Sound Labs Electrostatics & Magico Mini II's

sacduser wrote:Jvalin (and other listeners in the know),

I am thinking of a pair of electrostatic speakers to provide a complementary and alternative listening experience to my Mini II's. I am scheduled to audition the Sound Labs Millenium Electrostatics next week.

I'd be interesting in your take on what the Sound Labs electrostatics offer compared to the Mini II (I'm unable to compare them side by side). Based on your experience with the Sound Labs and Magico, what are the significant differences to listen out for, given a brief audition period?

The dealer only has the Audiophile 3 PX on demo. I assume this is basically a dolled-up M 2 PX right? Since i can't hear the M1 PX, any thoughts on what more it offers for an extra $5,000?

I look forward to the audition and hope to report interesting findings. Thanks for any input that might help me prepare.

Make sure you listen to Quads!

• Login or register to post comments

Standing up to humidity and dust is not an electrostat's strong suit, sacduser. I never had a problem in this regard with Sound Lab M-1s, but I did have constant problems with MartinLogan CLSes, whose diaphgragms were hygroscopic. When the humidity went up, the SPLs went down--sometimes to zero. I had to replace the diaphragms three times in both speakers, although, to give ML its considerable due, it did this for free all three times (including shipping)--and this was well before I was a reviewer for TAS or Fi. To be fair, this was better than fifteen years ago, and ML has made many changes to its panels since. The CLX is an entirely different animal and probably does not have any of the panel-reliabiity problems that the CLS had (in all three iterations of that speaker--I, II, and IIz).

With Sound Labs M-1s, I haven't had any humidity-related problems (don't know about dust because I don't live in that kind of climate), but I have had a diaphragm-tensioning problem. The diaphragm has loosened up over time and needs to be retensioned. Also, the (original) M-1 (and the original CLS) really soaked up power and, in my experience, fared better with amplifiers that had power to spare with difficult loads (such as the Krell FPB 650); however, with your Goldmund Telos amps this will not be a problem for you.

Quads, famously, have had problems with arcing (which neither the Sound Lab nor the ML does, in my experience) when fed too much voltage. Supposedly this has been cured by the panel-protection circuit installed in Quad speakers from the 63s on, although I think you may still be able to damage them by persistently feeding them too much voltage. (Wait for my review to read about the latest Quad's SPL limits.) This said, if ultimate SPLs aren't important to you, I agree with SundayNiagara, you really ought to listen to the ESL-2905s in addition to the M-1s, although, once again, I cannot attest to how durable the Quads might be in a severe climate.

As for your original question, Mini IIs versus M-1s (or any top-rank electrostat), this is really an apples versus oranges situation. Electrostats have a set of plusses that no other kind of speakers (including dipole planars) offers to the same degree. They also have a set of minusses that are unique to 'stats. I will go into detail about both in my Quad ESL-2905 review in Issue 186. (I don't want to scoop myself on-line, although if you'd care to drop me a private e-mail, sacduser, I'll go into more detail.)

• Login or register to post comments

SundayNiagara wrote: Give them another listen. Have the words "Quadlike midrange" ever entered your mind?

Thanks SundayNiagara. .

Certainly "Quadlike midrange" has become a universal benchmark for uncoloured clarity and articulation in the midband. What worries me is that the terms "Quadlike treble" or "Quadlike bass" do not carry the same prestige. The treble of the 989 seemed a bit glassy. Also the presentation was a bit guarded dynamics wise. Listening to 989s at moderate levels, it was like you knew instinctively you could not crank them up further. Although delicate and smooth, the sound warns you it cannot go any louder. It was like when I was auditioning Stax Omega II electrostatic headphones and comparing them to Grado RS1's. The Stax's were so smooth but once you reach a certain loudness threshold (which was not very loud at all) the diaphragm startsto crackle. Bass was a bit muddy, and indefinite. The 989's were hardly 2 feet from the wall that was why.

I'm hoping the 2905 surmounts these problems. They cost about half a decked out Soundlabs A3 PX.

The other thing I'm worried about is reliability. Past Quads have been known to exhibit problems. The pair of 2905's that Ken Kessler reviewed in HiFi news had a wide disparity in channel balance.

• Login or register to post comments