Busting Martin Logan Myths

[twitch]

I agree with this distance range!

That is a beautiful room and system! Is that your set-up?

No Ron, Overture Audio, Wilmington, De

What are the components to the outside of the Spectral amps?

That pic was taking years back, VTL amps perhaps ?? I forgot ....

 

[montesquieu]

Ron, I will add that a great deal depends on the distance the stat panel is out from the wall. Personally I consider 4' a min and 6-8' ideal.

note pic of CLX's set up to perfection ..........

View attachment 64469

I enjoyed the CLX's that I heard but I could never get along with Martin Logan hybrids ... I recall listening to some Buxtehude trio sonatas, the feeling of listening to a midget viola da gamba player (about a foot tall) coming out of the bottom of the speaker, with a giant (by comparison) cellist coming out above eye height on the electrostatic panel, and a normal-sized harpsichord in the middle, can never be forgotten. An almighty fail.

Have heard similar since then on various ML hybrid models. You'll never hear MLs demonstrated at shows using a string quartet recording.

 

[bonzo75]

I enjoyed the CLX's that I heard but I could never get along with Martin Logan hybrids ... I recall listening to some Buxtehude trio sonatas, the feeling of listening to a midget viola da gamba player (about a foot tall) coming out of the bottom of the speaker, with a giant (by comparison) cellist coming out above eye height on the electrostatic panel, and a normal-sized harpsichord in the middle, can never be forgotten. An almighty fail.

Have heard similar since then on various ML hybrid models. You'll never hear MLs demonstrated at shows using a string quartet recording.

Martin Logans always sound bad at shows. They are actually very good on chamber, and when set up well, and both Ron and I prefer the hybrids to the CLX, because the CLX sounds thin due to the lack of bass, more than acceptable. Yes there is a disconnect between the stat panel and the woofer, but when well set up it is easy to adjust to. I prefer them with SS amps and valves upstream, else they sound thin. Valves are required to give the panel density

 

[montesquieu]

Martin Logans always sound bad at shows. They are actually very good on chamber, and when set up well, and both Ron and I prefer the hybrids to the CLX, because the CLX sounds thin due to the lack of bass, more than acceptable. Yes there is a disconnect between the stat panel and the woofer, but when well set up it is easy to adjust to. I prefer them with SS amps and valves upstream, else they sound thin. Valves are required to give the panel density

This wasn’t at a show I borrowed a pair. Can't remember which model though. With orchestras they may blend better but baroque chamber music was woeful. I couldn’t live with them. Midget cellists and gamba players - nah.

 

[kach22i]

I've heard scale synergy with Holly Cole's voice on some Rogers small stand box speakers, and the opposite with large box speakers (Wilson?) in a large room where everything was super-sized.

However my small for M/L's original Aerius speakers (early 1990's) have done scale right to my ears.

I have never heard this scale of instruments complaint before with M/L's and find it interesting.

Montesquieu, have you been able to detect similar scale oddities with any other types of loudspeakers?

 

[MTB Vince]

...In the photo, is that center cylinder reflective or absorbtive?

Depending on orientation the pictured ASC TubeTraps can be either a broadband absorber or a mid/high frequency diffuser while still being absorptive at bass frequencies @kach22i . The small shiny buttons visible where the two 4' sections are stacked together indicate that the reflective/diffusive side of the cylinder was facing towards the listener. I would be surprised if the larger diameter corner-sited TubeTraps in the pic were not set up the same. That is what ASC typically recommends set-up wise for Tubetrap use.

 

[kach22i]

You have good eyes and knowledge base MTB Vince.

Quote:

The chrome buttons on the front side of the Tube Trap locates the center point of the built-in reflector.

From here:
https://www.tubetrap.com/tubetrap-user-guide.htm

Diagram in link does indeed show of the 3 setups illustrated the most advanced is similar to Twitch's photo of a hi-end store's listening room.

I am still a little perplexed as to why the most modest installation would have the tube traps in the front corners and not the rear corners.

I have some reading up to do.

EDIT:

Found something close to what I had in mind with no front corner tube traps but their are back wall traps.

https://www.tubetrap.com/specialty-tubetrap-layouts.htm

 

[twitch]

Martin Logans always sound bad at shows. They are actually very good on chamber, and when set up well, and both Ron and I prefer the hybrids to the CLX, because the CLX sounds thin due to the lack of bass, more than acceptable. Yes there is a disconnect between the stat panel and the woofer, but when well set up it is easy to adjust to. I prefer them with SS amps and valves upstream, else they sound thin. Valves are required to give the panel density

Given the room, the CLX's combined with a couple of BalancedForce subs will NEVER sound 'thin'.

 

[bonzo75]

Given the room, the CLX's combined with a couple of BalancedForce subs will NEVER sound 'thin'.

Actually, I preferred the tone without the subs. An owner I checked with felt the same. This will depend on personal preference and music chosen

 

[MTB Vince]

You have good eyes and knowledge base MTB Vince.

Quote:

The chrome buttons on the front side of the Tube Trap locates the center point of the built-in reflector.

From here:
https://www.tubetrap.com/tubetrap-user-guide.htm

Diagram in link does indeed show of the 3 setups illustrated the most advanced is similar to Twitch's photo of a hi-end store's listening room.

I am still a little perplexed as to why the most modest installation would have the tube traps in the front corners and not the rear corners.

I have some reading up to do.

EDIT:

Found something close to what I had in mind with no front corner tube traps but their are back wall traps.

https://www.tubetrap.com/specialty-tubetrap-layouts.htm

My familiarity comes from being a long-time ASC TubeTrap owner/user @kach22i . In my room I currently use 20" diameter ASC TubeTraps from floor to ceiling valance in the rear corners and a combination of 13" DIY and 16" ASC from floor-to-ceiling valance in the front corners. I've chosen something different at front center- A large polycylindrical diffuser formed from a 4'x8' sheet of plywood forced into a curve with the cavity behind stuffed with Roxul mineral wool batts and the open ends top and bottom capped with fabric to contain the fibers. One of these days I'll replace the 6' stacks of 13" traps with newer and improved Isothermal 16" diameter TubeTraps to have a consistent diameter stack and improved bass absorption up front.

 

[twitch]

Actually, I preferred the tone without the subs. This will depend on personal preference and music chosen

as well as the room itself !

 

[Gregadd]

With ML you truly hear components upstream.
If you have the space place speakers mid-room. Put Tube Traps directly behind speakers.

 

[montesquieu]

I've heard scale synergy with Holly Cole's voice on some Rogers small stand box speakers, and the opposite with large box speakers (Wilson?) in a large room where everything was super-sized.

However my small for M/L's original Aerius speakers (early 1990's) have done scale right to my ears.

I have never heard this scale of instruments complaint before with M/L's and find it interesting.

Montesquieu, have you been able to detect similar scale oddities with any other types of loudspeakers?

Yes the MLs are the worst but I have found similar 'confused height' issues, to a lesser extent, with other multi-driver speakers. It's one of the reasons I like Tannoys - a single DC gives a very precise point source,. Quad ESLs (63, 989) offer this too to a large extent, though the number of bass panels in the later/larger ones can confuse things a bit, but this is nothing in comparison to a speaker that ignores the point source approach altogether.

Very low bass frequencies are supposedly omnidirectional, and the ear places them in space from their harmonics, but most woofers are producing frequencies well into space-perceptible range.

I guess it depends what music you listen to, a woofer 5 ft from the ground but 3ft from a matching in the bottom of the cabinet, with a midrange driver and a tweeter in the middle isn't going to be a problem with rock music or even large orchestras for the most part, but with more delicate music that I mainly listen to - small baroque ensembles, classical chamber music, lieder - the spactial cues get very mixed up. (Phase issues can also become very apparent - funnily enough this is why I prefer vented cabinet Tannoys over the triple horn cabinets - I owned a pair of Autographs for a while).

Relative height, along with 3D space, is of course an illusion that's largely created in the mind, but speakers doing the wrong thing can actively undermine or even destroy that illusion and that's what the MLs in particular tend to do.

 

[kach22i]

Yes the MLs are the worst but I have found similar 'confused height' issues, to a lesser extent, with other multi-driver speakers....................

Very low bass.........omnidirectional..........harmonics........

I have enjoyed the single source or single point speakers that I have heard (very few I admit).

