Ok, ever since ML came out with the smaller panels I have been a little skeptical of their claims that the smaller panels are more efficient and have greater output than the older larger panels. So, since I was a little bored today and wasn't in a mood to take pictures of my system, I decided to test this theory in a very non-scientific way.
I have a pair of Ascents and a pair of Summits. I counted the rows and columns of the stator panel holes to figure out how many holes each one had in its stator (counting only the rows/columns that were not blocked by the sidewall construction) and then measured the diameter of the holes in each type of speaker. I don't have caliper measuring tools, so this was a very inexact eyeball measurement using mm. From this, I calculated the total actual panel output area for each in sq. cm based on number and size of holes (figuring area for the circle and then multiplying that by number of circles in each panel). Since the Summit is equal to the Prodigy, and I don't have a Prodigy, I extrapolated the output area for the Prodigy based on the difference in size of the Prodigy panel from the Ascent panel. For reference, the Summit panel has a total area of 497 sq. in. and the Prodigy panel is around 750 sq. in. So the Prodigy panel is about 50% larger in area. Now, I will be the first to say that this was all done quickly and with very basic tools. I am fairly confident in the math, but the measurements could have been much more precise. I'm sure I'm off. Maybe way off. I don't know how badly I'm off and whether I am off equally between panel styles. So this is highly unscientific. But I think I got some basic ballpark figures to compare.
So is ML feeding us a bunch of marketing BS or are they being real? According to my very basic calculations, the Summit has about 50% to 60% more output area than the Prodigy! Even though the Prodigy panel is about 50% larger by total area. Wow! So ML is correct in saying they are more efficient and have greater output capacity. The next question this raises to me is: what does this do for the sound? Obviously, it allows them to make the speaker much smaller and still produce greater output while being easier to drive. Hence the Summit's 1 db better efficiency. Also, it may be because of the smaller panel that the Summit has a slightly higher crossover point than the Prodigy. But what does it do for the sound? I have no idea, but my guess is it increases accuracy, dynamics and transient response. Which is something all ESLs do great, but the new generation of MLs seems to excel at. However, my concern has always been that the smaller panel affects the perceived size of images and soundstage. I don't know if this is true, but I suspect it may be. There may be other positive and/or negative impacts of a smaller, more efficient panel that I haven't even considered.
Since I always think that more of a good thing has to be better, my final question is: how good would an ML speaker sound that used the newer panel construction but was made the size of the old Prodigy panel (appx. 14.5" x 48" vs. the Summit's 11.3" x 44"), or just over a third more radiating area? I have no idea, but I sure would like to find out. :rocker: I am curious if ML has experimented with larger panel sizes using the newer panel tech and, if so, what they discovered. Would they be even a little more efficient? Would they allow you to lower the crossover point? Would they affect imaging and sound staging in a positive way? Lots of possibilities.
Edit: For comparison sake, the Sanders Sound Model 10 has a panel that is 15" x 42" for a total area of 630 sq. in. and doesn't use the metal stators, so probably has an even greater effective radiating area than an ML panel the same size. They are 94 db efficient vs. Summit's 92 db, and they have a default crossover point of 172 hz. vs. Summit's 270 hz. They also go lower and higher than the Summits in frequency range. And they cast a hell of a soundstage with great imaging. But they lack the curved panel, so the sweet spot is narrow.
What do you guys think? And if anyone from ML wants to chime in with info or ideas, that would be great too.
I have a pair of Ascents and a pair of Summits. I counted the rows and columns of the stator panel holes to figure out how many holes each one had in its stator (counting only the rows/columns that were not blocked by the sidewall construction) and then measured the diameter of the holes in each type of speaker. I don't have caliper measuring tools, so this was a very inexact eyeball measurement using mm. From this, I calculated the total actual panel output area for each in sq. cm based on number and size of holes (figuring area for the circle and then multiplying that by number of circles in each panel). Since the Summit is equal to the Prodigy, and I don't have a Prodigy, I extrapolated the output area for the Prodigy based on the difference in size of the Prodigy panel from the Ascent panel. For reference, the Summit panel has a total area of 497 sq. in. and the Prodigy panel is around 750 sq. in. So the Prodigy panel is about 50% larger in area. Now, I will be the first to say that this was all done quickly and with very basic tools. I am fairly confident in the math, but the measurements could have been much more precise. I'm sure I'm off. Maybe way off. I don't know how badly I'm off and whether I am off equally between panel styles. So this is highly unscientific. But I think I got some basic ballpark figures to compare.
So is ML feeding us a bunch of marketing BS or are they being real? According to my very basic calculations, the Summit has about 50% to 60% more output area than the Prodigy! Even though the Prodigy panel is about 50% larger by total area. Wow! So ML is correct in saying they are more efficient and have greater output capacity. The next question this raises to me is: what does this do for the sound? Obviously, it allows them to make the speaker much smaller and still produce greater output while being easier to drive. Hence the Summit's 1 db better efficiency. Also, it may be because of the smaller panel that the Summit has a slightly higher crossover point than the Prodigy. But what does it do for the sound? I have no idea, but my guess is it increases accuracy, dynamics and transient response. Which is something all ESLs do great, but the new generation of MLs seems to excel at. However, my concern has always been that the smaller panel affects the perceived size of images and soundstage. I don't know if this is true, but I suspect it may be. There may be other positive and/or negative impacts of a smaller, more efficient panel that I haven't even considered.
Since I always think that more of a good thing has to be better, my final question is: how good would an ML speaker sound that used the newer panel construction but was made the size of the old Prodigy panel (appx. 14.5" x 48" vs. the Summit's 11.3" x 44"), or just over a third more radiating area? I have no idea, but I sure would like to find out. :rocker: I am curious if ML has experimented with larger panel sizes using the newer panel tech and, if so, what they discovered. Would they be even a little more efficient? Would they allow you to lower the crossover point? Would they affect imaging and sound staging in a positive way? Lots of possibilities.
Edit: For comparison sake, the Sanders Sound Model 10 has a panel that is 15" x 42" for a total area of 630 sq. in. and doesn't use the metal stators, so probably has an even greater effective radiating area than an ML panel the same size. They are 94 db efficient vs. Summit's 92 db, and they have a default crossover point of 172 hz. vs. Summit's 270 hz. They also go lower and higher than the Summits in frequency range. And they cast a hell of a soundstage with great imaging. But they lack the curved panel, so the sweet spot is narrow.
What do you guys think? And if anyone from ML wants to chime in with info or ideas, that would be great too.
Last edited: