{"id":32932,"date":"2022-09-10T16:32:45","date_gmt":"2022-09-10T14:32:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hifi-advice.com\/blog\/?p=32932"},"modified":"2022-09-12T21:04:28","modified_gmt":"2022-09-12T19:04:28","slug":"mj-acoustics-ref-200-sr-and-master-class-ascot-sr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hifi-advice.com\/blog\/review\/loudspeaker-reviews\/speakers-active-analog-reviews\/mj-acoustics-ref-200-sr-and-master-class-ascot-sr\/","title":{"rendered":"MJ Acoustics REF 200-SR and Master-Class Ascot-SR"},"content":{"rendered":"

Review samples supplied by Boelsz Audio<\/a>
\nRetail Prices in the Netherlands at the time of review:<\/h4>\n

REF 200-SR
\nIn standard real wood veneer finish: 1395 euro
\nIn Satin\/ RAL\/ High gloss finish: 1895 euro<\/h4>\n

Master-Class Ascot-SR
\nIn standard real wood veneer finish: 2895 euro
\nIn Satin\/ RAL\/ High gloss finish: 3395 euro<\/h4>\n

Back Story<\/h3>\n

It was back in 2009 when I purchased my first pair of subwoofers. Indeed, I went straight for a pair<\/em> instead of the single one. Besides the REL Quake II being relatively inexpensive, there was a profound yet non-acoustical reason for needing two, which was that I could only position a sub (or a pair) to the far left and far right of the 5 audio racks that I used side by side at that time. The main reason for getting them at that time was to augment the small wall-mounted LCR speakers for the home cinema section. But of course, I couldn’t resist also trying them for the main speakers, and to my surprise, that sounded much better than I had anticipated. Ultimately, though, neither the Quake II’s nor the Strata III’s that I got later, blended quite as well with the main speakers as I wanted, so their use remained limited to the surround system.<\/p>\n

Over the years, I have tried countless speakers<\/a>, small, large, and larger still, and achieved fabulously deep and lush bass with the door-size Apogee Diva<\/a>, immense punch and dynamics with the Wilson WP8, and even more staggeringly good bass with the Martin Logan ESL15A<\/a>. But ultimately, all speakers have their pros and cons. I am actually quite bass-oriented, but none of these speakers were quite as coherent, nimble, articulate, or even-handed as I desired. Ultimately, I decided I would rather have good bass with limited depth than deep bass if it’s incoherent or boomy.<\/p>\n

When I added a pair of Magico S1 MkIIs to my Martin Logan main setup, it was instantly clear that they did not reach quite as deeply as the Logans. But still, I found myself listening to them more and more. At some point, I moved the Logans out of the way and found, to my surprise, they scaled to the same heights as the Logans but with even more precision and better coherence. Of course, the S1 MkII’s output drops fast below 40Hz but the bass that they produce down to that point is of very good quality. I’ve tried the next model up in the Magico range, both the older S3 as well as the latest S3 MKII, but neither sounded as pure, as airy, or as effortlessly spacious as the S1 MkII. Thus, these relatively small speakers have remained and I’ve been very happy with them for almost 4 years now.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, I have paid a lot of attention to my room using various acoustic measures such as R.T.F.S Big Block bass traps and SIRRaH diffusers and subsequently propelled forward by insights gained from a visit of Rick Paap of Dynamic Solutions. Among others, this led to the addition of CD and LP racks along the left side wall and part of the rear wall, as well as the reinforcement of my floor-to-ceiling glass window sections on the right side. All this led to a much more even bass response as well as the Magicos sounding much fuller now that the glass wall was no longer robbing the right speaker of its bass power.<\/p>\n

Although there were no more obvious issues, I always kept craving an octave or two of extra bass extension. So, when Jack Boelsz approached me to let me know that he had acquired the dealer rights for MJ Acoustics subwoofers, I was all ears.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

MJ Acoustics<\/h3>\n

Even though the company has been around for 20 years, to me, it seems that MJ Acoustics have been flying under the radar in the Netherlands. But as my experience with the brand has confirmed, they are well deserving of our full attention. Established in 1998, MJ Acoustics released their first product in 2000. The company sought new ways of doing things and this led to the brand being the first to offer presets and remote control for adjustment from the listening position, all the way back in 2004. Today, MJ are proud to design, develop, and assemble their own amplifier modules, drivers, and cabinets and they are quite unique for offering twin independent analog crossovers for Hi\/Low and LFE inputs. MJ uses carefully designed custom drivers with long travel suspensions to very quickly reproduce bass transients with very low resonance.<\/p>\n

