Limitations of Electrostatic Speakers
Geophysicist -- Wed, 01/21/2009 - 08:22
I read with interest J. Valin's recent TAS review of the new Martin Logan CLX. I recently auditioned the speaker at length, and agree with his assessment on virtually every point. However, I have very fundamental problems with 1) a $20,000 speaker that does not reproduce the bottom 1 1/2 octaves in any way, shape, or form, and 2) is dynamically limited to the point of compressing peaks of most music playing at 'realistic' levels.
I do not wish to pick on the CLX in particular. Jonathan's review, however, extended the latter point to virtually all full range electrostatics. I find it interesting that the SoundLab M-1 has been on the TAS recommended list for several years, but that the single greatest improvement in SoundLabs has not been reviewed. I am speaking of the PX technology, which is implemented in all new SoundLab speakers and can be retrofitted to older models. I purchased the PX panels for my A-1s just over a year ago. Gone are any dynamic limitations up to ridiculous volume levels. Bass is now flat to 28 Hz in my (large and dedicated) listening room. I would urge Mr. Valin - and any others who wish to experience full range, uncompressed electrostatic sound - to give these a listen.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Geophysicist,
I will certainly review the Sound Labs when I get the opportunity. I love Dr. West's products.
While the CLX does not reproduce the bottom one-and-a-half octaves with power, it is a wonderment everywhere else. So transparent and colorless that I simply don't care about the missing bass. As I said in the CLX review, it will do the bottom note of a cello (and much of the doublebasses' range) superlatively. With the chamber music and folk music that I listen to more often than not, that's enough. And with big orchestral pieces, there is enough "implied" bass to make the speaker quite, quite listenable. It's just so darn realistic in the midband.
As for dynamic range...yeah, most 'stats compress it on the loud side, though the CLXes actually do better than most in this regard. Still I wouldn't (and didn't) claim they're world-beaters from mf to ff, but from mf to pppp I've never heard anything better.
Thank you for the kind words about my review.
Jon
Hi! Jon,
I noticed that the MBL system was listed as references in your CLX review. Was MBL 101X still in the listening room when you reviewed CLX? Besides, did you try to match the sub tower of 101X to CLX?
Thanks.
Linn
Linn,
No, Linn, the CLXes weren't in the same room (or on the same floor) as the 101 X-Tremes. Nothing is in the same room as the MBL 101 X-Tremes. Even I have trouble fitting in--those things are gigantic and literally weigh a ton (almost two, actually).
I will be trying subs with the CLXes at a later date--MartinLogan's own dedicated Descent i's. As great as ML's engineering is--and it's clearly better than ever--I have trouble believing that any sub can keep up with the Xes. They're so flat, so clean, so colorlessly neutral, and so of a piece.
For a purist--and I guess I count myself as one--the penalty in coherence and transparency and speed that you pay for adding a sub typically outweighs any gain.
Jon
Geophysicist, I couldn't have said it much better. But then, as you may know, I'm a Sound Lab dealer :-) Still, I wholeheartedly agree with your questioning the CLX's lack of bass response. One never needs to apologize for Sound Labs' bass response, in fact in some situations the bass needs to be turned down. So why is the CLX's -3 dB point at 56 Hz deemed acceptable? Heck, doesn't the original Quad ESL (57) go that deep? And it's a lot smaller and much less expensive. Yet at around $25k one needs to buy separate subwoofers in hopes they will fill in the bottom well and integrate with the panels? Huh? I'm left scratching my head. Not a snowball's chance they can sound as integrated, i.e., cut from the same cloth as the rest of the sound as one would get if the panels produced full bass response, especially at any listening position other than the sweet spot. There are major design differences between ML and SL, but I'm accustomed to near perfect phase response, no image shift, and full range crystal clear sound that follows you no matter where you are, including other rooms. It's darn near impossible to get your head around any other 'stats and for that matter a lot of other speakers once you've had Sound Labs. OK, so much for preaching to the choir :-) Don't get me started on why a curved diaphragm can't provide the best performance.
The U-1PX panels are coming next week, and I can't wait. Roger West really did his homework with the PX technology.
Brian Walsh
Essential Audio ~ Chicago area ~ 773-809-HIFI (4434)
> as you may know, I'm a Sound Lab dealer
Hi Brian, yes I do know (Mike Currie here). Well, Jon has said that he listens largely to small scale music, so he's probably not missing that low end too much. Me? I couldn't live with it, nor would I want to try to integrate a sub or subs. I do have second hand knowledge that Duke Lejeune's SWARM is a potential contender for those who have to try, however. I don't think anyone's going to get 30 Hz out of the things, but an audio buddy is quite impressed by the quality and speed of reproduction. Finally, congratulations on your new panels. You'll love 'em.
Actually, my intent in starting this was to displace the notion that ALL full range 'stats are bass-shy and/or dynamically limited. It simply isn't true. Jon - you CAN have it all...drop-dead gorgeous mids, extended and pure highs, and a bottom end that (properly amplified) will give 99% of box speakers a serious run for their money. Try it, you'll like it.
After reading Stereophile and TAS for many, many years I had about made up my mind to replace my Dunlavy SC IVs with one or another of the Quad models. The more I read about this type of speaker the more I'm discouraged. Humidity, replacement every 5 years (or more often). small sweet spot, etc. I live in Clemson, SC and this part of the US has more days where neither heat or cooling is needed than any other part of this country. I enjoy leaving my house open to the fresh air. Not with this type of speaker. Where is it dry enough to do this? Phoenix? Good luck with leaving your house open for longer than two or three weeks. It would appear that owning one of these speakers is like owning a classic Ferrari-expensive and a lot of trouble.
Jack D II
Jack,
Do you have enough room for SoundLabs? I live near Houston and have zero problems with humidity, even in the dead of summer All that's required is a very occasional bias adjustment (very, very easy via a control on the backplate).
Mike
Mike, I remember reading a review on a large Sound Lab many years ago. I dont know how much room of what shape they require or what models they offer. Time to do some research I guess.
I am curious why you want to replace the Dunlavys. They are actually a very accurate speaker except for their almost inevitable tendency to develop a hole in response in room in the 100-200 Hz region. But if you fix that(time for some DSP?), they are actually a very accurate transducer indeed. Actually, I think they are considerably more accurate than,say, the larger Quad, which, incidentally, has even more of a tendency to lean out in the 100-200 Hz region, but has problems further up as well, while the Dunlavys are well-behaved from the mids on up. And the bass of the Quads is not really sensible, being based on a tympanic resonance at around 55Hz. The Dunlavys are much better in the bottom end, solider and less resonant.
The SCIVs were not my favorite Dunlavy--I liked the Alethas because the floor firing woofer got rid of the leaning out tendency that is intrinsic to the symmetric driver array in the bass. But the SCIV is respectable even so, if you fix the frequency irregularity that tends to develop in room as noted. Incidentally, I think Quads are troublesome in irregular climates,with temperature and humidity extremes. Even in my super-regular(Southern Califonia) climate, where any but rather small variations of either are uncommon compared to other places, I had some problems when I was a Quad owner some years ago, and friends who own contemporary Quads have also had problems. On the other hand, my Xstatics are trouble-free after many years.
REG
REGreen I'm looking at your suggestion to acquire a DSP, which (I am not embarrassed to ask means "Digital Sound Processing??). I've not paid and attention to reviews of them. With a Conrad-Johnson CT 5 preamp, Marsh A400 amp, and the Dunlavy SC IV speakers, what are some DSP units of comparable quality? Best value? Many thanks, JD II
When I owned CLSes, I had to replace the panels every two years or so because they were hygroscopic and, when the humidity rose, would eventually short out. To MartinLogan's credit it cheerfully replaced the panels year in and year out, for no money (and I wasn't a reviewer at that point), but the panel failures were still a pain in the butt. I don't know how the new CLXes will fare over time; I guess we'll see.
Dr. Greene is correct about the bass of the larger Quads, including the 2905; in fact, the 2905's frequency response is, as I noted in my reviews of the 2905s and the CLXes, tailored (very attractively and artfully) to give the impression of low bass without actually generating much low bass by elevating the upper bass and exploiting a large peak around 60Hz. The CLX does not try this psychoacoustic trick. It is an honest transducer, playing more or less flat through the midbass, where its response simply plummets around 55Hz (without any games in the upper bass or any resonance in the midbass).
I've had the Soundlabs U1 PX's for just over 3 months now. I find that their most striking ability lies in keeping whatever remaining audible compromise below my threshold of awareness.
I have auditioned notable electrostatics such as Quad 989's and ML Prodigies. Compared to cones, their speed and detail were thrilling, but I never felt convinced due to membrane colouration, dynamic limitations and bass issues.
I'm quite picky in my own way, so even though I found my previous Mini 2 the least compromised amongst all speakers I've auditioned, what bothered me were the faint vestiges of incoherence in the crossover region that betrayed its two-way design. To its credit, the Mini 2 does better in this regard than any other multi-way I've heard. But nothing sounds more coherent than a single-driver, and I wanted one which would not give too much away to the Mini 2's in other aspects.
The U1 PX's bring with them very, very few of the nasty habits of electrostatics. There is none of the membrane clang or dynamic compression that bothered me about previous stats. Instead, there is deep accurate bass. As expected of any good electrostatic, there is also lightning-fast transient response and the unveiling of deeper layers of low-level detail.
Most importantly, the music now sounds more believable, presented as a single piece rather than a glued-together composite of bass and treble.
The greatest thing I miss about the Mini 2's was the way they conjure up soundstages where everything sounds and FEELS solid and real; EXCEPT for the speaker cabinets themselves, which vanish like aural mirages. Mini 2's are unique in the extent to which they pull off this trick.
But what is surprising is how closely two prime examples of dynamic and electrostatic technologies have converged. It is amazing how much of the traditional strengths of electrostatics the Mini 2's assimilated AND how much of the traditional weaknesses of electrostatics the U1 Px's have jettisoned.
"I have auditioned notable electrostatics such as Quad 989's and ML Prodigies."
What are the trade-offs between the Soundlabs, Quads, and ML 's?
Thanks
I've not heard the very latest Quads and Martin Logans. It would be interesting to compare them with Soundlabs that have the new PX panels.
sacduser, I find your comments interesting. I recently replaced the panels in the U-1s here with PX panels and heard improvements in the first few seconds of playing music. The detail (natural, not in-your-face) and imaging are dramatically improved over the non-PX panels, but the cumulative effects are what you notice and go 'wow' about, not so much individual characteristics. There's just more "there" there. Additionally, the bass is much better defined and tuneful.
It would behoove JV to hear the PX speakers, because there have been several advances made since his review of the M-1s in 2001, so much it's scary. Hearing the PXs provides a refreshing recalibration of one's sense of music reproduction capabilities in the home. Sound Lab developed the PX technology to provide ultra reliable ESL technology for professional fixed installations, later used in the consumer loudspeakers, and by all reports it's been a resounding success, with no failures in the field except perhaps a single pair of speakers which had magnetic membrane coating which eventually proved defective -- a supplier fault, not a manufacturing defect. As a Sound Lab owner and dealer I have spoken loudly to them about reliability, and based on results of the PX technology since its introduction about 3 years ago it would appear they have conquered such issues. Thus I envision people many years down the road still listening to their PX speakers without reliability concerns.
Brian Walsh
Essential Audio ~ Chicago area ~ 773-809-HIFI (4434)
That is comforting to hear indeed, Brian.
My main hesitation about buying a planar was the issue of reliability. After months of painstaking research, I concluded that Dr. West has put in enormous effort and resources over the decades to address various causes behind panel breakdowns.
