fubar1764
Active member
Can anyone point me to a comparison of the stator generations/technology? I'm curious how much better they sound, what's different about them, et al. Thanks!
Stat technology?
- Thread starter fubar1764
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Well let’s see what I can do on one cup of Coffee.
First, an ESL is a collection of interacting components, some of which are highly interdependent.
Since you ask about stators specifically, I’ll focus on that, but be aware that this not the only variable that impacts sound. It’s a big one (literarily and figuratively), but highly dependent and the surrounding components.
There are three basic components in a Stator:
The Stator plates themselves – those perforated metal plates on front and back
The Diaphragm material – A Mylar sheet coated with a conductive material
The Spars – Those black or translucent pieces of foam / rubber / Other material that clamp the Mylar at intersections across the face of a stator.
The style/size, materials and positioning of these three elements are the main variances across the model lines.
Martin Logan Stators fall into two (three really now, but I’ll ignore the DualFoce stator today) major generations:
Gen1 Stators were produced from the late eighties until 2005
Gen2 stators, or XStat technology, have been produced since their introduction in late ’04, early ’05 in the Summit model.
Gen1 actually had two variants, the general purpose hybrid line which came in the four or five sizes (excluding centers) for Hybrid designs, and a Full range version in a large size for the CLS.
All shared the same basic tech in terms of stator perf sizes and diaphragm tech (in a given years production). There were improvements in spar types and positioning over the years. But variance is minor in the scheme of things.
Gen2 is different than gen1 in the following ways:
The gen2 was a big step forward. A Summit panel is 25% smaller than the Prodigy’s panel, yet has 33% more radiating surface than the Gen1 stator on the Prodigy.
This added efficiency allows gen2 based models to be much smaller physically than gen1 products. So that’s advantage number 1 for gen2.
Since they are more efficient electrically as well, they provide more output per watt per radiating area than older gen1’s.
Since their profile is smaller, the comb filtering and to other interference patter issues in large planars are minimized, therefore the sound is slightly less colored and they beam less at certain frequencies.
That’s the second major benefit, and a big one at that.
As for sound, well the gen2’s have less panel generated modal issues since the panels are smaller, they play louder for a given size, and in general are a much better performing product.
So if given a choice, a gen2 panel would seem to be a no-brainer to get. But, there are so many other factors to consider, it’s never so easy.
For instance, I’ve heard summits, and love their sound. But I’m not trading out my highly tuned Monoliths (with 2006 updated panels) for a Summit.
But no question that a gen2 based product is superior to a gen1 equivalent model, the challenge is, is it worth the price delta to you.
Both will give you some of the best sound you’ve ever heard.
In general, I’d say you could get more of an improvement in sound by correctly treating your room acoustics than by choosing gen1 vs gen2. Or even the right vs wrong type of amp.
Remember it’s a system with many, many parts, and the room is possibly the most important one of all.
OK, coffee cup is drained, and so am I. Hope this helps, and I’m sure other will correct inaccuracies or other lapses in the above.
Make sure you also read: http://www.tr.martinlogan.com/technology/electrostatic_theory.html
First, an ESL is a collection of interacting components, some of which are highly interdependent.
Since you ask about stators specifically, I’ll focus on that, but be aware that this not the only variable that impacts sound. It’s a big one (literarily and figuratively), but highly dependent and the surrounding components.
There are three basic components in a Stator:
The Stator plates themselves – those perforated metal plates on front and back
The Diaphragm material – A Mylar sheet coated with a conductive material
The Spars – Those black or translucent pieces of foam / rubber / Other material that clamp the Mylar at intersections across the face of a stator.
The style/size, materials and positioning of these three elements are the main variances across the model lines.
Martin Logan Stators fall into two (three really now, but I’ll ignore the DualFoce stator today) major generations:
Gen1 Stators were produced from the late eighties until 2005
Gen2 stators, or XStat technology, have been produced since their introduction in late ’04, early ’05 in the Summit model.
Gen1 actually had two variants, the general purpose hybrid line which came in the four or five sizes (excluding centers) for Hybrid designs, and a Full range version in a large size for the CLS.
All shared the same basic tech in terms of stator perf sizes and diaphragm tech (in a given years production). There were improvements in spar types and positioning over the years. But variance is minor in the scheme of things.
Gen2 is different than gen1 in the following ways:
- Smaller stator perforations (which increased their per square foot efficiency) exposing a greater percentage of the diaphragm
- Improved assembly and spar positioning techniques
- I believe that the Mylar is generally the same in any given years
stat production, but they might have more than one gauge of thickness for use in various models. Not sure, and not sure they’ll tell us. They Mylar and more importantly, its conductive surface has been steadily improved over the years.
The gen2 was a big step forward. A Summit panel is 25% smaller than the Prodigy’s panel, yet has 33% more radiating surface than the Gen1 stator on the Prodigy.
This added efficiency allows gen2 based models to be much smaller physically than gen1 products. So that’s advantage number 1 for gen2.
Since they are more efficient electrically as well, they provide more output per watt per radiating area than older gen1’s.
Since their profile is smaller, the comb filtering and to other interference patter issues in large planars are minimized, therefore the sound is slightly less colored and they beam less at certain frequencies.
That’s the second major benefit, and a big one at that.
As for sound, well the gen2’s have less panel generated modal issues since the panels are smaller, they play louder for a given size, and in general are a much better performing product.
So if given a choice, a gen2 panel would seem to be a no-brainer to get. But, there are so many other factors to consider, it’s never so easy.
For instance, I’ve heard summits, and love their sound. But I’m not trading out my highly tuned Monoliths (with 2006 updated panels) for a Summit.
But no question that a gen2 based product is superior to a gen1 equivalent model, the challenge is, is it worth the price delta to you.
Both will give you some of the best sound you’ve ever heard.
In general, I’d say you could get more of an improvement in sound by correctly treating your room acoustics than by choosing gen1 vs gen2. Or even the right vs wrong type of amp.
Remember it’s a system with many, many parts, and the room is possibly the most important one of all.
OK, coffee cup is drained, and so am I. Hope this helps, and I’m sure other will correct inaccuracies or other lapses in the above.
Make sure you also read: http://www.tr.martinlogan.com/technology/electrostatic_theory.html
fubar1764
Active member
Jonathan, that was exactly what I was looking for! THANK YOU!
I have old Aerius i that I picked up back in '98. Never changed out the stats - I don't think I need to. . .
. I agree room placement and treatment is so much more than equipment swapping. Unfortunately, I'm limited by what the missus will allow. . .though it's an 18x28 room! :music:
I have old Aerius i that I picked up back in '98. Never changed out the stats - I don't think I need to. . .
. I agree room placement and treatment is so much more than equipment swapping. Unfortunately, I'm limited by what the missus will allow. . .though it's an 18x28 room! :music:
pidigi
Well-known member
question
Great explanation, Jonathan!
Just a question: if you ask replacement panels for a pre-2005 model, designed then with the efficiency of the gen1 stators, will they send you a gen2 stator? If they do that, a passive hybrid will then not perfectly matched with the woofer.... Jim Power told me, though, that the new replacement panel they sent me include the benefits of their newer technology as they can apply it.
I'm quite sure that the stator perforation of my new panels is the same as the old ones (I'll measure that to say for sure). The new ones have different spars, not sure here also if the thickness and the distance between two spars is the same as the old panels (will measure that too).
Ciao
Paolo
Great explanation, Jonathan!
Just a question: if you ask replacement panels for a pre-2005 model, designed then with the efficiency of the gen1 stators, will they send you a gen2 stator? If they do that, a passive hybrid will then not perfectly matched with the woofer.... Jim Power told me, though, that the new replacement panel they sent me include the benefits of their newer technology as they can apply it.
I'm quite sure that the stator perforation of my new panels is the same as the old ones (I'll measure that to say for sure). The new ones have different spars, not sure here also if the thickness and the distance between two spars is the same as the old panels (will measure that too).
Ciao
Paolo
Jonathan, that was exactly what I was looking for! THANK YOU!
I have old Aerius i that I picked up back in '98. Never changed out the stats - I don't think I need to. . .
Welcome and thanks.
As for your room size, I run Monoliths in a 16x26' room, so you could definitely accommodate something bigger there. :band:
rockeratheart
Well-known member
JonFo . . .
I really enjoy reading your posts. Without knowing anything about you or your job, you really know lots about MLs. Thanks. Yay Gen2!
If the gen2 panels have more radiating surface area, do you think a quest/request in a 15X25' room with new panels would be a problem very minimal room treatments wouldn't fix? Did that even sound remotely correct grammatically?
Ben
I really enjoy reading your posts. Without knowing anything about you or your job, you really know lots about MLs. Thanks. Yay Gen2!
If the gen2 panels have more radiating surface area, do you think a quest/request in a 15X25' room with new panels would be a problem very minimal room treatments wouldn't fix? Did that even sound remotely correct grammatically?
Ben
Paolo, no, a gen1 stator replacement is the same basic design. The only benefit is the better plasma vapor depositing technique of the conductive material on the diaphragm used in the new replacement panel. That and possibly the spar, glue technologies being better. Otherwise it’s the original design.
I find my Monolith replacement panels very nice and a huge step up over the tired 13 year-old originals.
And yes, possibly slightly more efficient, and definitely able to play at higher SPL’s and higher frequencies than originals. Still OK for original crossovers, but much superior if you do actives with a speaker processor. I have what I consider a 150% improved version of the original IIIx in my room right now.
Not many other speakers one could say this of…
Last edited:
fubar1764
Active member
Well, not all of it is the living room. It's shared by the dining area as well. So, one speaker is about 10' from the side wall, while the other is about 4'. Still hard to complain.
I've been reading a lot about people changing out their panels. How does one know if they need to be replaced?! I've never replaced mine.
David Matz
Well-known member
Don't forget the bass
One of the additional things to consider is the panel/bass integration. When I upgraded from the Ascent to the Vantage, the panel sounded cleaner, faster, and more transparent. This was like adding a fancy power cord to a good component or swapping out the cheapo interconnects for something expensive. An improvement, but an incremental improvement.
The big value to my ears is the much improved bass response in the newest generation. To me this is why one would upgrade from generation to generation.
One of the additional things to consider is the panel/bass integration. When I upgraded from the Ascent to the Vantage, the panel sounded cleaner, faster, and more transparent. This was like adding a fancy power cord to a good component or swapping out the cheapo interconnects for something expensive. An improvement, but an incremental improvement.
The big value to my ears is the much improved bass response in the newest generation. To me this is why one would upgrade from generation to generation.
theWB
Well-known member
X2
Just as Dave says, Moved from Odysseys to Summits, Panel Improvement Yes, Dramatic Improvement No.
Bass and Bass Integration with the panel is where it's at. The bass is Fast, Crisp, Clear, and Deep, In comparison the base from the old generation sounds muddy and boomy and doesn't sound as deep. Could be the smaller base cabinet, or the powered woofers. I never biamped the Odysseys, that might have improved the bass response a little but I don't think it would come anywhere near how the new generation sounds. The difference is that dramatic.
Thanks Ben.
A pair of ReQuests with new panels would do fine in that size room. And yes, some basic treatments would be highly recommened.
If I already had the ReQuests, I'd repanel, and do the threatments before I upgraded the speaker to a diffrent model.
Last edited:
As David and WB mention, the panel to woofer integration has indeed steadily improved over the years and is a great reason to consider a gen2 product.
Since, the basic question was about stat tech. I ignored other factors. But since we’re going there, then yes, Crossover technology and design has improved at ML over the years.
So has the bass driver tech and box design. The powered models really differentiate themselves by essentially giving you a bi-amped solution with a semi-active crossover (the bass crossover is done in analog electronics vs passive parts, reducing impact on the amp).
My personal experience with the Monolith passive crossover leads me to conclude that there is much room for improvement there. Just going to an active model is a huge leap forward. A well tuned DSP-based active is world apart from the original passives.
So bottom line, a gen2 based speaker as a system is likely an improvement over a gen1 product, even with fresh panels.
But if just looking at panels only, other than size/efficiency, not that different. At the end of the day, they are both ESL’s
Since, the basic question was about stat tech. I ignored other factors. But since we’re going there, then yes, Crossover technology and design has improved at ML over the years.
So has the bass driver tech and box design. The powered models really differentiate themselves by essentially giving you a bi-amped solution with a semi-active crossover (the bass crossover is done in analog electronics vs passive parts, reducing impact on the amp).
My personal experience with the Monolith passive crossover leads me to conclude that there is much room for improvement there. Just going to an active model is a huge leap forward. A well tuned DSP-based active is world apart from the original passives.
So bottom line, a gen2 based speaker as a system is likely an improvement over a gen1 product, even with fresh panels.
But if just looking at panels only, other than size/efficiency, not that different. At the end of the day, they are both ESL’s
pidigi
Well-known member
Ok this makes sense.
Jim also told me that the new panels should take less time to be completely charged after you reconnect the speakers to the mains.
I've made what I consider an interesting test on the new ones: I've measured the high voltage bias on the panel (actually on the connection of the panel) with and without installing the panel:
without panel: 3420V
with panel: it reached 3290V after quite a long time (say 1 hour).
You have made some test about supplying the panels with a lower voltage, haven't you? Is this lower voltage somehow meaningful?
150%!!!!!!!
This means a HUGE improvement!!! Without considering what you have gained from the room treatment!!!
Ciao
Paolo