The company consciously does not use DSP because that introduces delays and can lead to sonic degradation. After all, with DSP (note the D for digital), the analog input is digitized, processed, and made analog again before it is fed to the woofer. I am aware of the controversy of this subject but as a previous owner of the second-most highly ranking hybrid Martin Logan model that incorporates ARC digital processing, I can attest to the feeling of the sound taking on kind of a stilted and mechanical quality with the processing enabled. Sure, with DSP, it is relatively easy to counteract many room-induced issues, but as with everything in life, there is a price to pay. And of course, it is always better to prevent issues than to try and correct them later. DSP has many advantages and I think it is really great for home theater use, but based on my experiences so far, it is not ideal for stereo music reproduction.<\/p>\n

The MJ subwoofer cabinets are built from substantial, heavy grade medium density fibreboard (MDF). The highest-grade European-sourced MDF is specified for its superior sonic- and aesthetic qualities. Veneers are glue-bonded depending on the customer’s chosen finish. Any color paint choice is available and the cabinet lacquers are specified Polyurethane twin-pack products from Italy.<\/p>\n

An interesting side note concerns the power ratings for the built-in amplifiers. As it is not uncommon to see 1000-Watt Class-D designs in competing products, one could wonder why most MJ products don’t. The answer is that 20 years of design and scientific experimentation have yielded an ideal combination of low moving mass and strength in the bass drivers, which results in the overall design being more electro-mechanically efficient. Greater efficiency results in more output from less input power. In achieving higher efficiency, a faster moving cone assembly is yielded, which provides the speed and agility that is required to match high-end audiophile loudspeakers.<\/p>\n

Whereas most competitors provide a phase adjustment of either 0 or 180 Degrees, MJ subs offer continuously adjustable phase control, ensuring that the ideal setting can always be found. As I was to find out, this feature proved to be absolutely indispensable for my situation.<\/p>\n

The cherry on top is that all but the entry-level MJ subwoofers offer not only Infrared remote control, but also a fully-fledged smart remote App for Android and iOS.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Filtering Control<\/h3>\n

Quite uniquely, MJ subs allow the user to set the cutoff frequency (the point at which the sub crosses over to the main speakers) anywhere from 20 Hertz up to 120 Hertz in 121 discrete steps. Very nearly all rivals only offer cutoff down to 30Hz, and all too often, it’s even 45Hz or 50Hz, sometimes even higher. This ultra-low filter ensures that an MJ sub can be integrated into virtually any system, no matter how large the main speakers are.<\/p>\n

Further, a second-order variable low-pass filter that makes use of a combination of Butterworth and Bessel functions was chosen for the most linear phase response. An additional fixed second-order Bessel filter follows the variable filter, removing unwanted midrange signals that, if left unfiltered, cause midrange coloration of the main speakers. All filtering is performed in the analog domain using high-quality matched components with tight tolerances to ensure the highest possible performance.<\/p>\n

High-Level Input<\/h3>\n

The High-Level Input refers to using the amplifier’s speaker output or even the end of the speaker cable, for driving the subwoofer’s input. All MJ subwoofers offer this option, as well as low-level inputs. As I always understood it, the promoted benefit of this was that the sub receives the very same signal as the main speakers, purportedly leading to a more uniform performance between the sub and speakers. To me, this has always seemed like a trade-off. Yes, you are feeding the subwoofer the same signal as the main speakers, but that signal has also traveled down a speaker cable and then follows attenuation inside the subwoofer, followed by another pre- and power amplification stage. To me, that feels less direct and purist than sending the preamp signal to the main power amplifier as well as the amplifier in the sub.<\/p>\n

If the main amplifier or the speaker cables have a strong character, then I can understand the logic in making sure that the sub receives the same sonic fingerprint. But with exceedingly neutral equipment, I don’t see what benefit there could be.<\/p>\n

Reading up on the MJ website about the technology, however, I found a compelling explanation for the benefits of using the High-Level inputs:<\/p>\n