Have you ever heard Museatex Melior One speakers made in the early 1990's? You might like them, hard to tell.

WBF thread from 2010 on Sanders speakers that you might enjoy reading that covered some of the ideas you have touched on.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/sanders-sound-systems-electrostatic.480/page-5#post-15416

As far as the M/L hybrids having "confused height" that is always a possiblity with room acoustics playing such a vital role.

I recently had to confront several room issues related to ceiling reflections, first and second side wall reflections. This is probably why I started a thread calling the 30 degree dispersion claim a LIE.

In short I was able to slay or at least mitigate the failings you described.

The different height of presentation is actually one of the things that I enjoy about M/L's because I've never heard live music coming from a point source.

I hear live music coming across a stage and across the room with perhaps multiple points in that matrix.

This multidimensional stage and vertical wavefront is what all panel speakers seem to get right in my opinion.

The only memory I have of single point sound source was when I myself was playing an instrument or someone beside me was.

From a distance one may be able to distinguish these two point sources, but the room amplification via floor, ceiling and two side walls contains the energy so that a plane of sound approaches the distant listener.

The plane may be convex (radial) the closer to the source, and may be one of the reasons a flat plane projection from a panel sounds more distant or deeper.

I wish my computer was working so I could scan a diagram of what I mean.

EDIT:

To my ears, sound/music stemming from a tiny point be it a conventional dynamic driver (all of which are small compared to the area of a panel speaker) or small diaphragm in the back of a horn will give away it's origin. It reveals it's place of origin by altering scale via their projection plane ever expanding in a horn or in the room in a radial manner.

If you want to feel like you are sitting in the middle of a great music hall, that radial wavefront is fairly flattened out by the time it gets to you.

The farther away, the larger the radius until it's perceivably flat to ears six inches apart on either side of a person's head.

 

[Gregadd]

z
Maybe it is just me, my experience with ML, bears no resemblance to the general consensus. C'est la vie

 

[montesquieu]

I have enjoyed the single source or single point speakers that I have heard (very few I admit).

Have you ever heard Museatex Melior One speakers made in the early 1990's? You might like them, hard to tell.

WBF thread from 2010 on Sanders speakers that you might enjoy reading that covered some of the ideas you have touched on.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/sanders-sound-systems-electrostatic.480/page-5#post-15416

As far as the M/L hybrids having "confused height" that is always a possiblity with room acoustics playing such a vital role.

I recently had to confront several room issues related to ceiling reflections, first and second side wall reflections. This is probably why I started a thread calling the 30 degree dispersion claim a LIE.

In short I was able to slay or at least mitigate the failings you described.

The different height of presentation is actually one of the things that I enjoy about M/L's because I've never heard live music coming from a point source.

I hear live music coming across a stage and across the room with perhaps multiple points in that matrix.

This multidimensional stage and vertical wavefront is what all panel speakers seem to get right in my opinion.

The only memory I have of single point sound source was when I myself was playing an instrument or someone beside me was.

From a distance one may be able to distinguish these two point sources, but the room amplification via floor, ceiling and two side walls contains the energy so that a plane of sound approaches the distant listener.

The plane may be convex (radial) the closer to the source, and may be one of the reasons a flat plane projection from a panel sounds more distant or deeper.

I wish my computer was working so I could scan a diagram of what I mean.

EDIT:

To my ears, sound/music stemming from a tiny point be it a conventional dynamic driver (all of which are small compared to the area of a panel speaker) or small diaphragm in the back of a horn will give away it's origin. It reveals it's place of origin by altering scale via their projection plane ever expanding in a horn or in the room in a radial manner.

If you want to feel like you are sitting in the middle of a great music hall, that radial wavefront is fairly flattened out by the time it gets to you.

The farther away, the larger the radius until it's perceivably flat to ears six inches apart on either side of a person's head.

So many points there. As a performing musician myself (former organ scholar, choral conductor, sometime Lieder accompanist, early music buff but decidedly amateur guitarist) I would agree that live music is an entirely different thing from recorded music. If I go to a choral concert in a medieval cathedral with a 10 second decay, or listen to a string quartet or Lieder recital in a small, not very reverberant hall, or a big romantic symphony in a large but rather more reverberant one, each of these presents an acoustic that no recording to reproduction chain however superb can feasibly reproduce.

