Quantcast

DIY Logan Opinions

MartinLogan Owners (MLO)

Help Support MartinLogan Owners (MLO):

IWalker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
576
Reaction score
0
Location
Charlotte, NC
So, I've been on this DIY kick lately... but love the logan sound from the mids on up so much that I'd really rather stick to that...and just build stuff for the lower end. My plans are for a couple of 12" servo subs, and a midbass array per channel (stereo) to mate with logans.

So here's the question...since I'm going to be crossing over in the mid-high x00hz range (call it 500-700...though that remains to be seen once I start working with it) what are the best logans for me to get? Size isn't really an issue for me, so I was thinking for the price I could get some CLS IIzs...but if the only advantage they hold is that they play lower, then it might not be the best thing. I saw JonFo's center channel project and that inspired me somewhat...I could potentially hack up a pair of hybrids just for their panels/electronics if this would make more sense (sound better, look better, cost less, and/or be smaller...though size is the least of these considerations)

Thoughts? Seems like because of age, the CLS is about the cheapest logan you can get (when you can find em) ... though the request or SL3 or monoliths could work it seems if I am going to hack them up (though the monos are generally a little bit more).

Thanks!
 

IWalker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
576
Reaction score
0
Location
Charlotte, NC
Hmmm...a revised question perhaps, since I've gotten 37 views with no responses.

If you had to choose from the list of
CLS/CLSIIZ
SL3
Requests
Ascents
Monoliths
(any others than can be bought used for around $2000)

for midrange and higher frequencies, what would YOU pick? Imagine that size is not an issue.

I'm leaning towards the CLS (since maybe I'll want to cross it over lower when I'm not playing bass heavy music/movies) but wanted to give some consideration to the other choices in my budget.

Thanks...sorry if this doesn't clarify anything and just turns out to be a shameless bump! :eek:
 

Tube60

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Chatsworth, Ca
What size panel are you in the mind for?
I'd probably consider the Requests, but don't overlook the Sequel. They can be had in the $800 - $1200 range. The CLS panel would work well if the crossover point were raised. The large surface area would have a narrower frequency range to work with, so I would think that it would be more efficient; possibly the bias could be made hotter to bring the efficiency up even more without arcing over, since membrane excursion would be less. But that's something I'm only guessing at, so perhaps somebody could offer some advice on that?
 

IWalker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
576
Reaction score
0
Location
Charlotte, NC
Panel size isn't really an issue. (the better sounding and greater output the better...I don't have a real space limitation on them) I thought originally about going for the CLS before I was ever going to build this midbass array...so I just figured I'd use it to augment it...but then I got to thinking that maybe it'd be overkill having that size panel if I was crossing it over that high...and maybe the dispersion characteristics wouldn't be as good...so figured I'd see what others had to say on the subject. If I got something other than the CLS, I'd probably alter it, similar to how JonFo made his center channel...but not nearly as well :) I guess when I'm ready to pull the trigger, I'll check out prices and see what I think is the best bet. If I get get something for a lot less, it'd move the project up...and leave me with some more beer money :p

Thanks for the response...I'll seriously consider all of those options! I'm probably about 1 month away from starting on all of this. It may come down to whether I find a great deal on first. If I can get a hybrid with good sized panels for cheap, I may have to go with it...but if I find a good deal on a CLS, I'll probably grab it instead.
 

lugano

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
1,054
Reaction score
0
Location
+46° 1' 26.41", +8° 57' 5.40" (Switzerland)
check out the CLS II impedance thread I just posted

My PS Audio HCA-2 amplifier kept on going into fault mode with the CLS II's, so I wanted to identify the problem - I suspected some impedance dips. Now I know what kind of load they represent for an amplifier - you might consider this before going with the CLS'es. We tried another PS Audio amp, too: the GCC-250. No problems with that one, it manages to drive them perfectly. The GCC-250 is running through its looooong burn-in period right now at home and it might be a keeper once I'm able to do some critical listening.
 

JonFo

Super Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
4,148
Reaction score
50
Location
Big Canoe, GA
Fun topic, no surprise I'd chime in ;)

I'd recommend against the CLS for this as other than raw top end volume at <1K is the only reason to go with a panel that big. Since you are doing a mid-bass array, it sort of removes that need in the first place.

Largest practical would be the Monoliths. I find these panels can fill my 26x16x11 room at >300Hz with pretty much as much SPL as I can stand. But then, you have a 30” wide speaker with the addition of Mid-Bass array next to it. That would require a very, very wide room for two or three of those across the front.

If using a full mid-bass array (6x 6 to 7” drivers), then the panel size of the Quest / reQuest is probably the ideal size if space is not a problem. Keep in mind that will still yield a total speaker width of about 24 to 26” wide.
For what I think is a very well balanced system in most medium (for ML’s) sized rooms (less than 30L x 18w x 11h), I think coupling the SL3/Sequel 4’x13” panel with a 4’ mid-bass line array is one of the most cost effective ways to go and yields quite impressive results. If doing a home theater with 5 of those, you really will be impressed.

Therefore, from a cost, output and size perspective, I’d look for used models with the 4x13” panel (Sequel,SL3,Odyssey,Ascent,). That coupled with quality mid-bass drivers (focal, Dyanaudio, Adire) and external crossover/processing, you can assemble a mini-statement system.

Building the mid-bass array out to a full 72” line source will let you go all the way down to 60hz crossover points with absolutely no concerns. Although with 10 or so drivers, that’s almost $2K in drivers alone. But boy would it slay the <450hz range, line arrays are quite the thing there. :)

I’ve found that my LA based center can not only keep up with the monoliths, it is actually better in mid-bass performance. Even crossing over the new eminence drivers at 300Hz, the panel is losing too much in-room energy to the dipole nature of the design. But crossing over at 450 is too high for a single driver and you begin to get weird lobbing characteristics at those frequencies. A line-Array fixes all that.

As a future direction, I’m seriously considering either adding a line array to my Monoliths or doing another Sequel based set up Line arrays to have a 100% matched set across the front .
So, my Monoliths might become my rears :eek:

If I had a 18’ or wider room, I’d go for a 3x reQuest based 72” Line array setup. Short of a Statement e2, nothing could touch that.

Even with all the speaker processor based tuning, I’d still also layer in room correction by using a Meridian 861/G68 or a Lexicon MC12 v5 as the main processor.
 
Last edited:

enilsen

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
102
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Sweden
IWalker said:
So, I've been on this DIY kick lately... but love the logan sound from the mids on up so much that I'd really rather stick to that...and just build stuff for the lower end. My plans are for a couple of 12" servo subs, and a midbass array per channel (stereo) to mate with logans.
Have you ever considered building the subs using large flat electrostatic panels. The reason I suggest this is because they could mate better with the mid/upper-range panels without too much cross over issues. No enclosure to build either. In theory the bigger they get the more bas you will be able to move (fast responsive bas). :eek:
 

IWalker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
576
Reaction score
0
Location
Charlotte, NC
Yeah, I was considering the large bass panels as well...but think I want to give the line array thing a try first.

JonFo...THANK YOU!!! I was hoping you'd jump in here, since I think reading your build thread gave me the first inkling of an interest in it...and then caused me to think about changing around my plans as well. I think I'd love to get the taller panels, if I can find them at a good price, since I might try to take the woofer enclosure out of the equation and build my own overall enclosure that encompases the line array and just the panel (that's far from being decided though) and would want a good sized line array to match with just the panels. So, Requests look like the way I'll try to go. Thanks a ton for the input...I'm sure I'll be back begging for some guidance once I get to the design and build phases :)
 

IWalker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
576
Reaction score
0
Location
Charlotte, NC
So, upon looking at the manuals for all these oldies...it looks like the only dimensional difference between the monoliths, requests, quests, sequels, sequel IIs, and SL3...and including the odyssey and prodigy is panel width. They are all 48" line source panels. The Ascent is a 45" panel.

The efficiency difference between the SL3 and Monolith is 1db/watt, and power handling is also 50w/channel higher...meaning max output difference between the two should theoretically be very very small. So, it might even make MORE sense to go for the narrower panels of the SL3...or at least the cheapest of the bunch I can find used. The only difference in height between the different speakers above is the size of the woofer enclosure. Since I'd be making my own Base for the panels, I wouldn't care how far off the ground they are as a base speaker...cause I can adjust that to my needs. Hmmm...more food for thought.

Don't narrower panels have better horizontal dispersion characteristics too? Are there any other advantages to larger horizontal panel area above the obvious lower X-over frequency and potentially greater output (which should be taken into the power handling and sensitivity numbers, I would think)

I think you already answered most of that JonFo, when you responded to why I wouldn't need to go with the CLS...but I was wondering if there was any more to it, now that I'm going more in depth with it.

Thanks!
 
Top