Planar Speaker Asylum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.

Return to Planar Speaker Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Not for Me

24.59.224.194
Posted on February 2, 2017 at 19:13:22
Byrd69
Audiophile

Posts: 2881
Location: East Syracuse, New York
Joined: August 23, 2004
 Have any of you maggie owners owned or listened to electrostatics and decided the sound is not for you, and stuck with the maggies?

Or....have any of you, like me, own electrostatics and decided after owning or listening to maggies...the sound is not for you?

I'm a ESL fan, obliviously.

:

Acoustat 2+2
Acoustat Spectra 11
Acoustat 1+1
Martin Logan Aerius





Your interest may vary but the results will be same. (Byrd 2020)

I can't compete with the dead. (Buck W. 2010)

Cowards can't be heroes. (Byrd 2017)

Why don't catfish have kittens? (Moe Howard 1937)

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Not for Me, posted on February 2, 2017 at 20:03:37
BDP24
Audiophile

Posts: 1070
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Joined: September 12, 2013
 Neither is perfect, and both have strengths and weaknesses. So I have both---QUAD ESL's (originals), and Tympani T-IV's. I also have Eminent Technology LFT-8b's and LFT-4's. I like speakers ;-).

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 2, 2017 at 22:46:35
DrChaos
Audiophile

Posts: 2063
Location: San Diego
Joined: July 13, 2009
 I'm somewhat dissuaded by the requirement to either be utterly enormous like SoundLabs, or have a hybrid bass system, like Martin Logan, which doesn't always work so well.

And with ML's the deterioration with time of ESL panel with some models.

Heard Janszen's at an audio show, didn't seem all that special. Not bad but not extraordinary.

Heard Sanders 10D, which was hybrid done right, and it did sound utterly extraordinary, except it had an unacceptably narrow sweet spot.

So all in all, Maggie 3 series is right for me.

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 2, 2017 at 23:35:46
JBen
Audiophile

Posts: 3082
Location: South FL
Joined: May 18, 2008
Contributor
  Since: July 26, 2010
 In the late 80's my cone system was sounding decent but I wanted a pair of Acoustat 2+2 badly. To me, they sounded the closest to the real musical instruments I lived amongst. I could not afford a new pair but just then one used set was offered for sale. The seller offered to let me try them while he went on a trip for two weeks.

Despite several shortcomings -- some caused by my available amps -- I was in love with those Acoustat 2+2. Wife gave permission...seller came back from trip...and changed his mind. Bummer, he decided not to sell. I understood...but almost cried.

By the time I was able to afford a new pair, I was travelling too much, mostly internationally for work. No time. Also, LP had yielded ground to the CD...not pretty.

In my travels, I did listen to several Acoustat models with far better gear than I had had the first time around. They never failed to charm me but I also began to define the things that I did not like.

In the end, the same happened with almost all stats in general. The ONE thing that kept me away from buying stats was MY inability to spend countless hours on end listening to them. Quads do get in the ballpark. But by and large, most Maggies allow me to keep listening for several hours. My own, tweaked to my liking, often posses me for tens of hours in a row.

I suspect that Magnepan's hardheadedness -- no cone drivers -- forced them to choose a good set of attributes vs compromises...which works for me most of the time. Oh, but I am such a critic of them! Well, that's until they grab me by the ears.

Of course, the stats keep charming me grandly. Fortunately, I kept telling other people how great the stats are. Some of them bought them. So, I visit them when I need a delightful shot of stats!

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 3, 2017 at 08:14:25
StevieRay
Audiophile

Posts: 359
Location: Virginia
Joined: September 7, 2000
 I have both MMG's (since ~2001) and bought a set of Quad ESL's (original) and finally finished refurb in 2014 (with PK panels).

While both are OK, the Quads stay in the system 90% of the time, so that should tell you which I like best. Yes, the MMG's will play louder (but only with gobs of power that the Quads could never think of absorbing), but the Quads, to my ears (and everyone who hears them), are from a different dimension; a parallel universe.

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 3, 2017 at 10:54:47
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
 My main ESL exposure was to Quad 57s early on and Acoustat 2+2, both with subs. My main gripe is the lack of dynamics and absolute output and an associated ugliness to driver overload. They are amazing on detail and transients but short on power. The really big ones that do believable dynamics are so huge and expensive I could not imagine putting in the investment even if I could afford it. The big PK quads were reported by one of our forum members as solving this issue at a smaller footprint and at a lower cost than the largest full panel MLs and Soundlabs. So you get the ultimate detail without losing dynamic impact.

So my bottom line was that Maggies had more potential to provide "not quite" the same level of detail but have a much better dynamic envelope. Where there are limits to this performance in my speakers was with the mids. So I replaced them with a line of Neo8 and that increased coherence and made them sound a step closer to ESLs while increasing output and amp friendly sensitivity. While the results are not like Giant Klipschorns, they are quite capable of hitting the required dynamics.

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 3, 2017 at 12:20:01
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 Owned Acoustat moniter 3's for 10 years. Tried Martin Logens but were too brite. Never cared for Sound labs.
My Maggie 3.6's with Berning amps are the best speakers I have ever owned
Have heard most of the available electrostatics at shows and nothing as ever tempted me to replace my Maggies. By the way my Maggies are set up using the Limage/HK set up. Makes a hugh improvement in sound.
Alan

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 3, 2017 at 12:35:14
Javier
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Laredo
Joined: December 14, 2005
 I enjoy both Maggie's 1.6 and Martin logans ascents inclining mis elf toward the logans until I set the Maggie's twitter inside then both sounded awesome in my room, lately listening more to the Maggie's because a drop of output from one of the logans

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 3, 2017 at 15:17:16
slapshot
Audiophile

Posts: 2248
Joined: January 9, 2006
 I like the Limage/HK setup for my 3.6Rs. It's quite amazing.

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 3, 2017 at 16:16:39
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12332
Joined: February 9, 2010
 I've never seen it as either/or. Both have their charms, and their annoyances. I've always ended up with Maggies because to me, they offer a good compromise between the unsurpassed clarity of electrostatics and the slam of dynamics. But someone who listened only at lower levels (or had room for Sound Labs) might prefer stats, while someone who listens mostly to pop at high levels might go for big dynamics or horns. Since nothing does everything well, it's going to be a question of personal fit.

And of course Maggies are pretty much unbeatable as far as price/performance ratio goes. I'm embarrassed by what I paid for my IVA's. Yeah, sure, the big megabucks Wilsons will raise the roof on your barn, but do they sound real? No comment.

Some of this too depends on configuration. No one makes my ideal stat that I would want, a full length line source with a delay like the ESL-63 for good dispersion. I like point source dipoles but they can't transport you like a line source. So you have all the compromises that Dr. Chaos mentioned -- bybrids or beamy/compromised dispersion or point source. Again, not ruling them out, but I believe that the relatively uniform dispersion of a line source planar adds to its realism. Boxes can't do this, it's physically impossible, and AFAIK only the ESL-63 manages it among stats -- even the big Sound Labs are going to have controlled dispersion further up and dipole dispersion further down, as well as the focusing effect in back (although room treatment can ameliorate this issue).

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 3, 2017 at 21:35:08
airheadair
Audiophile

Posts: 393
Location: California
Joined: October 18, 2010
 Actually the Stax F83's are a line source with some sort of time delay (simpler than the Quad 63), at least I think so. Kentaja may be able to correct me here. I think Roger Modjeski has a pair of ESL's that may be somehow similar. Both his and the Stax's do benefit, in my opinion, from a dynamic subwoofer, if carefully matched. The Stax's are no longer available, and I'm not sure about Roger's speakers at this point.

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 4, 2017 at 10:53:03
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12332
Joined: February 9, 2010
 That's interesting. Did a search for the F83 but couldn't find any technical details.

 

RE: Not for Me -- These things may be personal, but . . ., posted on February 4, 2017 at 17:48:14
goldenthal
Audiophile

Posts: 1001
Location: Ontario
Joined: March 28, 2003
 for me, no planar-magnetic has ever achieved the realistic delicacy of electrostats.


Jeremy

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 4, 2017 at 19:08:44
Byrd69
Audiophile

Posts: 2881
Location: East Syracuse, New York
Joined: August 23, 2004
 I put a Jadis Defy-7 on my 2+2s. There's plenty of dynamics. The crescendos of classical pieces are great....as is Eat a Peach.


Your interest may vary but the results will be same. (Byrd 2020)

I can't compete with the dead. (Buck W. 2010)

Cowards can't be heroes. (Byrd 2017)

Why don't catfish have kittens? (Moe Howard 1937)

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 4, 2017 at 19:57:14
russ69
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Joined: December 13, 2009
 I stopped making gross assumptions a long time ago. You have to compare one model against another to come up with an informed opinion. I'm guessing King Sound Kings would sound better than MMGs but I wouldn't base my opinion of design strengths based on that one data point.

 

Preference for ESLs, posted on February 4, 2017 at 20:19:08
George S. Roland
Audiophile

Posts: 1470
Location: N W Pennsylvania
Joined: March 20, 2004
 I trade speakers a lot. With regard to this posting, I have, at different times, owned two pairs of Magnepan 1.6QRs and two pairs of Quad ESL-63s. At one point, I had the Maggies and Quads at the same time and could A/B them as long as I wanted. While I liked both speakers and could have lived with either, the Quads had, ultimately, greater clarity, delicacy and detail. To me, they sounded less like speakers and more like music than the Maggies.

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 4, 2017 at 20:32:42
airheadair
Audiophile

Posts: 393
Location: California
Joined: October 18, 2010
 Here is something I found online from the Audiocircuit:

The Stax ELSF-83-X is an electrostatic speaker. It is part of the Els series. It was manufactured from 1989 to 1989.

Howard Popeck (September 25, 2010): The ELS-F83X was launched in 1989. It was the improved version of the highly respected ELS-F83 and also the double-stacked ELS-F81X.

The double stacked full-range electrostatic drivers of the ELS-F83X provide extended frequency (35 Hz > 25 kHz compared to 40 Hz > 21 kHz for the ELS-F81X) and superior dynamic range as well as improved efficiency (80 dB compared to 76 dB for the ELS-F81X)

Said STAX in 1989: 'In particular, the rich bass reproduction as well as extremely clean high and mid range is of the highest quality an electrostatic could ever attain. The ample height for enhanced line-source reproduction and the signal delay device incorporated results in the superb focus and soundstage reproduction of the ELS-F83X'

Applying similar transformer material and design as used in the STAX's state-of-the-art ELS-8Xand ELS-8XBBplus new protective layers on the electrode, newly designed transformer windings and network circuitry, the ELS-F83X achieved 'enriched life-like bass with clean and beautiful mid and high frequencies'

As in the ELS-F81X the protection circuit used prevented the user's power amplifier from being overloaded at low frequencies.

In common with every other STAX full range electrostatic loudspeakers systems including the ELS-FX81Xthe ELS-8X and the truly awesome ELS-8XBB is magnificent, captivating, wonderful. We've run out of words. They were, and if you can find a working pair today, that good.

To our ears, they were as magical in the mid range as the Quad ELS-57's and although it's heresy to say this, more revealing than the standard (i.e. unmodified) Quad ELS-63s in terms of top-end detail.

Specifications as published by STAX in 1989
Type = Electrostatic full range loudspeaker system
Frequency response = 35Hz to 25kHz (SPL-10db)
Impedance = More than 4 ohms
Efficiency = 80dB (8 ohm equivalent load 1W/Im)
Momentary Max. Input = 180W (8 ohm equivalent load 1W/1m)
Biasing voltage = 4,300V
Dimensions = 480(w) x 1965(h) x 350mm(d)
Weight = 37kg

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 5, 2017 at 05:33:07
Green Lantern
Audiophile

Posts: 16952
Location: San Diego, Ca
Joined: November 12, 2002
Contributor
  Since: June 17, 2003
 My ESL experience is limited to dealer auditions. I spent a fair amount of time (by appointment) listening to Quads (model# forgotten but this was around 2001), ML Odyssey and a Maggie 3.3. They all had their merits, the Quads having the most "life-like" reproduction especially when it came to female vocals. Unfortunately the singers did not seem to have a life-like 'height' to them (at least in that room on the limited recordings I brought that day). The MLs had the height obviously (those suckers are pretty large) but I didn't like the integration between the panel and the cone. In the end the MG3.3 had the most alluring signature sound among the three. Maybe not as perfect as the Quads but damn close. What nailed the coffin was when I played Luther Vandross song 'Superstar/Until you come back to me' and I heard his backup singers 'standing' back, and to the right singing into the microphone,-all three of them.

I'll tell you what though-the Apogee Duetta Signatures I once owned picked up where all three of these left off in terms of clarity, presentation and dynamics. In the end I kept my MG20 over the Apogee because of it's bass. Anyone who thinks Maggies don't have bass should come over and listen to these giants; I literally had the curtain rods and picture frames shaking the other day while playing John Barry's "looks like suicide" from the Dances with wolves soundtrack. Thanks also in part to the Emotiva XPA-1, the 'poor man's Krell'.









 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 5, 2017 at 07:29:16
Sondek
Audiophile

Posts: 9623
Location: Fort Worth
Joined: May 17, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Yeah, Byrd, my Monitor 4's with Mike Savuto's servo rebuilds have tons of slam by themselves. They don't punch you in the chest on bass notes the way big dynamic drivers do, but I'm not so sure that's the way music really sounds anyway. Never once at the symphony did the music punch me in the chest. Anyway, to assume ESL's don't have slam is a mistake.

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 5, 2017 at 15:10:30
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12332
Joined: February 9, 2010
 Yes, the Acoustats are spec'd at 115 dB SPL, which is pretty good, though as I recall it takes something like 500 watts to get there!

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 5, 2017 at 15:13:17
morricab
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 9178
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 I am sure that would sound pretty darn good! I like that Defy-7...nice amp. I used to drive my Acoustat Spectras with medium powered SETs from KR Audio and that was sublime!

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 5, 2017 at 15:19:11
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12332
Joined: February 9, 2010
 Drums are dipoles and it may be that the way a dynamic woofer pressurizes the room just isn't realistic. OTOH, there's something to be said for the sheer ability of a large dynamic woofer to play loud. I don't know of any planar that can match it, though the largest can outpunch some smaller dynamics. That said, the Acoustats play louder than most stats and so are a partial exception to the rule (I don't know of any planars that will do the 120 dB+ that's necessary to reproduce the full dynamic range of acoustical music).

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 5, 2017 at 15:22:04
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12332
Joined: February 9, 2010
 Thanks, that's very interesting.

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 5, 2017 at 15:58:50
Sondek
Audiophile

Posts: 9623
Location: Fort Worth
Joined: May 17, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Well, I have no way to verify the accuracy of the dB app download on my iPad, but 112 is the loudest I could stand from my Acoustats. BTW, the preamp had gain left to go. How much I don't know, I couldn't stand past that point.

 

Maggies will indeed get quite low and hard, posted on February 5, 2017 at 16:41:26
Green Lantern
Audiophile

Posts: 16952
Location: San Diego, Ca
Joined: November 12, 2002
Contributor
  Since: June 17, 2003
 the big Maggies can get deep and loud; all it takes is high current and sustainable power. I had my room rocking over the weekend, window rattlin' and curtain rods a'shakin with the below video.

Bi-amping is the way to go; something nice and soft on top along with brute force on the bottom!

I was jamming this over the weekend, lots of bass along with dynamics to boot. Hey it also gives me an opportunity to show off my DIY interconnect skills (Cardas/Belden/Jon Risch design); and yes I know I need shelves ;).






I'm a firm believer the medium to large Maggies can reproduce ANY natural musical instrument with ease; including kettle drums :)

I don't know the name of the song, I borrowed it from a friend and Shazam can't identify it either.









 

RE: Maggies will indeed get quite low and hard, posted on February 5, 2017 at 17:19:49
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12332
Joined: February 9, 2010
 That's why I have Tympanis. :-)

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 5, 2017 at 17:24:20
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12332
Joined: February 9, 2010
 Here are the specs from the Stereophile reviews:

Description: Full-range electrostatic loudspeaker. Frequency response: 28Hz-20kHz ±2dB. Nominal impedance: 4 ohms. Power capability: 500W. Maximum output: 115dB at 20' in a 16'x24' room. Minimum power requirement: 50Wpc. AC power consumption: 5W.

So they really should do a bit better than 115 dB at a more realistic listening distance.

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 5, 2017 at 18:29:01
Sondek
Audiophile

Posts: 9623
Location: Fort Worth
Joined: May 17, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 My Monitor 4s are driven with OTL direct drive tubed servos. I think those electrical specs you quoted might be for the transformer interfaces?

 

+1, posted on February 6, 2017 at 08:30:59
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
 The mids on the 20.1 and more so the 20.7 are a limit in that regard since they tear if pushed above 115 db peak, But 115db is good enough at home. I was surprised by the fact that I actually had headroom over that.

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 6, 2017 at 08:44:26
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
 I think they are. IIRC someone guesstimated that the servo amp acoustats had 3db more sensitivity but I don;t know that the amp can actually output that much to make use of the driver's greater headroom without the transformer.

 

The latest Maggies really are nice, posted on February 7, 2017 at 07:14:03
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I began as a Magneplanar fan and owner back in the 70s (I can still recall first hearing tri-amped TIIIs), but was eventually seduced by the added clarity and coherence of full range electrostats after hearing JWC's Dayton-Wrights around 1976.

While I'm still an electrostat fan forty years later using models from Acoustat and Sound Lab, I heard 3.7s at Sea Cliff a few years ago and was very impressed with their improved sense of coherence and transparency. I had heard 20.1s in that same space and later in HP's multi-channel rig exquisitely driven. While each range evaluated separately produced wonderful results, alas they lacked the level of coherence to which I had been accustomed. I confess that I remain especially sensitive to that characteristic.

Having said that, I'd really like to hear a pair of 20.7s. I suspect that I could easily live with them. :)

 

Maybe..., posted on February 7, 2017 at 07:23:57
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I don't know of any planars that will do the 120 dB+ that's necessary to reproduce the full dynamic range of acoustical music.

Ray Kimber's array of ten Prostat 922s driven by eight Pass Labs X350 amplifiers might get close with over two hundred square feet of radiating area driven by nearly six kilowatts of power. :)

 

Curious, posted on February 7, 2017 at 07:59:43
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Owned Acoustat moniter 3's for 10 years.

Similarly, I ran the original three panel Acoustat X for a couple of years then updated them to the Monitor 4 with the pedestal. Ran 2+2s from 1982 to 2005 using different panels and interfaces. I replaced the burlap socks with a more open weave Spandex and rewired the interfaces.

Never cared for Sound labs.

The Sound Lab U-1s, however, are better in every respect. They eliminated the "head-in-a-vise" imaging challenge with their faceted panel structure. The tonal balance is more neutral and doesn't have the "credit card" signature that early reviews spoke of with the Acoustat. Resolution is decidedly higher since it uses toroidal transformers, thinner diaphragms and higher quality parts. And bass response plumbs a touch lower and cleaner.

To each his own I guess!

 

RE: Maybe..., posted on February 7, 2017 at 09:31:51
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12332
Joined: February 9, 2010
 And the strange thing is he only listens to clavichord music. :-)

 

RE: Maybe..., posted on February 7, 2017 at 09:47:35
Norman M
 And needless to say ten Prostats/eight Pass' might be useful if one is using Carnegie Hall as their listening room.

 

Dr. West has a better answer!, posted on February 7, 2017 at 14:59:45
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37607
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 ...since vertical dispersion for the loge is limited by panel height. :)

 

RE: Maybe..., posted on February 7, 2017 at 19:53:27
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12332
Joined: February 9, 2010
 It's a bit big for my listening room, I'll admit. :-)

 

RE: Dr. West has a better answer!, posted on February 7, 2017 at 20:29:34
Norman M
 Maybe musicians should be seated up there rather than gutting the interior of David Geffen Hall, problems solved.

 

Luther Vandross ..very well recorded ...very well, posted on February 10, 2017 at 19:19:31
Carl G
Audiophile

Posts: 710
Joined: July 4, 2000
 Luther's CDs in general are excellently very well recorded and great for auditioning...JMO

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 18, 2017 at 10:59:13
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12332
Joined: February 9, 2010
 I'm sure they are. Not sure how hard the OTL's can drive them.

 

RE: Not for Me, posted on February 19, 2017 at 17:39:43
sqlsavior
Audiophile

Posts: 55
Location: New Mexico
Joined: June 25, 2013
 I loved my MMGs when I got back into the hobby. So they're for me.

Also love my 1.7s, although they are basically TV speakers now.

My Quads (57s) are my end-game pieces. They are simply lovely. Their sweet spot is wider than either of the Maggies, and they do stereo at <100 dB as well as it can be done, for my tastes.

So, while I prefer my stats, I can't say Maggies aren't for me, because they are for me, too.

 

Page processed in 0.056 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]