess that someone who is used to read between the lines could, from what I have written above, suspect a coolish character and some kind of strong personality embedded in the speakers. That would be wrong. What I am describing here is a set of characteristics I have extracted from listening sessions which involved no less than six power amplifiers (and a couple of preamps). And, if I could tell you I have never succeeded in making the Merlins sound downright bad, on the other hand I can attest that they are quite revealing of the quality and the characteristics of the upstream components. Furthermore, I have detected, in these speakers, some of the warmth and of that subtle sweetness I hear in live acoustic music. These are features that the kind reproduction I often hear today, pushed in the direction of transparency and “neutrality” (a word which should be really used with more care: neutral compared to what?), tend to lose sight of. I think that, caught off-guard, I could even define the VSMs “slightly dark” myself. Then I would retract: they are a bit darker than a part of the excessively open, “airy”, X-Ray “transparent” speakers of today, not if you keep the real thing as a reference. And the midrange is neither pulled slightly down (to give more of a sense of “depth”), nor pushed up (to advance the soundstage and to “involve” the listener by putting the singers on her/his legs).

I would guess it is possible, with overdamped amplifiers, in bigger rooms than mine, to get a slightly “thinned-out” balance, because of the damped reflex alignment. Obviously, a more damped than usual alignment favours, in absolute terms, if you are not searching for a particular outcome, amplifiers without a monster damping factor. So I’d say tubes; solid state can be fine, but the amp shouldn’t be of the “look how I carry your speakers around” variety. Tubes are helped by the fact that the Merlins are an easy load (they don’t go much lower than 8 ohm, and the crossover region is over 15 ohm), furthermore, while not being high-efficiency speakers, they aren’t, with their claimed – and probably real – 89 dB/W/m, particularly “deaf”. This allows the use of lowish-power amplifiers, which tend to be more refined and more agile.

I have been able to test, thanks to a Videohifi colleague and friend, Marco Roghi, a pair of Quad II which have been perfectly restored by a top expert here in Italy, and which sported original, vintage GEC KT66 (and vintage EF86 and rectifier tubes). Well, the notorious limitations of the Quad II were still apparent: a slowish pace, bass and midbass colorations, a bass- and high- frequency extension not in line with what we are used to today, the feeling that the speakers were in some way driving the amps, seemingly troubled in controlling them. But I also heard a delicacy, a grace, almost a nobility in reproduction… I was emotionally touched. I could live with that, if this reviewing activity didn’t force me to have more resolute, more modern devices. Probably, if one day I decided to get down this train, I could retire with a Quad II/VSM system.

Some brief description of what I heard with other amplifications (I forgot to mention that the sources were my modified Pioneer universal players, equipped with digital output boards by DVDUpgrades and Audiopraise, converting DSD to PCM, mostly connected to the Altmann Attraction DAC or the Accustic Arts DAC-1 Mk 4, and my Kuzma Reference/Linn Ekos/Lyra Evolve/Naim Prefix+SuperCap vinyl front-end). I enjoyed the Pass Aleph 5 a lot, a solid state amp which seems to have some of the characteristics of tube amps, and a product I keep coming back to. The Threshold s/200 was a bit thinner, somewhat more grey, a little bit  less dimensional, maybe more extended up there and a bit more controlled in the bass (still not overtight, though, not for my tastes and in my room). The strange thing is that, with the Quads, I prefer it to the Aleph, in some ways. A small Italian single ended ultralinear amp, the Mad for Music Lultralinear, made some things very well (delicacy, refinement); but dynamics and control were obviously lacking, so I guess its four watts are really not enough, and it doesn’t seem to be just a matter of pressure levels. The Luxman MB88 Ultimate monoblocks, my current resident amps, gave me a quintessentially classic tube sound: smooth, palpable, a bit rolled off in the treble; at the same time, thanks to the speakers’ characteristics, there was a very good reproduction of dynamics, an almost spotless tonal balance, a correct speed and a very good resolution. The latest amp I tried, the one I am using as I am writing this review, was/is an 845 SET designed and built by another videohifi.com colleague, my brother Daniel. Only direcly heated triodes are used (PT8, 10Y, 845) on the signal path; interstage couplings use magnetic devices; the PSU is tube-rectified and mostly employs polypropylene capacitors. The power should be about 16/18 watts. Well, it’s the first time I hear these – quite big – creatures sounding this way (and they are some years old). Transparency, immediacy, “light from within” are the typical SET characteristics; here they are exalted by a speakers system which finally seems to be able to present them without adding colourations of its own. Quite a wonder.

Another vexata quaestio, while we are speaking about interfacing these speakers, are cables. The fact that the speakers use Cardas wiring internally can be interpreted as an indication. The Italian dealer lent me a pair of Cardas Golden Reference cables; I have to say that they are very, very good. I am sorry to send them back; I cannot afford them at this time. I got good results with the classic DNM cables, which I connected almost by chance an evening I was playing with an amp which doesn’t accept forks. They aren’t the Cardas, granted (they are a bit more acidic, don’t have the same midrange magic, don’t have the same midbass impact), and I also think there are better cables than the DNM out there, which maybe cost more than them and less than the Cardas; I liked the sound anyway.


