New Martin Logan Speakers!

[Rich]

So you would rather make conclusions and speculations from weight?

Yes, at this point in time. I would rather speculate on the specs at hand than say nothing until I have had a chance to hear it. Once I hear it and see it and play with it, I am sure I will have more to say. But if ML is going to post an announcement and post the specs, I am certainly going to discuss it. I think it is laughable for people to tell me I am not allowed to speculate if I have not heard it. Might I be wrong in some of my speculation? Of course I might. Should that stop me from thinking and communicating my thoughts and seeking input and analysis from others? That's a ridiculous proposition.

I know from my experience that weight plays a big role with ESL speakers. Many panel speakers suffer from a lack of stability in the panel. If the panel is not stable, imaging and soundstaging suffer. I have found that most ML speakers do pretty good in this regard, due to their weight and the bracing of the panels. The newer speakers don't tend to have as good of bracing as the older gen, and I think that is a negative. But they have for the most part, had stable bases.

The clarity is an exception there. It is too light and the sound suffers from the lack of stability. I know. I own a pair. My concern is that this will be the case with the Theos as well. I also had a concern about where the weight loss was coming from, but that concern was addressed by ML above. I could have waited until I actually saw a pair to get that information, but by my raising the question here it was answered for everyone from the source. I ask you again: why is that a bad thing?

As far as "letting your ears tell the truth." Ultimately, that's a crock and a copout. Sound is completely subjective. What one person hears as velvety smooth, another hears as colored and inaccurate. What one person hears as neutral, another hears as cold and edgy. And audiophiles "hear" more minute differences in completely inane tweaks with no scientific basis than any snake oil salesman can dream of. Perhaps if ML cryoed the panels and provided some wavy sticks on stands to mount behind them, then I could hear more of a difference. Ok, now I'm being really sarcastic. But hopefully you get my point.

 

[Peter Soderberg]

hello Rich,
to your points on rigidity, in the old days the panels where held in rather loosely, press fit by the rails (how many times do i read about people whose panels had slid down?) and actually had more problems with bass frequencies causing them to move around more than the newer ones with metal extrusion with the shock absorbing rubber molding. On the Clarity, that rounded back actually had quite a resonance peak that we later realized, resulting in that rather lightweight sound. new tools, knowledge lead us to the changes. the material used on the current cabinets is the same as before (ranger board). With better design they don't ring like they used to.
You are fine to offer conjecture so I won't stop you. Boy it gets active out here sometimes. All should keep chattering and relax. We of course, hope you like them.

 

[Horchem1972]

hello Rich,
to your points on rigidity, in the old days the panels where held in rather loosely, press fit by the rails (how many times do i read about people whose panels had slid down?) and actually had more problems with bass frequencies causing them to move around more than the newer ones with metal extrusion with the shock absorbing rubber molding. On the Clarity, that rounded back actually had quite a resonance peak that we later realized, resulting in that rather lightweight sound. new tools, knowledge lead us to the changes. the material used on the current cabinets is the same as before (ranger board). With better design they don't ring like they used to.
You are fine to offer conjecture so I won't stop you. Boy it gets active out here sometimes. All should keep chattering and relax. We of course, hope you like them.

Are you going to fix or take care of the issue with the Clarity,since you just stated that it is a design flaw?? The panels on the original Monolith's are trhe way to go.They are rock solid and the speakers itself weighs 176lbs.There is no more of a stable base than that.

 

[Beakman]

Hey Rich, lay off the wavy sticks. That's my bag

 

[amey01]

and got half a tonne of Audio Research pics too - all the latest stuff including the Ref phono.

Where are those ARC pics?

 

[Rich]

Hey Rich, lay off the wavy sticks. That's my bag

Sorry, Beakman. Didn't mean to horn in on your territory.

Are you going to fix or take care of the issue with the Clarity,since you just stated that it is a design flaw??

Ha! Be careful what you say on this board, Peter. The most innocuous comment can lead you down a dangerous path in a hurry. Before you know it, you will have five hundred Clarity owners screaming for a factory-paid modification.

to your points on rigidity, in the old days the panels where held in rather loosely, press fit by the rails (how many times do i read about people whose panels had slid down?) and actually had more problems with bass frequencies causing them to move around more than the newer ones with metal extrusion with the shock absorbing rubber molding.

Thanks for the info., Peter. I really do appreciate it. I find that the bracing on the older panels is much better than the newer gen. I have Ascents and Summits, and the panel on the Summits is much more likely to flex than the one on the Ascents. Even minute degrees of flexion can have some impact on the sound. Which is one reason why folks have found big returns in sound quality by adding bracing their CLS panels. Having said all that, I haven't noticed that it is a big problem on my Summits so perhaps I am being too critical.

 

[wallacefl]

Ah, but it's only when you finallly get to eat Graeter's that you find out what ice cream is really all about.

as a former Cincinnati boy :bowdown: agree

 

[Hocky]

Thanks for the info., Peter. I really do appreciate it. I find that the bracing on the older panels is much better than the newer gen. I have Ascents and Summits, and the panel on the Summits is much more likely to flex than the one on the Ascents. Even minute degrees of flexion can have some impact on the sound. Which is one reason why folks have found big returns in sound quality by adding bracing their CLS panels. Having said all that, I haven't noticed that it is a big problem on my Summits so perhaps I am being too critical.

I noticed this on my Summits, too. I can actually see a bit of vibration in the panel on big bass hits when playing loudly if the light is reflecting off of the panel the right way.

 

[David Matz]

Ah, but it's only when you finallly get to eat Graeter's that you find out what ice cream is really all about.

I'm going to try to seek it out. Andy's custard has been my new favorite. The stuff is so good, it doesn't need topings. But if I work out hard, I treat myself to
James Brownie Funky Jackhammer.

 

[robertawillisjr]

I know from my experience that weight plays a big role with ESL speakers. Many panel speakers suffer from a lack of stability in the panel. If the panel is not stable, imaging and soundstaging suffer. I have found that most ML speakers do pretty good in this regard, due to their weight and the bracing of the panels. The newer speakers don't tend to have as good of bracing as the older gen, and I think that is a negative. But they have for the most part, had stable bases.

Isn't this why so many of us add weight to the cabinets (Quest, Prodigy, etc.) or struts (CLS/CLX). Weren't there a few after market stands made for the CLS.

Isn't this one of the biggest problems with Magnepan speakers.

 

[Rich]

Robert,

Yes, Yes, and Yes. That is why many members have added mass to their cabinets and reported improved sound. That is why many members have added bracing when needed. (C.A.P. made his own custom stands for his CLS, which included bracing. His comments were: "The rear brace and its stability really makes the image so much more precise.") And that is why Mye Stands are considered an essential accessory for any Maggie owner.

Which makes it all the more interesting that when I suggest that lighter weight and/or inadequate bracing might be a problem, I get castigated for being negative and speculating about the speaker without hearing it first.

 

[User211]

Where are those ARC pics?

ARC pics in here.

DCS/VTL/Focal next when I get the time today.

 

[amey01]

ARC pics in here.

DCS/VTL/Focal next when I get the time today.

YEAH! Bring it on.

 

[Horchem1972]

Sorry, Beakman. Didn't mean to horn in on your territory.



Ha! Be careful what you say on this board, Peter. The most innocuous comment can lead you down a dangerous path in a hurry. Before you know it, you will have five hundred Clarity owners screaming for a factory-paid modification.

I am not an owner of the Clarity,but was wondering what his answer would be.He stated that ML does know about the design flaw so I was curious.I would be surprised if we get an answer.

 

[Rich]

I find that the bracing on the older panels is much better than the newer gen. I have Ascents and Summits, and the panel on the Summits is much more likely to flex than the one on the Ascents. Even minute degrees of flexion can have some impact on the sound.

I feel the need to elaborate on this point a bit, so people understand where I am coming from. I did a simple test today. With my Summits, I can place my index finger at the top front of the panel, and with a very small amount of pushing force from one finger, I can flex the panel several millimeters back and forth. The woofer box remains completely stable; only the ELS panel is flexing back and forth. And it is doing so by about a quarter of an inch!

With my Clarities, I can do the same thing, and the ELS panel flexes at first, but with very little additional force (less than what caused the Summit panel to flex), the entire speaker rocks on its feet! This is obviously due to the light weight of the speaker as a whole. I firmly believe that the poorer sound of the Clarity is due in large part to its light weight, and not just due to a frequency hump caused by the rounded back, as Peter implies.

With my Ascents, I can press until my finger hurts, but the panel doesn't move one iota. It is firmly braced and will not flex. At all. Nada. And I have to push really, really hard to rock the speaker on its footings. This speaker is the very definition of panel stability. And it is probably a weakling compared to the Prodigy or Monolith.

Why does this matter? Because Electrostatic speakers move a lot of air, back and forth, from front to back. Air has weight and moving it in one direction will have an equal force in the opposite direction, causing the panel to flex back and forth, as the membrane flexes back and forth. If the esl panel is oscillating back and forth due to the force of that air movement, then imaging suffers. If the speaker itself is so light weight that the force of the panel and woofer can cause it to vibrate on its feet, or oscillate as a whole, again, this hampers imaging.

This is why I am concerned with ML's electrostatic speakers getting lighter in the woofer box, and also concerned with the newer gen panels that have insufficient bracing to prevent panel movement. And I am referring to panel movement in a horizontal plane, not slippage as Peter was talking about. The older gen speakers are firmly braced against horizontal movement and the newer gen speakers simply aren't. The older gen speakers were very heavy and provided a firm foundation for that well-braced panel. The newer gen speakers seem to be getting lighter and lighter. Not a positive trend, in my opinion.

 

[User211]

I wasn't aware a Summit panel was that fickle. In support of Rich's assertion is the following. I know Rich Murray has being trying to take the performance of an Apogee Duetta Signature one step forward. The speaker by default weighs 120 lbs and the frame is very rigid as it is. But to advance performance he has increased the rigidity of the frame even further. I don't know how he has done it, but the account of someone who has heard them against a standard D. Sig is very positive. I'm not saying there aren't any changes elsewhere as there are, but rigidity is surely a positive factor. It's not rocket science, after all.

In fact I have heard of someone bolting their Stages to the floor with a triangular steel brace. Extreme, but I'm sure it will serve to keep the speaker absolutely dead put.

 

[JonFo]

... The older gen speakers were very heavy and provided a firm foundation for that well-braced panel. The newer gen speakers seem to be getting lighter and lighter. Not a positive trend, in my opinion.

Agree that panels need to be properly braced and damped. The Gen1 designs were quite rigid. As someone indicated, the Monoliths are pretty good in that regard.

However, weight and rigidity are not 100% correlated. One can do some interesting things with modern CAD design and materials. The 'Air-Frame' brace introduced on the Summits was as rigid (if not more in some directions) than the prior Gen. frames.

But as one goes down the product line, I do see some things I'd want to check out.

But to obtain max performance, any independently positioned ESL is still wobbly and prone to resonance IMHO.

I've actually drawn up a design on how to brace my Monolith between ceiling and floor with a hydraulically adjustable 'top-brace' bolted to the ceiling.

One needs to clamp the unit strongly enough to suppress motion and resonances without causing deflection.

Any ESL would benefit from anchoring. Simpler, cheaper alternatives are to attach (bolt) lead bars to the bottom of the woofer units, or use wide, heavy stabilizer feet that bolt into the woofer boxes.
Those not only ensure the unit won't tip, if massive enough, they help with some of the resonance.

 

[JonFo]

BTW- Any ideas on a cheap laser-based vibration measuring rig accurate enough to measure panel resonances?

Mr. Objectivist here wants data.

 

[Rich]

However, weight and rigidity are not 100% correlated. One can do some interesting things with modern CAD design and materials. The 'Air-Frame' brace introduced on the Summits was as rigid (if not more in some directions) than the prior Gen. frames.

Agree that weight and rigidity are not completely correlated. They are two separate issues that affect the stability of the panel and speaker as a whole. That was kind of my point, that there are two issues with the newer gen. speakers: one with the rigidity of the air frame, and another with the lower end models getting lighter and lighter in overall weight.

I disagree with you that the air frame on the summits is as rigid as the prior gen frames. As I showed in my simple test, it takes very little pressure on the front or back of my Summit's esl panel to cause back and forth deflection of a quarter of an inch. There was absolutely no deflection on my Ascent panel, with much stronger forces applied. The airframe is nowhere near as rigid as the prior gen. panel bracing.

The difference between the Summit and the Clarity is that on the Summit, only the panel moves. The weight of the cabinet in the Summit keeps the base of the speaker stable. On the Clarity, the whole speaker rocks on its base with very little pressure, due to the light weight of the speaker. As I said, this is another issue entirely.

BTW- Any ideas on a cheap laser-based vibration measuring rig accurate enough to measure panel resonances?

Mr. Objectivist here wants data.

Gotta love ya, Jon.

 

[Peter Soderberg]

to add to the dialogue. The long lever that is created by the extrusions will flex if pressed at the top. Our goal with the change was to knock down some higher frequency issues that crept into the panel. You should know that we read ideas from this site and review most of them. But, sometimes, under the analysis of engineering, marketing, cosmetic exceptance by the market, impact on freight costs, etc. seemingly logical ideas have to be rejected so be patient with us. A good example of that is when the Summit replaced the Prodigy. As excellent as the Prodigy was, it ultimatley was not successful. The Summit sales destroyed them as the Summits where able to get into far more homes than the Prodigy with what most people felt was improvements in performance.
As to Clarity, no retros will be done at the factory as the resonance peak could not be dealt with and is overall minor and caused no technical damage. That is why new models are developed. All cabinets have peaks somewhere in general. Dynamat is a resonance killer that one could add internally and yes, more weight (general answer) could help. But then freight and manufacturing costs go up, taking them out of the well recieved price points they sold at. ahh, choices..