Just heard MartinLogans for the first time...

[Joey_V]

I went to the Magnepan dealer today because I had multiple people tell me to check out the Maggies if I liked the MartinLogans.

I listened to the 1.6s, and thought that, while their soundstage and imaging was probably the equal of the MartinLogans, their treble was too harsh and their bass was too weak. Also, they seemed worse for off-axis listening.

Just to make sure my impressions of the Clarities were correct, I went back to the MartinLogan dealer after hearing the Maggies and listened to the Clarities again. Still loved them.

However, I also took the time to listen to the Vistas and the Vantages. I didn't think that the Vantages were really worth the premium over the Vistas, but I thought that the Vistas were substantially better than the Clarities.

Looks like I need to go find some additional funds...

Supposedly, most people find that the midbass on the Vantage is better than that on the Vistas.... so listen to that next time you audition. This usually lends to an slightly leaner sound of the Vistas.

And I agree.... the Vistas are a whole lot better than the Clarities.

 

[Robonaut]

Supposedly, most people find that the midbass on the Vantage is better than that on the Vistas.... so listen to that next time you audition. This usually lends to an slightly leaner sound of the Vistas.

Oh, there's no question that the Vantages put out more bass than the Vistas, but I'm going to be supplementing the Vistas with a sub, which should eliminate most of the Vantages, um, advantage.

 

[Joey_V]

Oh, there's no question that the Vantages put out more bass than the Vistas, but I'm going to be supplementing the Vistas with a sub, which should eliminate most of the Vantages, um, advantage.

No no... midbass/upper midbass... between 200hz and 400hz. I just called ML corporate and they told me that the Vantage woofer is entirely different from that on the Vista's 8". Thicker surrounds, more massive magnets, beefier voice coils and spider assemblies. It's an overall better responsive woofer which should account for the difference in midbass that I heard and that TAS heard.

You cant supplement that area with a subwoofer.

Joey

 

[Robonaut]

No no... midbass/upper midbass... between 200hz and 400hz. I just called ML corporate and they told me that the Vantage woofer is entirely different from that on the Vista's 8". Thicker surrounds, more massive magnets, beefier voice coils and spider assemblies. It's an overall better responsive woofer which should account for the difference in midbass that I heard and that TAS heard.

You cant supplement that area with a subwoofer.

Joey

Ah, I just picked up the issue of TAS with the Vista review and now I know what you mean.

Maybe I'll try re-auditioning the Vista and Vantage in a 2.1 setup and see what differences I hear.

Still, couldn't this lack of midbass just be fixed with a little EQ on the receiver (it sounds like the Vista reproduces all of the necessary frequencies, they're just a little lower in a certain range than they should be)? $1,300 is a lot to pay to fix such a tiny issue.

Of course, if I upgraded to the Vantages I could get the clear coat aluminum trim...

*SLAP*

No! Must...maintain...control...of...spending...

 

[JonFo]

... Still, couldn't this lack of midbass just be fixed with a little EQ on the receiver (it sounds like the Vista reproduces all of the necessary frequencies, they're just a little lower in a certain range than they should be)? $1,300 is a lot to pay to fix such a tiny issue.
...

Umm, some of us have spent a good bit more than that to fix a mid-bass issue

But up to an extent, yes, some judicious EQ can improve things a bit, but you can't undo physics nor can you overcome distortions in drivers.

Unfortunately, your HK DPR-2005 does not have parametric EQ. So you really can't fix that using that unit.

You'd need a Denon with Audyssey or a Yamaha 2700 or similar to 'fix' that range.

 

[Robonaut]

*sigh*

This is kind of frustrating. The Clarities were already costing as much as I originally budgeted for all five speakers in my home theater. I don't mind spending more money to get something that I really like, but this issue is dampening by enthusiasm a bit. I know that no speaker is perfect, and I'm not going to get perfectly flat 20hz-20khz repsonse for $4k. However, for $4K I do kind of expect a speaker to reproduce the frequency range it does cover pretty flawlessly, and it sounds like that's not the case here.

Still, maybe this just isn't that big of a deal--hopefully a 2.1 audition will let me know.

I'm kind of thinking, though, that I may just go with the Clarities. I figure that I can live with them for six months and see what I think. If they're not quite good enough I can always assign them to rear channel duty and still get a pair of Vistas/Vantages.

The only problem with that plan, though, is that I heard that the Clarities are getting replaced this year--I'd hate to buy a pair and then see the new model be twice as good for the same money.

And the wheels keep turning...

 

[Pcar928fan]

*SLAP*

No! Must...maintain...control...of...spending...

Just let it go! I never heard anyone complain about buying "the best" but there has sure been a lot of buyers remorse over buying something LESS than the best!

:haha1:

 

[Rich]

I'd hate to buy a pair and then see the new model be twice as good for the same money.

Does this sound familiar to anyone? I don't know that the Summits were twice as good as the Prodigies, but they were arguably a better speaker for the same money. And while some of us are waiting to see what the CLX holds, the Summits are getting bumped up in price. It's a vicious hobby.

Ultimately, I agree with Pcar28fan. Buy the best that you can afford even if it stretches your current budget. Otherwise you will at some point be disappointed with its deficiencies and upgrade anyway.

I bought the Ascents originally because I wasn't sure the Prodigies were worth twice as much. I have long since decided that they were and have been kicking myself for four years. I am now patiently waiting on the CLX to decide if I prefer it or the Summit as my next major upgrade.

 

[Joey_V]

Robonaut,

Here's my honest opinion. I think you can EASILY get away with spending less and getting the Vistas. You can supplement the bottom end with a sub and be done with it. The Vistas are CLEARLY better than the Clarities and that alone should tell you that they are for you.

Now, the Vantages are better than the Vistas as it has a more cohesive bottom end AND midbass and upper midbass response... however, it comes at a price $$$! Now, know that if you go with the Vantages, you can choose to power it with tubes since all you really need to power is the panel... giving you more variety in terms of amplification (for future consideration).

The Vantage is truly the better choice and easily one of the best speakers in the $5K mark.... that's value in it of itself.

Joey

 

[John Beek]

No, not a joke! 100% serious. Read that in a review or two. Would be glad to hear if some members have their MLs toed out. Didn't work for me, but was amazed to read it could work for some.


Speaking of bars... A skeleton walks into a bar and says, "Give me a beer...and a mop."

The Question of toing in or out has to do with varying the direct/indirect sound. One of the advantages of electrostatic loudspeakers is that they radiate backwards as well. Low frequency's are - due to the wavelenght - omniradiating by nature and the electrostatic speaker radiates mid en high frequency's towards the listener and towards the back wall. This makes the indirect sound rather uncoloured as where conus speakers muddy sounds since the indirect sound contains no (or less) mid frequency's and no high frequency's. When you point your ML's directly at you (you will see a reflected flashlight in the middle of the panel), you will hear more direct sound than when pointed outwards. What you want is a fair tonal balance between direct and indirect sound (that's the thing Amar Bose got right - the only thing btw) and by turning your ML's you can achieve that. Since you will have a balance between direct and indirect sound, staging is not as deep and focussing not as extreme as with cone speakers. But I considder that to be unnatural anyway.

and being born halfway the last century, it feels nice to be called jr member:haha1: :haha1:

 

[John Beek]

Umm, some of us have spent a good bit more than that to fix a mid-bass issue

But up to an extent, yes, some judicious EQ can improve things a bit, but you can't undo physics nor can you overcome distortions in drivers.

Unfortunately, your HK DPR-2005 does not have parametric EQ. So you really can't fix that using that unit.

You'd need a Denon with Audyssey or a Yamaha 2700 or similar to 'fix' that range.

Mid range problems with ML's are often solved by using a 'better' amplifier. One that is capable of controlling the woofer better: higher power capability and higher damping factor. And it does not need to be expensive. I now use Hypex UCD400AD (www.hypex.nl) class D power amps for the LF of my Vista's and have extremely controlled LF and my Velodyne SPL1200R sub takes over at 40Hz. You can assemble a stereo set of UcD400AD's for around $ 1.200 and depending on the power supply you use, they deliver up to 400 watts in 4 ohms (mine do around 250 watts in 4 ohms). the control over the woofer improved severely when switching from using the bi-amped option on the Arcam AVR350.

 

[Joey_V]

Mid range problems with ML's are often solved by using a 'better' amplifier. One that is capable of controlling the woofer better: higher power capability and higher damping factor. And it does not need to be expensive. I now use Hypex UCD400AD (www.hypex.nl) class D power amps for the LF of my Vista's and have extremely controlled LF and my Velodyne SPL1200R sub takes over at 40Hz. You can assemble a stereo set of UcD400AD's for around $ 1.200 and depending on the power supply you use, they deliver up to 400 watts in 4 ohms (mine do around 250 watts in 4 ohms). the control over the woofer improved severely when switching from using the bi-amped option on the Arcam AVR350.

We are talking about midbass here, not midrange.

However, I will agree with what you have said regarding a better amplifier to take control of the woofer. The question is, would it be wiser for Robo (OP) to get the Vista + better amp or Vantage and semi-decent amp (or just a tube amp for the panels)?

 

[John Beek]

We are talking about midbass here, not midrange.

However, I will agree with what you have said regarding a better amplifier to take control of the woofer. The question is, would it be wiser for Robo (OP) to get the Vista + better amp or Vantage and semi-decent amp (or just a tube amp for the panels)?

I stand corrected. I did mean midbass

I bought vista's because of the extended LF of the Vantage. I rather have the flexibility of moving my subwoofer around without consequences for the stereo image. If you have a stereo speaker set that runs down to 22 Hz, you'll rather have a large room.

BTW I forgot to mention in my earlier posting that tilting the Vista's a tat foreward (half an inch at the rear feet) did improve the openness (is this a proper word?) and improved the imaging as well. This is also mentioned in the owners manual.