My experience is different .. Now a case could be made for the 3.7 over the 20.1 ... The 20.1 compared to the 3.6 was superior in all that matters to me ...
Do we still need panel speakers in 2012
- Thread starter taters
- Start date
My experience is different .. Now a case could be made for the 3.7 over the 20.1 ... The 20.1 compared to the 3.6 was superior in all that matters to me ...
Interesting to hear you say such Frantz,
I'm was surrounded by maggies,
I have yet to experience such from those who owns them, one recently went back to his PK modded quads 57 ( stacked) much better than the 20.1's . I would really like to hear good sounding 20.1s and believe me i have tried and those who bought have all and i mean "all" have moved on (6, I can count) ...
the 3.5/3.6 guys are still hanging on, at their price point(3.7) , difficult to beat .....
I'm was surrounded by maggies,
I have yet to experience such from those who owns them, one recently went back to his PK modded quads 57 ( stacked) much better than the 20.1's . I would really like to hear good sounding 20.1s and believe me i have tried and those who bought have all and i mean "all" have moved on (6, I can count) ...the 3.5/3.6 guys are still hanging on, at their price point(3.7) , difficult to beat .....
As we say different stroke to me, to my ears and my own system the 20.1 was superior.. I have been with Maggies a long time, left and came back time and time again ... Different strokes and all that ... We disagree ...
One panel speaker I haven't heard yet and is a giant killer from all who have heard the Sanders ESL ..
Few more points with all the corporate backing Martin Logan and apparently some commercial success, shouldn't they revive/resurrect the Statement? .. I liked the last iteration ... And right now in 2012 their is one panel that is at the top , near or certainly counts amongst the best around although at a dear price: the Genesis 1.2 ...
One panel speaker I haven't heard yet and is a giant killer from all who have heard the Sanders ESL ..
Few more points with all the corporate backing Martin Logan and apparently some commercial success, shouldn't they revive/resurrect the Statement? .. I liked the last iteration ... And right now in 2012 their is one panel that is at the top , near or certainly counts amongst the best around although at a dear price: the Genesis 1.2 ...
Last edited:
No question that ML has made many design improvements, not the least of which are to the panels themselves, since the Statements were first released.
And yes perhaps there are more amps around that could drive them but I think the issue is always the problem with the electrical characteristics of a large electrostatic panel.
I think the latest is the G1.2 (rosewood) and the G1.2 Dragon in carbon fiber, unless of course, there is something that just came out. I get chills when I think about those!
There is a "something" Genesis absolute 1.3 speaker for about $1200, but I doubt you are referring to that.
I have also really enjoyed the ML Statement E2, but the sweet spot is rather small, especially when you compare it to the Infinity IRS or Genesis 1.x lines.
Frantz, you'll recognize these speakers from another post here.
These are the 1.2 Dragons at the top of the page (four towers of black beauty and woofer amps):
http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/
These are the 1.2 Dragons at the top of the page (four towers of black beauty and woofer amps):
http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/
One day I'm going to test my theory that the advantage of panel speakers is that they radiate their sound over a large area by building a large surface array using ordinary drivers. I've got close to 600 tweeters in my basement already, most of them 3/8" polys. I'll wait until I have some time and Dayton has a big sale on something really hot in the way of small midwoofers.
I've heard the ML Summit and more recently some very large Soundlabs. I was not particularly impressed. They both have a peculiar upper treble coloration to my ears. I guess I'm not an electrostatic fan. The MLs had a lot of other colorations too. Both had disappointing bass especially for such expensive speakers. The MLs are hybrids with conventional woofers. For ten grand list a pair they should do a lot better IMO.
I've heard the ML Summit and more recently some very large Soundlabs. I was not particularly impressed. They both have a peculiar upper treble coloration to my ears. I guess I'm not an electrostatic fan. The MLs had a lot of other colorations too. Both had disappointing bass especially for such expensive speakers. The MLs are hybrids with conventional woofers. For ten grand list a pair they should do a lot better IMO.
The real challenge with panels speakers of all kinds is setup. Few are well done. I know, I've hung out on the ML forum since inception, and the majority of systems pictured by members have serious setup flaws.
When put into a well designed and treated room and paired with appropriate gear, there is no match (that I've ever heard).
Often the challenge is that in rooms that are too 'live' the mid to HF ringing *in the room* is misconstrued to be the panel.
Your notion of a large array of dynamic drivers would equally over-excite HF room modes and sound 'colored' to you.
The lack of bass is often positioning, but more so with some designs (like the summit) that try to go for deep bass and compromised on mid-bass power.
I actually redid my Monoliths with modern woofers designed for clean mid-bass (60 - 400hz) and actively cross over (@80Hz) to my Infinite Baffle sub. Bass is ubber strong and extremely clean, So it's not the 'panel', it's the compromises in some of the hybrid designs. So I agree with your there, it could be done better. Spires (or new Montis) + a Sub is actually better than a Summit IMHO.
You need to come hear my rig my friend, it will redefine solo Piano reproduction for you (as well as any MCH playback). the Zenph Rachmaninoff SACD is is stunning.
PS- I grew up in a household with a Steinway grand played by my dad who was a Julliard grad concert pianist, so I think I know how a piano should sound. That is my reference for setting up my system
You mean something like this? 8 feet tall, 32 feet wide.
Attachments
The ML Summits were at Harvey Radio in Bridgewater NJ about 5 years ago while they were still in business. The power amplifier was Krell, the preamp and CD player were McIntosh. I don't know what cables they were using. I sat in a very comfortable chair in the sweet spot. I listened to their recording of a violin and piano, sounds I'm very familiar with. I was surprised at the number of FR anomolies there were coloring the tonality of the instruments. I counted 5. You're right, there was a lack of mid bass, the piano seemed weak in that regard. The treble was peculiar. It seemed to roll off until the very limit of audibility where it had a peak suggesting a high frequency resonance near or just above 20 khz. I noticed the same treble with the Soundlabs speaker. This was in a home and there was a subwoofer to supplement bass.
I can't imagine why a surface array including many tweeters would be any more likely to "excite" high frequency resonances in a room than elecrostatic speakers. The distribution of sound propagated into space would be similar, only the motor that drives the vibrating element is different. I like the wide dispersion small tweeters produce. Even used exclusively as direct radiators their treble sounds more natural to me. I use them myself in multidirectional arrays on most of my sound systems already. Used this way, they propagate sound directionally much closer to the way musical instruments do. A piano is almost an omnidirectional radiator. In fact if you sit where you are not in line of sight of the sounding board, strings, hammers, harp, there is little or no direct radiation at you, almost all of the sound that reaches you is reflected. That IMO is one reason why it sounds so big and why point source box speakers sound so small. It's why even when the timbre of my AR9s matches the Steinway M in the same room, the speakers still can't duplicate the "bigness" of the piano. I've already got a different speaker I've modified that sometimes can.
NO! Each panel will have the drivers of different frequencies throughout the panel. In this design all of the drivers of each range are grouped together. This is less likely to produce a coherent wavefront. This is definitely not what I have in mind.
I think we are in agreement, either one would excite the room and lead to ringing. Only diff is dipole panels excite additional modes with their rear wave, leading to greater comb-filtering artifacts. which is why i'm firmly in the camp of damping the rear wave. My ideal panel speaker alignment is to build a false wall and put them in an infinite baffle arrangement.
The omni nature of a piano and many other classical instruments with resonating bodies is why an MBL 101 omni can sound so realistic on certain recordings (dry mixes mainly). Agreed that not even line-arrays or panels can quite pull off that trick.
Even where the instrument is not an omnidirectional radiator, principally horn instruments of the brass and reed families, performers almost always aim the horn, the bell where sound exits away from the audience. This results in most of the sound arriving at the listener as reflections. It's nearly the equivalent of an omni radiator because of the way it's oriented rather than by the way it's costructed. If it's aimed at the audience, the result will be a loud unpleasant blaring. Horns were developed in ancient times specifically for this purpose as loud attention getters I think and were only adapted for music in the last millenium.
The MBL 101 speaker is a most peculiar design. The question for the speaker engineer as with panel speakers is, can he get equivalent results using much more cost effective parts. I think that's entirely possible. For example, one variant of a large surface array is to configure it as a sphere. It should be noted about the MBL design, at least it appears this way, when areas of the slats at the north pole are moving inward, areas of the slats near the equator are moving outward. Different regions of the driver depending on latitude are out of phase with each other. A sealed sperical design can eliminate that aspect of it by having all drivers in phase.
Agree about how difficult it is to setup panel speakers , ML's do have an upper midrange glare I'm sensitive too , which is not present in quads (new or old) acoustats or soundlabs and I'm willing to accept this could be related to setup issues , but it was present in all setups i have ever heard (a lot) , same as the 20.1 , i have never heard one sound proper , not at dealers , nor at any friends and or associates homes , never heard one to justify the extra expense over the 3.6 , not saying it cant , just never experienced such and again on numerous occasions ..
Gary , did say the newest generations are a vast improvement over previous , I'm sure one of my MAGGIE certified friend's will soon acquire one for me to find out ...
The best AV setup i have ever experienced was an all ML, velodyne setup , by far the best i have ever heard an AV Setup ...
Agree about how difficult it is to setup panel speakers , ML's do have an upper midrange glare I'm sensitive too , which is not present in quads (new or old) acoustats or soundlabs and I'm willing to accept this could be related to setup issues , but it was present in all setups i have ever heard (a lot) , same as the 20.1 , i have never heard one sound proper , not at dealers , nor at any friends and or associates homes , never heard one to justify the extra expense over the 3.6 , not saying it cant , just never experienced such and again on numerous occasions ..
Gary , did say the newest generations are a vast improvement over previous , I'm sure one of my MAGGIE certified friend's will soon acquire one for me to find out ...
"Gary , did say the newest generations are a vast improvement over previous"
Isn't that always the case. How else could they get you to get rid of what they used to tell you was the greatest thing since sliced bread at a huge loss and buy a new one to replace it for a lot more money? Do you think these people are in business for the fun of it?
You need to come hear my rig my friend, it will redefine solo Piano reproduction for you (as well as any MCH playback). the Zenph Rachmaninoff SACD is is stunning.
PS- I grew up in a household with a Steinway grand played by my dad who was a Julliard grad concert pianist, so I think I know how a piano should sound. That is my reference for setting up my system
Thats a hell of a reference ...
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |