New ML Ethos speaker

[RUR]

Quick specs:
44" x 9.2" XStat™ CLS™ Transducer
200W 8-inch PoweredForce™ Woofer
24-bit Vojtko™ DSP Engine
8-inch Passive Radiator

http://www.martinlogan.com/ethos/index.php

Newest member of the Reserve ESL line. $6,495 MSRP

IIRC, ML has one or two more ESL models coming this year.

 

[Gregadd]

The only rights ml retains to the cls is the name. All the patents must have expired by now. Maybe I could start my own company making a knockoff?

I could buy the stators in bulk form ml. Outsource the frames which desperately need a redesign. I could copy theeoriginal transformer and use modern parts. We could kick the whole thing off for about a million dollars. I bet we could sell it for $10-20k.
Any investment bankers out there?

 

[Gregadd]

I borrowed these pictures from another site.

 

[steve williams]

Nice Greg

 

[kach22i]

An immensely dynamic 8-inch PoweredForce™ woofer and 8-inch passive radiator duo utilize an innovative 24-bit Vojtko DSP (digital signal processing) Engine and powerful 200-watt class-D amplifier to generate effortlessly detailed bass down to 34Hz—from an extremely compact design!

Am I reading this right?

digital signal processing

No more buying bass traps and battling between prime location for stat verses bass unit?

 

[nsgarch]

The electrostat as midrange/tweeter

Am I reading this right? digital signal processing No more buying bass traps and battling between prime location for stat verses bass unit?

George, tell me if I have this right: Pricewise, the Summit was out of reach for many and the Vantage was not doing well in the marketplace against other speakers in the same price range? So they dropped the Vantage and made two speakers, one more expensive than the Vantage (Spire) and one less expensive than the Vantage, the Ethos.

Bid deal! What good is DSP for a bass driver that only goes down to 34Hz? And that (single 8-inch??) "bass" driver has to do all the lower mid-range duties up to 375Hz (the poor thing) and worst of all, the lower midrange and the stereo portion of the upper bass (i.e. down to 100Hz) has been DIGITALLY PROCESSED! In other words, the music coming out of that driver is in fact produced by an amplified digital to analog signal (unless there's a way to bypass the DSP) If I want to be lazy about room correction, and process my music signal in the digital domain, NOT, I'll do it before it gets to the speaker thank you very much. Or gosh, do you suppose this DSP crossover thingie is a way to fix a poorly designed speaker? Yikes!!

So really . . . who cares! My single ML Depth, phase correct at 90 deg. phase angle, sitting smack between the panels, starting at 20Hz, crosses over/blends with the CLS panels at around 45Hz (still too low to need "stereo subs") and the panels take it up from there.

It's too bad there was no Depth/Descent, when ML made the CLS and the first model of the Statement. They would have sold many more full range panels. Unfortunately, they foolishly borrowed the twin woofer tower concept from Infinity (a worthless theft IMO) for the Statement, and Kinergetics repeated the horror by making a smaller tower for the CLS. I had a pair of Wilson Puppies (a design "borrowed" from Entec BTW ;--) and they were fast and worked great! Then I foolishly let myself be talked into buying the Kinergetics (see pic) They just sucked.

Here's where I think ML missed the boat recently: When they came up with the (amazing IMO) Depth/Descent balanced force concept, they should have made some smaller (than the CLS) full range panels. A pair of those and a single Depth or Descent would have sold like hotcakes on sound alone. And with minimal cabinetry to pay for, I bet the whole ensemble would have been under $5K.

I've hated hybrid electrostats since the first Sequel came out. First of all, why chop off a panel's lower midrange response, up to 450Hz in some cases, which is just where half the music comes from? It's never been that difficult, starting with the Quad 57 (way back in 1957), to make a stat that goes lower than 80Hz. And once you get down under 100Hz, you only need ONE subwoofer to fill in the lower couple of octaves. If I had the money, the only thing I'd trade for my CLS's and single Depth, MAYBE, would be a CLX and a single Descent. These hybrids, to me, are a giant step backwards. And if you want proof, you need look no farther than the fact they're using DSP to try and make them work! Good luck with that!

 

[RUR]

Neil, the Vantage is still listed and the Ethos is touted (and priced) as the better product. This is consistent with the Ethos' better woofer arrangement and larger panel. The DSP is used in the Vojtko crossover design, and Vojtko's explanation may be found here. Not sure how the heck bass is being EQ'd without prior measurement, and any provision for such measurement is not obvious from the literature provided so far.

 

[nsgarch]

I've said it before. ML robbed the speakers of their magic. If I wanted a dynamic speaker I would buy one. They claimed to have discovered some magic in developing their hybrids. All they did was use a high crossover point that allowed a smaller panel.And, as I mentioned before, robbed the panel from producing more of the musical spectrum.I can only say how disappointed I was with the CLX. It clearly is not based on the CLS.I wondered if it was meant to compete with the Soundlab. I've heard lots of Soundlab speakers, but not the CLX. It would be interesting to have some experience with both. Most of us had hoped for an improved CLS. What we got was the introduction of a crossover, and a Summit panel sewed onto a bass panel.Just a tad dramatic, don't you think ;--) The problem of deep bass was still unaddressed. IMO they should have just made the CLS bigger and applied modern components to the transformer. We could deal with subwoofers on our own.Actually with the new mechanized panel assembly and better diaphragm, they could probably make a CLS now that would be smaller and more powerful than the original

Neil

 

[nsgarch]

Neil, the Vantage is still listed and the Ethos is touted (and priced) as the better product. This is consistent with the Ethos' better woofer arrangement and larger panel. The DSP is used in the Vojtko crossover design, and Vojtko's explanation may be found here. Not sure how the heck bass is being EQ'd without prior measurement, and any provision for such measurement is not obvious from the literature provided so far.

R: thanks for the link to Mr. Vojtko's explanation of Ethos' signal path. It is just as I imagined in my previous post. And therefore, a product I would never even consider! I am also now convinced (after you pointed it out) that there being no means (microphone) to actually measure the room, that the whole thing about the speaker enabling 'room correction' is bogus, and that the real reason for the DSP is to fix an otherwise sloppy and poor-performing bass design.

 

[MylesBAstor]

George, tell me if I have this right: Pricewise, the Summit was out of reach for many and the Vantage was not doing well in the marketplace against other speakers in the same price range? So they dropped the Vantage and made two speakers, one more expensive than the Vantage (Spire) and one less expensive than the Vantage, the Ethos.

Bid deal! What good is DSP for a bass driver that only goes down to 34Hz? And that (single 8-inch??) "bass" driver has to do all the lower mid-range duties up to 375Hz (the poor thing) and worst of all, the lower midrange and the stereo portion of the upper bass (i.e. down to 100Hz) has been DIGITALLY PROCESSED! In other words, the music coming out of that driver is in fact produced by an amplified digital to analog signal (unless there's a way to bypass the DSP) If I want to be lazy about room correction, and process my music signal in the digital domain, NOT, I'll do it before it gets to the speaker thank you very much. Or gosh, do you suppose this DSP crossover thingie is a way to fix a poorly designed speaker? Yikes!!

So really . . . who cares! My single ML Depth, phase correct at 90 deg. phase angle, sitting smack between the panels, starting at 20Hz, crosses over/blends with the CLS panels at around 45Hz (still too low to need "stereo subs") and the panels take it up from there.

It's too bad there was no Depth/Descent, when ML made the CLS and the first model of the Statement. They would have sold many more full range panels. Unfortunately, they foolishly borrowed the twin woofer tower concept from Infinity (a worthless theft IMO) for the Statement, and Kinergetics repeated the horror by making a smaller tower for the CLS. I had a pair of Wilson Puppies (a design "borrowed" from Entec BTW ;--) and they were fast and worked great! Then I foolishly let myself be talked into buying the Kinergetics (see pic) They just sucked.

Here's where I think ML missed the boat recently: When they came up with the (amazing IMO) Depth/Descent balanced force concept, they should have made some smaller (than the CLS) full range panels. A pair of those and a single Depth or Descent would have sold like hotcakes on sound alone. And with minimal cabinetry to pay for, I bet the whole ensemble would have been under $5K.

I've hated hybrid electrostats since the first Sequel came out. First of all, why chop off a panel's lower midrange response, up to 450Hz in some cases, which is just where half the music comes from? It's never been that difficult, starting with the Quad 57 (way back in 1957), to make a stat that goes lower than 80Hz. And once you get down under 100Hz, you only need ONE subwoofer to fill in the lower couple of octaves. If I had the money, the only thing I'd trade for my CLS's and single Depth, MAYBE, would be a CLX and a single Descent. These hybrids, to me, are a giant step backwards. And if you want proof, you need look no farther than the fact they're using DSP to try and make them work! Good luck with that!

Different strokes for different folks I guess I've lived with Quests, reQuests, Prodigys, and now Summits. I'm still extracting what these speakers are capable of with changes upstream in the system. But the Summits are like putting the Hubble telescope (and I purposely use that, not magnifying glass) over the rest of the system.

BTW, did you ever check out the Entecs? Garbage. It's like they put all the money into the speaker and then ran out of money to design the crossover. The Entec crossover was pure garbage.

 

[nsgarch]

Different strokes for different folks I guess I've lived with Quests, reQuests, Prodigys, and now Summits. I'm still extracting what these speakers are capable of with changes upstream in the system. But the Summits are like putting the Hubble telescope (and I purposely use that, not magnifying glass) over the rest of the system. BTW, did you ever check out the Entecs? Garbage. It's like they put all the money into the speaker and then ran out of money to design the crossover. The Entec crossover was pure garbage.

Let me put it this way Myles: Whatever my preference in reproduced sound (i.e. my preferred driver type) I want it to reproduce as much of the frequency spectrum as the technology will allow. It's not that hard to make a full-range electrostat (my preferred method of audio reproduction) with, admittedly, a little help under 40/50 Hz or so. To me, so much of what I love about an electrostat is lost if you chop off its response below even 200Hz, much less below 450Hz!

So a hybrid electrostat is for me anyway not a "real" electrostat. And to get the most out of a hybrid, it really needs to be bi-amped, whether you supply the ss woofer amp, or the manufacturer does. A full-range stat, without a compromising crossove network, can be driven with one amp (preferrably tube IMO, because of the abundance of current at reasonable power output levels ;--) and if you need 20 -40 Hz bass, one sub (of proper size) will do much better than two, in preserving the soundstage. This I know!

When I bought my CLS's in 1990, Entec was just going under, so I couldn't buy a pair anyway, but I did A-B them with Muse and Velodyne, which taught me the importance of finding a sub with fast transient response to match the electrostats. The only known suspect at the time was the (English) Hartley which Mark Levinson eventually used in his QHD (Quad/Hartley/Decca) extravaganza but it was not available yet. So my quest (for lightening fast transients) led me to Wilson Puppies -- I guess because I knew they were modeled on the Entec, though with expensive Dynaudio drivers, and no onboard amp. I bought them, but it was an expensive hassle to do correctly, whereas today, all you have to do (and I did!) is drop in a single MartinLogan Depth and you're all done!

 

[MylesBAstor]

Neil-Totally understand where you are coming from! I too wish ML hadn't crossed over so high. That dipole quickness and resolution through the lower registers was something to behold on my old modded MGIIIas. But it never moved the amount of air that a cone driver did. So as usual, there was the usual audiophile tradeoff, this time being speed and resolution vs. air being moved. Personally I prefer the former. But I think properly set up, the new Summits acquit themselves much better and are far less colored than earlier ML hybrids.

