Just purchased New Vantage Speakers!! Have one Question...

Rich said:

Third, the light weight of the driver membrane allows it to stop and start lightning fast, which results in quicker transients and better dynamics.

Click to expand...

Dynamics is a function of output not of transient response. Transient response shows itself as extended response and such response is a product of power to weight not merely a light diaphragm. Stats have weak motors and many types of speakers with heavier diaphragms but more powerful motors have response at least as well extended as that of stats. That's why Chrysler 300Cs are quicker than Chevy Cobalts.

Rich said:

That sounds to me like you are saying that the only problem with the sound you are getting out of your Vistas is a lack of dynamics, and therefore upgrading to a high quality CD player wouldn't fix the problem. But then you go on to say later that you "are not using all of the dynamic capabilities of the Vista anyway" (which was kind of my point about the amp that you are using -- it can't possibly push the Vistas to their dynamic abilities). So on the one hand, the speaker is not dynamic enough for you and you consider that a flaw in the speaker, so a change in source couldn't possibly help your sound . . . but on the other hand, you are using an amp that doesn't emphasize it's dynamic abilities and you have no problem with that.

Ultimately, my point is that with a better amp and preamp on your Vistas, your resolution would be improved such that you could hear a bigger difference between source players. I understand that you disagree with that notion and hold fast to your own belief that a cheap Sony CD changer and a 50 wpc Chinese-made tube amp can drive the Vista's to perfection (within their dynamic limitations, of course).

Click to expand...

I said the dynamics were a flaw in the speaker that would not be fixed by a different CD player, I didn't say the lack of dynamics bothered me, indeed I've gone to some pains to explain that.

Your argument against Sony CD players and Jolida amps appears to be of a religious nature, I can't respond to that.

Matt,

First off, congrats on your new Vantages. I think that in time, once you upgrade your CD player and maybe some other gear (cables, power conditioning, room acoustics), you will find they are, in fact, OUTSTANDING speakers with almost ALL types of music.

It's VERY difficult (if not completely meaningless and impossible) to analyze a system through emails, without ever hearing it in person and being in the room with it. There are simply TOO many unknowable factors--window placement, carpeting, furniture type and location, construction techniques and materials of walls, floor, and ceiling, art hanging on the walls, curtains, etc., for ANYONE to make a meaningful suggestion to you as to why some music sounds good but other music sounds dicey, at least from a room-acoustics POV, or with regards to equipment. It's that simple, and as much as I respect the opinions of many of the members of this fine forum (and several folks here ARE truely genius with regards to component matching, cables, and room acoustics) the fact remains that without seeing and hearing your rig in person, and in it's "native environment", anything that anyone suggests is purely speculative guesswork, and should be taken with a few pounds of salt...

However, I am going to go out on a limb here and bring up one factor that nobody else here seems to be addressing. It is a well-known fact among music fans, recording enthusiasts, and some audiophiles that most (and I mean like 99%) of all "popular" music recordings are pure, unmitigated crap, and have had the recorded signal massively compressed, unrepentantly manipulated, and mercilessly molested to the point where they simply don't remotely resemble what the music sounds like when played by real humans on real instruments...

So if your classical and jazz recordings sound OK, but your rock and pop recordings sound thin in the highs, or edgey in the mids, you can thank the effects-obsessed production engineers and the mindless money-grubbing execs at the record companies.

It's NOT your gear. It's NOT your cables. It's NOT your amps or your speakers, or even your room. It's because some fidgety mixing board geek just got a new stereo compressor in his rack, and decided to mutilate the signal of what SHOULD have been a very clean, pure, detailed digital master recording, so that it would sound better on crappy headphones through an iPod, or through the crappy factory speakers in a car system.

He doesn't CARE that you own Vantages and a Krell amp. In fact, he probably secretly HATES people like us, because we have gear he can only dream about. Like in any business, the people who actually do the REAL work (like him) in the Music Business, get shit for pay, while the idiots in the corner offices who don't know dynamic range from a prostate exam siphon off the majority of the profits to fund therapy sessions and Botox treatments for their trophy wives...

You have a decent rig, from your description. The CD changer is a little below the level of performance of the Krell and the Vantages, and you probably SHOULD replace it with something a little more "high end". But truth be told, a better CD player is only going to make those "pop" recordings sound WORSE, not better, because it is going to REALLY reveal all the stuff that is missing (and added to) the recording.

I used to listen almost exclusively to rock. But since I've assembled a pretty decent system, I find that the only modern (digital) rock recordings I can stand to listen to are "audiophile" pressings (like MFSL gold CDs and the like). I still listen to a fair amount of rock and pop on vinyl, and some of those older pressings (even the non-audiophile pressings) sound TERRIFIC compared to their CD counterparts. These days I listen to a lot of acoustic music--classical, jazz, blues, folk--that sort of thing. Because most of those sorts of recordings are geared toward people who listen to music in their house on a stereo system, not pre-adolescents with iPods and car stereos.

So it's not so much your gear as it is the twiddling little fingers of evil that are abusing those recordings in some dank production studio.

Relax. Your rig is OK. It's the music (or more appropriately, the PRODUCTION of those recordings) that sucks...

--Richard

Irishtom said:

Dynamics is a function of output not of transient response.

Click to expand...

Sorry, no. Wrong again. To wit:

Dynamic - The suggestion of energy and wide dynamic. Related to perceived speed as well as contrasts in volume both large and small.

Click to expand...

Source

dynamic - Giving an impression of wide dynamic range; punchy. This is related to system speed as well as to volume contrast.

Click to expand...

Source

And taken from a review of the AvantGarde Uno Horn Speaker:

But the ability to produce high SPLs with low distortion was only part of the Uno's dynamic capability. The speaker was also able to project a great sense of quickness and dynamic tautness at moderate and low levels.

Click to expand...

Source

Irishtom said:

Your argument against Sony CD players and Jolida amps appears to be of a religious nature, I can't respond to that.

Click to expand...

Actually, I am completely nonreligious, even in my audiophile beliefs. My argument is founded on simple logical reasoning based on the understanding of what it takes from a manufacturing standpoint to produce a quality component, what shortcuts are taken to mass-produce a component to a low price point, and the knowledge of how those shortcuts actually affect the performance of the output of that component.

My opinions are further augmented by actually listening to the components in question on a high-resolution system and comparing them with higher-quality components on those same systems. Quite simply, there is no comparison between a cheap Sony CD changer costing a few hundred dollars and a high end player costing in the thousands, in terms of build quality or output quality. The same goes for a Jolida 50 wpc amp vs. a high end tube amp from CJ or ARC, especially when driving a difficult load like the Vistas. But, of course, if accuracy, detail, and dynamics don't matter that much to you, then it really is a moot point.

Dreamer said:

So if your classical and jazz recordings sound OK, but your rock and pop recordings sound thin in the highs, or edgey in the mids, you can thank the effects-obsessed production engineers and the mindless money-grubbing execs at the record companies.

Click to expand...

Great post Richard (for brevity I quoted only part of it, though), and very true.

Rich said:

But, of course, if accuracy, detail, and dynamics don't matter that much to you, then it really is a moot point.

Click to expand...

Now you're being supercilious.

Despite your arguments that inexpensive gear MUST be worse than expensive gear the fact remains that many of the best systems I've heard use such gear. Like that of a friend who has CJ, AudioNote and Monarchy amps on the shelf and uses a Panasonic chip amp receiver. There's something going on out there.

As for how speakers work, well I get my information from fellas like Olson, Eargle, Dickason and Badmaieff, not from audiophile websites and magazines. There is no doubt the MLs have first rate clarity and evidently some take clarity as dynamics, I don't. Dynamics is a simple thing---how loud can the speaker go without high distortion or tonal changes caused by compression (with many speakers the woofer compresses before the tweeter, thus as volume increases so does tonal balance change). It's like 0-60 with a car.

No matter how Jesuitical you want to be there's no getting around that as dynamics go the Vistas (or any speakers using a small direct radiating woofer) are not players. But they have other virtues, that's why I use them.

Irish,

How loud do you listen to music?

It seems that volume level is your basis for determining a speakers dynamic capabilities.

Is that your point?

GG

Gordon Gray said:

Irish,

How loud do you listen to music?

It seems that volume level is your basis for determining a speakers dynamic capabilities.

Is that your point?

GG

Click to expand...

Yes, that's my point.

I don't listen to music very loud any more, I live in a condo. I never play it so loud that one can't easily talk over the music, I doubt I hit 90db anymore except on peaks. When I lived in houses I was free to use systems with first rate dynamics but in a condo no. And I no longer enjoy listening at loud levels anyway.

Not having the volume monkey to deal with I was free to choose speakers on other virtues such as clarity, tone and footprint. I chose the MLs because they were the best sounding speakers that fit my new needs.

Thanks for the clarification.

Now I have a much better understanding of your perspective.

GG

Irishtom said:

Now you're being supercilious.

Despite your arguments that inexpensive gear MUST be worse than expensive gear the fact remains that many of the best systems I've heard use such gear. Like that of a friend who has CJ, AudioNote and Monarchy amps on the shelf and uses a Panasonic chip amp receiver. There's something going on out there.

Click to expand...

No doubt the Panasonic is hooked up to Bose speakers and sounds incredible! There may be something going on out there, but it ain't high fidelity. Oops, there I go being supercilious again. Sorry, but if you find a Sony CD changer to give higher fidelity than, say, an Esoteric, or a Panasonic Receiver to sound better than a CJ or Monarch, then I don't have a reply to that. To each his own. I expect you are in the decided minority in those opinions among serious audiophiles.

By the way, Bose is a good example of components that are more expensive but still sound like crap because of poor design. I don't believe that every cheaper component sounds worse than every more expensive component. But I do understand a bit about quality of manufacture, and as I said, I have personal experience with the components in question. To me, based on my knowledge and experience, there just isn't any comparison.

Irishtom said:

There is no doubt the MLs have first rate clarity and evidently some take clarity as dynamics, I don't. Dynamics is a simple thing---how loud can the speaker go without high distortion or tonal changes caused by compression (with many speakers the woofer compresses before the tweeter, thus as volume increases so does tonal balance change). It's like 0-60 with a car.

Click to expand...

I don't mistake clarity for dynamics. Nor do I mistake, as you do, max. spl for dynamics. Dynamics are a combination of max. SPL without distortion AND speed of transient response. I don't care how loud a speaker can play without distortion, if it has very slow transient response, it is not going to sound dynamic.

Rich said:

No doubt the Panasonic is hooked up to Bose speakers and sounds incredible! There may be something going on out there, but it ain't high fidelity. Oops, there I go being supercilious again.

Click to expand...

Yes, you do that well.

You haven't heard a system yet know it isn't high fidelity. As I said, that's a religious argument; you have a dogmatic belief that some things just cannot be. And a penchant for stating your subjective preferences as absolute truth, a kind of a Torquemeda of high fidelity--"This IS high fidelity and this ISN'T".

As far as I know Bose speakers do sound incredible, I haven't heard them for a long time.

A great many speakers with excellent transient response have poor dynamics; an inability to give lifelike volumes or track volume changes without tonal changes. I think you're juggling a simple concept to make it suit your notions.

I recently was at someones house and they had a bose system it really did suck! they thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and to be honest for their needs and what they where into it's really all they needed I just nodded my head and said "ya that's cool".

Irishtom said:

Indeed




Oh well, I quit takers reviewers seriously in the 1970s. As for owners, I doubt that many have owned systems that had as great dynamic capabilities as those I've owned, in fact if they've traveled the conventional "high end" road the odds they've had a system with first rate dynamics are very low.

Click to expand...

what makes you think this ? If you have your logans hooked up correctly and have the right equipment hooked to them they have great dynamic capabilities but in the hands of a novice that has sub par gear they will give the wrong impression and let you down that is why people like those at best buy are not not normally allowed to display any of the ESL series.

Irishtom said:

As far as I know Bose speakers do sound incredible, I haven't heard them for a long time.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. It explains a lot.

Irishtom said:

A great many speakers with excellent transient response have poor dynamics; an inability to give lifelike volumes or track volume changes without tonal changes.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Which is why I made clear (or so I thought) that it is a COMBINATION of high max. spl without distortion AND quick transient response which gives a speaker great dynamics. One without the other does not a dynamic speaker make.

Irishtom said:

There is no doubt the MLs have first rate clarity and evidently some take clarity as dynamics, I don't. Dynamics is a simple thing---how loud can the speaker go without high distortion or tonal changes caused by compression (with many speakers the woofer compresses before the tweeter, thus as volume increases so does tonal balance change). It's like 0-60 with a car.

No matter how Jesuitical you want to be there's no getting around that as dynamics go the Vistas (or any speakers using a small direct radiating woofer) are not players. But they have other virtues, that's why I use them.

Click to expand...

IrishTom,

How does your understanding of Dynamic Range jibe with Merriam Webster's

Definition: dynamic range
Function: noun
Date: 1917
: the ratio of the strongest to the weakest sound intensity that can be transmitted or reproduced by an audio or broadcasting system

Or is your definition and discussion of Dynamics different from Dynamic Range?

