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

[garylkoh]

The appeal of Martin Logan belies the objective measurements of it. Here is a random example:

Clearly above 2 Khz, performance goes to hell. There is nothing remotely high fidelity about a loudspeaker that goes nuts that way. When I listened to them blind, I thought the speaker was a broken one put in there as a control to catch deaf people . Whereas prior to that, I thought they were a very good speaker. Now sighted I can hear the same issues and no longer like their sound.

It is very, very, very difficult to measure a dipole loudspeaker and correlate that with the sound you get if you don't measure it correctly. I don't know how this was measured, but if there was some surface in proximity - it could be anything: a wall, a desktop, etc. - you might get some comb filtering from reflections of the rear wave depending on the gate period. Now sighted, you might be hearing your expectation bias based on your memory of the measurement.

If, during your blind listening tests you were listening to ordinary monopole point-source loudspeakers in optimal positioning and listening to the MLs positioned in the same place the test is not valid.

In my opinion only.

 

[DonH50]

Those measurements are a large part of why I routinely kill (dampen or diffuse) the rear wave. The response (and sound) without comb filtering is dramatically better but many claim they sound too "dead". To each his own.

Planer speakers in general behave like line sources from the lower midrange (depending upon panel size) on up and so radiate little to the sides or top/bottom. That is generally why the image (and everything else) goes to heck if you get much off axis.

IME/IMO/whatever - Don

 

[MtnHam]

I've never understood why Martin Logans are as popular as they are, nor why Sound Lab electrostatic speakers, which suffer non of these problems, are rarely mentioned.

 

[DonH50]

You are saying Sound Labs are immune from comb filter effects? Not in my experience, but YMMV...

One thing about ML's is their curved membrane does cause more interaction off to the sides, unlike flat planers (most of the rest of the world), and so may exacerbate comb filter and similar things affected by reflected waves interacting with the primary waves.

Sound Lab's are much less available to the masses...

 

[amirm]

To me it looks like some sort of comb filtering going on. I tried to upload a REW shot of Summits, but I keep getting an exclamation point error when doing so...

Send me a PM with the file size, resolution and how you were trying to upload them and we can sort through it.

Your measurement will have comb filtering for sure. The one above is nearfield and I also have the anechoic chamber both of which show the uneven response.

 

[amirm]

It is very, very, very difficult to measure a dipole loudspeaker and correlate that with the sound you get if you don't measure it correctly. I don't know how this was measured, but if there was some surface in proximity - it could be anything: a wall, a desktop, etc. - you might get some comb filtering from reflections of the rear wave depending on the gate period. Now sighted, you might be hearing your expectation bias based on your memory of the measurement.

Hi Gary. Clarifying again, I did not make those measurements. I just searched and post them here. And as I explained, the listening test was double blind at Harman using their speaker shuffler so no ability to bring sighted bias to it.

Agree measuring these speakers can be hard in real rooms but here is the anechoic chamber results:

It very closely mimics what stereophile had published so their near field measurements are not that far off. The above graph shows both direct and indirect sound to have significant distortions which I suspect are panel resonances.

If, during your blind listening tests you were listening to ordinary monopole point-source loudspeakers in optimal positioning and listening to the MLs positioned in the same place the test is not valid.

In my opinion only.

This is a common criticism and valid to some extent. Here is the actual setup (a black curtain hides all of this during listening test and the reveal only happens when the test is over).

But once it agrees with objective results, then one has no choice but to think that the test is valid. Just to give you a sense, on the score sheet in blind tests I consistently gave the ML scores of 3-4 whereas the best speakers got 6 and 7.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I am curious Tim, presumably you advised your prospective ML customers accordingly at the time ? And why were you ultimately no longer involved in retailing ML speakers?

I let customers buy what they loved, but if they were unsure, I steered them away from the MLs. I'm no longer involved in retailing anything.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

When I do serious listening I'm sitting in the sweet spot. Do other people do serious listing not sitting in the sweet spot. When I'm not doing serious listening I don't really care so much about the sound but I like the music. Therefore the fact that you have to sit in the sweet spot of property set up Martin Logan's isn't a real isn't a real problem for me. I agree that Logans don't pinpoint image but they have a great soundstage and pinpoint imaging is just not consistent with real music. Plus they are the only speakers short of the Magico Q sevens that I actually had given what I think is a holographic presentation. This is the most important part of music. To feel like there is someone in the room.and I am no stranger to dynamic speakers. I have owned B&W Nautilus 802's, Wilson audio watt puppies, and Focal speakers. All I would consider very good speakers but none of which produced sound like the Martin Logan montis. Obviously everyone has different taste in music and is looking for different things and all speakers have pros and cons to their abilities. So if you don't like the Martin Logan speakers buy something else but what's the use of talking about it on the website. No number of measurements or anything you could say would make me feel different about what my ears tell me. What I like to see on sites like this is constructive / instructive information about how to make my system better. If you're on to bash a certain line of speakers go to the line that you like and make comments on that forum

Um...it's a discussion forum?

Tim

 

[VFA]

Sorry. Disagree

 

[Hi-FiGuy]

I've never understood why Martin Logans are as popular as they are, nor why Sound Lab electrostatic speakers, which suffer non of these problems, are rarely mentioned.

Because they looked cool on the set of Friends and now The Odd Couple, you think MP is getting kick backs?

 

[VFA]

I get it. You were a dealer and had some falling out with ML and you don't like their speakers. Enough said. By the way what speakers do you own. I might want to buy a pair Ha

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I get it. You were a dealer and had some falling out with ML and you don't like their speakers. Enough said. By the way what speakers do you own. I might want to buy a pair Ha

You talking to me? No, I was not a dealer, I found myself out of work in the wake of the 2008 crash, and rather than sit at home and collect unemployment, I went to work selling hifi and home theater for awhile. I was just a salesman. I had no contact with the company, so no opportunity to have a falling out with them. And I love the way the look. I just don't like the way they sound.

Tim

 

[garylkoh]

This is a common criticism and valid to some extent. Here is the actual setup (a black curtain hides all of this during listening test and the reveal only happens when the test is over).

But once it agrees with objective results, then one has no choice but to think that the test is valid. Just to give you a sense, on the score sheet in blind tests I consistently gave the ML scores of 3-4 whereas the best speakers got 6 and 7.

Thanks, Amir. Do you know what's behind the black cloth that's behind the speakers? It does look like the rear wave of the ML's are going to be reflected off the two speakers behind it. And then there's all that metal, etc. The ML's would be at a huge disadvantage when compared to the two other speakers during a double blind in that situation.

 

[amirm]

Thanks, Amir. Do you know what's behind the black cloth that's behind the speakers? It does look like the rear wave of the ML's are going to be reflected off the two speakers behind it. And then there's all that metal, etc. The ML's would be at a huge disadvantage when compared to the two other speakers during a double blind in that situation.

I don't know what is back there Gary. I see a metal structure so seems to be more empty space rather than a back wall. As for other reflections, don't people place these in rooms with walls behind them reflecting the back wave???

 

[garylkoh]

I don't know what is back there Gary. I see a metal structure so seems to be more empty space rather than a back wall. As for other reflections, don't people place these in rooms with walls behind them reflecting the back wave???

Walls yes - but they wouldn't put a pair of speakers with cones that may resonate/vibrate behind them.

 

[sbo6]

I don't know what is back there Gary. I see a metal structure so seems to be more empty space rather than a back wall. As for other reflections, don't people place these in rooms with walls behind them reflecting the back wave???

The dispersion is fairly narrow so the back wave would likely fit nicely between the 2 speakers. If the space behind the speaker is open, then it would be less of an issue. If it is flat and solid the MLs would be disadvantaged so close to a front wall. However, the whole test environment from what I can see doesn't look good for any of the contenders so maybe it'sd a wash. Most ML owners either absorb the back wave (most common especially in smaller listening rooms) and some diffuse it. I used to diffuse mine with a poly splitting the back wave since I sat ~12' from the panel.

 

[MtnHam]

Um...it's a discussion forum?

Tim

Maybe not.

 

[Sharp 1080]

I get it. You were a dealer and had some falling out with ML and you don't like their speakers. Enough said. By the way what speakers do you own. I might want to buy a pair Ha

Why are you getting butt hurt when someone without malice points out why your Martin Logan speakers sound the way they do? I have owned Sequels, Scripts, Logos, Cinema, and Odyssey speakers. They are limited overall as as speaker. If I ever buy stats again it would be Soundlabs. I might have settled for them over Wilson if there had been a California dealer around. If you feel that strongly list your system and room pics. I was very happy with my Martin Logan speakers for years with them all. I will say one thing while replacing a board that died in one of my Odyssey speakers, I was not impressed at the particle board material for the cabinet and insulation used for the woofer assembly, especially for what I had paid for brand new released Odyssey's.

 

[Argonaut]

However, the whole test environment from what I can see doesn't look good for any of the contenders

I entirely concur with this point. For my part I could never trust the validity of anyone wearing Shiny Pants!

 

[Argonaut]

I've never understood why Martin Logans are as popular as they are, nor why Sound Lab electrostatic speakers, which suffer non of these problems, are rarely mentioned.

Allow me to be of assistance,

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sound-lab-1-electrostatic-loudspeaker-do-measures

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sound-lab-1-electrostatic-loudspeaker-measurements