|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
97.95.43.235
In Reply to: RE: I have heard the big Martin Logan speakers... posted by Cougar on February 18, 2017 at 18:30:31
My big CLXs are two panel speakers and a pair of Citation 2s drive the panels beautifully. Keep in mind I use two ML Descent subs which have their own amps and I also used them with a single Citation 2 on the Monolith2s which I still have.
The Logans he is looking at have a dynamic woofer built in and they are powered at the bass as well.He can use a 20 to 70 watt tube amp and play plenty loud. They are 91db efficient and he can also use a solid state amp if he wants.They have a class D amp driving the bass and what's nice is the fact that it takes the signal sample from your amp that drives the panel and it takes on the characteristic of that amp. The amp will be driving from 270hz on up which most decent amps loaf.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken
Edits: 02/19/17 02/22/17Follow Ups:
I know the ones I heard and ran through some serious paces was back in the late 90's/2000's and they played classical and slow moving Jazz very well. But when more complicated types of music like Tower of Power, Grover Washington Jr., David Sanborne, Spyro Gyra, Cold Blood, Kansas, Rush, Stevie Ray Vanghan and many more were played through them....they had a hard time handling those types of music at higher levels and not talking Blasting them either.The Monolith woofer couldn't keep up with the membrane but I heard they have corrected this but even then the Electrostatic membrane would just break up. Not good for a $5000 speaker at that time. Even the CLS with a separate small subwoofer didn't blend well. When the CLS was push just a little it would break up bad but low volumes is was really nice but still had a small sweet spot for the size and width of that speaker.
Now I just went to the ML website and saw the CLX's and they are different from the CLS's the membranes are smaller than CLS. I also saw they are going for $29,000 too. It better sound good for that money.
There are some really nice sounding Open Baffle that will rival or even better the Martin Logan speakers for a lot less. I would like to see really good Open Baffles side by side with the Martin Logans to see how they compare. I think everyone would be really surprised at the results.
Even the ET LFT-8's would give the ML a run for their money and the LFT-8' are under $2500.
I would really like to know what type of music and at what listening levels others here using that are claiming the ML Electrostatics speaker are way better sounding. To me, a good speaker will have to play everything you throw at it well. I know there is no perfect speaker, but I had did a 2 year search listening to many different high End Speakers from box types, Open Baffle, Electrostatics, and Planar. They all have their strengths and weakness but I found out that the Electrostatic speakers while sounds awesome at lower listening levels, did not do well when push to about normal listening levels.
The only Electrostatic speaker that I haven't heard yet but was told to me by a buddy of mine that has heard Carver Amazing Platinums hot rodded were the Roger Soundlab Electrostatics he had recently bought that were not very big but sound great and he said you could really push them hard and they didn't break up. I forget the model he has but they are rare to find and need a subwoofer. But he was really blown away at their sound and playback listening level. He also said he had heard some bigger ML's and that the didn't sound well when pushed and preferred his new Roger Soundlabs that was just a year or two ago but I haven't heard them yetso I really can say if that was the case. He also has a pair of Orions which isn't a bad speaker either but he said the Rogers Soundlab killed those.
I'm not anti electrostatic which I have always loved their sound but hate that you can't push them very hard. Even my Electrostatic headphones do the exact same thing. I just believe you should be able to listen to a speaker at above book reading levels to really enjoy when the music or situation calls for it. I just hope the newer ML speaker do this way better than the older Martin Logan's
My Carver Amazing Silver dipoles are a joy to listen to with either tube, Tube Hybrid, or solid state amps. They have a good soundstage with really good depth, sweet mids and great bass. I can listen at lower levels or at high volume levels without them breaking up and didn't cost an arm and a leg.
I will soon get over to a dealer that sells these ML's and see what they sound like now. I will definitely run them through the same paces I did back in the late 90's. So I will see then.
Edits: 02/19/17
Jazz,Vocals,piano,classical orchestra and percussion.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken
I like to open er up sometimes - that's why I had Cornwalls and Cornscalas - I like a BIG sound, with good sound staging and imaging (it doesn't have to be pin point) I like to look a little up at my music - image doesn't have to be overblown but not mini monitor types please (no small facsimiles) I want meat on the bones solid center image that's easy to follow.
I hear that with Logan's and my audition with the emerald physics too - albeit the emerald physics kc11 was not as refined or sophisticated as the Logans, but it could go loud enough for me (could use deeper bass) - it was a fun speaker to listen to, which is important - I did not have the Logan's played that loud really, so I would have to go back and see if it can go as loud as I would like without breaking up...
Thanks
Mike
> > The Monolith woofer couldn't keep up with the membrane but I heard they have corrected this...
I've heard Martin Logans off and on for about 30 years now and have always found the bass poorly integrated with the electrostatic drivers. It just doesn't sound right to me.
And, I can't tell you how many times, when I've made the above observation, that I've been assured that "THIS TIME THEY GOT IT RIGHT!" But it still isn't in my book. The lower midrange is so critical for the fundamentals of voice and most instruments -- and that's where the driver transition takes place -- that I'm just not interested if the speaker doesn't get that right, no matter what else it does superbly.
Now, it has probably been 5 years or so since I've heard a set of MLs, so maybe it really is true that this time they've fixed the issue! ;-)
I agree that getting that wrong is a problem. I've never been super excited about ML (and never listened seriously I admit), but I was stunned in a good way by the Sanders 10D.
It has a very small sweet spot in left-to-right positioning, but in that spot it was awesome and flawless to me. For me, best of show at THE Newport 2 years in a row. I judge on diversified classical.
It may be as good as the Apogee Diva I remember hazily from decades ago.
I love the Apogee Divas.Those are very nice speakers as well.Still one of my favorites.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken
You guys describe what I've always heard with ML speakers. To me, there is a skeletal impression in the midrange. No meat on the bones. Yes, they are very transparent and open, but are better suited to less complicated and dynamic music.
I also confess to not having heard the latest offerings. They may be worlds better. That said, I think Quads are better overall than the ML speakers I have heard. But they won't play nearly loud enough for me.
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
I can play my PK quads at 84-89 db all day I can break into the 90's but never pushed them past 100k
And salesman said the same thing as you. He got a better blend with a separate smaller subwoofer but still....just didn't do it for me. The Martin Logan's looked nice but really didn't impress me at all. When I test drove them they looked so big and I thought the sound stage would be like that also until I heard the music start. I was really surprised at how small that sweet spot was.
My ESS AMT-1D's at the time had a better soundstage and played a lot louder. Actually it took a while for me to find a better speaker than them. I told the salesman how I have been auditioning speakers for two years between S.D. And L.A. Then the salesman that was auditioning the Martin Logan's for me asked me some questions and suggested the Vandersteen 2ce. I liked the 2Ce's, a little laidback for me, but I wanted a bigger soundstage. Then I upgraded to Vandersteen 3A's but they were still a little too laid back for my taste. Then I took a chance on some Carver Amazing Silvers, I had the Vandersteen's and Carver Silver at the same time and preferred the Carver Silvers over the Vandersteens by a lot. I have never looked back.
I finally had a speaker in the Carver Silvers that sound really good on all material and that I could open up when audio friends came over or when having a few drinks. I will never forget one night my brother came over and we put some Tower of Power on. He told me to fire it up so I did. He kept saying how Chester Thompson solo sounds like he was right there in the room but what really got both our attentions were when during the organ solo the horns that are on top on the Leslie for the B3 organ...you could actually here how and what direction the were spinning in when Chester sped them up and slowed them down during the solo. I'm a musician as my brother is, he and I never ever heard that from any LP before or after and only heard that in person with his organ player's Leslie. It was really freaky to heard that from an LP. Just telling what we both heard.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: