SL3 upgrade to Prodigy worth it?

Been looking lovingly at a used pair of Prodigy's recently.

They are over 2x more expensive than the used value of my SL3's.
The room is 5.5m x 2.8m and I'd be using a sub too with logans placed at narrow end of room as far into the room as i need. Would be an almost nearfield triangle listening position.

Any thoughts on the benefits of the larger panel?

Prodigy's are MASSIVE. That room seems way too small, IMHO. What amplification will you be using to drive them? Doubt you will need subs.

TomDac said:

Prodigy's are MASSIVE. That room seems way too small, IMHO. What amplification will you be using to drive them? Doubt you will need subs.

Click to expand...

I am sure you are right but was given similar advice on the SL3 moving up from the Aerius i and that worked wonderfully well.
Do you think having a virtual nearfield configuration mitigates the room constraint?

have you seen the Prodigys in real life? The panel is not only huge, but the woofer cabinet is very large also. SL3 is a minor step up from Aerius. SL3 to Prodigy is like double the size. Having a nearfield config will help mitigate the room size for sure, but they will still overpower the room.

Agree Prodigy is too big for that room, but more of a bass problem than the panel. The sub might help tame room modes, but again, I think they are overkill for that room. A better bet might be something like the Ethos with adjustable bass gain and more reasonable panel size.

I have had Prodigy speakers for 18 years, 12 years of which were in a room exactly the size of your room. I also used a Rel Stentor III subwoofer in that room

I think the Prodigy is a big step up in sound quality and enjoyment from the SL3. This is more controversial but I personally prefer the Prodigy to the Summit.

I encourage you to make the upgrade.

My first placement of CLS was in a room approx. 13 feet by 11 feet. CLS audio quality in this room was amazing. But when I next placed them in a larger room the sound to my ears was more complete in the sense of being more extended on opposite ends of the audible spectrum.

First, CLS are full range electrostatic.

Second, large speakers sound better in large rooms as opposed to small rooms. Prodigy will sound good in small room but will sound better in a larger room provided you have adequately powerful amplifier.

A sub-woofer in room will be too much if make use of a amplifier above 500 watts per channel at 4 ohms and stable at 1 ohm. From loudspeaker specifications I read that the Prodigy has enough low frequency response. I have not listened to the Prodigy but have listened to Quest, SL3 and Aerius.

The Quest has understated bass but precise, low enough and not weak. Its low frequency seems designed to complement the electrostatic panel and not to subdue the electrostatic panel sound.

With a suitable, that is refined and powerful stereo amp, the Prodigy have a full range response and subwoofer is really not required for stereo listening in my opinion.

First step acquire Prodigy. Listen to music. Second if not satisfied then second step purchase sub-woofer.

Audio incrementally more natural and real when ascending the high end audio ladder.

Have fun listening to music.:music:

Try SL3 with an active xo for the bass only, and you won't need subs for that room. Active xo on the bass completely UNSTRANGLES all those old ESL-hybrids (and that includes Prodigy) and makes them modern again. Even ML themselves have been doing it for over a decade...

Malcasine,

What M15 and Tosh said, and............... my 2 cents. OK 3 cents based on 7 years experience with Prodigy "in a room too small for them to sound good ".







First my disclaimer; I listened in the extreme nearfield. Growing up I was in multiple vocal groups, choirs, pop rock bands, concert bands, marching bands, and dance bands. I'm used to having the voices and instruments right up to my ears. The high-frequency rolloff that occurs at mid audience and further back is not my desired perspective.

This is my old setup. I've moved to new location and the room I am building will actually be a bit smaller.

The room in the picture was approximately 10'3" wide(3.12 m). The speakers were approximately 5 feet from the wall behind them (1.52 m), and as you can see very close to the sidewalls, at least the edge of the woofer cabinets.
This arrangement sounded good from day one.

But as I went from stereo to mono amps got better. From hybrid tube MOSFET to tubes even better. Eventually digital external crossover with tubes on the top and solid-state on the bottom. The two depths subwoofers really were superfluous.

If you're only going to use one amp then it needs balls. The woofers really soak up power.

The system gives pinpoint imaging, with tremendous stage depth and width and realistic instrument and human size.
One of the great benefits of near field listening is that the primary wave from the speaker gets to your ears long before the reflected waves. Although you will notice a fair amount of do-it-yourself room treatments in these pictures. Room treatment never hurts.

Rather than bore the others further with this, if you would like to continue discussion you can PM me.
Your ML friend Bruce

Bruce, you are awesome, using Prodigy's like a pair of headphones...Rock on! I had a buddy do that with my Sequels, I didn't care for it but, it was fun late night.

Thanks stuwee

Yes REALLY big headphones with REAL imaging and body impact for bass.

Hi there,
Allow me to introduce you to thie two most favorite things in my life ( does that sound sad? ) Anyway, they are my ML Prodigys and my Sunfire 600x2. A match made in heaven. My music has never sounded so good. And thats what its all about.
I'm sure you could make a small room work. Go for it, you wont regret it!

Thanks for the replies...very helpful.
Just for context on a couple of points raised.

1. I need a subwoofer no matter which ML I choose, this is due to room node/bass boom issues and not to get more bass. I put my SVS sub near the middle of the room for all <80hz and it works realy well.

2. I have the panels and woofer amplified separately. Tubes on the panel and high power SS on the woofer. I can adjust volumes to each independently too. This works brilliantly for a bit of fine tuning.

I think ultimately its the improvement i could get from the panel that appeals and it sounds like it could work in a nearfield and small room setup.

Secondary in my mind is bass / integration with panel given use of the sub <80hz.

I do recognise my room a major constraint but i cant do a thing about it for now although i do have freedom to locate the speakers anywhere i like in my man cave!

No time to follow up with pm's today but I may well do (thanks bruce)

Question I need to resolve in my mind is, are the Prodigy panels so much better than the Sl3 in a nearfield setup that it justifies a $2k difference v my current SL3??

malcesine said:

Thanks for the replies...very helpful.
Just for context on a couple of points raised.

1. I need a subwoofer no matter which ML I choose, this is due to room node/bass boom issues and not to get more bass. I put my SVS sub near the middle of the room for all <80hz and it works realy well.

2. I have the panels and woofer amplified separately. Tubes on the panel and high power SS on the woofer. I can adjust volumes to each independently too. This works brilliantly for a bit of fine tuning.

I think ultimately its the improvement i could get from the panel that appeals and it sounds like it could work in a nearfield and small room setup.

Secondary in my mind is bass / integration with panel given use of the sub <80hz.

I do recognise my room a major constraint but i cant do a thing about it for now although i do have freedom to locate the speakers anywhere i like in my man cave!

No time to follow up with pm's today but I may well do (thanks bruce)

Question I need to resolve in my mind is, are the Prodigy panels so much better than the Sl3 in a nearfield setup that it justifies a $2k difference v my current SL3??

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "better". It is the same mylar with the same stators and the same curvature of the panel, so the SL3s are just less of what the Prodigys are. But from a quality perspective they are the same. If it were me in that room, I'd look at the something like the Ethos (adjustable bass) or Theos. Either would integrate well in your size room and give you the sonic benefits from newer innovation in newer models + less risk that you'd need to replace the panel anytime soon.

sb6: You seem to have confused original Gen1 Odyssey with Gen2 Prodigy in comparing against SL3 (which had the Gen1 Odyssey panel)?

Tosh said:

sb6: You seem to have confused original Gen1 Odyssey with Gen2 Prodigy in comparing against SL3 (which had the Gen1 Odyssey panel)?

Click to expand...

Tish, how different are the panels? I understand the biggest change in panels was going from Prodigy line/style to newer Montis/Summit with larger perforated holes and more surface area of the mylar exposed? IN either case, the newer gen MLs have the "better' panels and a smaller one with adjustable bass would better fit the room.

sb6 said:

Tish, how different are the panels? I understand the biggest change in panels was going from Prodigy line/style to newer Montis/Summit with larger perforated holes and more surface area of the mylar exposed? IN either case, the newer gen MLs have the "better' panels and a smaller one with adjustable bass would better fit the room.

Click to expand...

Name is Tosh, please spell name accurately. Montis/Summit have more surface area of the Mylar exposed, lacks evidence, since Montis and Summit have less total surface area compared to previous generation ML's. Prodigy launched in 2000 and Odyssey launched in 2001. Both not have XStat electrostatic panel.

Can i ask the question slightly differently.
Are the panels on the newer mid range or smaller models altogether better than both the SL3 gen1 and Prodigy gen2 panels?

malcesine said:

Can i ask the question slightly differently.
Are the panels on the newer mid range or smaller models altogether better than both the SL3 gen1 and Prodigy gen2 panels?

Click to expand...

If you are asking whether the sound of the lower models (meaning less than montis in my opinion) will compete with the prodigy - I will say 'no way'.

The big diff between newer and older is panel/woofer integration. The panel diffs -although there - to me are slight. The sound of the newer speakers have a different sonic signature - punchier bass. You may or may not like that.

To me - prodigy is an excellent speaker if they are in good shape at a good price. Comparing a prodigy to an sl3 is kind of like comparing main speakers to rear surrounds. No 'dis' on the sl3 but the prodigy is a killer speaker. (Ps. Bring plenty of amp to the party. This is no speaker to run off a receiver)

timm said:

If you are asking whether the sound of the lower models (meaning less than montis in my opinion) will compete with the prodigy - I will say 'no way'.

The big diff between newer and older is panel/woofer integration. The panel diffs -although there - to me are slight. The sound of the newer speakers have a different sonic signature - punchier bass. You may or may not like that.

To me - prodigy is an excellent speaker if they are in good shape at a good price. Comparing a prodigy to an sl3 is kind of like comparing main speakers to rear surrounds. No 'dis' on the sl3 but the prodigy is a killer speaker. (Ps. Bring plenty of amp to the party. This is no speaker to run off a receiver)

Click to expand...

Wow Timm you nailed it. Could not have said it better. I have a 14 year old pair of Prodigy's and they are still killer speakers for the price I recently sent the high passes back to ML to replace the caps they sound great. I use them as my rears in my 7.1 for sure ML's biggest area of improvement is the bass to panel integration.
Q
GaryG