What would you most like to see in the next generation of MLs?

[User211]

I was thinking with the Summit getting a mid-life update, ML must be thinking ahead in terms of what will replace it. We ought to get our thoughts down now, before it is too late to influence them.

What would you most like to see in next generation MLs is therefore the topic of this thread...

Personally, after my Summit demo a while back, I thought it was a great speaker. However, it would have been even better if it was Prodigy sized. I'd really like to see the most recent advances incorporated into a much bigger speaker than the Summit. The current speakers are great, but they are just TOO SMALL.

Imagine a Monolith sized beast incorporating better than Summit technology... now that really would make jaws drop.

 

[MotorToad]

As a Sequel owner, I share your love for the big speakers. Looking at the progression of the design, it seems that huge speakers were a problem for their intended market. Going from enormous Monoliths to room-dominating Odyssey, then the Summit; which while not puny, is smaller than its predecessors.

Eh, the gist of that is I think WAF is as much a factor as anything else.

Now for the topic... What I'd like to see is isolation between the woofer and the panel. I can feel my speakers vibrate to the thump of the woofer, and I can't help but think that the 4+ square feet of vibrating panel colors and is colored by the lower frequencies.

 

[Satch]

Wider sweet spot and don't give me that "I know her" stuff...

 

[User211]

Yup, Motortoad, I think we know why they have downsized... but what I'd like to say is make 'em bigger again!

Anyway, panel decoupling has crossed my mind. To be honest it could easily be done at home with some of the designs, but I don't think taking a saw to my Ascents appeals to me, or the re-sale value afterwards...

It could well be a significant upgrade... I wonder whether ML has actually tried it during research and decided against it for whatever reasons. In fact it'd be really interesting to know what they get up to during R&D, and what they have tried in the past.

 

[TomDac]

I do like the imposing size of the Logans of yore, but not everyone can fit them into their lives, which is one of the reasons why Logans started to get smaller... that and the technology changes..

I'd like to see a Summit with a panel as wide as the reQuest. That would be cool!

I'd also like to see smaller versions of the CLX

 

[User211]

The new frame updates make making the panels bigger without them being as imposing as the older designs were at a similar panel size. Therefore, I think there is good scope for larger panels and some remaining WAF factor.

 

[Nielsen]

Hmmm, built-in room correction for the powered models.

 

[M@rio]

Hmmmm....I would like to see some other active models (larger than Purity's) like Vista, Vantage...:music:

 

[ratso]

Hmmm, built-in room correction for the powered models.

i could not agree more. i have spent all week researching the various 'room correction' units out there (copland, lyngdorf, TacT, etc.). especially for a speaker that is so sensitive to placement and seems to be somewhat difficult to blend with a sub, i think this would be a GREAT addition to people with troublesome rooms like me who don't have the option/don't want to hang ugly sound panels all over the place. either as a built in to the speaker option or a stand alone unit. the key here is making it both defeatable, and also tweakable by the user.

 

[Nielsen]

Just a comment, those that uses a computer as source, or pass-through might want to check out this : http://www.juicehifi.com/no/index.html
Its been very well received.....

 

[sleepysurf]

A few of us here have the latest crop of Denon receivers, or Pre/Pro's, with Audyssey MultEQ XT room correction capability. One can certainly debate whether such corrections yield an "ideal" soundstage, but after hearing the effect, you can't argue that it doesn't make a significant difference. Hearing the Audyssey effect with my Summits/Room interaction, convinced me to invest time and $$$ towards improved acoustic treatments, which will hopefully lessen the remaining corrections that Audyssey needs to apply. IMHO, WAF-friendly room acoustic treatments, combined with "computerized" room correction/EQ, will become the (sound) wave of the future!

Oops, guess I strayed off topic to the original thread! While I embrace room correction, I'd hate to see room correction built-in the ML speaker itself. Rather, I'd like to see them develop (perhaps in conjunction with TacT, Lyngdorf, or Audyssey, etc) an electrostatic specific outboard Room/Speaker EQ device that works in the digital domain, and can be firmware/feature upgraded as technology evolves.

 

[amey01]

I'd like to see larger panels as well. That, combined with much lower crossovers for the bass woofers. More like true woofers/subwoofers rather than upper bass/mid drivers like they are now.

Following on from this, I'd like to see the panel run full-range (ie. Crossover-less) with the woofer only augmeting the bass.

That, and an upgraded "Statement e3".
Oh, and an "Airframe" CLX.

But above all, I don't want this stuff until years down the track. I'd rather they got this stuff right and left it rather than releasing a continual stream of slightly upgraded products like Japanese companies, following a "planned obsolescence" model. That only serves to p155 us customers off de-value the product and brand.

 

[theWB]

Personally, after my Summit demo a while back, I thought it was a great speaker. However, it would have been even better if it was Prodigy sized. I'd really like to see the most recent advances incorporated into a much bigger speaker than the Summit. The current speakers are great, but they are just TOO SMALL.

X2
Even my wife commented that she liked the bigger size




















Speakers

 

[ALTMAN]

A few of us here have the latest crop of Denon receivers, or Pre/Pro's, with Audyssey MultEQ XT room correction capability. One can certainly debate whether such corrections yield an "ideal" soundstage, but after hearing the effect, you can't argue that it doesn't make a significant difference. Hearing the Audyssey effect with my Summits/Room interaction, convinced me to invest time and $$$ towards improved acoustic treatments, which will hopefully lessen the remaining corrections that Audyssey needs to apply. IMHO, WAF-friendly room acoustic treatments, combined with "computerized" room correction/EQ, will become the (sound) wave of the future!

Oops, guess I strayed off topic to the original thread! While I embrace room correction, I'd hate to see room correction built-in the ML speaker itself. Rather, I'd like to see them develop (perhaps in conjunction with TacT, Lyngdorf, or Audyssey, etc) an electrostatic specific outboard Room/Speaker EQ device that works in the digital domain, and can be firmware/feature upgraded as technology evolves.

I would think room correction systems work best when you can physically separate the mid/high panel from the bass panel. In addition you would then have to run the highs through some sort of AD/DA which has the ability to ruin the sound.

 

[gregadd]

eating crow

As one who predicted gloom and doom for ML when they were sold. I am glad to see that they took on an ambitious project like the CLX. :bowdown:

It would also be great if ML would offer transformers for the CLS. Those electronics have to be getting just a little tired. If we have the latest panels why can't have the latest electronics in our transformers.

 

[Neil H]

I was thinking with the Summit getting a mid-life update, ML must be thinking ahead in terms of what will replace it. We ought to get our thoughts down now, before it is too late to influence them.

Personally, after my Summit demo a while back, I thought it was a great speaker. However, it would have been even better if it was Prodigy sized. I'd really like to see the most recent advances incorporated into a much bigger speaker than the Summit. The current speakers are great, but they are just TOO SMALL.

Imagine a Monolith sized beast incorporating better than Summit technology... now that really would make jaws drop.

The Prodigy panel really isn't that much bigger than the Summit. I brought an old clapped out Prodigy panel home for comparison. The difference in size is mainly in the width and when put next to the Summit is not that much different when the Prodigy frame is not attached.

I think the main reason that the Prodigy is a much more imposing speaker to look at, is because the panel is mounted higher and also because of the large heavy looking bass section.

 

[Craig]

[/IMG]
The panel size may not be much different but when combined with the larger panel, bass cabinet and frame it made the overall speakers very large.

Here is a side by side comparison of the Ascent and the Summit.

I would expect that the next generation MLs would incorporate CLX technology. Perhaps a smaller, more affordable CLX? Although, you do need some size to produce bass from an electrostat panel.

A small hybrid powered CLX perhaps?

 

[User211]

You beat me to it Craig. I was about to suggest that. It might work well - a smaller dual force driver to get the ELS panels operating to a lower frequency, plus a built-in sub.

Or - for reasons of "frame shaking" mentioned earlier in the thread, just a smaller air frame CLX with the provisio that sub(s) should be used with it.

People have been very polite about CLX bass. It probably sounds very good indeed. The fact is, however, it does NOT go low. I think the CLX WILL need a sub, no matter what people have said thus far.

Nice pic, Craig. Shows the micro-perf difference quite clearly too.The Ascents do sound a bit "bigger" than a Summit, just because of the extra height.

As a point of note: my 211 SE powered Ascents + Descent sound a lot more relaxed and natural than a Summit driven by a mid-market Krell. I wouldn't swap for the Krell set up. However, I'd love to hear a Summit with my amps...

 

[JonFo]

I’m a little late to this party, but not light on opinions

I’m also one that believes we will see more use of the DualForce ESL panels, and will not see a return to larger single panels.

Historically, large single panels were the only way to get more mid-bass out of an ESL and the CLS was the only one to attempt sub-100Hz reproduction.

I think time and research have shown that to move enough air, and not inherit many negative side effects (panel resonances being a big one), that there is a need to separate the bass frequency reproduction from the mids.

This introduces the need for a crossover , but still, it’s in the usual range of crossovers for other hybrid designs. Not a big deal if well implemented.

So, my predictions are as follows:

New mid-size speaker based on DualForce mid-bass panels + Spire/Summit panel slotting between the summit and the CLX in cost. A mini CLX if you will, or a super summit. This one would definitely require a sub.

New center channel unit based on DualForce mid-bass (placed horizontally) with a curved ESL element above. This will be a bit taller than usual centers, but if the market research supports it, they might make it. Would you buy a 20” tall center channel?

A small speaker, priced around $5K / Pair using the DualForce panels + a Purity Panel.
These would be designed such that they could be stacked vertically to create longer line-sources if desired. That would allow assembling anything from small 5.1 systems of equal speakers, or to augment the front L/R pair with stacked sets for better coverage and deeper bass coverage.
These also would make great surround and rears for the large ESL line.

I will even go so far as to suggest ML consider the following variant for that smaller unit:

A monopole radiation version, with a Transmission Line alignment applied to a Dualforce driver to really provide impressive bass, and rear wave absorption for the panel to allow for close to the wall positioning or wall mounting. If the entire cabinet depth was constrained to 6 to 8 inches, these could be wall mounted and not be too intrusive (if they have nice industrial design).
This would solve many, many room placement / room interface challenges that non-audiophile customers face when trying to integrate ML’s into their living spaces.

 

[C.A.P]

People have been very polite about CLX bass. It probably sounds very good indeed. The fact is, however, it does NOT go low. I think the CLX WILL need a sub, no matter what people have said thus far.

For 2 channel listening a sub will not be needed. Until you listen to them you will not know what I am talking about. I am a BASS junkie. These do plenty of REAL good bass. Most subs will emphasise a lower mid bass area that people perceive as low bass. If a sub is set up properly you could actually sit on it and barely tell its working or there .