Electrostatic.. bs?

[Aric M L]

Today I was at my local audio boutique and I listened to a pair of Martin Logan electrostatics featuring 7 or 8 inch woofers to handle the lower frequencies. Despite the inability of the woofers to handle the low end, I found the mid to high range to be... just flat and unengaging... Is this more typical of electrostats or is it a Martin Logan thing or is it just a personal preference of mine that is so skewed that I wouldn't have paid $500 for these speakers, much less the $3400 asking price? If there are speakers you can tell me that might represent planar speakers a little better for me I'd love to go find them and give them a listen.

[RGA]

I would try them again - bring them out well out from rear and side walls. The lower end Martin logans and IMO planars in general lack dynamics - ML has serious problems integrating the woofers. They do some things well some things badly enough to corss them off my list. They are overpriced for what you get. The big ML's in the Oddyssey like models can sound very accomplished - but they still have the bass integration problem the bass isn't seamless they have small sweetspots and they have some treble issues which I'd want to really listen for again to be sure.

[JoeE SP9]

Today I was at my local audio boutique and I listened to a pair of Martin Logan electrostatics featuring 7 or 8 inch woofers to handle the lower frequencies. Despite the inability of the woofers to handle the low end, I found the mid to high range to be... just flat and unengaging... Is this more typical of electrostats or is it a Martin Logan thing or is it just a personal preference of mine that is so skewed that I wouldn't have paid $500 for these speakers, much less the $3400 asking price? If there are speakers you can tell me that might represent planar speakers a little better for me I'd love to go find them and give them a listen.

I have been using planars of one sort or another since 1977. I have never thought the mid to high ranges to be flat and unengaging but rather smooth and non peaky with out ringing. The 7 or 8 inch woofers in the lower end ML's are truly inadequate. You might want to audition a pair of Magnepan MG1.6QR's, IMHO the best buy in audio. A major factor in their favor is their $1600 pair cost. They are also completely planar. The woofers are panels also.

[risabet]

Today I was at my local audio boutique and I listened to a pair of Martin Logan electrostatics featuring 7 or 8 inch woofers to handle the lower frequencies. Despite the inability of the woofers to handle the low end, I found the mid to high range to be... just flat and unengaging... Is this more typical of electrostats or is it a Martin Logan thing or is it just a personal preference of mine that is so skewed that I wouldn't have paid $500 for these speakers, much less the $3400 asking price? If there are speakers you can tell me that might represent planar speakers a little better for me I'd love to go find them and give them a listen.


Very few dealers can or will take the time to set-up M-L's correctly, with the proper electronics and cabling, proper distance from rear and side walls and proper toe-in. When I bought mine, the dealer, a big dealer, was running them with a Denon receiver? After some extended listening I bought them with the proviso that I could return them within 30 days if not satisfied.

The belief that the 8" M-L hybrids are incapable of handling the low end is false. Yes, they have the standard limitations of any 8" speaker. They roll off around 40Hz in my room (measured in room) but have plenty of impact after their substantial break-in period. What 8" woofer plumbs the depths of bass?

The high end is flat and unengaging? Compared to what? Certainly not compared to live music. I have listened to much live orchestral music and the M-L's get this more right than wrong. Not impressive, but really quite accurate. A properly set-up pair of M-L's (in my case the small Clarity) has the air and extension of the real thing, what they lack is the peaky, uneven response of <b>most</b> dome, cone, or horn tweeters. IMO it is a personal preference of yours, not an inherent flaw in the brand.

The integration of the bass with the ES panel is excellent,much better with the new aluminum woofer than the old ones, with proper set-up, which includes spikes and proper distance from the rear wall (critical). Yeah, I use a subwoofer because the Clarity's woofers don't get down to the bottom octave and a sub adds impact and moves some air that the Clarity's don't.

M-L's seem to be relatively sensitive to the amps that drive them, as do most ESL's, and as such may be more dependent on good amps than average.

Flaws exist, the sweet spot is narrow, no more than two at a time for sure. They do need to be out into the room at least two feet, they must be spiked (which is truly not a flaw) but they probably won't be spiked at most dealers, who need to move them around a lot, they need millimeter precision in toe-in, distance from the walls and benefit from a good,high current amp. Good speaker cables are a must and the speaker is really revealing of the upstream components, interconnects and sources shine through M-L's.

[Pat D]

Today I was at my local audio boutique and I listened to a pair of Martin Logan electrostatics featuring 7 or 8 inch woofers to handle the lower frequencies. Despite the inability of the woofers to handle the low end, I found the mid to high range to be... just flat and unengaging... Is this more typical of electrostats or is it a Martin Logan thing or is it just a personal preference of mine that is so skewed that I wouldn't have paid $500 for these speakers, much less the $3400 asking price? If there are speakers you can tell me that might represent planar speakers a little better for me I'd love to go find them and give them a listen. Electrostatic and other panel speakers tend to require a fair amount of space and are quite directional. I have heard of a panel speaker which is supposed to be wide dispersion but I have seen no measurements. I used ot have Quad ESL-63 speakers, which are electrostatics, and they can sound very good indeed in the right set up. They are the smoothest sounding electrostat I have ever heard. Their listening window for best results isn't very wide. However, our present home does not really have the space for them, although they sounded very good on a lot of recordings, and so when the power supply blew, I looked mostly for forward radiating speakers, although we did try out some bipolar speakers.

There are quite a few forward radiating speakers which have a very even frequency response over a wide area, something the electrostatics and magneplanars can't seem to manage. I know some say that once you get into panel speakers you can never go back but this is really not so. My current speakers, PSB Stratus Minis, are very accurate and work better in our living room that the Quad electrostats and Mirage bipolars (which are almost omnidirectional).

Anyway, if you don't like the M-L speakers, for heaven's sake, don't buy them!:) There's no right or wrong here. Get something you like.

[RGA]

The belief that the 8" M-L hybrids are incapable of handling the low end is false. Yes, they have the standard limitations of any 8" speaker. They roll off around 40Hz in my room (measured in room) but have plenty of impact after their substantial break-in period. What 8" woofer plumbs the depths of bass?


The AN E is rated to 18hz -6db is a two way standmount using one 8 inch woofer - "I checked out the speaker in the lab and confirmed the high 94dB sensitivity, with a 3.6 ohm minimum impedance, a wide 28Hz to 20kHz (+/-3dB) response when adjusted for near wall placement, and a 29Hz tuned port with an in-room -6dB point of 18Hz at reasonable drive levels" M.Colloms (Hi-fi News)

That is plumming the depths - it's a fallacy that an 8 inch can't achieve bass depth and also extremely low distortion AND also be electrostatic fast in the midrange all that and can be bought in a 98db sensitive version with an impedence window less than 12ohms. The fact that most speakers don't achieve that is either they don't know how to build proper loudspeakers - they have chosen to sell looks over sound quality - or they'd rather not give you bass because they want to sell you a sub separately to get more money out of you.
And then we have not got to bass quality which is the strength of the E - it's one thing to produce bass it's another not to make it sound all alike and flat.

There are other examples of excellent depth from smaller woofers. --- ther eis of course the volume limit a big speaker can generally do deep louder.

[risabet]

The AN E is rated to 18hz -6db is a two way standmount using one 8 inch woofer - "I checked out the speaker in the lab and confirmed the high 94dB sensitivity, with a 3.6 ohm minimum impedance, a wide 28Hz to 20kHz (+/-3dB) response when adjusted for near wall placement, and a 29Hz tuned port with an in-room -6dB point of 18Hz at reasonable drive levels" M.Colloms (Hi-fi News)

That is plumming the depths - it's a fallacy that an 8 inch can't achieve bass depth and also extremely low distortion AND also be electrostatic fast in the midrange all that and can be bought in a 98db sensitive version with an impedence window less than 12ohms. The fact that most speakers don't achieve that is either they don't know how to build proper loudspeakers - they have chosen to sell looks over sound quality - or they'd rather not give you bass because they want to sell you a sub separately to get more money out of you.
And then we have not got to bass quality which is the strength of the E - it's one thing to produce bass it's another not to make it sound all alike and flat.

There are other examples of excellent depth from smaller woofers. --- ther eis of course the volume limit a big speaker can generally do deep louder.

The key here is near wall placement. A speaker operating in a hemispherical space (near a wall) shows a boost in the bass compared to one operating in free space (unfortunately, I can't remember the boost precisely). Another issue in the M. Colloms piece is what are reasonable drive levels (80 to 85db?), if so lets turn those little 8" 2-ways up to 95db and measure the frequency response and the harmonic and IM distortion and see what we get. If you want to be able to play small woofers loudly you need to limit their bass extension so as to minimize their distortion products at higher volume levels. Personally, I would rather give up the extreme bottom for higher volumes and lower distortion but that is an acceptable ttrade-off for me.

[Aric M L]

The high end is flat and unengaging? Compared to what? Certainly not compared to live music. I have listened to much live orchestral music and the M-L's get this more right than wrong. Not impressive, but really quite accurate. A properly set-up pair of M-L's (in my case the small Clarity) has the air and extension of the real thing, what they lack is the peaky, uneven response of most dome, cone, or horn tweeters. IMO it is a personal preference of yours, not an inherent flaw in the brand.

I'm not saying these speakers were set up perfectly, in fact I'm sure it's much the opposite. However I listen to live music all the time as I'm actively involved in choir, and used to be involved in musical thater and orchestra. Some venues I've listened in do dull down the high end or "brightness" but IMHO that is what makes orchestra less exciting to me in large venues. It usually is over-resonant and the high end in the resonance is filtered out eventually by curtains or acoustical treatments in the venue, thus making the "unengaging" sound I referred to, however I know this is a preference people disagree with so that's why I said it may be just my preference and not a flaw in the speakers, if you happen to prefer that kind of sound.

[Aric M L]

I have heard many 8-inch bass woofers with a little more chutzpah though, like perhaps the ASW-300 that i turned around and listened to paired with (the modest) DM-303's immediately after listening to the M L's, and there was only 1 8-inch there..

[RGA]

The AN E and J are designed for corner placement. The arguement that bass is increased in the corners is true so is sensitivity - but not any speaker will work well in corners so while you can increase the bass of any speaker in a corner it can also ruin the midrange - so it's not a practical advantage.

The speakers exhibit very low distortion under 1% and will play plenty loud to make you deaf - they are not night club 140db speakers of course.

Let's just say that I have heard em against much much bigger speakers using either BIGGER drivers more drivers and more bigger drivers and you would be surpised.

The J for example is the same as the E but a smaller volume cabinet by about 1/2 and was the only standmount that Hi-Fi Choice tested against similarly priced floorstanders ($3500US) and even against the floorstanders they commented on the prodigious bass on offer over the floorstanders. They claim a response in their room of 20hz-3db not in a corner since the room had none.

The B&W N801 for example has a 15 inch woofer an 8 inch midwoofer and doesn't produce the bass the E is capable of. The N801 can play louder.

There are certainly big speakers that will produce more bass - I just wanted to note that if properly executed you would be very surprised by how much depth they can put out. I suggest you take the top Paradigm, Energy,PSB or B&W Nautilus and the AN E - run the Saint-Saens Symphony for Organ. I'd be tempted to run the J up against them too for chortles.

Interestingly you should also compare them all at around 70-80db or lower as well - see which one you feel you want to turn up in order to make things out better.

[royphil345]

Maybe a setup problem, components just didn't mesh to your liking. I have disliked speakers the first time I heard them at the store, and liked them on a later visit when they were moved or hooked up in a different system.

The planar speaker I would love to own is the big Magnapans with the true ribbon tweeter section. If you ever run across those, give them a listen. They were set up awhile back in my neighborhood in a place that unfortunately went out of business.

Think there is something to be said for planar speakers (loved those big Maggies). Have a little set of Monsoon PM-9s sitting in front of me right now. There's a little dip between the small panels and the sub on these, sound a little colored. But, there's something about the very linear frequency response in the mids and highs, and the detail without brightness or harshness (actually a little laid back) that makes their sound very enjoyable to me.

[JoeE SP9]

I am right now listening to a pair of MG3R's driven by an Adcom 585. My buddie (his system) and I are discussing how alike our systems sound. Until the ribbon tweeters in Maggy's I always thought they sounded rolled of. No more! They have about the sweetest smoothest tweeters I have heard. The TL subwoofer he is using really fills in the extreme low end.

[James.ca]

Today I was at my local audio boutique and I listened to a pair of Martin Logan electrostatics featuring 7 or 8 inch woofers to handle the lower frequencies. Despite the inability of the woofers to handle the low end, I found the mid to high range to be... just flat and unengaging... Is this more typical of electrostats or is it a Martin Logan thing or is it just a personal preference of mine that is so skewed that I wouldn't have paid $500 for these speakers, much less the $3400 asking price? If there are speakers you can tell me that might represent planar speakers a little better for me I'd love to go find them and give them a listen.
For one your going to need 3 feet off aback wall and 3-4 feet from a side wall .
They aint cheap manyhave an add bottm end river for them
I think these are for some who relly wants something different and has the bread to be different .
They alsouse a fair amoun tof power for them and running them is didernt tnan a cone speaker plus yohave to plug ghtem in as well.

I'm not saying they are wrong just a complete differnt apporach to speaker design.
been aroun now about 25 years or so, Check through Goole under Electrostatic speakers there are a few makers around and a DIY site with good indepth direction son building and how they work .
pretty niffty stuff.
James

[Pat D]

For one your going to need 3 feet off aback wall and 3-4 feet from a side wall .
They aint cheap manyhave an add bottm end river for them
I think these are for some who relly wants something different and has the bread to be different .
They alsouse a fair amoun tof power for them and running them is didernt tnan a cone speaker plus yohave to plug ghtem in as well.

I'm not saying they are wrong just a complete differnt apporach to speaker design.
been aroun now about 25 years or so, Check through Goole under Electrostatic speakers there are a few makers around and a DIY site with good indepth direction son building and how they work .
pretty niffty stuff.
James
Electrostatic loudspeakers have been around for a long time. Quad original electrostatic loudspeaker is now popularly referred to as the ESL-57 for 1957, although I think it actually was released a year or two before that. The idea and some electrostatic drivers are much older than that. A number of other manufacturers such as Infinity, Acoustat, Dayton Wright, and others produced their own designs. Quad produced a second model, the ESL-63 about 1981 and there are current models, the ESL-988 and 989.

Like other panel speakers, electrostatics are usually dipoles (the ESL-57 has a felt damping material to absorb the back wave), doing much the same thing front and back but opposite in polarity. Hence, the waves to the sides cancel out, and so they can be placed reasonably close to the side walls. With some toe-in, I could place my old ESL-63's about 15 inches from the side walls, so the placement is not as difficult as some make it out to be. They worked best at least 4 feet from the back wall, however.

Due to their large size, electrostatics and other panel speakers tend to be fairly directional with a relatively small sweet spot. The ESL-63 had useful bass down to about 30 Hz at reasonable levels, and the larger ESL-989 has better bass response. Some make hybrid electrostatics with a built in bass module. I used a big subwoofer.

The Quad ESL-63, 988, and 989 have relatively low sensitivity and impedance but are not a particularly difficult load for a good amplifier. Some other electrostatics can be very difficult loads, and some amplifiers will oscillate with the ESL-57.

Some say that once bitten by the electrostatic (or panel, i.e., Magnepan) bug, one can never go back to box speakers, forward radiating speakers, etc. This is not true in my case, for in my present living room and house, I found wide dispersion forward radiating speakers worked better than the Quads, though the Quads still sounded pretty good on a lot of material. We also tried a bipolar speaker,

[JoeE SP9]

Yes they do require AC from the wall and yes they do require placement a distance from the wall. The distance from side walls is not so critical with dipoles. One of the major attractions for me is the lack of a crossover in the all important midrange and high frequencies. I run my ES panels from 85Hz up. I use an electronic xover to do this. Considering that I bought my first pair of panels in 1976 (Magnrepan's) and have owned panels of one sort or another since then I for one will never go back to boxes/cones. I have also converted several other audiophiles to panels and influenced many others including non-audiophiles to consider them. One of the comments panel owners must get used to is "What are those? Oh, I thought they were room dividers.".

[Geoffcin]

I am right now listening to a pair of MG3R's driven by an Adcom 585. My buddie (his system) and I are discussing how alike our systems sound. Until the ribbon tweeters in Maggy's I always thought they sounded rolled of. No more! They have about the sweetest smoothest tweeters I have heard. The TL subwoofer he is using really fills in the extreme low end.

Back when I was going to buy a pair of the Magnepan 1.6qr, I made the mistake of auditioning the 3.6r too. I was hooked from the very second I heard that speaker. I am using dual Velodyne FSR-15" subs to fill the last 20 cycles of the audio range.

[thepogue]

just taste...


Peace, Pogue

[E-Stat]

Is this more typical of electrostats or is it a Martin Logan thing or is it just a personal preference of mine that is so skewed that I wouldn't have paid $500 for these speakers, much less the $3400 asking price? If there are speakers you can tell me that might represent planar speakers a little better for me I'd love to go find them and give them a listen.
While I'm an electrostat fan, I've never been very fond of the MLs. In that price range I would agree with Joe about listening to some Magnepans, either the 1.6 or the 3.6. As for electrostats, I greatly prefer the large full range flavor. It is only with those, IMHO, that you benefit from their speed, coherency, and transparency without sacrificing the low end. Listen to a pair of Sound Labs U-1s sometime if you get a chance.

rw

[JoeE SP9]

I once owned a pair of Acoustat Model 3's. They were flat to below 30Hz in the room they were in. I could never get them to sound right in any other room. Now I have to settle for ES sound from 85Hz up. I have heard the big Sound Labs and would love to find a pair used somewhere. I have very seldom seen them for sale on the used market. I do agree that the wider the frequency response from ES panels alone the better the overall sound. There is always a certain amount of discontinuity at the cross over point from ES to cones. I use dual sub's and the lowest xover point my panels will support.