Beaming question about the larger ML panels

kach22i said:

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?

Click to expand...

Parasound Halo A51.

I have a pretty well treated room.

Bass traps in the front 2 corners with the front wall, back wall, and all first reflection points including the ceiling treated.

The SL3's were about 8 or 9 feet apart and the listening position was about 12 feet from there.

Rest assured I am not senile, my hearing is quite good and my memory is fine.
And I still have plenty of hair on my head. Thank you very much.

Have a great day and good luck on your speaker search.

PS: I don't have one pair of cables in my system that costs over $500. I share your skepticism regarding wire in the four figure range and the value thereof. I obviously disagree with you (as do most folks on this site) regarding your apparent position that all wire sounds the same.

grantc79 said:

Parasound Halo A51.

Click to expand...

I'm no expert on 5 channel HT amps, but it that looks like a real good one.

http://www.parasound.com/halo/a51.php

I can only take a wild guess and say that perhaps the amp was not up to driving all the stats (Stage, SL3's, and Script I's) at the same time.

I mean, all channels share the power supply, right?

2.2 kVA encapsulated toroid power transformer with independent
secondary windings for each channel

Click to expand...

2.2kVA = 2,200VA, right?

For context, a big 200 watt Krell;
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/694krell/index1.html

The Krell's transformer is rated at a maximum power delivery of 2800VA

Click to expand...

1994 review..........and that's just to drive two channels.

To put it this way, the Krell referenced above has about 300% more transformer VA per channel to it.

2,200/5 = 440VA

2,800/2 = 1,400VA

1,400/440 x 100 = 318%

Someone please check my math and assumptions, thanks.

???

440/1400 x 100 = 31.4%

???

Gordon Gray said:

Rest assured I am not senile, my hearing is quite good and my memory is fine.
And I still have plenty of hair on my head. Thank you very much.

Have a great day and good luck on your speaker search.

PS: I don't have one pair of cables in my system that costs over $500. I share your skepticism regarding wire in the four figure range and the value thereof. I obviously disagree with you (as do most folks on this site) regarding your apparent position that all wire sounds the same.

Click to expand...

Ya know.

If you can be civil so can I. :music:

I didn't come here to fight with you or anyone else and I think if you look back on the postings in question you will realize that until I was called a "flat earther" everything was pretty civil.

Once again not here to fight with your anyone else. I might not share anyone's opinion and I might disagree but that doesn't mean I won't respect that person or that opinion.

That is up until the point where I am no longer given the same courtesy.

kach22i said:

I'm no expert on 5 channel HT amps, but it that looks like a real good one.

http://www.parasound.com/halo/a51.php

I can only take a wild guess and say that perhaps the amp was not up to driving all the stats (Stage, SL3's, and Script I's) at the same time.

I mean, all channels share the power supply, right?

Click to expand...

The amp was powering a Stage, Script I's, and Sl3's.

However, even when listening in 2 channel mode I had the same issue.

Even when listening to Summits being powered by high end Classe and McIntosh gear at their shop I had the same problem to be honest.

I was thinking with the large CLS panels it might overcome that issue but I didn't realize that the CLS is actually 3 smaller panels put together so honestly a Vantage, Spire, or Summit will probably do just as well or better.

Am I incorrect in my line of reasoning here or would you pretty much agree?

grantc79 said:

I didn't realize that the CLS is actually 3 smaller panels put together so honestly a Vantage, Spire, or Summit will probably do just as well or better.

Click to expand...

That is news to me about the CLS, I'll have to look into that later. Considering your history and the history of the CLS they may not be a challenge you want to entangle yourself with.

I think that there has been a great effort by M/L to make their speakers more amp friendly. Therefore I suggest you get the latest and greatest M/L you can afford. I think you can power a Summit with just about anything, perhaps you should start there.

In the old days you picked the speaker first, and then the amp to power it with. That is still a fair way to go in my opinion, but not the only way anymore.

kach22i said:

That is news to me about the CLS, I'll have to look into that later. Considering your history and the history of the CLS they may not be a challenge you want to entangle yourself with.

Click to expand...

The CLS are NOT made up of 3 seperate panels. There is only one solid panel membrane, divided into three sections by the stator supports. There is only one set of leads coming off of the panel and of course there is no crossover.

grantc79 said:

The amp was powering a Stage, Script I's, and Sl3's.

However, even when listening in 2 channel mode I had the same issue.

Even when listening to Summits being powered by high end Classe and McIntosh gear at their shop I had the same problem to be honest.

I was thinking with the large CLS panels it might overcome that issue but I didn't realize that the CLS is actually 3 smaller panels put together so honestly a Vantage, Spire, or Summit will probably do just as well or better.

Am I incorrect in my line of reasoning here or would you pretty much agree?

Click to expand...

One caution about the CLS's, irregardless of the iteration.

If your musical tastes favor rock and or music with a lot of bass, you have a "large" listening space, and you like to listen in the 90db+ range, the CLS may not be your best choice. However, this can be somewhat overcome with one or two subs, but then you will have the proverbial "blending" issue.

Given the price for used Summits ($6,000 +/-) and knowing the speaker as I do, you may want to seriously consider that option.

GG

grantc79 said:

Ya know.

If you can be civil so can I. :music:

I didn't come here to fight with you or anyone else and I think if you look back on the postings in question you will realize that until I was called a "flat earther" everything was pretty civil.

Once again not here to fight with your anyone else. I might not share anyone's opinion and I might disagree but that doesn't mean I won't respect that person or that opinion.

That is up until the point where I am no longer given the same courtesy.

Click to expand...

Agreed Grant,

In retrospect, I should have responded in a more respectful manner.

Sometimes, as some members of this Club well know, I do overreact.

And when I do, I recognize the fact and apologize accordingly.

My bad.

Gordon

Gordon Gray said:

One caution about the CLS's, irregardless of the iteration.

If your musical tastes favor rock and or music with a lot of bass, you have a "large" listening space, and you like to listen in the 90db+ range, the CLS may not be your best choice. However, this can be somewhat overcome with one or two subs, but then you will have the proverbial "blending" issue.

Given the price for used Summits ($6,000 +/-) and knowing the speaker as I do, you may want to seriously consider that option.

GG

Click to expand...

Ya that's kinda what I was debating between.

For home theater purposes and for any type of hard rock music I was leaning towards a conventional type home theater setup.

But for relaxed 2 channel listening I still haven't heard anything that compared to ML's.

grantc79 said:

For home theater purposes and for any type of hard rock music I was leaning towards a conventional type home theater setup.

Click to expand...

I resisted for over a decade (pro-logic era), then I gave in to having two separate systems (5.1 era), one for HT and one for two channel.

In the end it's better for some and maybe even cheaper.

kach22i said:

I resisted for over a decade (pro-logic era), then I gave in to having two separate systems (5.1 era), one for HT and one for two channel.

In the end it's better for some and maybe even cheaper.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much where I ended up. I've got a Denon HT Reciever and Universal Player with Gallo Accoustics speakers in all 5 channels and a Velodyne sub in the Family room for HT and the ML system in the listening room. I agree, in the end it may be cheaper to keep the two seperate.