“Firstly, in the case of a preamplifier with only one set of outputs, it is simply absurd to have a very high-quality preamp in your system and then load it with a sub in parallel with the power amplifier. There are circulating currents within the signal ground and these can cause mutual coupling within the signal ground of the preamp. At this stage, the delicate signals are at their most vulnerable. The direct connection between the pre and power-amp is the best choice for an audiophile connection. \u00a0More modern and costly pre-amplifiers provide for an additional set of outputs that are independent and fully buffered from the main set and duplicate this output. \u00a0This type of connection is also excellent”.<\/em><\/p>\n

“Secondly, the overall quality of reproduction in a system consists of the main speakers, the amplifier, and the room acoustics. Change any one of these and the sound will change. Ensuring the sub receives the same quality and dexterity of bass as the main speakers, helps to achieve this”.<\/em><\/p>\n

I’ll admit that the first argument sure makes a lot of sense. But the CH Precision L1 preamplifier does indeed have separately buffered outputs, so that’s how I connected the subs.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

REF 200-SR<\/h3>\n

The REF 200 is the bigger brother of the REF 100 and is also a member of the MJ Acoustics Reference series. It employs the same 250 mm ultra-long throw driver but the slightly larger cabinet (300 x 300 x 355 mm) and more powerful amplifier make this the ideal sub-bass support for audiophile stereo systems in small and medium-sized rooms.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Master-Class Ascot-SR<\/h3>\n

For the top-of-the-line Master-Class Series, MJ make sure that each part of the bass driver is matched for weight and accumulated mass in the motor assembly components. The weights of the cone assembly and coil-spider assemblies are noted on each build and closely matched in pairs for each Master-Class product. This ensures that manufacturing tolerances are kept close to design specifications and also enables replacements to be assembled if required.<\/p>\n

At 300 x 300 x 410 mm and housing a 250mm, special Master-Class series ultra-long throw driver, the Ascot is the smallest model of the Master-Class Series but it offers the same benefits as the larger Master-Class models, such as a fixed bottom plate, a front panel display in addition to the rear panel display, and IR remote control.<\/p>\n

Crossover Point (cutoff frequency)<\/h3>\n

Since the Magico S1 MkIIs roll off below 40Hz, it might seem logical to set the sub(s) to that same frequency, but that leads to an overlap that is quite audible. You see, filters are inherently not perfect. It is impossible to literally cut off at the cutoff frequency. What happens is that the output is gradually lowered above that setting whilst the filter type dictates how steep the output level drops. The instinct might be to apply as steep a filter as possible (a brick wall filter), but as we’ve learned with CD player and DAC filters, very steep filters introduce quite severe phase shifts and other undesirable artifacts. The steepness of filters is displayed in so-called orders, see the below overview.<\/p>\n

1st order: 6 dB\/octave slope and 90 degrees phase shift
\n2nd order: 12 dB\/octave slope and 180 degrees phase shift
\n3rd order: 18 dB\/octave slope and 270 degrees phase shift
\n4th order: 24 dB\/octave slope and 360 degrees phase shift<\/p>\n

As it follows, on the surface, a 4th order filter seems to cut the cleanest. But it also introduces the largest amount of phase shift. Why is that important? Well, consider that in loudspeaker design the ideal is a single-point source, i.e. a single driver. When we add a tweeter, a crossover is required which inevitably introduces a phase shift at the crossover frequency. The more drivers and crossover points we add, the more shifts we get. Phase shift is bad for coherence and can greatly reduce spatial imaging, or in certain circumstances, artificially accentuate the spaciousness. This goes a long way toward explaining why it is easier to design a great-sounding monitor speaker than a large multi-driver floorstander.<\/p>\n

As mentioned in the Filtering Control section above, MJ have devised a clever solution for this by using an additional fixed second-order Bessel filter that follows the initial variable filter, thus minimizing the unwanted midrange signals. The main second-order filter has a relatively gentle phase shift. Whilst the second filter that follows adds its own additional phase shift, this is placed higher up, where the output is already greatly reduced by the first filter.<\/p>\n

Another point of attention in subwoofer design is that the woofer and cabinet can potentially add their own coloration, especially at higher frequencies. In turn, the room and its modes interact not only with the frequencies below the cutoff frequency but also in a substantial range above it. In my case, even with MJ’s clever dual crossover arrangement up to 70-80Hz when set to 33Hz.<\/p>\n