Back to the speakers themselves. The manufacturer, my ears, the measurements I saw tell me  that the frequency response is quite flat. I don’t perceive any obvious colouration (no nasality, no FR “bump”, no spotlit bass or treble). I perceive, instead, a miraculous (and I am choosing the word) continuity over the top midrange/lower treble, a linearity in the way the energy is projected into the room which is really extraordinary. It’s not only coherence, I don’t know how to explain that, it is uninterrupted energy. I think the tweeter and the crossover are simply exceptional. Maybe a new-wave, exotic material tweeter has some advantage instrumentally (more extension above the audible range, for example); but maybe it doesn’t have the same kind of delicacy, and poses more difficult problems crossing it over with a midwoofer. In fact, even on the best speakers equipped with that kind of tweeters, I have never heard this dynamic continuity.

The BAM, yes. I have tried it between preamp and power amp, and in a tape loop. It seems to be better in this second way, at least with my tube preamp (a Uesugi U-Bros 18; the solid state one, a Tom Evans Vibe, doesn’t have a tape loop. By the way, the TEAD Vibe is a bit more dynamic and reactive than the Japanese tube preamp, but it seems to be a bit less refined and textured). I tried to by-pass it. Well, it works as described by the manufacturer. There seems to be no drawback in transparency; on the contrary, probably the system is more lucid and “see-through” clear with the BAM in place. This may be due to the fact that the high-pass 28 Hz filter, by preventing frequencies they couldn’t reproduce anyway from reaching the speakers, lowers intermodulation distortion. The fact that the sound appears to be more relaxed and inviting with the BAM in the circuit seems to confirm the hypothesis. The bass, of course, is fuller and seems to be better defined; the high frequencies, without the BAM in circuit, are probably a bit more hashy (that ultrasonic filter, maybe? The fact that it reduces noise?). I have also tried to detect the differences between the three modes in which the BAM can work, full-AC, partial battery, full battery. The first one is easily detectable, and it is the worst one. Between the other two, differences are more subtle: the full battery mode is quieter, more profoundly silent. I wonder if this is more related with the fact that the BAM is battery operated, or with the elimination of a switching PSU next to the other components…
I haven’t tried to remove the puck or the ERS cloth. I am usually quite sceptical about tweaks, but I decided to try the product as delivered, as I always do. Furthermore, I think that, even if one of the tweaks might be, in itself, difficult to detect sonically, what I am trying to review is a complete system, and the tweak is part of that system. Probably all of the tweaks and optimizations work incrementally.
Anyway, I consider the BAM as an integral part of the Merlin VSM speakers, and would never, ever use the speakers without it.

One last note is required about the Zobel network. With most amplifiers I tried at this time, I have perceived a slightly better sound with the Zobel in circuit (again, a more profound silence). With the Luxman monoblocks and the DNM cables, the sound gets worse. The strange thing is that they don’t seem to have a Zobel network, internally (theoretically, a negative effect should be possible, almost certain, if the amp has an internal Zobel network; almost every solid state amplifier has one, but my amps seem to be the exceptions). I think you should try the networks yourself, with your amp and your ears. (note to the note: after the review, I tried some other – yes –  amps, and with one of them, a solid state integrated, the tweeters seemed to screech a bit with the Zobel in circuit; so maybe that test you should do by ear to know if you need the network, with the Merlins and your amp, isn’t that difficult).

These speakers are, to me, a masterpiece. I admire their designer, who had the constancy to persevere in optimizing them over all these years; it is evident that the concept was good from the start. It seems that the MXe version is a bit more critical, particularly for the choice of amps, and that it is a bit better if everything is OK. To me, the MMe version is perfect. It is critical, but it is not too challenging to interface; the good and the bad of upstream components and of recordings is easily detectable, but at the same time the content, the music always seems to be enjoyable. They are transparent, and they have the openness, the air, the warmth and the slight sweetness of the real thing. They have a set of features (agility, immediacy, that warmth, that transparency) I have never heard together.
And then there’s that enthusiasm in delivering the message, the music, maybe that promptness on transients (immediacy passes through this), that rhythmic ability, that almost physical presence of the instruments which doesn’t seem related with the size of the group playing (as it is, in my opinion, with Quads), that lack of grain, which makes me feel like listening to record after record, listening even to those compositions I usually skip…
Do you need something brutal, spectacular, glamorous? There are products, out there, which might be better to you. Do you need a system which, after some time and effort spent to find the right partners (Bobby Palkovich tells me wonders about a little Spanish integrated amp, which isn’t distributed here in Italy; I hope I can put my hands on it soon), gets out of the way and lets you listen to music? You might have found it. I am sure I have found mine. Merlin deserves to be mentioned among the best speakers manufacturers in the world, and this is, in most ways, a reference product without the reference price and the reference size.