The main difference I would argue is in the quality of attention - the ears can focus on visual aspects and thereby make sense of a messy acoustic, zooming in and out of the action, whereas with hifi the layout can be (in fact, has to be) set out across an even stage with reproduction in mind, to allow us to do the same with only ears. So we are talking about a different thing, and a different psycho-acoustic phenomenon (sound + visual in a variable acoustic space, vs sound only in a very constrained form).

I simply don't accept that the goal of hifi is to reproduce live music. It's a different game entirely. That's not to say that reproducing timbre, acoustic spaces (in as much as their character can be successfully represented - I think they can), even dynamics, aren't all laudible goals.

I would argue that the point source approach of speaker design is about a phase and space-coherent way to reproduce stereo, and minimise the suspension of disbelief, of anything that gets in the way of communicating the musical performance. People respond differently to different obstacles which is why people choose different sets of compromises - ultimately all speakers are compromised.

My reaction to MLs was essentially that suspension of disbelief is impossible in front of a 7 foot violinist and a two-foot cellist.

Anwyay, minight here and I have a conference call at 8 ... I'll come back to the rest

 

[kach22i]

I am a huge fan of true 360 degree radiating speakers because they mimic so well the sense of body and radiation pattern of actual acoustic instruments.

However beyond the Museatex Melior One speakers made in the early 1990's and the six prototypes I made 10 years ago very loosely based on a similar concept/goal there just are not any speakers. Well maybe the Bayz Audio - Counterpoints are, but not heard them.

Dipole and bipole speakers are the closest one can get it seems.

I can see why a musician used to being on stage close to the source would like a similar experience in reproduction. Martin Logans will not do this, not even with nearfield listening position, they will only sound like really big electrostatic headphones.

I have heard plenty of scale distortions from conventional dynamic speakers and horns although not quite as colorful as your M/L description.

All I can say is; buy what sounds right to you.

EDIT: clarification

One can get close to source or close to stage sound of out of M/L's but it comes at a price. You will lose the depth and airiness the brand is known for. They will still sound better than most box speakers too close to the wall and most ear bleeding horns.

Get yourself an old direct drive Technics turntable. My #3 table (model 3200) with what I think is a Grado black cartridge is the most forward in your face hard hitting vinyl spinner I have ever heard.

There is close, and then there is too close.

Not sure if there are any CD players or servers/DAC's with the same ability or distorted perspective out there.

I do not like music shouting or blaring at me unless that is part of the performance and recording.

I'm not an accuracy nut, more of an enjoyment nut.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I had Monoliths and then Monolith IIIs and then Prodigys, in either a dedicated listening room or at least in a dedicated space, over a time span of about 22 years. In each case I was able to have parallel front and rear walls, and ASC Tube Traps and Tower Slims as desired.

I was never aware of experiencing out of whack scale of singers or instruments. I literally don't know what you guys are talking about.

I auditioned Neoliths a couple of times in dealer demonstrations, and I heard them briefly several times at various audio shows. The Neolith is one of my very favorite speakers of all time. Unfortunately I have given up hoping that Peter Soderberg will be able to convince the management at Martin-Logan to build a four column Statement E3 out of elements of the Neolith. (I even gave Peter a specific design brief of what I wanted for God's sake! )

Without exception I personally have never liked the sound coming from any Martin-Logan speaker I have ever heard when it was driven by a solid-state amplifier. For whatever reason, to my ears, Martin-Logan electrostatic panels require high power for dynamics, and tubes for tone and naturalness and to put a little meat on those electrostatic bones.

 

[Gregadd]

The only solid state I liked was the Spectral driving E2 Statement.

 

[montesquieu]

Without exception I personally have never liked the sound coming from any Martin-Logan speaker I have ever heard when it was driven by a solid-state amplifier. For whatever reason, to my ears, Martin-Logan electrostatic panels require high power for dynamics, and tubes for tone and naturalness and to put a little meat on those electrostatic bones.

When I tried out a pair of hybrid MLs I was using a pair of EAR 509 moniblocks (100 push pull pentode) though I guess may have been a bit anaemic for the task compared to some monster valve amps around.