Beaming question about the larger ML panels

Hello everyone,

I am a former ML owner and wound up getting rid of my Stage, SL3's, and Script I's mainly due to the fact that the SL3's were very beamy.

Now I did love their sound but I just couldn't get over the fact that they dropped off so quickly if you moved out of their very small sweat spot.

I'm wondering do any of the newer ML's or older but larger ML's solve this problem?

Like the CLS's and CLS IIA's, do they have a bad beaming problem?

Also how does the Vantage and Summit handle these problems?

Thanks,

JGC

grantc79 said:

Now I did love their sound but I just couldn't get over the fact that they dropped off so quickly if you moved out of their very small sweat spot.

Click to expand...

That's why I /we tend to stay in the sweet spot......for we love the 'Logan' sound !

I'm wondering do any of the newer ML's or older but larger ML's solve this problem?

Click to expand...

yep, but keep in mind...one MUST take ones time, be patient with set up, etc.

Like the CLS's and CLS IIA's, do they have a bad beaming problem?

Click to expand...

Nope

Also how does the Vantage and Summit handle these problems?

Click to expand...

same as I stated above.............. Oh, BTW........:welcome:

twich54 said:

That's why I /we tend to stay in the sweet spot......for we love the 'Logan' sound !

yep, but keep in mind...one MUST take ones time, be patient with set up, etc.

Nope

same as I stated above.............. Oh, BTW........:welcome:

Click to expand...

So basically if I went with a pair of CLS II A's and set them up well I wouldn't have a bad beaming problem?

Which has less of a beaming problem the Summit/Vantage/Spire or CLS II A's?

Thanks again for your time.

having owned two of four you mentioned and having listened to ALL those that you mention, again, NONE of them have a problem in that area when set-up correctly.

I feel the ease of set-up with the new 'hybrids' does offer a bonus if one has less than ideal amplification.....ie. easier to drive than the CLS's

twich54 said:

having owned two of four you mentioned and having listened to ALL those that you mention, again, NONE of them have a problem in that area when set-up correctly.

I feel the ease of set-up with the new 'hybrids' does offer a bonus if one has less than ideal amplification.....ie. easier to drive than the CLS's

Click to expand...

Yah I hear ya.

I was actually considering going with some 1000 watt digital amps to power these so I don't think power shortage will be an issue.

Not knowing what your SL3's sounded like with your setup makes it a bit difficult to tell you what you will hear with another ML.
Are you asking if you will have an ideal seating position when setting 3' off center?
If that is the case I would say no but you will still have a very good sound stage and presence.
You seem to be referring to multi channel listening by mentioning all of your speakers. I used SL3's for years and now CLSIIz's for 2 channel and multi channel and they are very good for both. You still get a very good sound stage even well off center though not what you will get in the "sweet spot".

Brad225 said:

Not knowing what your SL3's sounded like with your setup makes it a bit difficult to tell you what you will hear with another ML.
Are you asking if you will have an ideal seating position when setting 3' off center?
If that is the case I would say no but you will still have a very good sound stage and presence.
You seem to be referring to multi channel listening by mentioning all of your speakers. I used SL3's for years and now CLSIIz's for 2 channel and multi channel and they are very good for both. You still get a very good sound stage even well off center though not what you will get in the "sweet spot".

Click to expand...

I'm more so concerned with the size of the sweet spot.

Logically to me larger panel means larger sweet spot.

I'm wondering if that is accurate or not.

grantc79 said:

beaming

Click to expand...

The beaming you describe does not seem to be conventional frequency beaming.

I think you are referring to di-polar and or bi-polar phased array distortion.

There is a large thread in this forum in which some members captured the back sound wave (sound absorption) and took measurements. Maybe someone will post it for you, not my cup of tea.

Room setup sticky:
http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9401

The phase shifting I get is when I move up and down, not side to side. However my old and small Aerius speakers do have a narrow sweetspot.

EDIT: Grant, what amp were you using, how much power and at what kind of sound levels were you listening at? This may explain a lot.

I have a monolith III and the soundstage is huge. However the sweet spot is rather small. If I want the main vocals dead center I have to sit in the sweet spot. I have noted this to be true for any 2 channel system be it ESL or cone. Again this is if I want the image dead center. If I sit a bit off center then the image will shift.

grantc79 said:

I'm more so concerned with the size of the sweet spot.

Logically to me larger panel means larger sweet spot.

I'm wondering if that is accurate or not.

Click to expand...

Yes, in my experience a larger panel will give you a larger sweet spot but maybe not as much larger as you might think.
My CLS's they are about 8' apart and my seat of choice is about 15' in front of them. With this positioning it is still a one person sweet spot if you want a dead center image.

I think much of this has to do with the amount of tilt and toe-in you have on your speakers. My experience has been that with more toe-in the sweet spot may be more intense and possible larger but I find the sound to be more harsh and more forward than I like.
I have my speakers with maybe 1" of toe-in and with no tilt to them.
This is a personal thing some like a very intense image some don't.

keep this in mind.....with respect to the part of the ESL transducer that is producing the mids and high freq on the CLS, that area is no bigger (I believe ??) than that of our present Spire's and Summitt's.

Not that I have that much extended experience with MLs, but I have listened to SL3 (owned), Ascents (currently own), CLS1a, Quest, Prodigies and the CLX. The CLX by far has the largest sweet spot of the group…however, you really pay for that. I’m surprised C.A.P has not jumped in and commented here yet.

Interesting you mention that Dave. I was looking at my SL3's compared to CLS's last week when they were set up side by side. I hadn't really thought about it until then that the center of the CLS is 12" and SL3 is 10" were that close.
I think the Prodigy and Odyssey and certainly the Monolith are wider.

The Odyssey and Ascent i use the same panel at 13" wide

The Prodigy is 16.5" wide.

The Monolith is a beast at 22" wide.

The CLS is a slightly different animal with a center panel 12" wide and outer panels on both sides playing lower freqs so it is challenging to truly compare them to the other models.

The curvlinear panels are still a line source with only a vertical line directed at the listener regardless of how wide the panel is. I.E. see the flashlight reflection on the panel.

Interesting topic.

I posted, offering my observations on this issue to the gentleman who started this thread, and have subsequently decided to delete the post.

Given this individuals confrontational orientation, I decided to not feed the TROLL.

I forgot that Halloween is coming up.

GG

PS: The SL3's are not beamy. I had a pair for five years or so. They are certainly more musical / detailed sitting dead center but can be listened to off axis with quite good results, assuming proper set up, room size, equipment, acoustical treatments, etc. This assumes the listener has the appropriate experience to optimize the speaker placement and uses his ears to evaluate the sound.

Gordon Gray said:

I posted, offering my observations on this issue to the gentleman who started this thread, and have subsequently decided to delete the post.

Click to expand...

Too bad, maybe he could have learned something.

I did a quick forum search using the term "beaming" and found the concise thread linked below. The Denon reciever was not up to the task, he had better luck with his Rotel amp, no more beaming or shrill.

Link:
http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1739&highlight=beaming

I think the lack of information provided by Grant about his system limits how much we can help him. Also the terms being used might be confusing if not elaborated.

Gordon Gray said:

I posted, offering my observations on this issue to the gentleman who started this thread, and have subsequently decided to delete the post.

Given this individuals confrontational orientation, I decided to not feed the TROLL.

I forgot that Halloween is coming up.

GG

PS: The SL3's are not beamy. I had a pair for five years or so. They are certainly more musical / detailed sitting dead center but can be listened to off axis with quite good results, assuming proper set up, room size, equipment, acoustical treatments, etc. This assumes the listener has the appropriate experience to optimize the speaker placement and uses his ears to evaluate the sound.

Click to expand...

Now now, being old and senile is bad enough.

Do we really have to add petty to the list? :music:

kach22i said:

Too bad, maybe he could have learned something.

I did a quick forum search using the term "beaming" and found the concise thread linked below. The Denon reciever was not up to the task, he had better luck with his Rotel amp, no more beaming or shrill.

Link:
http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1739&highlight=beaming

I think the lack of information provided by Grant about his system limits how much we can help him. Also the terms being used might be confusing if not elaborated.

Click to expand...

Actually I just got rid of a pair of line array's and I'm currently speakerless.

I'm planning to buy some Salk HT3's or HT4's at some point.

grantc79 said:

Actually I just got rid of a pair of line array's and I'm currently speakerless.

I'm planning to buy some Salk HT3's or HT4's at some point.

Click to expand...

Martin Logan 101; speaker sound including SL3's is dependent on the amplification used, and the room acoustics.

What amplification were you using with the SL3's?

A receiver perhaps?

George,

How dare you ask questions about this person's experiences and credibility.

We all know wire sounds the same.

GG