Larger Panel vs Smaller Panel, What's The Dif ?

[ttocs]

My Vistas were manufactured in 2009, I've owned them since 2011. At some point during the next year I will either order new panels from ML, currently just under $2k, or upgrade to a current larger panel model ML, maybe the 13A.

I don't hear anything wrong but one speaker has always had a slight wrinkle in one corner and that wrinkle now has children. It's not totally delaminated, but it's probably not going to last another couple years.

My question is this: What is the real sonic difference between panel sizes? Disregarding woofers for the moment, there's got to be some difference in character when going from a 9" to a 13" panel size.

I know the crossover point on mine is at 450Hz and the current models are lower, something that I would prefer.

Can anyone enlighten me on this?

 

[sleepysurf]

My impression is slightly wider "sweet spot" and larger soundstage, with (potentially) higher SPL's (sound pressure levels) in mids and highs, assuming you have a powerful enough amp. I'm sure others with more knowledge will chime in!

 

[timm]

My opinion. I have heard both the vistas and montis a long time ago. Absolutely no comparison in my opinion. The montis were better in every way. I would imagine the 13a would even be a nice step up from that. What is the rest of your system? I find - for whatever reason - the larger panels to have better tonality. Obviously a huge price differential but I am pretty sure if you love Logan’s you will not have buyers remorse. Just feed them from a decent amp.

 

[ttocs]

Thank you sleepysurf and timm for your observations.

After purchasing the Vistas it became necessary to find a amp/preamp combo that they liked. The amp I fell in love with is a Krell S1500, and the preamp is a Emotiva XMC-1. I also run stereo Sumiko S.10 subs.

I'm used to a great, almost unbreakable soundstage with a lot of detail. What I'd like more of is lower mid emphasis and better capability to move 4500 cubic feet of air. I think the volume of air is a tad beyond the Vista's capability at upper spl for music. It's kind of a close call in this regard, but I would think that a larger panel would be more comfortable sounding, and be more confident at higher spl's. Am I wrong to assume this?

 

[Brad225]

I would agree with Sleepy and timm. If you can afford the 13A it will be a much better speaker if only based on the newer technology being used. Generally a larger panel will give a larger sound stage. That said my CLX's are narrower than my CLS IIz speakers were though the CLX has a dual lower frequency panel.

The question becomes will the Krell and Emotiva drive them to what they are capable of to make the expense of the upgrade worth it. I am not questioning the quality of those pieces of equipment as I have never heard them. Only you can decide. Can you take them to your dealer to see if the upgrade is a sound one.

As father Roberto would say "Trust your ears".

Keep us updated on what you decide.

 

[ttocs]

The question becomes will the Krell and Emotiva drive them to what they are capable of to make the expense of the upgrade worth it.
As father Roberto would say "Trust your ears".

Keep us updated on what you decide.

Thanks for the good insight.

I went from really good old amp, to newer great amp, to the Krell which is "stable at any load impedance". I originally wasn't looking to spend that kind of money on an amp but I just had to do it, especially since when I demo'd the Vistas they were connected to a lower power Krell integrated amp and sounded fab.

Getting into Emotiva was almost by chance. I'd been climbing up the money tree of preamps and wasn't finding anything that had enough output voltage for the money I "wanted" to spend - under $3k. All of a sudden I'm looking at McIntosh - over $5k, which I love, but a friend enlightened me about Emotiva. The specs matched up to what the Krell expect, couple grand and a money back guarantee, so I tried it, and like Mikey - I liked it! Never looked back. Five years later and both pieces are still a perfect fit.

If I decide to go to larger speakers it would be with the expectation of being "perfectly at ease" at higher spl just like I'm used to how the Vistas are at lower-mid spl. It seems that the Vistas start reaching limits at higher volume levels for the size room I have. When I had them in a smaller space they were perfect.

I'm absolutely married to Martin Logan speakers, and listening to myself it sounds like I'm talking me into new speakers.

 

[JonFo]

... I'm used to a great, almost unbreakable soundstage with a lot of detail. What I'd like more of is lower mid emphasis and better capability to move 4500 cubic feet of air. I think the volume of air is a tad beyond the Vista's capability at upper spl for music. It's kind of a close call in this regard, but I would think that a larger panel would be more comfortable sounding, and be more confident at higher spl's. Am I wrong to assume this?

With that type of volume, you'd definetely benefit from larger panels. But mostly you'd benefit from the much improved integration between panel and woofers in the new line. Also, your amps would only be driving the passive high-pass crossover and the panel. The woofers have their own active xover, DSP and amps. The benefits of ARC are real, and can be run before you run the RC in the XMC-1 for all out bass integration.

 

[ttocs]

When I mention higher spl I'm not talking about ear shattering volume. My point is that as the spl rises, there comes a point at which the Vista starts struggling to remain beautiful, and I think it's due to the volume of air in the room. I enlarged the room by removing some walls last year so now the speaker setup is so much easier to deal with, no bass boom, larger listening area.

Better woofer/panel integration is high on my list of wants, this is one area where the Vista has faults.

Currently, I'm not using Dirac, but this depends on my mood. I really prefer no correction as much as possible, but when it comes to bass - especially when it's "built-in" to the speaker, it's a really attractive feature so that is one that I can't see not using.

 

[JonFo]

...
Currently, I'm not using Dirac, but this depends on my mood. I really prefer no correction as much as possible, but when it comes to bass - especially when it's "built-in" to the speaker, it's a really attractive feature so that is one that I can't see not using.

Not using Dirac? I think you are missing a lot without it. Not just the more balanced frequency response, but the excellent temporal alignment most RC systems bring to the party. With a multichannel system with subs, it's a must in my book. Do read the guide I posted on how to measure Electrostats, as it's easy to not get that right and then blame the RC for the results.

 

[ttocs]

Not using Dirac? I think you are missing a lot without it. Not just the more balanced frequency response, but the excellent temporal alignment most RC systems bring to the party. With a multichannel system with subs, it's a must in my book. Do read the guide I posted on how to measure Electrostats, as it's easy to not get that right and then blame the RC for the results.

JonFo, nice write up! I'm always interested in great details like you presented about room correction procedure. Thanks!

I've gone back and forth on this but frankly, the last time I did a correction - since construction was completed - I "thought" I heard phasing issues, BUT, it turns out that those phasing issues were in the recording (Robin Trower Bridge Of Sighs album). These phasing issues were accentuated by speaker and absorption placement which was a work in progress at the time because I wasn't settled on where things would end up. Since then, months ago, I just haven't felt the need strongly enough. Like I said, I'm moody.

Since December I've had things placed and running so well, better than ever, but I guess I should take this opportunity to heed your suggestion and do a correction run. Thanks for the kick in the pants, well overdue. I'm a firm believer of getting things as right as possible before doing correction.

My version of Dirac Full is specifically for the XMC-1 and the microphone supplied from Emotiva. It is specifically stated that the mic must be aimed straight up, is this your experience? Should I be aiming the microphone differently due to having dipole speakers? or just place the mic as you suggest in your instructions?

One thing that disturbs me greatly while doing a correction run is when the house creaks! I turn everything in the house off, but being 64 years old, the wood floors like to be heard whether I like it or not. It happens every time.

JonFo, I very much appreciate your wealth of knowledge!

 

[ttocs]

Between having to replace the carb on the snowthrower and getting sick, I haven't yet done a Dirac run, hopefully next weekend.

I must admit my ignorance on not realizing that the Summit X has a 11" panel. I guess I just never noticed, even when I demo'd them two years ago as the most likely replacement for my Vistas.

So in reality I want to compare the Summit X to the current 11A. I'll search to see what previous Summit owners have reported upgrading to.

Also, I'm wondering: if the 11A is the new version of Summit X is there anything about the 11A that was cheapened to meet the lower price point? I could definitely get a pair of 11A's sooner than 13A's for the difference in $$$$.