Already available via CLX Art + BalancedForce Sub(s)
Ron prefers the hybrids to the full range CLX with subs
Already available via CLX Art + BalancedForce Sub(s)
Ron prefers the hybrids to the full range CLX with subs
I just read this entire thread from the beginning, which I had never done before. This thread confirms my view and faith that, despite the heated objectivist/subjectivist debates, and my "natural" post, on other threads, this is not a nihilistic hobby devoid of common and accepted understandings and determinate, meaningful (if subjective) descriptions.
Many of the posts on this thread reflect wide agreement on subtle nuances of the characteristics of electrostatic speakers versus planar magnetic versus ribbon and versus various hybrids thereof. Putting it more simply, we understand -- and actually hear -- exactly what each other is talking about. I think this thread is successful significantly because many of the members who posted here have literally one or more decades of experience with one more of the planar speakers and technologies discussed here. Subtle differences and subjective preferences aside, most members on this thread agree that the different speaker technologies discussed on this thread are just different flavors of wonderful.
Now back to directly relevant thread comments . . .
I enjoyed MG-IIIAs for three years before choosing in 1989 between staying with Magnepan or switching to Apogee or MartinLogan. I switched to MartinLogan and have enjoyed ML speakers (now Prodigys) for the last 26 years. I have always been well aware of imperfections in ML speakers, and I understand and respect the critiques of ML hybrids. Only this year have I begin to consider alternatives to ML.
1) Through my auditioning recently of a couple of top-of-the-line dynamic driver speakers I have begun to realize the importance of truly non-resonant cabinets. I think that phenolic resin and carbon fiber cabinets are the primary reason for the high cost of Wilson and Rockport speakers versus Magnepans and MartinLogans -- and for the transparent sound quality of those conventional cone driver speakers.
When you think about the relatively flimsy wood frames of Magnepan speakers (yes, I know the 20.7 weighs about 160 pounds) and the not very inert MDF boxes housing ML woofers in the hybrid models, imagine how much better those planar speakers would sound if their sound-producing components were housed in cabinets of phenolic resin. Imagine the innards of the Magnepan MG-20.7 encased in a phenolic resin frame 79" tall and weighing 400 or more pounds. Imagine the resonances in the Magnepan wood frame which would disappear in such a phenolic resin frame. Imagine the improvement in sound quality from those resonances disappearing. Imagine the ML Summit cabinet not vibrating from the woofers inside playing music, and the woofer cabinet not vibrating the electrostatic panel.
I described in my T.H.E. Show Irvine review of the ML Neolith why I do not care for full-range electrostatic panels, and in which frequency range ML hybrids leave me wanting more impact and dynamics. See MartinLogan Neolith, post #64 http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?14722-Martin-Logan-Neolith/page7&highlight=neolith
ML, in my opinion, has made a breakthrough in hybrid planar design by encasing the Neolith's panel and dynamic drivers in a rigid, phenolic resin frame and cabinet. Dynamic driver speaker companies realized a long time ago the importance of making their cabinets as inert as possible. Planar speaker companies have rested on the laurels of their technologically advanced driver designs for far too long. I do not know if Jim Winey will follow suit (I doubt he will) but I think encasing panel components in non-resonant cabinets will usher in a new level of performance from planar speakers (resulting in a weight of 375 pounds for the Neolith versus 130 pounds for the Prodigy).
2) I suspect -- I have yet to confirm in a quiet, leisurely listening audition -- that the ML Neolith is a breakthrough product A) because the phenolic resin cabinet (which looks it was made by Wilson, and I intend that to be high praise) will reduce unwanted resonances far better than the wood woofer boxes and the hard plastic panel frames of the Prodigy and Summit and Statement I and II, and B) the 12" woofer which reaches to 450 Hz (higher than any cone in ML history, including the Statement I and II) will go a long way to satisfying people (including me) who have found the ML hybrids unsatisfying dynamically in the upper bass/lower midrange frequency range.
I just read this entire thread from the beginning, which I had never done before. This thread confirms my view and faith that, despite the heated objectivist/subjectivist debates, and my "natural" post, on other threads, this is not a nihilistic hobby devoid of common and accepted understandings and determinate, meaningful (if subjective) descriptions.
