Esl x vs esl

[Flm09]

I have the esl and itching to upgrade to the esl x. Is it worth it. I want the lower crossover point but was wondering if image and soundstage will be as stable as the esl. I would guess esl x has more midrange purity and of course bass.

 

[Flm09]

Also, what advantage going from crossover point of 500 hz to 400 hz in the esl x?

 

[ElectroNoob]

For the price of a new pair of ESL X, I would rather buy a pair of used Montis. It's powered, has a lower X-over point and is better built.

 

[Flm09]

Montis are too big for my space!

 

[sdolen]

IMHO, it's too little of an incremental upgrade to justify the cost. If you can't fit a bigger panel, I'd be looking for Ethos or Classic ESL 9. If you just want better bass, add a REL or Sumiko sub.

 

[Flm09]

Actually looking for midrange purity. Thought lower crossover point of X would help. And since front woofer of X only goes down to 80 hz. Less muddy midrange & less resonance as paired with rear firing woofer. What do you guys think?

 

[roberto]

Hello...I do believe that the new Electromotions X are a wonderful speakers, and has all the Martin Logan Magic. Here are few reviews of them:

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...tromotion-esl-x-floorstanding-speaker-review/
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/martinlogan-electromotion-esl-x-speaker-system-review
https://www.soundandvision.com/cont...motion-esl-x-speaker-system-review-test-bench
https://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/ML_EM-ESLX_HFW_4web.pdf

These reviews might help to you in your decision. If you read between lines, they love their sound quality!

Happy listening!

 

[Tosh]

Actually looking for midrange purity. Thought lower crossover point of X would help. And since front woofer of X only goes down to 80 hz. Less muddy midrange & less resonance as paired with rear firing woofer. What do you guys think?

Pick a model with active xo for the bass. The impurities come from the series inductor in the passive low pass xo. Play the ESL panel on its own with its passive eq and xo, and you'll hear nothing wrong from there. Eliminate the passive bass xo, and upper bass/ lower mid muddiness problem is fixed. This goes for every passive bass ML ever.

 

[Flm09]

I am not sure how to excite that not that technical and don't have the measuring equipment!

 

[Tmort]

Did you make this upgrade and if so did u consider it worth it? I’m in that boat right now…

 

[StimpyWan]

Did you make this upgrade and if so did u consider it worth it? I’m in that boat right now…

I'm rowing in your boat too. I have EM-ESL's and wonder what a decent upgrade would be? Nothing wrong with them, just like most, always looking for more. But, I do have a new set of poly caps, that are going into the speakers soon. That should help, until I decide which upgrade is needed, after that.

Good luck to you as well!

 

[Flm09]

Did you make this upgrade and if so did u consider it worth it? I’m in that boat right now…

I still have the ESL. I don't want to pay that much for 11A to get active crossover. Did you get new speakers?

 

[Flm09]

Did you make this upgrade and if so did u consider it worth it? I’m in that boat right now…

No not yet! What about you?

 

[barjohn]

I had the EM 40s, the ESLs and now the Classic 9s. Honestly, the EM40s don't compare to the electrostatics and the classic 9s are a substantial improvement over the ESLs in two important ways. One is of course base response but the second and more important is the height of the panels. With the ESLs when you stand up you loose the highs and they just plain don't sound as good. I have not seen that with the Classic 9s. As far as space goes, they have a deeper cabinet but otherwise the difference in footprint is minimal. Here is a photo of my setup with REW measurements with the subs turned off.

 

[barjohn]

Here is a photo of the same space with the ESLs and another with the Motion 40s.

 

[VideoVic]

HELLO ! Just thought I'd chime in having owned the ESL-X's for 2+ years. My current setup is: the Rotel RC-1590 preamp, a Rotel RB-1582MKII amp and an SVS SB-3000 sub that I absolutely love. The ESL-X's are approx. 8 feet apart and 30" from the front wall and the imaging is terrific. They mate well with the SVS sub in my room. A good friend has the ESL's in his smaller room with two SVS SB-1000 subs and I have spent a lot of time listening to them. He runs them off of a Macintosh MA-375 integrated amp. I envy the sweet sound of his Mac headend but still prefer my ESL-X's midrange and imaging. If you can't step up to the ESL-9's I think you'll still like what you will hear going to the ESL-X's.
Check Music Direct.com to see if they are still offering an open box pair of the ESL-X's for a discounted price on their website. they are an authorized M-L dealer and you'll get a brand new warranty.

 

[VideoVic]

VideoVic again. Forgot to mention the ESL-X's also offer bi-wire or bi-amp capability for future upgrades. I heard a qualitative improvement after bi-wiring them with A-Q Rocket 88 speaker cable.

 

[VideoVic]

One more "cheap" upgrade for the ESL-X I found: Removing the rear woofer speaker cloth cover helped improve the low -end audibly !

 

[Rehan Azim Hashmi]

I have the esl and itching to upgrade to the esl x. Is it worth it. I want the lower crossover point but was wondering if image and soundstage will be as stable as the esl. I would guess esl x has more midrange purity and of course bass.

I have listened to EM-ESL and own ESL 9. Not listened to EM X. The following is my subjective opinion.

First advantage.

Classic 9 has freq. response 34hz to 23khz. EM X freq. is 41hz to 22khz.

Classic 9 has too much bass. Sometimes booming. I have not done room treatment. I listen to radio through audirvana. Because of too much and booming bass i no longer upsample to 384 khz and for the same reason no longer use kernel streaming. Use WASAPI instead. All this to tame the excessive bass.I guess EM X has just right bass response. Not less like EM ESL and not too much like ESL9.

Second advantage.

In addition ESL9 has impedance of 0.8 ohm at 20khz. EM X is 1.6 at 20khz.

I wish the ESL9 panel was louder or more dynamic. Overall speaker sonics give much weight to low frequencies. Because of comparatively friendly impedance profile EM X sonics may give more weight to panel compared to ESL9.

Disadvantage.

EM X has less weight than ESL9. Less heavy duty or durable.

Conclusion:

Classic 9 is a big upgrade from EM ESL. And I guess EM X is a big upgrade from EM ESL. When you listen to EM X you will know is sonically superior to EM ESL. And EM X is substantially less expensive and amplifier friendly than Classic 9.

 

[barjohn]

@RAH, I'm not sure what amplifier power you are using or the size and characteristics of your too, but as you can see in my REW plots, the base is not overwhelming not is it boomy in my LR. I have used anywhere from the Martin Logan Forte amplifier (50W per channel) to the MiniDSP 450W mono blocks and even the 50W/ch sounded good and had no trouble driving to 85-87db levels. Of course the more powerful amps can drive it much louder and with greater dynamic range. The reason even a low power amp can drive these speakers is because there is very little music energy at 20KHz. and what is there is not there for any length of time. Unless you feed it a constant sine wave at 20KHz the 50W amp drives the speaker just fine.