My Ears Are Spoiled by Martin Logan

[Northy]

I had an opportunity to hear a Pass Labs XA 30.8 driving the flagship GoldenEar Triton Reference Towers in a dedicated audition room with proper acoustic treatments. That is the amp that I am after to upgrade soon. I must say that the Tritons did not do justice to the Pass. I have a pair of Theos complimented by a Balanced Force 210 and driven bi-amped by an Adcom amp which clearly is inferior to the Pass. When comparing the two teams, the Tritons sounded boxy, closed-in with lack of air around instruments. The bass was not as pitch-specific. I took my own CD so I was very familiar with the tracks.

I am sure for someone who is going from a box speaker to the Triton, it must be a palpable upgrade with the massive built-in amps, subwoofers and the ribbon tweeter. However, my own combo easily out-ranked the Tritons. Now, more that ever, I realize my ears have been spoiled by Martin Logan.

 

[JonFo]

Agreed, one is spoiled by the clarity and scale of the ML ESL sound. Only another large line-array (and possibly a dipole at that) can begin to compare.
A box, point source speaker, no matter how good is just going to sound very different (whether that's better or not is a matter of taste). Same for a large horn set up, like the large Avant Garde series, as that will present a very different soundstage.

The non-ESL speaker that I thought came closest was a Scaena Line Array set up in a very large room at a show, it had that very large soundstage and incredible clarity one appreciates in a large ESL, but added a ton of dynamic impact. It was better than the MLs of the day (8 years ago) in terms of mid-bass, and with four of their barrel-like subs, it also had impressive bottom end. It was a setup I could definitely live with.

 

[Northy]

JonFo, I took a peak at Scaena Line Array and sure looks shiny. I would not be too crazy about its looks. I did not see any pricing info and bet it is very high not offering the value of an ML.

 

[amey01]

Only another large line-array (and possibly a dipole at that) can begin to compare.

I’ve heard you say that before Jon.

Why do you compare to a line array, and secondly the dipole nature of ML before you mention the ES membrane itself?

Surely the primary reason ML sounds as it does is because of the ES membrane, which has a much better power to weight ratio than cone speakers, and is uniformly driven over its entire surface.

A line array doesn’t change the sound per se, just the dispersion pattern.

 

[JonFo]

I’ve heard you say that before Jon.

Why do you compare to a line array, and secondly the dipole nature of ML before you mention the ES membrane itself?

...

The primary signature of any good speaker is how it interacts with the room, which is tightly related to its topology (point source, line-source, mono/dipole/bipole/omni) and then the actual tech of the transducers.

For instance, the MBL Radialstrahler Omni's have been widely praised for their excellent sound, and having heard them myself, they are indeed impressive, yet achieve that with unique mid and high-frequency transducers that are not ESL, yet we've seen a few defections from our club to the MBL club over the years. And I can understand the attraction.

But a line array sounds very different to a monopole point-source, it's easy to walk up to a room with a line-array playing and tell that before one even enters the room. At shows, I hear that before walking into the Wisdom audio demo rooms, or the Sanders Sound Systems room. And of course, I hear that walking up to my own HT room, there is a 'fullness' that is not there from a simple point-source speaker setup.
And once in the room, one is usually in the near-field of the line source at the MLP, whereas one is in the far-field for a point source, and that change in energy balance is very noticeable, way more so than any variance in transducer tech.

I believe the main distinguishing aspects of the ML ESLs have more to do with being large dipole line sources than the fact that the line-source array is an ESL panel. For instance, that Scaena uses a dipole line array of ribbon transducers for the upper mids-and highs that is very clean and dynamic. One might be hard pressed to distinguish between it and an ESL in a blind test (assumes equal positioning in the room).

Now, all that said, an ESL panel holds many advantages over arrays of other technology transducers, and to my ears, is the preferred approach to mid and high frequency reproduction. I'm growing ambivalent about the dipole thing as being a boon or a bane. As one can see in the direction ML is taking with some of their centers, a monopole layout can be a good thing in that application.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

The key with anything is not to get religious about something just because you bought into a system.

There are other excellent speakers out there that would easily put a grin on my face. I know a big part of my purchase was that I was smitten during a formative time in my life and not because I thought they were the best bang for the buck or that I couldn't find something else that I would like.

 

[Gordon Gray]

I agree. There are so many great speakers out there in all ranges and types. I, for one, decided to downsize to a monitor (on stands) because of the fact that my listening room is also my living room and I simply got tired of looking at large boxes, large panels, etc. visually dominating the room in front of my main picture window.

Do they have the "magic" of ML's and MBL's? Nope but they certainly get close enough for my current biases.

 

[Northy]

The key with anything is not to get religious about something just because you bought into a system.

There are other excellent speakers out there that would easily put a grin on my face. I know a big part of my purchase was that I was smitten during a formative time in my life and not because I thought they were the best bang for the buck or that I couldn't find something else that I would like.

It is not being religious. It is acknowledging a fabulous value. There is no doubt there are better speakers out there; but at what cost! You would have to fork over way more money to find full range speakers with/without a subwoofer to better the sound of the combo from ML mentioned above.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

It is not being religious. It is acknowledging a fabulous value. There is no doubt there are better speakers out there; but at what cost! You would have to fork over way more money to find full range speakers with/without a subwoofer to better the sound of the combo from ML mentioned above.

That depends on a number of factors.

There are some rooms that are bad candidates for dipole speakers.

Having a sweet spot that gives me just a few inches of latitude where I place my head is definitely another constraint.

Just standing up in front of my speakers causes the top end to just drop out because they do not broadcast radially. Granted you get a lot less ringing off the floor and ceiling because of this, but you also get both the front and rear firing waves creating ringing off the side walls, so once again depending on the room that is a plus or minus.

Don't get me wrong. I am very happy with my speakers.

 

[amey01]

I believe the main distinguishing aspects of the ML ESLs have more to do with being large dipole line sources than the fact that the line-source array is an ESL panel.

Interesting take.

I can't say I know enough to either agree or refute - but it leads me to another question.

Why don't we see more line arrays? Granted, an ES panel has a lot of disadvantages and ultimately, is specialist technology. But any dynamic driver can be made into a line array - why don't we see more of it?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Cost, size, limited market, aesthetics.

 

[amey01]

Cost, size, limited market, aesthetics.

None of which have ever been a barrier in high-end audio before. ........Wilson Audio? Ugly, expensive and huge.