The range of daunting manufacturing issues he has had to apply his expertise to tells of his dogged committment to developing a panel that truly lasts, even in hostile climates. This starkly contrasts with many electrostatic manufacturers who simply posit brief panel life as a given, and advise the owner to replace the panels everytime they break down.
While there have had to be trade-offs between dependability and performance in the past, the current PX panels now achieve both surpassing performance and reliability standards.
Could you advise if I should avoid leaving the PX panels charged up 24/7 so as to prolong the life of the panels? If so, how long do they need to be charged up from cold to sound their best? Thanks!
I've asked Dr. West if there is any benefit from unplugging the speakers overnight, and he said no. From a completely discharged state you can play music within a couple of minutes, but several hours or better still a day lets them charge fully and improves imaging.
Brian Walsh
Essential Audio ~ Chicago area ~ 773-809-HIFI (4434)
nt
"The greatest thing I miss about the Mini 2's was the way they conjure up soundstages where everything sounds and FEELS solid and real; EXCEPT for the speaker cabinets themselves, which vanish like aural mirages. Mini 2's are unique in the extent to which they pull off this trick."
I think this may due to your electronics. The electrostats I own and have extensively auditioned, ML and Sanders, are very revealing of the upstream components. So if your images are thin, that may be the cause. I eventually evolved into Conrad Johnson. The images are solid. I no longer think of the equipment, as it gets out of the way. The music is just heavenly.
Unlike some speakers where cabinet resonances masquerade as fullness of body, the instrumental images rendered by the U1 panels are substantial, solid and three dimensional in an authentic and natural fashion. This is in contrast to the anorexic images that characterise some stats.
Like other classic miniature disappearing acts such as the Celestion SL600 and the Pro AC response SC, the Mini's, with its tiny footprint and small rigid non-resonant cabinet, vanish in a way that eludes larger speakers. However, by increasing the U1's distance from the real wall, one cuts down on sonic clutter from rear wall reflections, achieving a convincing soundstage that emerges freely and independently from the panels.
Being boxless, single-driver panels, the U1's aural presence blends more seamlessly into the soundstage than speakers with blended drivers and resonant cabinets that give their location away within the illusion of stereo illusion.
The soundstage created by big panels like the U1 tend to be larger and more diffuse than the more sharply defined images rendered by small transducers like the Mini.
Sacduser It is time for you to hear the M5. But I think that even the V3 surpasses the Mini in its seamlessness.
But I think that even the V3 surpasses the Mini in its seamlessness.
Sorry, but I disagree with that statement. The V3 has more extended bass than the Mini 2, but seamleness is one of the qualities (partially) sacrficed.
Be interested to know how a speaker can have more drivers and yet sound more seamless, almost all other parameters remaining equal?
Does the M5 implement new technology that achieves this advantage over the Mini 2 in terms of seamlessness?
As Jvalin advised , the further you sit from the Mini 2's, the more coherent the integration between the drivers will be. This makes sense because if you sit just three feet away from them, you'll definitely detect that the treble is coming from a different direction from the bass, and both frequency regions have a distinct character.
Those who sit further away may not detect any incoherence. I had trouble doing so as my room is 5 metres long, and I had to listen nearfield.
Having owned the Dunlavy SC IVs for about 12 years, I'm beginning to think that they lack a certain finesse, a lack of ultimate detail. Since I have a room that will accommodate(barely) John Dunlavy's recommendation of 12'between speakers and sit at least 12' away with the speakers pointed straight ahead, my ears have been educated over time I think. I'm looking at the Grand Veena.
Actually John' speakers are designed to be 10 feet away from the listener, not twelve. His anechoic chamber was designed to measure at ten feet. Also they do not have to be pointed straight ahead. I know since I have his SC VI speakers and spent time with him both listening and interviewing him over the years.
As for "lack of finesse," I'd say look to your room and your upstream components. Better damping and some more revealing components will give you more finesse.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Steven,
I seem to remember (about 100 years ago) reading a review of the SC VIs I think by you. Anyway, I read somewhere that I thought was authoritative that 12 apart and from the listener was minimal. Very glad to be corrected. 12 has worked well except for those records that were not engineered to sustain such a separation - most were. With a C-J CT 5 and Marsh Sound Design (Thank you, thank you! REG) with a Nottingham 294 combo I doubt very seriously that my upstream components lack finesse. What I really need is access to other high quality speakers to sharpen my calibration. I may have a case of "I've had this so long that I want something new and different". Thanks for the information.
Jack D II
Sacduser,
The M5 is the first Magico speaker which uses all-Magico-designed drivers (and, of course, crossovers that have been optimized for--and by--these superior drivers). As a result, it is top-to-bottom seamless in a way that other Magico speakers (much less other dynamic speakers) are not and that is unmistakably reminiscent of the "single-driver" sound of electrostats. I wouldn't say that M5 is quite as "fast" as something like the MartinLogan CLX, or quite as high in resolution at very low levels, or quite as uncannily transparent to sources. BUT it comes mighty close to the standard-setting CLXes in all these regards, and it has considerably more lifelike density of tone color than the CLX from top treble through the midrange and into the deepest bass, far more lifelike range and "jump" on the mezzoforte-to-fortississississimo side of the dynamic spectrum, much more lifelike focus (without overly enhanced edge definition) and three-dimensional body in its imaging, a much wider and deeper soundstage, and none of the sense that I've generally gotten from electrostats (less so from the CLX) that music is coming to me through window-like "portals" in the soundfield (i.e., I'm aware of their physical presence as sound sources in a way that I'm not with the M5--or the Mini II). Then there is the M5's bass. I've just never heard bass like this from any dynamic loudspeaker. If you take a look at the M5 thread on this site at www.avguide.com/forums/magico-m5-loudspeakers, you'll find a more detailed description of what sets the M5's bass (and midrange and treble) apart from that of other large, multiway cone speakers I've heard.
Jon
Seems like another revolution from Magico, Jvalin. I'll look for the first opportunity to hear the M5's.
Perhaps it was my experience with the Mini2's that sharpened my sensitivity to driver incoherence. They came so close it made me yearn for the remaining gap to be closed.
It began to irk unbearably whenever the brassy blat of a French horn sounded disembodied from the rich body of its fundamental tone, or when rosin on string sounded grafted on to a cello's woody resonance, and not part of the same instrument. When the fabric of music is chopped up and the pieces sewn together, it tends to alter the music in a fundamental manner, unlike any other stage in the chain of reproduction.
On the other hand, it is so glorious to hear the sound of a grand piano naturally recreated in its entirety, from the metallic brilliance of its strings in the treble, through the wooden thud of its hammers in the mid range, and right down to the rich resonance of its enormous body in the bass. I find it very satisfying to hear these elements arrive at the right time.
Of course, the electrostatic light-as-a-feather responsiveness is a wonderful plus.
Perhaps the M5's achieve coherence to a sufficient level as well? I'd certainly be keen to hear for myself.
Sacduser,
Although I disagree with your description of the "driver incoherence" of the Mini II (which never sounded particularly--certainly not offensively--incoherent in my room with French horn or cello, with the amplification and preamplification and front end I used), it's a fact that the M5's all-new Magico-designed tweeter is considerably sweeter and better integrated with the Magico-designed Nano-Tec midrange drivers than the ScanSpeak Revelator was with the Mini II's Nano-Tec mid/woof. As I've already noted in the M5 thread, this is partly because the breakup modes of the Nano-Tec midrange drivers in the M5 begin at a considerably higher frequency, meaning that the crossover range between mid and tweet is even less "roughed up" than it was in the standard-setting Mini II. Plus, the tweeter itself is inherently superior with little to no rise in the top octave, greater extension (out to 40kHz, I'm told), and audibly lower distortion/higher resolution/richer timbre.
Look, I'm a huge fan of electrostats. I've lived with and owned more of them than any other kind of speaker. But cones have gotten progressively better (and so much lower in distortion that, nowadays, they rival and often exceed 'stats in that regard). They still sound like cones, which is to say they're not quite as fast, as fine, or as transparent as 'stats, but the things they bring to the table (that no 'stat I've heard does to the same extent) may outweigh a 'stat's slight superiority in transient speed, low-level resolution, and transparency to sources for many listeners.
Jon
Agree, the Mini2's sound very coherent by multi-way standards. I'm sure whatever residual seams lie below the threshold of irritability of most listeners. If the M5's do even better, I'd be keen to hear by how much. Personally, I'm cursed by a sensitivity to even the slightest phasiness in the crossover range(s) straddling the drivers, the only panacea being a single-way transducer.
Yes, I also find that cone speakers have made significant advances in speed and transparency. The Mini2's are a prime example, with their lightning-quick reflexes and unveiling of yet deeper layers of low-level detail.
Conversely, the best stats have been converging from the other direction, overcoming significant hurdles in improving dynamic range, reliability, and deep bass production.
These are exciting times.
"Look, I'm a huge fan of electrostats. I've lived with and owned more of them than any other kind of speaker. But cones have gotten progressively better (and so much lower in distortion that, nowadays, they rival and often exceed 'stats in that regard). They still sound like cones, which is to say they're not quite as fast, as fine, or as transparent as 'stats, but the things they bring to the table (that no 'stat I've heard does to the same extent) may outweigh a 'stat's slight superiority in transient speed, low-level resolution, and transparency to sources for many listeners."
That's great news, Jon.
Are there any cone speakers under $5K (or $10K) that you'd put in that category? Or are we mostly talking $50K+ here?
Put another way, are there any cone speakers in the price ranges I mentioned that will rival my ESL-988s in the 'stat attributes you list above?
David,
I'm afraid I haven't yet heard a $5-$10k two-way dynamic compact that I could put alongside the Magico Mini II, although I've heard some good ones from Focal in its Utopia range. There was a $19k two-way floorstander at CES, the Amphion Prio 620, that I thought was astonishingly good--maybe even Mini II good--and if anyone ever again has enough money to import it into the U.S., I will be the first in line to review it.
Jon
Thanks Jon.
I was actually asking about a dynamic speaker in that range that would rival my Quad ESLs in those stat qualities.
Anything?
Some listeners have been very high on the Reference 3A Grand Veenas.
The battle between the cones and the stats continues unabated ! I would be grateful for Jon's comments on the relative pro's and con's of two quite different designs , each of which (to my mind at least) , represent an elevated level of musical performance , namely the Revel Salon 2's & the Quad 2905's . I am seriously considering one of these for a system based upon the Lamm LL2 preamp/M1.2 Ref amps and the TW Acustics Raven AC that Jon has liked so much in previous reviews. Any views or suggestions ? Some concern on my part that as Robert Harley points out, the Salons are power hungry , although 100W of Class A should technically be no problem. Perhaps Mr. Harley could also pitch in ? Thanks
Kinara
Kinara,
Robert would be the one to ask about Revel Salon 2s. I've only heard them at shows, although I've liked what I heard. The Revels are likely a more neutral, fuller-range, and probably lower-distortion speaker than the 2905s. However, the 2905s are simply gorgeous sounding (rather like your TW turntable) and so shrewdly contoured in the bass/lower mids that they give the impression of having deep low end. They are also, likely, faster on the uptake than the Revels Your Lamm amps are plenty powerful enough for the Quads--and would be a good combo, I think. I don't know if the Lamms are powerful enough for the Salon, which are an 86dB-sensitive loudspeaker with a nominal impedance of 6 ohms and a minimum impedance of about 4 ohms (meaning they are probably lower in sensitivity than 86dB).
Jon