All this might sound like a recipe for disaster and, indeed, subwoofer integration for high-end music purposes should not be taken light-heartedly, especially with very cleanly-performing main speakers. These complexities and side effects are exactly why I opted to live without subwoofers for so long. Try as I might but with the Quake IIs and Strata IIIs, I just never managed to get them properly integrated, which takes us full circle to the review at hand.<\/p>\n

Whilst MJ Acoustics cannot break laws of physics, their dual-filter solution likely plays a major role in these subs’ remarkably clean and uncolored behavior. All it took was 15 minutes of setup and adjusting to realize that these subwoofers are in an entirely different ballpark!<\/p>\n

But before I dive into the listening tests, let me explain how I set them up.<\/p>\n

Next: Initial Listening<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Initial Listening<\/h3>\n

My initial thought was to achieve a perfect time alignment so I positioned one of the subs (the Ascot) between the two main speakers and moved it in small increments fore and aft. I started by aligning the sub’s front panel to the same distance as the main speaker woofers to the listening position using a tape measure and listened to the integration. Then, I did the same but now measured from the center of the underside woofer, meaning that the sub was positioned closer. This last position quickly proved more precise and so I perfected the placement using Bosch GLM250VF Laser Distance Meter and then marked the positions on the floor. After some experimenting, the ideal cutoff frequency for my setup turned out to be 33Hz. With the phase control at zero, this did indeed yield a remarkably clean and accurate low bass!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Moving the sub closer or further away produced a subtle thickening of the upper bass and lower midrange, which in turn led to a reduction of articulation and transient start-stop in the lowest bass. In its ideal position, however, the Ascot blended so seamlessly and provided such satisfyingly articulate low bass that I had no choice but to change my stance on subwoofers there and then. With a big smile on my face, I was already contemplating a future for my system with one or two subwoofers.<\/p>\n

Spikes<\/h3>\n

Adding the supplied spikes made the Ascot sound faster and more immediate, and more coherent with the Magicos, which are also spiked. This was such a marked and convincing improvement that I decided to also add the spikes to the REF 200 and not look back.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Placement experiments<\/h3>\n

For subsequent tests with the sub in other positions, as well as for the upcoming test with two subs, I always maintained the ear-to-woofer center distance, meaning that the sub(s) position(s) would always move along an arc at an equal distance from my ears.<\/p>\n

There is a consensus that subwoofer placement is not critical because the signal is mostly mono and our ears are not sensitive to the localization of low-frequency sounds. While that may be true to some extent for home cinema purposes, I can’t help but note that it was quite audible when the sub was placed on the outside of the left or right speaker. One reason for this may be that, as noted above, the sub does not actually cease its output at the set cutoff frequency but rolls off gently and the higher frequencies are easier to locate. Or perhaps I am more sensitive to this than the average person. In any case, the sound was most centered and balanced, as well as most articulate, with the sub positioned right between the speakers.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

With dual subs used as a stereo pair in-between the main speakers (with the gain reduced by 3dB per speaker), the sound became more spacious which can be seen as a bonus, but it was also less super-tight and focused than with only the Ascot in the center. I also tried the two subs on the outsides of the speakers which did not provide further gains in soundstaging but did increase the boundary-induced colorations. This was not unexpected because I experienced very similar effects when placing regular speakers in this room and this is why the Magicos are positioned pretty much halfway into the room and well clear from the side walls. Also, it’s worth noting that these two subs do not sound 100% identical. After all, they are different models.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

It wasn’t until I played a track that had a melody line made up of powerful short bass stabs that I became aware of an unexpected side effect. The lowest notes well beyond my speakers’ normal range sounded beautifully extended and powerful but some of the higher notes, far above the cutoff frequencies, were audibly attenuated. Because I initially thought this was the result of the dual subs’ wide placement, I went back to the Ascot by itself in the center position. Sure enough, it sounded cleaner, but with the same bass track, I again heard a few cancellations.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

This called for a slightly more scientific approach: calibrated test tones and a dB level meter. Using the test tracks, I walked from 120Hz down to 10Hz and found that in both dual sub setups as well as in the single sub setup, there were certain frequencies that were peaking and others that were nulled. Most surprisingly, the nulling was not in the sub-33Hz range but at 70-90Hz, well in the main speakers’ range. Furthermore, these tests also revealed that the output fell off rather quickly below 30Hz. Needless to say, neither the nulling nor the roll-off below 30Hz is the subwoofers’ fault. My room and its modes are to blame.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