That is okay if it is and I am not tying to be a smartarse.

I personally do not understand how you would think MLs do not have very good Dynamic Range, based on Merriam Webster's definition that is.

I always thought that with the right high current amp and with quality system components, whatever they may be, along with good room treatments, isolation products, as well as good source material, quality cables, power conditioners, tweaks and all the rest, that dynamic range was one of MLs strong points. Who knew!

I would be careful not to confuse dynamic range with bloated bass and a muddy midrange. what Martin Logan offers is a much more accurate and tighter representaion of the original source this sometimes catches some people of guard at first.

Irishtom said:

As far as I know Bose speakers do sound incredible, I haven't heard them for a long time.

Click to expand...

I want my garter back.

JMAUSGP said:

IrishTom,

How does your understanding of Dynamic Range jibe with Merriam Webster's

Definition: dynamic range
Function: noun
Date: 1917
: the ratio of the strongest to the weakest sound intensity that can be transmitted or reproduced by an audio or broadcasting system

Or is your definition and discussion of Dynamics different from Dynamic Range?

Click to expand...

I agree with that definition of dynamic range. Given a common noise floor the speaker that gets the louder is the one with the better dynamic range, thus a speaker that can play at 125 db by definition has better dynamic range than one that can play at only 100db.

I think dynamic range and dynamics are pretty much the same thing. Now many speakers can play far louder than MLs, many can cruise at over 120db. Now if we take such a speaker with a basshorn or 15" direct radiating woofers and make that the benchmark for great dynamics it's clear that the small MLs with their severely output limited 8" or 10" woofers do not have great dynamic range. That doesn't mean they're not great speakers it means they have a weakness.

But so what? All speakers make compromises and none are perfect, indeed engineers don't even agree on what a perfect speaker should do, much less make one. What's surprising to me here is that some deny the compromises were made.

IrishTom,

I am okay with speakers playing louder than MLs and I can understand your argument better and you are correct, if you go to a rock concert, depending on the band, you will hear speakers that play all day at 110 decibels with even much higher peaks. Almost always some kind of horn speaker.

Where I think there may be a bit of disagreement or perception is with your comment of "given a common noise floor". As strange as it may sound, I think that a common noise floor is not a given.

I know myself and many here at MLOC have spent big $$$ putting together components and amps that strive for an absolute black noise floor. When coupled with ML's at high SPLs there is absolutely no noise or distortion coming from the MLs and so they seem to have much better dynamics than most speakers that play very loud like concert speakers or horns. I think that the black noise floor is one of the keys to good dynamics.

Both of my brothers were in the music business and so I got to go backstage and also sit in the first or second row for dozens of concerts. In between songs you could here the hiss of the speakers. Maybe it was just me but it seemed the louder the speaker played the higher the noise floor, if that is what you want to call it.

In college we used to play JBLs with horn tweeters that played really loud. The kind of loud where you are sitting there and suddenly you here a sound you have never heard before and you begin to marvel at this new sound on a record you have listened to hundreds of time, and then you realize it is the sound of the police beating down the door.

Absolutely true story by the way, but these JBLS had lots of hiss during quiet passages.

I know that I play my MLs loud enough to knock things off tables upstairs, but during quiet passages there is no hiss or sound of any kind. For these reasons I feel that my MLs have very good dynamics. But that is just me.

Anyway, back to the original topic if there was one. The bottom line is that with a high quality, ie low distortion but high current amp, utilizing high quality ie low distortion components, with high quality source material, your Vistas can have better dynamics than if someone uses the opposite of what I just described upstream. I can't speak for Rich or even Fish, but that is what I was getting from there side and I actually think trying to type all of these different perspectives on a forum like this, is next to impossible. Sometimes opinions are perceived as facts and vice versus, sometimes because we are typing things the true meaning of our words escape us.

But then that's just me........uh oh, I think I here the police again...gotta go....

JMAUSGP said:

Anyway, back to the original topic if there was one. The bottom line is that with a high quality, ie low distortion but high current amp, utilizing high quality ie low distortion components, with high quality source material, your Vistas can have better dynamics than if someone uses the opposite of what I just described upstream.

Click to expand...

A reasonable statement and one I agree with. Your comments about varying noise floor and it's effect on dynamics are interesting and reasonable.

Irishtom said:

interesting and reasonable.

Click to expand...

I only wish the cops had the same attitude.