Speakers to hang on for life

[E-Stat]

with enough power to do over 120db... those electrostats wonnt do this, most likely.

No they won't. A better question is: why would anyone want to damage their hearing at such levels?

rw

[Auricauricle]

Does anybody have an opinion about supertweeters? I have a pair o' Polk 7c's, which are pretty sweet, but think that they would benefit if they were allowed a bit of breathing room. Sometimes, I listen to chamber and jazz ensembles, and wonder if they are just a wee tight...I just don't get that nice, open sound at times, even with all the clicks and switches at my disposal....

[Mr Peabody]

Yeah baby, nothing opens up a good pair of speakers like those Radio Shack Super Tweets they sold back in the 80's you could hook up and just sit on top of your speaker cabinent. Remember? About $40.00 a pair, black with silver front. Talk about your bang for buck tweak.

Nothing rocks your dizzle like a super tweet sizzle. I think I'll change my name to Ice-P

[JoeE SP9]

Joe, I have a hard time picturing those. What do yours look like?

Right now they look like construction formers with a speaker looking in one end. Soon I'll be covering the tubes with some kind of fabric. No Spandex. I don't want to look at all that industrial type printing and logos. They are about 6 1/2' tall 12" in dia. They look kind of agricultural (tractor chic) right now. However they sound really good.

[Auricauricle]

Mr. P: Are you serious here? The word sizzle's got my neurotic dander up.....I saw a pair o' Heils the other day, but I worry that the sound would sound too "zingy"...Or am I just gettin' all paranoid 'n such...?

[Mr Peabody]

I was seriously just making fun of the Radio Shack set. I'm sure Heil is a good product. Way back just starting and being poor I actually owned a pair of those RS Super Tweets. As if cheap receivers didn't already have enough brightness. I had them on the back deck of my Buick LaSabre at one point. I had a little amp cranking those and a set of 6x9's. I think these are the ones not to hang on to for life

[Luvin Da Blues]

I had them on the back deck of my Buick LaSabre at one point. I had a little amp cranking those and a set of 6x9's.

LMAO, I can relate.

RAWK ON DUDE!!!!

[Florian]

No they won't. A better question is: why would anyone want to damage their hearing at such levels?

rw

Its not so much about doing all the time. But sometimes, when one plugs in "The Doors" or the "The Who", who where the loudest band ever. Same as Manowar! For me personally, i dont want any limits in my audio system. I want a huge stage with enough power to beat the crap out of me. Just like they do live! I could get a huge PA sytem, true, but then again i sometimes listen to lower levers with sweet orchestra, piano etc...

I dont have to listen that loud, but i CAN if i want to... and thats what it all boils down to me. If one doesnt need this, then hell yes a soundlab or soundlab subwoofer would be kick ass. Taste and preference....i guess

[nightflier]

Sorry for the ignorance here, but since we're talking about electrostatics, how do the higher-end Maggies (3.x and above) handle the integration between the treble and the bass panels?

On another note, for those who don't have a lot of room (& I don't) what are some options for panel-based speakers with good bass integration? I'm a big fan of clean, taught bass, but I can't really do the E-Stat-style room divider thing. Actually, in my world, most of the Martin Logans and even Magnepan's 1.6s are already too big. Or is this just like asking for fuel efficiency from a Lamborghini?

[E-Stat]

f one doesnt need this, then hell yes a soundlab or soundlab subwoofer would be kick ass. Taste and preference....i guess

Absolutely. Yours is the ultimate high level kick ass system! Since I listen largely to acoustical music, the average output is in the 70-80 db range. I confess that I would love to have a pair of VTL Siegfrieds to double the power and maintain the finesse.

rw

[E-Stat]

Sorry for the ignorance here, but since we're talking about electrostatics, how do the higher-end Maggies (3.x and above) handle the integration between the treble and the bass panels?

Overall, very well since they operate dipole full range. To these ears, I hear a larger degree of discontinuity when one mates dipolar planar drivers with monopole dynamic woofers. While I have not heard the 3.6, I have listened to the 20.1s at length in an exceptionally nice system. One does need some distance for driver blending, but they do very well. I seriously considered buying a pair. To these ears accustomed to thirty plus years of listening to full range electrostats, they lack ultimate resolution at the lowest levels (which you would never discover listening to compressed rock music) and the same degree of seamless coherency regardless of listening distance.