Many of the posts on this thread reflect wide agreement on subtle nuances of the characteristics of electrostatic speakers versus planar magnetic versus ribbon and versus various hybrids thereof. Putting it more simply, we understand -- and actually hear -- exactly what each other is talking about. I think this thread is successful significantly because many of the members who posted here have literally one or more decades of experience with one more of the planar speakers and technologies discussed here. Subtle differences and subjective preferences aside, most members on this thread agree that the different speaker technologies discussed on this thread are just different flavors of wonderful.
Now back to directly relevant thread comments . . .
I enjoyed MG-IIIAs for three years before choosing in 1989 between staying with Magnepan or switching to Apogee or MartinLogan. I switched to MartinLogan and have enjoyed ML speakers (now Prodigys) for the last 26 years. I have always been well aware of imperfections in ML speakers, and I understand and respect the critiques of ML hybrids. Only this year have I begin to consider alternatives to ML.
1) Through my auditioning recently of a couple of top-of-the-line dynamic driver speakers I have begun to realize the importance of truly non-resonant cabinets. I think that phenolic resin and carbon fiber cabinets are the primary reason for the high cost of Wilson and Rockport speakers versus Magnepans and MartinLogans -- and for the transparent sound quality of those conventional cone driver speakers.
When you think about the relatively flimsy wood frames of Magnepan speakers (yes, I know the 20.7 weighs about 160 pounds) and the not very inert MDF boxes housing ML woofers in the hybrid models, imagine how much better those planar speakers would sound if their sound-producing components were housed in cabinets of phenolic resin. Imagine the innards of the Magnepan MG-20.7 encased in a phenolic resin frame 79" tall and weighing 400 or more pounds. Imagine the resonances in the Magnepan wood frame which would disappear in such a phenolic resin frame. Imagine the improvement in sound quality from those resonances disappearing. Imagine the ML Summit cabinet not vibrating from the woofers inside playing music, and the woofer cabinet not vibrating the electrostatic panel.
I described in my T.H.E. Show Irvine review of the ML Neolith why I do not care for full-range electrostatic panels, and in which frequency range ML hybrids leave me wanting more impact and dynamics. See MartinLogan Neolith, post #64 http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?14722-Martin-Logan-Neolith/page7&highlight=neolith
ML, in my opinion, has made a breakthrough in hybrid planar design by encasing the Neolith's panel and dynamic drivers in a rigid, phenolic resin frame and cabinet. Dynamic driver speaker companies realized a long time ago the importance of making their cabinets as inert as possible. Planar speaker companies have rested on the laurels of their technologically advanced driver designs for far too long. I do not know if Jim Winey will follow suit (I doubt he will) but I think encasing panel components in non-resonant cabinets will usher in a new level of performance from planar speakers (resulting in a weight of 375 pounds for the Neolith versus 130 pounds for the Prodigy).
2) I suspect -- I have yet to confirm in a quiet, leisurely listening audition -- that the ML Neolith is a breakthrough product A) because the phenolic resin cabinet (which looks it was made by Wilson, and I intend that to be high praise) will reduce unwanted resonances far better than the wood woofer boxes and the hard plastic panel frames of the Prodigy and Summit and Statement I and II, and B) the 12" woofer which reaches to 450 Hz (higher than any cone in ML history, including the Statement I and II) will go a long way to satisfying people (including me) who have found the ML hybrids unsatisfying dynamically in the upper bass/lower midrange frequency range.
I prefer Magnepan's with true ribbon tweets, for the following reasons: The True Ribbon tweeter IMO sounds better and has less distortion than an ESL and has better dispersion. A planer magnetic has greater excursion and so can move more air. Hence it can play louder and play deeper in a comparative size panel. I prefer the planer bass of the Maggies vs the ML Hybrid woofers, even though they can play louder and lower than a Maggie. ESL's seem to have the edge in midrange detail, but hey I never said Maggies were perfect.
However I did like the sound of the ML Neolith hybrid woofers. Compared to the CLX's with the Descent subwoofers, just somtehing about having a larger panel made them sound better to me.
Don, any thoughts on GT Audio's True Ribbon Tweeter, planer midrange and sealed dynamic woofers? I mean design wise as neither one of us has heard them?
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |