Here is another article that does a good job of dispelling the myth that it is driver mass which affects the speed (i.e. transient response) of a bass driver: Woofer Speed
New Summit X Review in TAS - Better than any dynamic speaker under $40K
- Thread starter David Matz
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
David Matz
Well-known member
Rich,
I have a lot of stuff going on and I will read your articles when I have a chance. All I am saying is that I hear the woofers "woof". The sonic difference is as I described it. The bass in a hybrid speaker such as the Spire or the Summit just doesn't sound like it is in sync to my ears, whereas in the CLX or the Soundlab, the whole presentation is of the same cloth.
Folks can verify what I am saying by listening for themselves. If the sonic difference is not worth it, save the $$$ and stick with the hybrid.
User211
Well-known member
Rich I agree with David - but I've told you why I think the hybrids have audible issues before... in detail
I'm not contesting the fact that there are sonic issues with hybrids. I am contesting the characterization of the problem as one of a "slower" woofer being able to keep up with a "faster" panel. The idea that panels produce "faster" bass and woofers, due to larger mass, produce "slower" bass is a myth. The problem isn't that the woofer just can't "keep up" with the panel.
I think the biggest issue with hybrids is dealing with the phase and dispersion relationships between a line source dipole and a point source monopole. It's funny. Tweeters have a very small mass compared to a woofer, but you never seem to hear people talk about the woofers being unable to keep up with the tweeters when discussing box speakers. But with esl's, everyone seems to fall for the myth of the slow woofer being unable to keep up with the esl diaphragm.
I think the biggest issue with hybrids is dealing with the phase and dispersion relationships between a line source dipole and a point source monopole. It's funny. Tweeters have a very small mass compared to a woofer, but you never seem to hear people talk about the woofers being unable to keep up with the tweeters when discussing box speakers. But with esl's, everyone seems to fall for the myth of the slow woofer being unable to keep up with the esl diaphragm.
I have heard a lack of resolution in the past on Maggie 3.6Rs but am not sure if it was the speaker or the system at the time. This resolution issue is why I have never owned a Maggie before but to my ears the 20.1 is an entirely different beast. I find the resolution much better than the Summit. I am continually surprised at the detail on CDs that I have play many times over the past 15 years.
Quite possible considering room acoustics, just compare the panel size..
User211
Well-known member
Jeff was always on about woofers not being able to keep up. But really that is just the subjective impression one gets when listening. It isn't, as you state, the technical reason. Dipole subs seems to make the most sense with, say, CLXs, unless you damp the rear wave of the CLX to try and force the speaker to behave like a monopole. In which case, to my mind, JL subs make sense. Otherwise something with a Descent type radiation pattern makes better sense - or indeed a true dipole sub.
With regards to ESL resolution over a properly implemented ribbon speaker, I don't believe an ESL has anything over it. At the end of the day, I would probably have kept my Ascents if they were better in the resolution stakes. They were not. They got smoked, in fact - especially at lower volumes.
Justin, the reverberant behavior issues associated with dipoles exist because the frequencies produced are above the Schroeder frequency for the room, typically 200Hz-ish. Below Schroeder, room modes (and not reverberant energy) are the principal problem and there's no intrinsic acoustic benefit for a dipole (or multipole) sub.
What? Are you just trying to bait me here?
I bet if you asked Roger Sanders, he would probably say the problem (at least with ML's implementation) is really due to the use of sealed box woofers, which creates overshoot and ringing. That's why he is a fan of using transmission line woofers in his speakers.
I think you have to distinguish between the woofer in a hybrid ESL vs. a subwoofer to be used with the CLX, for the reasons RUR stated above. In the hybrid ESL's, the crossover point is up above 200 Hz., so trying to match the dispersion of the panel, at least around the crossover point, is probably helpful to a seamless presentation. I believe that is what ML is trying to achieve with their newer crossover technology.
But since the CLX is dipolar down well below 100 hz., and due to the way such low frequency waves interact in a normal sized room, the dispersion pattern of a sub is not really an issue with those speakers.
User211
Well-known member
Really?
"By far the perceptually most uniform response in the range below 200 Hz is obtained with an open-baffle, dipole or figure-of-eight radiating source. Because of its directionality, the dipole excites far fewer room resonances than an omni-directional source. The measured room response is not necessarily any smoother than that for an omni-directional source. But the perceived difference in bass reproduction is startling at first, because we are so used to hearing the irregular and booming bass of the typical box speaker in acoustically small rooms. Quickly one learns to recognize the distortion of this combination and it becomes intolerable."
I'm not going to argue, guys. I just know I'm right. How pretentious is that? It's about time I got unreasonable around here. Everyone has the right to that every once in a while.
Neil - I too have heard the maggie 20.1 and think they are great. I listened to the summits in one store - and then ran over to listen to the maggie 20.1s. I had (and still have) Odysseys. I listened to the 3.6 & 20.1 that day. Thought both were very good - but the big diff between the 3.6 & 20.1 for me was in the bass dept. That was one of those listening sessions (about 3 years ago) - where I am still scratching my head wondering if I should go back and listen to the 20.1s.....At one point - I had to walk between the 20.1s and behind them because the voices seemed so holographic... One poster said that he thought the maggies made voices sound 'as big as a microwave' - and if I do recall - it does seem like voices seem to image big....Do you agree with that or no?
Welcome to my world. :ROFL:
But come on . . . the fun is in the arguing (or, actually, the civilly debating). Don't just know you are right. Prove it to us.
By the way, at room temperatures, an acoustic wave at 65 hz. has a wavelength of something like 17 feet. With a wavelength that long, do you really think directionality of such a waveform in a normal sized listening room is an issue?
Justin, I’m familiar with Mr. Linkwitz and have the utmost respect for him, however…. Reducing or even eliminating some room modes != to eliminating all room modes, nor does such reduction in any way alter the fundamental principal that frequencies above Schroeder present very different acoustic problems than those below i.e. I see no validity to the idea that "Dipole subs seems to make the most sense with, say, (undamped) CLXs".
And while dipole “subs” are intriguing, they present several problems – DIY, LF rolloff, aesthetics, placement, and external EQ (ideally) - which many folks find objectionable.
And while dipole “subs” are intriguing, they present several problems – DIY, LF rolloff, aesthetics, placement, and external EQ (ideally) - which many folks find objectionable.
Last edited:
Yes I do agree with you about the size of the vocals. The image is huge and in my room very lifelike and with a real presence. I listened to Joni Mitchell's Blue the other night and was really amazed at just how huge her voice sounded. This is probably my most played CD over the past 20 years and I have a good idea how it sounds on different systems.
I can't really comment on the 3.6 as I haven't heard it with as good equipment as mine or in a dedicated room. However, I knew when I first head the 20.1 in a home environment (not mine) that the sound was exactly what I was after ie. realistic bass and large image size. I thought at the time that they also had excellent resolution but didn't realise how good until I listened with my equipment and CDs. The only problem with the 20.1 would be the amplifier as they need a lot of current to really get going. Fortunately, I have a Gryphon which delivers a huge amount of current.
It was really the size of the image however that convinced me to buy them as a replacement for the Summit's. That is something that the Summit's, at least in my room, could not deliver. I always felt that I was looking down at a less than full size singer that was sitting on the floor. With the 20.1s the singer is standing up and is full size. I actually think that the original Quest that I had a for many years had a larger image than the Summit. However, the Summit beat the Quest in most other departments.
I also had some Prodigy's for a time but they too did not deliver the image size of the 20.1s. The bass on the Prodigy's was powerful but not nearly as realistic as the 20.1s. I actually preferred the Summit's to the Prodigy but that is really a matter of taste. The Summits seemed to me much more precise that the Prodigy but which one was better tended to depend on what music was being played
Yes I do agree with you about the size of the vocals. The image is huge and in my room very lifelike and with a real presence. I listened to Joni Mitchell's Blue the other night and was really amazed at just how huge her voice sounded. This is probably my most played CD over the past 20 years and I have a good idea how it sounds on different systems.
I can't really comment on the 3.6 as I haven't heard it with as good equipment as mine or in a dedicated room. However, I knew when I first head the 20.1 in a home environment (not mine) that the sound was exactly what I was after ie. realistic bass and large image size. I thought at the time that they also had excellent resolution but didn't realise how good until I listened with my equipment and CDs. The only problem with the 20.1 would be the amplifier as they need a lot of current to really get going. Fortunately, I have a Gryphon which delivers a huge amount of current.
It was really the size of the image however that convinced me to buy them as a replacement for the Summit's. That is something that the Summit's, at least in my room, could not deliver. I always felt that I was looking down at a less than full size singer that was sitting on the floor. With the 20.1s the singer is standing up and is full size. I actually think that the original Quest that I had a for many years had a larger image than the Summit. However, the Summit beat the Quest in most other departments.
I also had some Prodigy's for a time but they too did not deliver the image size of the 20.1s. The bass on the Prodigy's was powerful but not nearly as realistic as the 20.1s. I actually preferred the Summit's to the Prodigy but that is really a matter of taste. The Summits seemed to me much more precise that the Prodigy but which one was better tended to depend on what music was being played
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
How do the 20.1's reproduce classical? Specifically, image size, instrument location, and hall ambiance.
GG
GG
wallacefl
Well-known member
agree...IMHO it is the position of the woofer + the fact it (the panel due to width and resonance) has to be crossed above 150hz + the woofer is not a dipole leads to the incongruity most hear. THe Summit and Spire are still excellent and I have heard all the Maggies and none (again just my opinion) have the resolution thru the midrange the electrostatic panels have. Look at the design of the E2 Statements and except for the sub/woofers... you can get the idea.
I can't really say as I don't listen to much classical. I have some classical CDs including Bach, Schubert, Vivaldi but haven't listended to any on the 20.1s. I mainly listen to blues, folk, americana, bluegrass and even some Laurie Anderson, Peter Gabriel, and a bit of Jazz, but not much classical of late.
I can say that the positioning of instruments on acoustic type music is really superb but I don't know what they would do to classical. I will have to listen and get back to you.
I would be surprised if it wasn't stupendous, state of the art etc..... In most reviews you will see that they excel at classical because of their incredible imaging, soundstage, and timbre... I have heard a tympani on them and it was very realistic.... Would be very interested to hear your impressions as well Neil....
I will listen to a few classical CDs and post my impressions. However, when listening to classical I find it difficult to find a point of reference.
I attend a lot of live concerts and festivals mainly in the blues and folk genre so I know what a singer sounds like on stage and how a guitar, banjo, drums and fiddle are suppose to sound. However. I attend no classical music concerts where there are more than one of each instrument ie. I know what a single fiddle or cello should sound like but I don't know how an ensemble should sound.
Any impressions that I have of how my 20.1s present classical music will be solely based on my tastes but will have no real relevance to realism. I suppose though that this is true to some extent of even the music that I am familiar with.
I like a big sound so maybe my liking for the 20.1s is coloured by my preferences The Summits produced a very tight but smaller scale of sound whereas the 20.1s produce a very large scale and powerful sound.
The real telling point for me in switching from the Summits to 20.1s was a CD called Redwood Cathedral by Dick Gaughan. I love this CD and have played it many many times. Dick has a huge and powerful voice. I have seen him live a few times so I know how he should sound.
When I first played this CD on the Summit's I knew there was something missing compared to what I use to get from the Quest's. I belieive that in most respects the Summit's are a much better speaker than the Quest's but they couldn't present this CD with the same realism. The size of the singer was just too small and the impact in the midrange was just not there. I missed this and kept coming back to it over the 3 years that I used the Summits. When I heard this same CD through the 20.1s I knew what I had been missing. Of course that is not all the 20.1s do excellently but it was an important point for me.