To create equal circumstances, I tried them in the left and right corners and also reversed their positions in each corner.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

This prompted me to try the Ascot all the way into the far left corner 3 meters back, precisely as subwoofer manufacturers often recommend. I can see why, as corner loading provides the highest gain meaning that the sub has to work less hard which in turn should lead to lower distortion. But in my case, even after careful recalibration, this led to a rather boomy sound. I also tried the sub behind the audio racks more toward the center of the room but that was not better.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

But the sub now also went effortlessly down to 20Hz, and with full force! With some R&B tracks, this was absolutely fantastic! Oh yeah, I sure appreciated the extra octaves! Now, what was I to do? I wanted full output down to 20Hz, but with as little coloration as possible.<\/p>\n

Phase adjustment<\/h3>\n

Only after my experiments with the physical placement had yielded uneven results I was finally ready to let go of my conviction that a subwoofer needed to play 100% in phase with the main speakers. Well, in a way, that belief still held true, but only if you ignored the newly introduced issues.<\/p>\n

For the next test, I set the cutoff frequency to its highest setting of 120Hz so that any nulling would be clearly audible as well as measurable. Interestingly, even a relatively low Phase setting of 20 degrees already started curing the aforementioned cancellations while higher phase values actually started summing frequencies higher up and helped strengthen the main speaker’s output at the point where the room previously always slightly attenuated the Magicos’ output.<\/p>\n

Now I was really excited! Helped enormously by the MJ Smart Remote app and its ability to store presets, I made 3 different phase settings for the Ascot: 0 degrees, 90 degrees, and 180 degrees. Then, I played the same calibrated test frequencies and noted the measured output while flipping through the 3 phase settings. This proved highly illuminating! There were some variations between the 3 phase settings but sure enough, one of them turned in the lowest deviations and thus the best performance: the 180-degree setting!<\/p>\n

While the measurements now looked just about perfect, I wondered, with the sub now being in reverse phase compared to the main speakers, would they still sound good?<\/p>\n

After re-setting the cutoff frequency to 33Hz, I played some familiar tracks. Interestingly, whilst the sub’s output wasn’t quite as ultra-tight and articulate as with a zero phase setting, overall, the sound was now so much clearer and, surprisingly, actually more<\/em> coherent! Armed with this new knowledge, there was only one more thing to do, which was to get the sub to play all the way down to 20Hz.<\/p>\n

At this point, I played around with the sub’s physical position for an entire evening but I’ll spare you, dear reader, all the variables that I tried. Let’s jump forward to the point when I found the ideal placement. As it turned out, placement between the rear of the left speaker and the front row audio racks proved ideal in terms of playing cleanly and coherently, as well as reaching all the way down to 20Hz. All this may seem like an awful chore but I was actually truly enjoying myself because the sound kept getting better and better all while I was learning hitherto hidden but very important aspects about my room as I went along.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Above is a snapshot of the MJ Smart Remote app. Note that this is not white noise but a random music track which is why the curve is not linear. Below is a snapshot made using the “Analyzer” iPhone app while playing a particularly bass-heavy track. Granted, this is still very far from a scientifically accurate measurement (no calibrated mic, no white noise, etc) but it does show that the subs have no problem diving as low as the manufacturer claims they do.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Finally, since the sub was now positioned further away, the phase control could be readjusted to account for the additional distance from the listening position. With this in mind, I had positioned the sub precisely at a distance from the initial position that corresponds to a quarter sine wave (90 Degrees) which is ~110cm at 80Hz. This way, I could set the phase to a clean and round 90 degrees. Not that it was needed at all since the phase can be adjusted in single-degree steps but I guess this is just my OCD…<\/p>\n

Then, the moment of truth.<\/p>\n

Next: Listening Continued and Conclusion<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Listening continued<\/h3>\n