On another note, for those who don't have a lot of room (& I don't) what are some options for panel-based speakers with good bass integration? I'm a big fan of clean, taught bass, but I can't really do the E-Stat-style room divider thing. Actually, in my world, most of the Martin Logans and even Magnepan's 1.6s are already too big. Or is this just like asking for fuel efficiency from a Lamborghini?

Unfortunately, dipoles must breathe for optimum linearity and imaging. The smaller Sound Lab designs do work well in smaller rooms and - unlike virtually any other kind of speaker - full range electrostats sound exactly the same at two centimeters as they do at two meters or twenty meters. There are no dissimilar drivers to blend. Much less blending very different types

rw

[Mr Peabody]

Florian wants to "Blow Your Speakers With Rock N Roll"! I don't know too many other people with Manowar albums. This particular one was triple D quite an unusual find in Heavy Metal. I believe the record levels were low being this was from the 80's but I'd have to dig it out and listen, I don't remember it sounding compressed. I don't have it but I remember a friend of mine having one of their albums where the bass player does the William Tell overture. Manowar wasn't exactly a household name in the U.S. In fact, I probably wouldn't have heard of them if it wasn't for a college radio station and that friend I mentioned. Oh well, that occasional "call of the wild" is what prompted me to mono out my CJ amps.

[nightflier]

John Ulrich at Spectron keeps pushing the Analysis speakers (I think they're made in Greece?) over the Maggies. They have some smaller models, but the bass extension is a little less than what I'd be interested in. IMO bass is key in establishing presence and dimension. My current speakers are bookshelves and while they have amazingly tight bass for the size, they still don't reach that low. I've been working with an SVS sealed sub to try and get that extra octave in there, but it just doesn't seem to do it either. So I guess in the end, they aren't speakers to hang on to for life either. At some point I'm going to have to break down and get full-range speakers, so panels are probably in my future.

John also believes that the only real way to drive an electrostatic speaker is with enough power and he says that there is no way to get that to the speakers with any other kind of amp besides a class-D one. Now obviously, that's what he sells, but I was just wondering what the thoughts were on this. I own a little Spectron amp that has been next to amazing (well aside from having to have it repaired twice now). But when it works, it's the best amp I've ever had for driving heavy loads / big speakers. One of the reasons that panels are on my list is because I do think I have the power to drive them (and someday, when my situation changes, I will move out of this apartment-sized cubby hole that passes for a house, here).

[Mr Peabody]

That's interesting because the feedback I've been getting from some of the digital amps is that they don't do well with difficult loads. But maybe Spectron has a different approach.

The ML CLX are about $20k and large so they are not a consideration. I wouldn't mind finding a nice small ESL even without a bass module. Small enough I can sit them out of the way when not in use and drag out oaccasionally for some nice concertos or vocal. I love my current speakers but isn't variety the spice of life.

[Florian]

The Analysis Audio models are definetly better then the Maggies, no doubt. And they do have a lot of bass power, just depends on placement and recording. At least in my experience

[RGA]

Nightflier

First I disagree with power requirements - My dealer carries the Quad 2905 and they were running the Audio Note OTO Push Pull amp with these speakers all day very well - it's not the power it's the quality of the power supply. Quite beautiful sound too considering the price of the amp and the one box matching cd player. The speakers live in the midrange are seamless and are one of the best around - the last thing I'd want to do is ruin it all with a high negative feedback solid state design. Quite an exceptional match - perhaps why Quad had AN's designer work for them building their matching Quad amps - definitely some synergy with AN front ends and Quad loudspeakers.

As for E-Stats comments the Quads easily have it all over the 20.1 in terms of low level resolution. I played a few tracks but it was Jackson Browne's live Acoustic Vol II disc that made me wonder about this loudspeaker's resolution - The midrange of the quad is open tranpsparent and quite wonderous while the 20.1 sounded like hands over the mouth sludge in direct comparison. This may be less of a knock on the 20.1 and more praise for the 2905 but to my ear electrostatic panels sound more natural than the non electrostatic panels (though Martin Logan hybrids are excluded) - they seem to have few to no hiccups in the upper mid lower treble and they do not possess treble band noise that some perhaps associate with "air" My audition of Soundlabs albeit briefly confirms to my ear what I hear with Quad.

For me I could live with the Quad 2905 for $14k and I would sell the 20.1 at $14k. The Quad was happy with 12 watts - and thus it also gives you amplifier freedom. The 20.1 does not.

[nightflier]

The midrange of the quad is open tranpsparent and quite wonderous while the 20.1 sounded like hands over the mouth sludge in direct comparison.

I appreciate the input from your experience, but I have to take this with some skepticism. Were the 20.1s being driven by the 12W amp? If not, then was the amp adequate? Maybe the problem was more about the amps than the speakers. After all, everything I've heard about the 20.1s and the lower-priced 3.6s is that they excel in the midrange.

Now I've been impressed with Quad for years. I even had a pair of the 22Ls, which were supposed to be voiced according to the higher-end models (not really, IMO). I like the fact that they are smaller and slightly easier to drive, but the problem with them is the bass. Either you have to add subwoofer panels or drivers, which brings back the specter of integration we've been talking about.

[E-Stat]

...while the 20.1 sounded like hands over the mouth sludge in direct comparison.

That wasn't my impression in the system I heard driven by Burmester 001 CDP, C-J ART pre, Joule Rite-of-Passage amps through Valhalla. I could easily live with them. Very good bass for a planar. I've been told that the stock crossover is responsible for some of its ultimate lack of resolution.

rw

[RGA]

Nightflier

Well I suppose one could argue that you should not believe everything you read. I happen to believe in sight bias and people often listen with their eyes. A number of panel guys also like the 1.6 more than the 20.1.

No the dealer was running high power SS (Sim Audio's top amp I think) with the Magnepans and the OTO with the Quads. Bass was fine enough. My dealer www.soundhounds.com has stiff competition. Most of the other dealers carry one line of expensive speakers and so direct comparisons are often difficult to make. Comparing the two speakers as well as a speaker I believe sounds better than both of them all head to head is something most dealers can't provide. I enjoyed the 1.6 well enough against much of the store's competitors and at $2k it makes some sense - not thrilling in the treble and a wonky frequency response may bother some. Great soundstage and imaging if you don't move your head more than an inch. To me there is nothing the 20.1 has over the Quad except for bass. To get bass the panels start to get domestically unfeasible for most.

Also, if you had them at home you might be able to tailor the sound to what you like. Nevertheless, they were set up well away from all room boundries and in a large enough room with large enough power. So while you could "improve them" to fit your ear you can still get a great deal of what they're about at that store. And all the other speakers they carry have the same disadvantage so...

Anyway give em a listen YMMV.

E-Stat - crossover - for $14k people should not have to fiddle with after market crossovers - charge $16k and get ti right. To me that's an excuse - spend $14k for poor sound but then after you've bought them and are STUCK - you can then try and fix them with after market crossovers. And to my ear soundhounds sells another $14k speaker and a $7k speaker that to my ears mopped the floor with 20.1. I could also make a credible case for the Sonus Faber Cremona the store also sells which is cheaper - admittedly a box with some boxy traits, but if it was between the two I'd take the Cremona as well.

Granted I prefer boxes but if the point of the panel is midrange beauty and holographic sound and smooth treble the Quad is to my ear in another league, can be driven with better (SET) amplifiers while the Maggie needs bags of power and don't sound better. The OTO PP is something like $2k and the CDP $2500 - the front end driving the Magnepan was well over $15k. Factoring in the front end costs the Quad looks even better.

[nightflier]

for $14k people should not have to fiddle with after market crossovers - charge $16k and get ti right....

...if it was between the two I'd take the Cremona as well.

...The OTO PP is something like $2k and the CDP $2500 - the front end driving the Magnepan was well over $15k. Factoring in the front end costs the Quad looks even better.

I think the bass integration is really the problem for panels. Panel bass drivers are just not feasible in most homes. The same argument can be made for horn-based bass drivers. While I'm sure there are fans who have the room and funds for this kind of setup, it does not work for most folks. I think technologically, there needs to be another solution, & one that doesn't cost in the tens of thousands.

That is also why I brought the digital switching amps into the discussion. With hard-to-drive speakers, you need monster amps, especially if you want to do tubes. So there too, a better technology is needed. John Ulrich, Paul McGowan, and the folks at Rowland seem to think that digital is the only real solution, there. Now granted, this isn't always a good synergy. In my own experience (mostly with inexpensive gear - hey, I'm not made of money either), it's been extremely difficult to find speakers that gel well with my PS Audio and Spectron amps. With my other solid state amps, it was much easier.

Anyhow, I'm just wondering why there aren't more people who use digital switching amps with panels. I know it takes some trial and error to get the right match, but after a few auditions, there should be something that works for these kinds of speakers. My experience with panels is still limited, but I am very curious and will continue to audition panel speakers that come my way. Maybe I will find that one speaker to hold onto for life.

[RGA]

Nightflier

I believe above all else in system synergy and rather than trying to fit a speaker with an amp you have it may not be the worst idea to evaluate a system rather than individual pieces. For example; If I bought a PMC Bryston Stereo and I enjoyed it and one day I heard JM Labs/Classe more and liked the system much more I might buy the JM Labs and sell the PMC. But oh no the Bryston sounds bad with the JM Labs - I do not get derailed and start looking for a speaker for the Bryston - I sell the Bryston and get the Classe because that was the system I heard and liked better.

I've heard, the Maggie MMG 12, 1.6, 3.6, 20.1, an Acoustat at about 6 feet tall and, Apogee Duetta sig and Scintilla, Martin Logan Aerius i, Prodigy, Oddysy, (a surround system from them), Inner sound Quad 57, 63, 989, 2905, Soundlabs U1. The last three are the only ones I would consider when it comes to sound quality. The rest have various issues (acoustat was old and possibly worn out) the ribbons sound like ribbons which is to say they don't sound like instruments. The Quad 57 and 63 I'll also reserve judgment on due to age and wear. The Soundlabs could be made to be a star I suspect with the right SE amp and the 2905 - well hell it sounded terrific with a $5k front end - so I would love to hear it again with some serious upscale amplification and sources. But if you like Rock and Roll - you either need a massive panel - the Quad 2905 doesn't cut it I'm afraid or look at cones.

[E-Stat]

E-Stat - crossover - for $14k people should not have to fiddle with after market crossovers - charge $16k and get ti right. To me that's an excuse - spend $14k for poor sound but then after you've bought them and are STUCK - you can then try and fix them with after market crossovers.

While I don't think owners of MG-20.1s are *stuck* - many go the best approach still and choose active tri-amplification which bypasses the passive xover completely. I will agree, however, they should offer an option for better passive components that is priced within reason. That is the approach Sound Labs takes for the U-1. Their "hot rod" backplate option comes at an 8% premium to the basic model. Such a premium would suffice for the Maggie as well.

On the other hand, I can think of one speaker brand that takes the "hot rod" kit premium to ridiculous heights. Imagine starting with a $3k speaker which requires a 1200% premium to reach the next level using essentially the same box and drivers but with updated wiring and crossover. If that isn't outrageous, there is yet another model that for a modest 4000% additional cost, offers the ultimate incarnation of the basic design. WTF?

rw

[E-Stat]

The Soundlabs could be made to be a star I suspect with the right SE amp...

Do you know of any 800 watt SET amps? That is the power level they are burned in at the factory and what they need to achieve live levels. Unfortunately, my VTL monoblocks fall slightly below 3 db that power level. What they really need are Siegfrieds.

rw

[nightflier]

Merlin?

[Feanor]

...

E-Stat - crossover - for $14k people should not have to fiddle with after market crossovers - charge $16k and get ti right. To me that's an excuse - spend $14k for poor sound but then after you've bought them and are STUCK - you can then try and fix them with after market crossovers. And to my ear soundhounds sells another $14k speaker and a $7k speaker that to my ears mopped the floor with 20.1. I could also make a credible case for the Sonus Faber Cremona the store also sells which is cheaper - admittedly a box with some boxy traits, but if it was between the two I'd take the Cremona as well.
...

I assume the Cremona you're talking about is the Auditor if it's under $7k. I recently had the pleasure of listening at length to a fellow audiphile's system that included the Cremona Auditor M. We listen to various genre of music, excluding any hard rock forms. With due respect to his personal preferences, I was underwhelmed by the Auditor. Beautiful cabinet work but mediocre sound, IMO, considering the US$5650 MSRP (including the custom stands).

It seem to me that the Magneplanar MG 1.6 crush the Auditors in virtually every department: soundstage, imaging, resolution, timbre, and dynamics. In fairness, my fellow audiophile says he reposition the Auditor for much better soundstage (which I can believe). They might also have been disadvantaged by the 40 wpc tube amp he was using vs. my pair of Monarchy SM-70 Pros. But whatever: bottom line under the prevailing listening conditions, not even close.