ESL 15A, 13A, 11A Reviews?

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
R

rpokuls

Well-known member
MLO Supporter
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
120
Reaction score
39
Location
Syracuse, NY
So ML released the new speaker series earlier this year. Has anybody found any reviews of these new speakers? I've been looking for the last while and have found nothing apart from some informal posts from people who have actually bought them.

It's been almost a year since the release of these speakers and nothing from Absolute Sound, etc. Has anybody seen anything?
 
Thanks, Tom.

But it's not really a review. Sort of a press release thing dated Jan 2016 when they released the new series.

Anyway, hopefully we'll see something soon. I know that there is a time lag between new product release and product
reviews.
 
sleepysurf said:
Google is your friend!

Renaissance... https://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/HFW_0716_Ren_4web.pdf
Impression... http://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/...ession-esl-11a-electrostatic-speakers-review/

I haven't seen one for the Expression yet, but I'm very impressed with mine, even though they're not fully dialed in yet.
Click to expand...

Since you have them could you talk a bit about the differences in the sonic signature between the expression and the summits you sold or are selling if memory serves me correctly? I mean what are the differences in house sound... texture... sound stage... depth... realism. Vs summit? It would be great to hear an MLO impression of the expression. :). Sorry if I missed it??
 
timm said:
Since you have them could you talk a bit about the differences in the sonic signature between the expression and the summits you sold or are selling if memory serves me correctly? I mean what are the differences in house sound... texture... sound stage... depth... realism...
Click to expand...

As expected, the Expressions mids and highs have the same tonality, soundstage depth, and realism. With the slightly bigger panel, the "sweet spot" is probably a little wider vs. the Summits. Main difference is the bass, which is better integrated with the panels. The addition of ARC (Anthem Room Correction) helps optimize overall bass relative to the room.

I have a difficult room (bass null at sweet spot), and had added a pair of BF 210 subs to my Summits to help smooth that out. I still have that null with the Expressions (since it's room dependant), so will continue using the subs. Unfortunately, I haven't had much time for "dialing in" the Expressions, but will post updates over the next couple months as I do so.
 
sleepysurf said:
Main difference is the bass, which is better integrated with the panels. The addition of ARC (Anthem Room Correction) helps optimize overall bass relative to the room.

I have a difficult room (bass null at sweet spot), and had added a pair of BF 210 subs to my Summits to help smooth that out. I still have that null with the Expressions (since it's room dependant), so will continue using the subs. Unfortunately, I haven't had much time for "dialing in" the Expressions, but will post updates over the next couple months as I do so.
Click to expand...

I have a Q for you, the Expression has front and rear firing woofers, as opposed to the Summit front and down set up. Do you think that has anything to do with the better bass response? I realize you have a difficult room...most of us do. Just curious on your thoughts as well. I would think that the 13A's would need to be farther from the back wall or need some major tuning to tame the bass response. thanks bud!
 
The new woofer configuration, along with whatever phasing "secret sauce" they've added, along with the addition of ARC, is clearly a major improvement over the old Summit/X design. I wish ML would release a "white paper" explaining how this new woofer design works!

That being said, there's still utility in having separate sub(s) so you can focus on positioning the panels optimally for your room, then deal with the bass separately.

Thus far, I've (surprisingly) found that the mids, highs, and imaging is better with the Expression panels a bit closer to the front wall than were my Summits (~39" vs. 48"). Next step will be deciding whether to run my Expressions bass "full-range", or dialed down -10dB, and use the dual subs to round out the bottom end. Lots of "permutations" to keep me busy!
 
Looks like they've released a 4th model in the line. The "Classic 9A". Pretty reasonable price really.
 
sleepysurf said:
The new woofer configuration, along with whatever phasing "secret sauce" they've added, along with the addition of ARC, is clearly a major improvement over the old Summit/X design. I wish ML would release a "white paper" explaining how this new woofer design works!

That being said, there's still utility in having separate sub(s) so you can focus on positioning the panels optimally for your room, then deal with the bass separately.

