beanbag
Well-known member
The listening reviews generally confirm this, but is there a technical reason why this is so? There are plenty of nearly-point-source satellite/sub systems that sound very good too.
WHY is a bigger panel better?
- Thread starter beanbag
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
No, other than those things on the side of your head.
A bigger panel/driver works less to get the same output as a smaller panel/driver. Look at it this way... which dog has to work harder to walk a mile, a German Shepard or a Corgi? There is no replacement for displacement.
Peter_Klim
Well-known member
Does your question include a bigger but older panel (say a model that came out over 12 years ago) sounding better to something current and smaller?
The size of the panel affects the projected sound field. Look at this way - part of the reason we prefer ESL is from the way bigger element creates uniform sound field.
Also panel size affect the usable frequency range making it possible to lower high pass frequency down from midrange to less critical point where negative crossover effects are less apparent.
Also panel size affect the usable frequency range making it possible to lower high pass frequency down from midrange to less critical point where negative crossover effects are less apparent.
beanbag
Well-known member
Both the Summit X and the Electromotion ESL have the same sensitivity.
That wouldn't be a fair comparison.
The minimum frequency a panel can go to is approximately related to its width, or width plus stuff sticking out the side to block dipole cancellation. In that case, I don't know why ML still uses tall skinny panels in their Theos and Vista models, which have a 4xx Hz crossover, which is marginally better than the 500Hz crossover in their "entry level" Electromotion ESL.
Yes, several of them. But since I am not a technical person, I am afraid someone with a better engineering background will have to explain. But basically, sound is about moving air. The more air you can move efficiently, the better. To produce quality bass, you have to move a whole lot of air. So, you need a bigger panel to be able to produce a wider range of frequencies and lower or eliminate your crossover point.
"very good" is a highly subjective statement. Very good at what? Soundstage width and depth? Imaging and instrument placement? Coherence in crossover regions? Smoothness of highs, realism in mids, etc.? That "you are there" feeling? Few sub/sat systems can hold a candle to a true high end speaker system when it comes to great sound. Of course, I am sure there are some exceptions to this rule. Every speaker system design has its advantages and disadvantages and can be done well or poorly.
Yes, but . . . they don't have the same output. The crossover is much higher in the EM. Because of the smaller panel, it can't go as low. Also, sensitivity in a hybrid speaker is not just measuring the difference between the panels. Different woofer configurations also affect the overall sensitivity.
I agree. They do so because of size, weight, and visual esthetics, as well as to distinguish them from their more expensive brothers so as not to cannibalize too much of their higher end market. Personally, I think they made a mistake going with a thinner panel in their higher end products like the Summit. As a result, and no surprise really, most of their improvements to those models have been focused on improving the crossover and the coherence of the woofer with the panel, which is one of the known weaknesses of the hybrid design.
There's more to it than that. It's complicated due to different crossovers points and what not but the simple answer is the Summit X's excursion is less than that of the EM ESL at the same volume. As an example, let say we have a 8" driver that has 34.2 cubic inches of effective cone area and a Xmax of 9.652mm (excursion), it can displace roughly 330.0984 at full excursion. Now let's say we have a 12" driver that has 84.54 cubic inches of effective cone area and a Xmax of 13.462mm, it can displace roughly 1138.07748 at full excursion. The 12" driver only has to move 4mm before it displaces more air (338.16) than the 8" at full excursion (9.652mm). This is a generalization but the larger driver will probably have lower distortion than the smaller driver at the same volume. The same principle applies to panels.
Last edited:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
I think you all are wasting your time responding to the OP.
This thread was started by an individual who has previously stated that it's a waste of time (by his own admission) for serious / one on one listening.
To quote. "Been there, done that. I have better things to do".
GG
This thread was started by an individual who has previously stated that it's a waste of time (by his own admission) for serious / one on one listening.
To quote. "Been there, done that. I have better things to do".
GG
beanbag
Well-known member
I think you should put me on your ignore list.
Tosh
Well-known member
Big difference between 'very good' and 'ESL magic.'
Because it just is
Forgive my poor technical explanation, but it only took me comparing Ethos speakers with Montis speakers to come to that conclusion.
I guess the ability to move more air with lower distortion means the larger panelled speakers are more detailed, more dynamic and are able to produce a bigger sound stage = greater listening pleasure.
Last edited:
