AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Martin Logan speakers have a huge open soundstage, vivid midrange and excellent detail, better than some of the best speakers in the world.


The only thing that most Martin Logan speakers lack in their respective price range is dynamic energy. What I mean by dynamic energy is sonic weight, mid-bass slam and movement of air that only cone drivers seem to produce (unless you're talking about the Martin Logan Statements). Speakers like Wilson, Revel or Aerial Acoustics have great dynamic energy, so why can't Martin Logan build a speaker cheaper than $80,000 that has it too?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
I have always found ML to have pretty good dynamic range. In fact Audiorevolution review addressed this very same issue ..." had heard industry whispers that the MartinLogans didn't rock and roll very well. That is a definite misconception; they will rock. SL3s might lack some of the slam and dynamic fullness of selected conventional speakers, "


Most people equate dynamic with loudness. Most speakers, at higher volumes, have a tendancy of becoming more in your face; whereas, when feeding the ML more power....their sonics grow larger, filling the room. Instead of the sound coming right at you, the sound seems to expand upwards.


Also, in order to fully explore the ML potential, you need to feed it gobs of clean power. I have heard the monoliths driven with 600watts of krell class A power and they had tremendous dynamics. You could feel the power in the vocals. My SL3 are being fed with NAD 208 which is dumping upwards of 400-700 watts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
rosros,

The lower bass on Martin Logan hybrids is pretty good (although not the best) and it's not a problem with dynamic range, it's an issue of dynamic energy...mid-bass punch, transient attack, mid-bass weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
568 Posts
Most of what you're referring to (weight, mid-bass slam, movement of air) is done well down in the audio spectrum, where most Martin Logans actually do use cones. For example, my Odysseys cross over to cones at 250 Hz, and the smaller Scenarios that I use for surrounds cross over at 500 Hz. Middle A is 440 Hz, so it's not the fact that they're using panels that's causing this.


Which MLs are you speaking of when you say this? Come to think of it, the CLS and CLS-IIz are full-range panels, and if that's what you're talking about, it's certainly plausible.


And having heard both the Prodigy and Odyssey (the latter very extensively, of course), I don't think either of them is lacking the slam category at all. Note: I've got 400 wpc Classe CA-200 powering my Odyssey cones. (There's another 400 wpc Counterpoint SA-220 powering the panels.) If you're powering ML's with a SET, or even something like a CJ MV60 tube amp, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Here's a reply from a very wise man that I respect and agree with. This explains the lack of dynamic energy I don't hear from electrostatic speakers. Once you heard what you've been missing, that's all you hear...


"As former Director of Sales for a competing line of Martin Logan, and previous owner, 20 year industry veteran, I believe I can answer your question. Dynamic drivers punch a small (relatively) diameter of air a great (relative to Electrostatics) distance. Example, the midrange driver slaps the air forward the greater part of an inch (the actual distance the driver travels is very speaker dependant). This abrupt slam, creates sound and a percussive, resulting, dynamic moment. (Think air rushing back into the void after a lightning strike) Conversely, when an electrostatic is called on to make the same tonal sound, a large panel, many times larger than the dynamic drivers, moves forward, fractionally as far as the dynamic driver. This Electrostatic displacement creates the same tone, and set of harmonic information, but the lack of that dramatic slam of air displacement gives it an overall, more polite sound. Imagine, cupping your hand, against the water in a pool, and pushing down. The result is that you displace the amount of water proportionate to the size of your hand. Now do the same thing, smacking the same amount of water, simply raising your hand a few inches away. There is a whack which is loud and startling, verses very little sound, even though you have displaced the same amount of water. (This is really simplistic, but ok for a quick look) On the plus side, some people ask, "How can a small tweeter, midrange and woofer can create the lifelike size of a piano, compared to a three feet by five foot, panel, which is certainly more nearly the actual size of that piano. This is an example of almost opposite approaches to accomplish the same thing. Finesse, versus raw energy. Which one is better, is wholly a function of your tastes and sometimes, unfortunately your reference. I say unfortunately, since many people think that their current speakers, however poor they may be, sound correct, since it has been their reference point for so long. I owned the Prodigys, which are the $11K ML speakers, and thought them to be very good. Fast smooth, and with the two conventional woofers, offered good bass, with nice blending of the two disparate technologies. Plus, Gayle Sanders is an acquaintance of mine, and I have been to his home. He gives a good honest value for the price. Listen carefully to those speakers which you narrow your choices down to. Any flaws you hear in a quick demonstration, become multiplied, and exaggerated, exponentially over time. If you're an audio nut like me, the flaws are all you CAN hear once you've identified them! HA! If I can help privately just email me back. Sometimes I get industry accommodations as a former industry exec. There are several speakers which are smaller, if size is an impediment, which sound smooth, but have wonderful imaging and very, deep bass. I am happy to consult. I am home now with, back surgery gone awry, so this is therapy for me! Best Regards. Hope this simplistic example helps. "
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Map,


I've been one of the more vocal "anti Martin-Logan" posters on these types of audio boards. For me, there are two main reasons I'm sure I will never buy one of their products, but neither have to do with the deficiencies you seem to hear. Compared with like-priced speakers that use dynamic drivers, I have never considered Martin-Logans to be lacking in "punch".


Back in 1989, I was fortunate to have in-home auditions with the Sequel II (a hybrid), the Thiel CS-3.5, and a Magnepan (whichever one was about $2,200 at that time). I also had in-home auditions with a Dahlquist (DQ-12??), an Infinity Kappa (8?), and numerous 2-3 hours demos in audiophile stores. I chose the Thiel (and have never regretted that choice).


Seven or eight years later, I contemplated replacing the Thiels, and had an in-home audition of Martin-Logan's full-panel speaker, the CLS (among a couple of others). While very impressive in some areas, I still didn't pull the trigger - I kept my Thiels.


Beginning two years ago, I decided on replacing the Thiels in my main system, and began auditioning much more expensive speakers (M-L Prodigy, Thiel CS-7.2, Avantgarde Duo, Sonus Faber Amati Homage, B & W N804, Vandersteen Model Five, and others). After spending 9 months listening to these behemoths, I had selected Gershman Acoustics Opera Sauvage speakers (to be eventually replaced by VMPS RM40s).


Again, from these experiences (always in my home - with my equipment), I have not noticed the limitations you are posting about. And the level of competition has been pretty stiff. Maybe you and I just have different expectations.


Note my favorite Martin-Logan speaker was the CLS.


Kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
Had a Krell KSA 150 with a ML Quest which cost me a lot and the sound never satisfied me, it was shrill and even though the ML Quest had very good transients, it was never pleasing, somehow it was shrill to me. Taught me a good lesson that more $$$$ doesnt necessarily mean good sound. This is in my humble opinion, others may differ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Map
Martin Logan speakers have a huge open soundstage, vivid midrange and excellent detail, better than some of the best speakers in the world.


The only thing that most Martin Logan speakers lack in their respective price range is dynamic energy. What I mean by dynamic energy is sonic weight, mid-bass slam and movement of air that only cone drivers seem to produce (unless you're talking about the Martin Logan Statements). Speakers like Wilson, Revel or Aerial Acoustics have great dynamic energy, so why can't Martin Logan build a speaker cheaper than $80,000 that has it too?
Map,


I've never noted the deficiencies you note.


However, when it comes to moving air - electrostatics and cones are just different., First, the electrostatics are

dipole radiators - so it will be more difficult to get the "punch" that you call "energy" when you are also

radiating an inverted wave to the back. It is just the nature of the beast.


However, more important - when a cone driver is delivering its "punch" - the excursion of the driver, as

your Director of Sales friend points out, is much greater with the cones and domes. While this gives greater

"punch", a driver that is operating with a large excursion is operating in the more non-linear regime

of its excursion. You may be getting "punch" but you are also getting more distortion. Planars are inherently

limited in their excursion - and are hence more linear.


Dynamics and planars are just very different beasts - each has its advantages and disadvantages that are

inherent to the design. Which you prefer depends on the relative weighting you assign to these advantages

and disadvantages - and that's a matter of personal taste.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
meilankev,

I have never been "anti Martin Logan", I am just the opposite because I'm a huge Martin Loagn fan. With that said, every technology has its pros and cons and can be improved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by meilankev
Beginning two years ago, I decided on replacing the Thiels in my main system, and began auditioning much more expensive speakers (M-L Prodigy, Thiel CS-7.2, Avantgarde Duo, Sonus Faber Amati Homage, B & W N804, Vandersteen Model Five, and others). After spending 9 months listening to these behemoths, I had selected Gershman Acoustics Opera Sauvage speakers (to be eventually replaced by VMPS RM40s).
Would you like to tell us, with a bit more detail ;) your opinions on all those? doesn't have to be detailed, but your gut feeling at the time or anything else you remember. Im interested in the Avantgarde's, but Im sure everyone here will thank your opinion on all those speakers! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
Map, are you talking about loudness? raw SPL? I know most cone drivers will start to distort anywhere between 90 to 100dB, horn speakers above that, but I don't know about the ML's, maybe you are telling that in your opinion they start to "compress" the sound at lower dB's?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
To me what your asking is more or less mid bass punch, and that is the

area where a panel and cone have a little trouble. Electrostatic's generally

don't have ringing problem's like midrange cones do to the huge difference in moving mass. So with a mylar membrane and heavy woofer cone trying to seamlessly blend together, that might explain why you perceive a lack of

dynamic's.

Said another way electrostatic's are so transparent to the source and produce an accurate impulse response compared to mid cone's, that what you might be after is some added coloration due to the added weight and associated "color" they add to the signal. This "fast transient" no ringing type of tranducer might not be your cup of tea, so to speak.. Electrostatic's are associated with extracting the most intimate detail from recording's than blasting at high volumes. IMHO

David
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top