Thus far, I've (surprisingly) found that the mids, highs, and imaging is better with the Expression panels a bit closer to the front wall than were my Summits (~39" vs. 48"). Next step will be deciding whether to run my Expressions bass "full-range", or dialed down -10dB, and use the dual subs to round out the bottom end. Lots of "permutations" to keep me busy!
Click to expand...

Thanks sleepysurf.
 
I just spent some seat time In front of a pair of 11S and was impressed..
 
One more significant change with the top three models of the Masterpiece series is their higher crossover (300 Hz) from woofers to panel (360 Hz for the Classic ESL 9), vs. 270 Hz for Summit/X. I'm surprised they didn't actually lower the crossover to get it out of the middle of a singers primary frequency range. Thus far, I can't say the crossover is audible, but I wonder why they aren't letting the stat panel handle more of the upper bass and lower midrange?
 
sleepysurf said:
One more significant change with the top three models of the Masterpiece series is their higher crossover (300 Hz) from woofers to panel (360 Hz for the Classic ESL 9), vs. 270 Hz for Summit/X. I'm surprised they didn't actually lower the crossover to get it out of the middle of a singers primary frequency range. Thus far, I can't say the crossover is audible, but I wonder why they aren't letting the stat panel handle more of the upper bass and lower midrange?
Click to expand...

I wonder too.

They seem to be increasing the crossover frequency, consecutively, over the years.

Monolith was 125Hz.

Odyssey / Prodigy was 250Hz.

I asked the same question with (on this forum anyway) with the introduction of the Summit back in 2005.

I'd really like to know from Martin Logan why this is?
 
My gut feeling is they are "juicing" the upper bass to get a tad more dynamics (from the woofers) to counter the perception that ML's can't "rock out" like conventional drivers. Interestingly, ML touts lower crossover points as one of their advantages on their FAQ page... http://www.martinlogan.com/learn/faq-electrostatic.php (excerpted below).

MartinLogan ESL loudspeakers utilize a single transducer capable of reproducing most of the audio spectrum. This unique property of ESL transducers means that MartinLogan speakers can cross-over at lower frequencies-typically 250 Hz-thus assuring that each audio event reaches your ear at exactly the right time. This means that the performance seems as real and detailed as the original.
Click to expand...
 
sleepysurf said:
My gut feeling is they are "juicing" the upper bass to get a tad more dynamics (from the woofers) to counter the perception that ML's can't "rock out" like conventional drivers. Interestingly, ML touts lower crossover points as one of their advantages on their FAQ page... http://www.martinlogan.com/learn/faq-electrostatic.php (excerpted below).
Click to expand...

I've been wondering the same thing myself. If I want to upgrade my speakers to the ESL 15A from the Montis for example then I would hope that spending all that money on a larger panel
will result in more of the music coming out of the panel frequency-wise. Yes, the ESL 15A goes down to 300 HZ vs. 340 Hz for the Montis, but that hardly seems a lot for an extra $15,000.

The whole point is to get as much music from the panel as possible. If I want to hear cones, then I'll just buy a cone speaker.
 
Last edited:
IF you can still get CLX's discounted for around $18,000 that is a much better bang for the buck than 15A. Just my opinion after hearing them side by side.
 
Brad225 said:
IF you can still get CLX's discounted for around $18,000 that is a much better bang for the buck than 15A. Just my opinion after hearing them side by side.
Click to expand...

agreed Brad and when funds permit add a pair of subs and you'll have one of the best rigs for the $$ on the planet !
 
Would love it if ML jumped in here and discussed how they choose their cross-over frequencies. Especially since the CLX go down below 100 Hz, so why is 300Hz a limit for the hybrid designs?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ttocs
DSP In Dynamo Subs & 11A/13A/15A Speakers
Replies
3
Views
488
JonFo
JonFo
F
MartinLogan Motion reviews and measurements
Replies
1
Views
1K
Fidji99
F
M
Help Talk Me Out of Upgrading 11A's to 13A's
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
ejspain
ejspain
TommyD
Hey there from Washington DC
Replies
6
Views
411
TommyD
TommyD
ejspain
Just Wondering....
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
Brazillnut
B

Latest posts

Back
Top