 

[MylesBAstor]

George, tell me if I have this right: Pricewise, the Summit was out of reach for many and the Vantage was not doing well in the marketplace against other speakers in the same price range? So they dropped the Vantage and made two speakers, one more expensive than the Vantage (Spire) and one less expensive than the Vantage, the Ethos.

Bid deal! What good is DSP for a bass driver that only goes down to 34Hz? And that (single 8-inch??) "bass" driver has to do all the lower mid-range duties up to 375Hz (the poor thing) and worst of all, the lower midrange and the stereo portion of the upper bass (i.e. down to 100Hz) has been DIGITALLY PROCESSED! In other words, the music coming out of that driver is in fact produced by an amplified digital to analog signal (unless there's a way to bypass the DSP) If I want to be lazy about room correction, and process my music signal in the digital domain, NOT, I'll do it before it gets to the speaker thank you very much. Or gosh, do you suppose this DSP crossover thingie is a way to fix a poorly designed speaker? Yikes!!

So really . . . who cares! My single ML Depth, phase correct at 90 deg. phase angle, sitting smack between the panels, starting at 20Hz, crosses over/blends with the CLS panels at around 45Hz (still too low to need "stereo subs") and the panels take it up from there.

It's too bad there was no Depth/Descent, when ML made the CLS and the first model of the Statement. They would have sold many more full range panels. Unfortunately, they foolishly borrowed the twin woofer tower concept from Infinity (a worthless theft IMO) for the Statement, and Kinergetics repeated the horror by making a smaller tower for the CLS. I had a pair of Wilson Puppies (a design "borrowed" from Entec BTW ;--) and they were fast and worked great! Then I foolishly let myself be talked into buying the Kinergetics (see pic) They just sucked.

Here's where I think ML missed the boat recently: When they came up with the (amazing IMO) Depth/Descent balanced force concept, they should have made some smaller (than the CLS) full range panels. A pair of those and a single Depth or Descent would have sold like hotcakes on sound alone. And with minimal cabinetry to pay for, I bet the whole ensemble would have been under $5K.

I've hated hybrid electrostats since the first Sequel came out. First of all, why chop off a panel's lower midrange response, up to 450Hz in some cases, which is just where half the music comes from? It's never been that difficult, starting with the Quad 57 (way back in 1957), to make a stat that goes lower than 80Hz. And once you get down under 100Hz, you only need ONE subwoofer to fill in the lower couple of octaves. If I had the money, the only thing I'd trade for my CLS's and single Depth, MAYBE, would be a CLX and a single Descent. These hybrids, to me, are a giant step backwards. And if you want proof, you need look no farther than the fact they're using DSP to try and make them work! Good luck with that!

Neil-

Was looking back through some old reviews and came across one I did in my old mag with the IIz crossed over to REL subwoofers. There was a good blend in part because the RELs if I remember correctly kick in around 30 Hz.

Also was reminded of a couple of amps had in house years ago-the Cary 300SE and Luxman M7

 

[kach22i]

I've hated hybrid electrostats since the first Sequel came out. First of all, why chop off a panel's lower midrange response, up to 450Hz in some cases, which is just where half the music comes from?

I think the original Aerius (Which I own) has the highest crossover of them all at around 450hz-500hz, and in my opinion this makes it one of the best products they ever made. This high crossover gives the music more meat on the bones, and is less airy and therefore less wimpy sounding than it's larger siblings.

When I said in my JansZen review that it speaker might bridge the gap between stats and box speakers, I meant it as a good thing. I don't know what crossover they used but it had the weight and drive you seldom get from pure stats.

I'll hold off any judgement on the M/L Ethos until I've heard it myself. However some of the claims and reasons for the design do not gel well with me.

 

[RUR]

FWIW, Jonathan's wisdom on panel limitations and consequent "best" crossover points: http://www.martinloganowners.com/~tdacquis/forum/showpost.php?p=103249&postcount=10

 

[MylesBAstor]

I think the original Aerius (Which I own) has the highest crossover of them all at around 450hz-500hz, and in my opinion this makes it one of the best products they ever made. This high crossover gives the music more meat on the bones, and is less airy and therefore less wimpy sounding than it's larger siblings.