Not only did this final arrangement measure well, but it also sounded fantastic! There was some mild residual left-corner-induced summing at one narrow frequency band higher up which added some coloration, but otherwise, the result was stunning! I almost could not believe my ears when I heard the entire low bass range being beautifully linear and uniformly powerful, from as low as 20Hz all the way up to 120Hz. This was absolutely unprecedented in this room, with any of the speakers that I used. Heck, it’s even rare to hear such an even bass response anywhere<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Now, it was time to re-introduce the second sub. This time, the experiments were easy as the Ascot in the left corner had already provided very nearly all the data points that I needed. I was already a fan of the MJ Smart App control but during this final adjustment, I thoroughly appreciated it, especially since it allows control over each sub, either individually or in ganged operation if so desired.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, while the individual measurements from the left and right sub were relatively flat, confirming that my structural reinforcements to the glass wall really paid off, as it goes when one issue is fixed, the attention shifts to the next biggest problem. Thus, my focus was now set on getting rid of the aforementioned residual room-mode-induced summing in the left corner.<\/p>\n

When playing only the left sub, I could hear the room mode being excited but when playing only the right sub, there was actually a mild suckout, believe it or not, at just about the same frequency. Clearly, my left and right walls do not behave 100% uniformly. Of course, with one being 10cm-thick solid plaster and the other glass, how could they?<\/p>\n

Imagine my surprise when the sound evened out perfectly when playing both subs with the exact same settings! I had already mentioned being enamored with these subs in an early stage, but now, I really could not see myself without subs anymore!<\/p>\n

Track after track, I was enjoying myself until I noticed that I had spent hours just listening to music. Being as busy as I am, nearly all my listening happens as part of reviews. A multi-hour session just listening for fun just hardly happens anymore. Yet, it did, and I had a hard time stopping myself.<\/p>\n

At this point, it is worth noting how important MJ’s continuous phase control is. With the large majority of competing products, I would have been stuck with the option of either zero or 180 degrees phase. In that case, the ideal placement at which I arrived with its associated phase setting of 90 degrees would simply not have been possible and I would have been forced to compromise.<\/p>\n

Reference versus Master-Class<\/h3>\n

On the surface, the REF 200 and the Ascot do not seem to be all that different: same material and same size cabinet, same size woofer, same available settings, and both are adjustable via the smart remote App. Even the specs do not deviate that much. And when listening to them one on one, judged purely sonically with identical settings and identical positioning, at first, they seemed almost equally capable.<\/p>\n

Both subs are easily capable of reaching 20Hz, both filters work very precisely, both subs sound clean, and both go plenty loud for my music application. Oh, and both sound\u00a0substantially<\/em> better than either the small REL Quake IIs that I still have or the relatively large REL Strata IIIs that I used to have. Compared to the MJ subs, these older RELs sound comparatively narrow-banded and peaky, and in retrospect, especially the Strata III was really quite boomy, fat, and colored.<\/p>\n

Between the REF 200 and the Ascot, both set to cut off at 33Hz, all that I could detect when comparing them in their final ideal positions and at a normal listening distance was a slight variation in terms of “character”. Don’t worry, there really is precious little character to speak off to start with,\u00a0 but between the two, I could detect that while the REF 200 sounded slightly lean in the mid-bass, it has a more emphasized midband output. Although it does not output high frequencies, it is comparatively slightly “brighter”. Comparatively, the Ascot sounds slightly darker, as if its resonances are more controlled and more authoritative.<\/p>\n

But the devil, as always, is in the details. I’m not sure if it’s the Ascot’s higher-wattage power amplifier, the tighter-tolerance woofer, or the fixed bottom thrust plate, but after some more tests with different positions and with the cut-off frequency set a little higher and when listening to each sub, one at a time and in the same center position, the dearer sub’s superiority was quickly established.<\/p>\n

Just so that I could focus entirely on the relative differences, I now switched off the main amplifier so that only the subs played. That proved illustrative!<\/p>\n

Listening to each sub one by one for this second round, the REF 200 retained its leaner balance, but now I also heard that it has more of a “wooden” signature with more upper harmonics which, especially at higher crossover frequencies, make it sound less tidy and articulate than the Ascot. Meanwhile, the Ascot definitely remains a little ballsier and more authoritative, as well as cleaner and more precise in the uppermost range.<\/p>\n

As before, when comparing them one after the other with the exact same settings, I get the urge to raise the gain on the REF 200 to compensate for a subjectively weaker output. But even when the gain is raised by 3dB and it sounds measurably louder than the Ascot, still it does not come across quite as impactfully.<\/p>\n

A nice aspect that I noted with both subs when listened to this way is that the ingenious twin low pass filter works incredibly well, leaving what appears to be very little sound above the cut-off frequency. That might seem logical but actually takes quite some engineering to achieve. First, the filter must of course be well-executed but even if that has been done impeccably, the woofer material and the subwoofer casing themselves can still ruin the party by introducing non-linear distortions and coloration. This can happen simply from inherent resonance points or an amount of cone flexing. But there was no evidence of any of this with either of the two subs. And I don’t claim this lightly! I tested these subs playing on their own with stepped test tones from 120Hz all the way down to 10Hz. All that I heard were the tones themselves, cleanly right down to 20Hz! Yes, these relatively small subs play down to 20Hz at almost full strength. When I finally played the 10Hz test tone, I could see the woofer cones moving, but I no longer heard any output. That’s not only fair, but given the specs of most of the competition, even those with rather larger cabinets, that’s downright amazing.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, when listening at a normal distance, with the cut-off frequency set to 33Hz, and with the main speakers also playing, the aforementioned differences were greatly reduced and in a dual-subwoofer setup, they were all but unnoticeable unless you played the subs one at a time.<\/p>\n

So, fair is fair, clearly, the Ascot and the REF 200 are both very capable subs.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

This review has not only highlighted the greatness of MJ Acoustics subwoofers, but it has also proven highly valuable in extending my knowledge of the ultra-low bass particulars of my room and elevating my subwoofer setup and integration experience to a higher level. I hope this exercise has been as exciting to read as it was for me to undertake and write about.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, there are three important takeaways.<\/p>\n

First, since the large majority of rooms will have some inherent issues that require precise adjustment on the subwoofer, the range, and quality of the crossover filter and the phase control, are immensely important. Arguably even more important than the woofer size or power rating.<\/p>\n

Second, two subs are better than one. Quite universally, twin subs tend to widen and deepen the soundstage and can add to the sense of air around instruments. Typically, rooms are not 100% symmetrical. With that in mind, two subs on opposing ends can fill in different gaps by compensating for each corner’s different peaks and throughs while supporting each other. Also, with a pair, the gain can be lowered, meaning that the subs will play louder and more cleanly. However, depending on the room peculiarities, the two subs may also adversely affect each other. Thus, setting up dual subs may require extra care and attention. If you are willing to go the extra mile, then by all means go for the extra performance that a pair can provide. But if you want a quick one-stop solution, then a single sub will often more easily provide great results.<\/p>\n

Finally, MJ Subwoofers may not be as affordable as some competitors but they pay their dividends in sound quality and ease of use. The MJ website recites\u00a0a Rolls Royce design engineer responsible for developing the integrity of the fan blades in jet engines, \u201cThe quality will be remembered long after the price is forgotten\u201d, <\/em>and follows this up by adding that “This very much epitomizes the ethos behind the design of all MJ products”.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Associated Equipment<\/a><\/p>\n

External Links<\/h3>\n

Official dealer for the Netherlands: Boelsz Audio
\n<\/a>Manufacturer: MJ Acoustics<\/a><\/p>\n

\r\n
Related Posts<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n
\r\n \r\n\r\n \"\"\r\n\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n Aequo Audio Ensium <\/a>\r\n\r\n <\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n \r\n\r\n \"\"\r\n\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n Playback Designs SPA-8 Stereo Amplifier – Quick Impression <\/a>\r\n\r\n <\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n \r\n\r\n \"\"\r\n\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n MJ Acoustics REF 200-SR and Master-Class Ascot-SR <\/a>\r\n\r\n <\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n \r\n\r\n \"\"\r\n\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n Aequo Audio Stilla Active <\/a>\r\n\r\n <\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n \r\n\r\n \"\"\r\n\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n Aequo Audio Stilla <\/a>\r\n\r\n <\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n \r\n\r\n \"\"\r\n\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n Digital Cables compared – USB and Ethernet <\/a>\r\n\r\n <\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n \r\n\r\n \"\"\r\n\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n Anthem Room Correction and Martin Logan Renaissance ESL 15A <\/a>\r\n\r\n <\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n \r\n\r\n \"\"\r\n\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n The Difference Between Instrumental and Speaker Cables (Guest Review) <\/a>\r\n\r\n <\/div>\r\n \r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n