Why do Martin Logans sound lean/ thin (transparent) compared to other stats?

[Phelonious Ponk]

First of all, I would never equate the word "transparent" with thin. Transparency is a quality having to do with the component or speaker delivering the signal unmolested (or relatively closer to unmolested), without adding a character of its own to the sound. A component that is not transparent may be fat or thin. The transparent component is neutral. All this is relative, of course.

Semantics, perhaps, but very important semantics.

I am no ML expert, but I've heard quite a few of them with a variety of electronics for extended periods of time. I don't find them to be thin, and while room placement is far from a no-brainer, I don't think it is much more difficult than most dipole speakers. Listener placement is a different question altogether. I've heard MLs that sound incredible in the sweet spot, but merely standing up can make them turn quite thin, even cardboardy.

They are not for the casual listener who wants to wander around dusting the den of doing food prep in the kitchen while listening to music. But for the dead-serious listener who sits down alone and listens, they can be very rewarding.*

Tim

*Give them lots of headroom, you do not want to hear and amp clipping through Martin Logans

 

[microstrip]

They are not for the casual listener who wants to wander around dusting the den of doing food prep in the kitchen while listening to music. But for the dead-serious listener who sits down alone and listens, they can be very rewarding.*

Tim

As usual there are many types of Martin Logan and many rooms. But a friend of mine has the big Monolith's III speakers in a big room and one thing that it is fantastic in such a system is that you can wander in most of the room and still have a very good sound. When I owned the Prodigy's they also did the same. Perhaps smaller Martin Logan's, being no more liner sources, have a different behavior.

The opinion of our resident expert in Martin Logan, MylesBAstor, is needed!

 

[RUR]

Jonathan (Jonfo) is the resident expert on Monoliths, but IME with Summits, Tim's comments are essentially correct. Because they're tall line sources, I don't find standing up much of a problem, but wandering around the room definitely doesn't have a happy effect on soundstage/imaging. OTOH, one of the really smart guys from AVS visited my system recently, and was surprised by the stability of the imaging when moving his head left to right. Better, he said, than a well set up pair of K2's he'd recently heard(!)

Since I'm Tim's quintessential "dead-serious listener", I'm good to go, and amp clipping is a non-problem with the Sanders ESL I'm currently using.

 

[mep]

Who expects to get up and wander around the room and still have a perfect soundstage besides one person on this forum who shall go nameless? I always get a kick out of that when people somehow use that as a criteria to judge a pair of speakers. And if you are up wandering around the room, chances are you are not paying attention anyway.

 

[garylkoh]

Much more than the impedance issue (which is more likely to affect the high frequencies than the mid-bass), the reason that "meat on the bones" is lacking is due to the difficulty in integrating between the line-source mid/high and the point-source bass. I'm a manufacturer of competing loudspeakers, and I am not trying to put down Martin Logan, just trying to add to the body of knowledge as I have not noticed this discussed in this thread so far.

A line source radiates in 1 dimension, whereas a point source radiates in 2 dimensions. Energy at distance R is proportional to 1/R with line sources and 1/R-squared with the point source. In an anechoic chamber, you could probably get the energy correct at a certain listening distance. However, due to room boundaries, all bets are off in an actual listening room. The woofer near the floor also does not act as a point source.

In addition, with the larger systems, (the MG20.1 for instance), the line-source bass is only effectively a line source for frequencies where the wavelength is less than 2x the size of the radiator. So, even with a loudspeaker 6-ft tall, it is closer to being a point-source than a line-source for frequencies below 90Hz (12-ft wavelength).

 

[FrantzM]

Who expects to get up and wander around the room and still have a perfect soundstage besides one person on this forum who shall go nameless? I always get a kick out of that when people somehow use that as a criteria to judge a pair of speakers. And if you are up wandering around the room, chances are you are not paying attention anyway.

I wondered about the same .. There is an optimum location for any system.. It can be wide or narrow but there is such ... This is physics. That a speaker sounds different out of the optimum position is a given nothing to discuss about ...

This out of the way, the term "transparency" has been misused for for years by the audiophile community.. At first it meant the speakers being so clear as not to provide a clear window on the recorded music .. then it became synonymous with elevated treble .. Often in such discussions, people would invoke semantics .. but that is exactly the case .. We need to know what the word means for each of us before we can discuss ... The original ML CLS did sound threadbare on many music .. because of its less than adequate mid bass reproduction ... if one wants to try this just reduce the mid bass (60 to 150Hz) with an EQ and ANY speaker will sound thin ... The CLS was lean and often thin.. Yes one could place it in such a way to reinforce the meager mid bass it produced, I had one, I did just that but.. one quickly lose the soundstaging that this speaker, the CLS could produce ... ML knew it and came with hybrid models with dynamic woofers from the Sequel to the Statements ( of which there were many version all with dynamic woofers)
The CLX however to me ears is much different not only can it play louder everywhere, it has bass down to 60 Hz, they say 50 I would think 65 .. I would not call its midbass authoritative, ala Dunelavy, Apogees or Magnepan, yet it does produce realistic midbass. Yes it needs subwoofers, actually I have said it and repeated it in this forum ALL speakers need multiple subs to help them in most rooms .. the CLX more so than many since it has not much to talk about under 60 Hz and even there is not a champion performer .. but from 100 Hz to 20 KHz it is a superb speaker .. one for which the term "Truly Transparent" applies

 

[microstrip]

Who expects to get up and wander around the room and still have a perfect soundstage besides one person on this forum who shall go nameless? I always get a kick out of that when people somehow use that as a criteria to judge a pair of speakers. And if you are up wandering around the room, chances are you are not paying attention anyway.

Well, I do not expect to have a perfect soundstage everywhere in the room, but I expect it would be acceptable in a reasonable part of the room. The type of speaker that has excellent image for a single person and no one else is not my preference, as well as the sensation that as soon as you stand or move aside you are out of the show .

I do not consider that sharp pinpoint imaging is needed to have a a good sound - if it is considered a must I fully agree with you.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Who expects to get up and wander around the room and still have a perfect soundstage besides one person on this forum who shall go nameless? I always get a kick out of that when people somehow use that as a criteria to judge a pair of speakers. And if you are up wandering around the room, chances are you are not paying attention anyway.

+1

 

[JonFo]

Much more than the impedance issue (which is more likely to affect the high frequencies than the mid-bass), the reason that "meat on the bones" is lacking is due to the difficulty in integrating between the line-source mid/high and the point-source bass. I'm a manufacturer of competing loudspeakers, and I am not trying to put down Martin Logan, just trying to add to the body of knowledge as I have not noticed this discussed in this thread so far.

Even though I'm a huge ML fan, I totally agree with you Gary. The integration to low-mounted dynamic driver is really tough on various fronts. line vs. point source is a big one.
The lack of 'punch' around 250hz in most ML's is due to the dipole panel and the cancellations inherent in the narrow boundary between front and rear. Along with the insufficient mid-bass energy from the dynamic drivers.

As a data point, I submit my own solution to the challenge that I implemented in my center channel design. I integrated a small 4' line-source to cover the 80 - 400hz range and used active speaker processors to integrate the panel and mid-bass to very effective outcomes. This center has more 'punch' than my highly modified and tuned Monoliths.

In addition, with the larger systems, (the MG20.1 for instance), the line-source bass is only effectively a line source for frequencies where the wavelength is less than 2x the size of the radiator. So, even with a loudspeaker 6-ft tall, it is closer to being a point-source than a line-source for frequencies below 90Hz (12-ft wavelength).

And that's why I'd like to see more exercises like the new Wisdom Audio LS4 with their new mid-bass driver that seems to be a solution to clean 'panel' sound and allow one to compose an 84" tall line-source that will indeed give an appropriate line-source from sub-woofer crossover point up until 350Hz or so.

 

[DonH50]

Yeah Gary, but the 20.1 is a big point-source... I can't argue the science, but for me, I love planer speakers, and line sources, but find that (at least for the mains) they need to go low enough that integration with the sub is as seamless as possible, and of course a well-controlled (typically servo) sub will ring less and integrate better with the panels. When the wavelengths get long and the room takes over, I'm not sure the type of driver matters as much (plus localization and all that is less an issue in the LF region).

FWIWFM - Don

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Who expects to get up and wander around the room and still have a perfect soundstage besides one person on this forum who shall go nameless? I always get a kick out of that when people somehow use that as a criteria to judge a pair of speakers. And if you are up wandering around the room, chances are you are not paying attention anyway.

Nobody who understands how speakers work really expects that. What I was talking about was serious frequency loss off-axis.

Tim

 

[garylkoh]

As a data point, I submit my own solution to the challenge that I implemented in my center channel design. I integrated a small 4' line-source to cover the 80 - 400hz range and used active speaker processors to integrate the panel and mid-bass to very effective outcomes. This center has more 'punch' than my highly modified and tuned Monoliths.

Wonderful! I'm sure that the center with the will have more punch than your Monoliths. Why didn't you also make a line source for the Monoliths? All you will need is to cover 80Hz to 150Hz. You don't want to get too close to the critical midrange frequencies (about 256Hz middle-C). Let the electrostatic panels handle that.

 

[mep]

I hope he did something about the Monolith woofer also. the original Monolith woofer enclosure was terrible.

 

[JonFo]

I hope he did something about the Monolith woofer also. the original Monolith woofer enclosure was terrible.

Yep, upgraded to a new unit specifically focused on 60 - 500hz range performance. I described the process in this thread.

Result is much better performing mid-bass.

The orginal woofer and passive crossover were horrible. Active made a big improvement, then the new peerless driver and additional cabinet stuffing and treatments made another step up.

 

[JonFo]

Wonderful! I'm sure that the center with the will have more punch than your Monoliths. Why didn't you also make a line source for the Monoliths? All you will need is to cover 80Hz to 150Hz. You don't want to get too close to the critical midrange frequencies (about 256Hz middle-C). Let the electrostatic panels handle that.

Thanks, I have bigger plans for the fronts. Stay tuned. It might take a year or two, but it will blow peoples socks off.

But the Monoliths panels can only go down to a 250hz crossover point at my target SPL of 105dB. I currently have them crossed over to their new woofers at 315Hz.

The entire system is calibrated to deliver 105dB SPL with low distortion. Measured THD is 0.6% at 90dB, which is higher than my avg listening level.

 

[Garth]

...

 

[LL21]

Even though I'm a huge ML fan, I totally agree with you Gary. The integration to low-mounted dynamic driver is really tough on various fronts. line vs. point source is a big one.
The lack of 'punch' around 250hz in most ML's is due to the dipole panel and the cancellations inherent in the narrow boundary between front and rear. Along with the insufficient mid-bass energy from the dynamic drivers.

As a data point, I submit my own solution to the challenge that I implemented in my center channel design. I integrated a small 4' line-source to cover the 80 - 400hz range and used active speaker processors to integrate the panel and mid-bass to very effective outcomes. This center has more 'punch' than my highly modified and tuned Monoliths.

JonFo,

This is very interesting...when I saw the new ML Neolith on WBF and then went back to the Statement E2, I actually wondered what would happen if they combined them a bit ...and used a line array of super-fast cones for upper bass next to the Neolith 22x48 panel (people talk about larger and larger diamond drivers now...I am no techie) and THEN had a super-insulated, no vibration crossover underneath...with a lineout to a separate dual-set of super subs.

Your speaker design seems very very similar to this!!!

 

[JonFo]

JonFo,

This is very interesting...when I saw the new ML Neolith on WBF and then went back to the Statement E2, I actually wondered what would happen if they combined them a bit ...and used a line array of super-fast cones for upper bass next to the Neolith 22x48 panel (people talk about larger and larger diamond drivers now...I am no techie) and THEN had a super-insulated, no vibration crossover underneath...with a lineout to a separate dual-set of super subs.

Your speaker design seems very very similar to this!!!

Thanks LL21, I've been on a path to build what I call the "Mondolith" using the same 4" line array of mid-bass drivers flanking the Monolith panels all mounted in a custom designed metal frame that spans from floor to ceiling (bolted to both for extreme rigidity). My acoustically transparent screen will then mount to that frame with a swing-up arrangement so I can admire the speakers and do critical listening, but still have a full HT config as well.

As for crossovers, the only way to go is active and perform on-location tuning. For true SOTA, that's a requirement IMHO, as it lets one adjust intra-speaker values as well as speaker to room. The later being absolutely critical.
Every time I change something physical in the speakers (new woofers for example), I spend a full day retuning the setup using calibrated mics plus R+D and REW software for analysis and then parameter tweaking on my DBX DriveRack 4800 processor. Finally, I run a full Audyssey Pro room correction on top of all the rest.

 

[LL21]

Thanks LL21, I've been on a path to build what I call the "Mondolith" using the same 4" line array of mid-bass drivers flanking the Monolith panels all mounted in a custom designed metal frame that spans from floor to ceiling (bolted to both for extreme rigidity). My acoustically transparent screen will then mount to that frame with a swing-up arrangement so I can admire the speakers and do critical listening, but still have a full HT config as well.

As for crossovers, the only way to go is active and perform on-location tuning. For true SOTA, that's a requirement IMHO, as it lets one adjust intra-speaker values as well as speaker to room. The later being absolutely critical.
Every time I change something physical in the speakers (new woofers for example), I spend a full day retuning the setup using calibrated mics plus R+D and REW software for analysis and then parameter tweaking on my DBX DriveRack 4800 processor. Finally, I run a full Audyssey Pro room correction on top of all the rest.

Question for you:

- Taking the new Neolith and its 22"x48" panel...if we hooked up superbly powerful and fast subs (pick a name)...ML's own subs or Magico QSubs or Krell Master Ref Sub, etc...do you think the 22x48 panel has the ability to match the effortless scale of large cone speakers? The nuances, the detail, speed, transparency...I am comfortably with what I expect to hear from the panels.

But the slam/scale and 'meat on the bones' is something I have come to appreciate when listening to Arrakis, XLFs, Genesis 1s, etc. So curious how much panel one needs to match this level? Is this why you have added your line array to the panels of the Monoliths? Or was it for a different reason?

 

[microstrip]

Question for you:

- Taking the new Neolith and its 22"x48" panel...if we hooked up superbly powerful and fast subs (pick a name)...ML's own subs or Magico QSubs or Krell Master Ref Sub, etc...do you think the 22x48 panel has the ability to match the effortless scale of large cone speakers? The nuances, the detail, speed, transparency...I am comfortably with what I expect to hear from the panels.

But the slam/scale and 'meat on the bones' is something I have come to appreciate when listening to Arrakis, XLFs, Genesis 1s, etc. So curious how much panel one needs to match this level? Is this why you have added your line array to the panels of the Monoliths? Or was it for a different reason?

Lloyd,

You should listen to the new top subwoofer from Martin Logan - BalancedForce 212, playing with the CLX . Our distributor has now this system playing in his large room, and a few friends who listened to it said it was on par with the top systems he had in the room.