When I said in my JansZen review that it speaker might bridge the gap between stats and box speakers, I meant it as a good thing. I don't know what crossover they used but it had the weight and drive you seldom get from pure stats.

I'll hold off any judgement on the M/L Ethos until I've heard it myself. However some of the claims and reasons for the design do not gel well with me.

George: Have you heard the ML Summits? In my system, I'd call them anything but wimpy. In fact, their dynamics are nothing short of shocking for an electrostat.

 

[RUR]

George: Have you heard the ML Summits? In my system, I'd call them anything but wimpy. In fact, their dynamics are nothing short of shocking for an electrostat.

Yup!

 

[nsgarch]

Well, I disagree with both George and JonFo. I think the problem in both instances is that neither of them has ever lived with a FULL-RANGE electrostat -- and unless or until they do, they'll never see (hear) where the "bear sat in the buckwheat"! Besides, JonFo is all about digital correction throughout his system, so he'll probably LUUUV the Ethos! You call that wisdom? I call it lazy!

Pointing to a ML Aerius or a Monolith, or any hybrid electrostat+dynamic speaker as representing the highest and best use of electrostatic transducer technology misses the point entirely. And if you take Jon's dissertation to its logical/ridiculous extreme, you'd have to conclude that the best use for an electrostatic driver would be as a tweeter sitting atop a conventional box speaker (which is how they were originally deployed, BTW.)

Besides, in providing electrostatic fidelity all the way down to the 40 -50Hz range, a full frequency range electostat eliminates one of the Achilles heels of almost all speaker designs -- the crossover network!! Get rid of that, be it active or passive, and you eliminate 90% of the typical phase and IM distortion that plagues virtually every other speaker design -- including hybrid electrostats And the phase cancellation Jon cites as a problem is actually a blessing, since it eliminates a lot of the sidewall reflection that plague the imaging of other speakers in typically sized living/listening rooms. And last, but certainly not least, a (full range) panel that goes below at least 100Hz completely eliminates the need for TWO woofers just in order to preserve the stereo image between 100Hz and 450Hz. "Stereo" doesn't happen under 100Hz for humans, so one sub set at 90 phase angle (splits the difference between the front and back of the panels) and placed exactly between the panels will add a seamless and non-localized source of bass. If I could magically transport people like Jon and George to my house, one listen and they would be disabused of these unfounded speculations.

The supposed "limits" of full range panels Jon mentions, to the degree they ever really were an issue, now no longer exist due to the improved materials and panel fabrication techniques MartinLogan has used ever since the launch of the Summit -- enabling smaller panels to produce the same or more output than the larger panels they replaced. Not only that, but in my view, the "double diaphragm sandwich" bass element in the CLX (which I haven't heard) represents the direction in which electrostat technology ought to go -- as opposed to these "digitally enhanced" hybrids, like the Ethos, which are neither fish nor fowl. I hope ML's new owners don't drop the ball, but unless they can adapt CLX technology to a midpriced product, I'm not counting on it.

 

[nsgarch]

George: Have you heard the ML Summits? In my system, I'd call them anything but wimpy. In fact, their dynamics are nothing short of shocking for an electrostat.

I agree, and I think the Summit's dynamics come from both the improved panel technology and the terrific job ML did with the powered woofer section which thankfully, in the Summit anyway, "only" goes up to 270Hz. Now, build a Summit with an electrostatic bass element like the CLX, and I might consider criminal behavior in order to put together the purchase price.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I agree, and I think the Summit's dynamics come from both the improved panel technology and the terrific job ML did with the powered woofer section which thankfully, in the Summit anyway, "only" goes up to 270Hz. Now, build a Summit with an electrostatic bass element like the CLX, and I might consider criminal behavior in order to put together the purchase price.

Yeah me too but I think the CLX is about double the list price of the Summit?