So I added a Stage and I dont like it

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
S

Smokin

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
SF Bay Area
I decided to go from my 2.1 system to a 3.1. I have a set of ML Vantages and a Descent Sub. I added a stage over the weekend and Im starting to think I should return it. No matter how I set up my processor and balance the sound between the center and fronts, the sound is just not as rich. The vocals are a bit more crisp, but EVERYTHING else is worse. Are there others here who just prefer their 2.1 setup for even movies? Maybe if I move on to 5.1 I would like it better, but the Stage is a sizeable investment as it is and im not sure I even like what I hear.
 
Smokin said:
I decided to go from my 2.1 system to a 3.1. I have a set of ML Vantages and a Descent Sub. I added a stage over the weekend and Im starting to think I should return it. No matter how I set up my processor and balance the sound between the center and fronts, the sound is just not as rich. The vocals are a bit more crisp, but EVERYTHING else is worse. Are there others here who just prefer their 2.1 setup for even movies? Maybe if I move on to 5.1 I would like it better, but the Stage is a sizeable investment as it is and im not sure I even like what I hear.
Click to expand...

I use a Stage and found that it takes a while to run it in. Understandable since it incorporates machanical drivers. After about 100 hours later, you might change your opinion of it. It mates well with my Summits.
 
Clarification needed

Smokin said:
No matter how I set up my processor and balance the sound between the center and fronts, the sound is just not as rich. The vocals are a bit more crisp, but EVERYTHING else is worse.
Click to expand...

Can you clarify what you mean by "everything else is worse"?

If you mean that you do not like the integration between the Stage and your Vantages, there's not too much you can do here. The Stage uses different drivers than the Vantages and you're hearing the differences between the drivers. I imagine things will improve after the break-in period for the Stage.

If you mean everything else (sound-stage, imaging, sound-quality) is worse, then the amplifier is suspect. You're probably stressing your amplifier driving 3 non-conventional speakers and you're hearing more distortion than your previous set-up. What are you using to drive the speakers?

If you know that your amplifier is up to the task, you'll need to play with placement in order to dial in the integration between the Stage and Vantages and how they behave in your room.

Hope this helps

Spike
 
I prefer the phantom center setups for movies and strict 2ch for audio. The difficulty of integrating a different speaker is just too great IME. That doesn't hold for the same speaker, maybe you can find a third Vantage:confused: and get the sound you are looking for.
 
risabet said:
I prefer the phantom center setups for movies and strict 2ch for audio. The difficulty of integrating a different speaker is just too great IME. That doesn't hold for the same speaker, maybe you can find a third Vantage:confused: and get the sound you are looking for.
Click to expand...

Agreed - a different speaker in a completely different acoustic environment. Most people can't set up two speakers correctly. Adding a third is asking for trouble.
 
I recently moved up to the Motif in my 5.1 setup. It takes a fair bit of time for the woofers to break in, and reach their full potential. However, even after 1 mo of break-in, the tonality was still different than my Summits (the Motif being brighter and louder). However, once I got my Denon 3808CI receiver, and ran Audyssey MultEQ, the applied corrections made a significant improvement in the overall sonic balance. A center channel, like a sub, requires some effort to get it properly "dialed in" to the rest of your system. Since you mentioned you have a "processor," I would give the Stage some more time, and then start tweaking your A/V processors gain and EQ settings to get a smoother response. What "processor" are you using?
 
Smokin said:
I decided to go from my 2.1 system to a 3.1. I have a set of ML Vantages and a Descent Sub. I added a stage over the weekend and Im starting to think I should return it. No matter how I set up my processor and balance the sound between the center and fronts, the sound is just not as rich. The vocals are a bit more crisp, but EVERYTHING else is worse. Are there others here who just prefer their 2.1 setup for even movies? Maybe if I move on to 5.1 I would like it better, but the Stage is a sizeable investment as it is and im not sure I even like what I hear.
Click to expand...

Here is my 2 cents: For music - 2 channel / movies 5 or 7 channel. I find the center channel to 'muddle' up everything for music listening. Seems like the bass isn't as bassy / things aren't as spacious / and I like hearing my 2 speakers image and create the music between them. The center takes that away in a 3.1 setup. I think - if you are thinking movies for 5.1 - or if you are thinking multi-channel music (5.1 SACD) - then keep it.... else, I would return it and consider doing something else with your $$$ to upgrade your 2 channel setup.... my humble opinion of course....
 
Spike said:
Can you clarify what you mean by "everything else is worse"?

If you mean that you do not like the integration between the Stage and your Vantages, there's not too much you can do here. The Stage uses different drivers than the Vantages and you're hearing the differences between the drivers. I imagine things will improve after the break-in period for the Stage.

If you mean everything else (sound-stage, imaging, sound-quality) is worse, then the amplifier is suspect. You're probably stressing your amplifier driving 3 non-conventional speakers and you're hearing more distortion than your previous set-up. What are you using to drive the speakers?

If you know that your amplifier is up to the task, you'll need to play with placement in order to dial in the integration between the Stage and Vantages and how they behave in your room.

Hope this helps

Spike
Click to expand...


When I said "Everything else sounds worse", I was referring to the fact that the lows are not as low and the sound did not have the "depth" tha it did at as a 2.1 setup. Even with extensive work with the processor the sound improved, but did not match the deep richness that the vantages had alone with the descent.

I dont think that the issue is run in or break in of the stage. The unit is actually a "used" unit that my friend is allowing me to demo before I commit to buying it.

Power is also not an issue. Im running a rotel RSP-1069 processor and a 200x5 RMB 1095.

My impression is that the relatively small (in compparison to the vantages) Stage is now doing 70% of the work, however it lacks the ability to produce the tonal qualities of its bigger floor standing brothers. I can use the processor to "widen" the soundstage and have the front vantages do more of the work, however it gets to a point where Im wondering why I even have the thing.
 
I would NEVER recommend listening to stereo recordings in a 3.1 setup. A simple 2 channel (or 2.1) setup will always sound better, for just the reasons you describe. Now surround sound recordings (SACD, DVD-A, or DVD) are a different matter, but even some of them may sound "unnatural" depending upon the recording/mastering technique.
 
I just purchased my Stage 2 weeks ago to go along with my old Sequel II I bought 2 weeks before getting the Stage. I wouldn't think twice about not using the Stage for movies. And God no I would never use it for 2CH listening!

My brother said the same thing when we were listening to my older system years ago, thinking movies sounded much better in 2CH than 5.1.

You need the extra speaker(s) in HT for localization. And yeah, 2.1 may even sound "better" than 3.1 in HT, but not more "realistic". If I am to hear an actor speak, I don't want his voice to sound like his mouth is 8 feet wide right?

Or, you may just want to purchase a used Motif or even Matinee. Stage sure is much more expensive!
Good luck!
 
I heard Sleepysurf's system before and after he upgraded to the Motif his 5.1 system sounded much better than with old little box speaker. I don't even recall what the old speaker was, it made that much of an impression. The center channel upgrade was a significant improvement and is better than my Cinema.

For 2 channel music I think the center just kind of gets in the way except for 5.1 from SACDs, DVD-A, and TV surround sound. Concert DVDs are nice on a ML surround sound system. 2.1 is great for 2 channel audio.

If its not working out for you then I would return it but it is a nice speaker and performs very well for that particular job. If he's willing to ship it I'm sure it would sell quickly on this forum.
 
Adding an inferior speaker to your system is never going to help increase or even maintain overall sound quality. In a multichannel application it can improve soundstage focus. IMHO investing equal money to a 4.1 system will give better result both 2-ch and multichannel listening.
 
I agree with the others about not trying to do 3.1 stereo. Properly set up your Vantages should give you such a focused center image, that it should sound like you already have a center channel. At least that is the impression I get when listening to my Vista's. The main vocals or instruments seem to be coming directly from the Stage, even though it is only two channel.

As for matching the sound of the Stage to the Vantages, it should still come pretty close when using it for movies or multichannel audio. I adjusted the sound level of my Stage using James Taylor's Hourglass SACD since his voice is mostly in the center channel. Switching back and forth between stereo and multichannel, I could not really detect any difference in his voice. So for me the Stage integrates quite well with my Vista's and sub.

If the Stage sounded thin, then I think there may be issues with how it is crossed over to your subwoofer. I know the Stage crosses over to my sub better than my Cinema did, and gives me a better match.

Chuck
 
One thing I’d say about a Stage is that you should put a really good absorber *behind* the speaker. Any wall reflections are magnified with an open panel center because it is not angled out like a L/R might be, and the rear wave will bounce off the wall behind the speaker and come right back through it, delayed, causing some nasty comb filtering. This destroys the mid-range and high ‘balance’ and of course is not as good as the L/R sound.

Note that I said open panel, models like the Motif might not be as susceptible (although they have it to a degree) due to their woofer box being behind the panel, and the factory design treats the box. The Logos had not treatment and comb-filtering was a serious problem on that model.


Now, as for listening to 2ch audio on a 3.1 or 5.1 setup, I have a strong preference for the later using the Meridian TriField process. But then again, I designed and built a center just to be able to have seamless multichannel audio.

So part of the problem is that since very few center channels actually can keep up with their L/R pairs, it is probably better to listen in 2ch or 2.1 modes. But not because it’s intrinsically better, only because unequal speakers will rarely blend well.
 
cstory said:
Switching back and forth between stereo and multichannel, I could not really detect any difference in his voice.

Chuck
Click to expand...

That's when you know you've got it set up right. That's exactly what I was going to suggest. I would keep playing with the placement and your settings until you get to this point.
 
Unless you have a center like Jon (who else does??), you are going to just be working out the best compromise in sound quality between the center and the Vantages. The Vantages are dramatically better sounding than the Stage. ML has done a geat job with this speaker, but getting sound to match the big panels is not possible IMO. If you are happy with the a 2.1, take that $2K and improve other parts of your system. Try different seating positions to see how the sound improves/deteriorates when you go from stereo to 3.1. If you still prefer 2.1, go that way and don't look back. You will be much happier.
 
Last edited:
cstory said:
I agree with the others about not trying to do 3.1 stereo. Properly set up your Vantages should give you such a focused center image, that it should sound like you already have a center channel. At least that is the impression I get when listening to my Vista's. The main vocals or instruments seem to be coming directly from the Stage, even though it is only two channel.


Chuck
Click to expand...

One of the most entertaining comments someone said about by HT was: "That center channel sounds pretty good!". He didn't believe it when I told him it wasn't even connected yet and that is 2 channel stereo imaging he's hearing. He still didn't buy it until he saw there were no cords connecting it.
 
JonFo said:
One thing I’d say about a Stage is that you should put a really good absorber *behind* the speaker. Any wall reflections are magnified with an open panel center because it is not angled out like a L/R might be, and the rear wave will bounce off the wall behind the speaker and come right back through it, delayed, causing some nasty comb filtering. This destroys the mid-range and high ‘balance’ and of course is not as good as the L/R sound.

Note that I said open panel, models like the Motif might not be as susceptible (although they have it to a degree) due to their woofer box being behind the panel, and the factory design treats the box. The Logos had not treatment and comb-filtering was a serious problem on that model.


Now, as for listening to 2ch audio on a 3.1 or 5.1 setup, I have a strong preference for the later using the Meridian TriField process. But then again, I designed and built a center just to be able to have seamless multichannel audio.

So part of the problem is that since very few center channels actually can keep up with their L/R pairs, it is probably better to listen in 2ch or 2.1 modes. But not because it’s intrinsically better, only because unequal speakers will rarely blend well.
Click to expand...

All the ML electrostat center channel speakers are formed in a convex or concave curve (curvlinear). Because of that I would think that the sound from the rear of the speaker would be reflecting in a spread out pattern instead of straight back into the speaker. Unless it is very close to the wall.
 
Craig said:
All the ML electrostat center channel speakers are formed in a convex or concave curve (curvlinear). Because of that I would think that the sound from the rear of the speaker would be reflecting in a spread out pattern instead of straight back into the speaker. Unless it is very close to the wall.
Click to expand...

Craig, you raise a good point, but still, regardless of convex (bulging outward) or concave (bulging inward) there are a lot of rear-wave reflections coming back through the panel. The worst are the panels that are convex (as seen from the front) like the Theater, as they focus the energy at a point mid-way behind the panel and most of it will reflect right back through.

The concave designs, like the Cinema, might do better in this regard, as the reflections will tend to angle away from the speaker. However, I bet one could still measure some significant bounce from rear-waves even with that design.

See this graph of the impulse response of a convex panel squarely in front of a wall: There is a huge spike from the rear wall bounce. I figure any convex radiator placed a few feet to a few inches will suffer from this in a major way.

The only way to deal with this is to place a good broad-range absorber behind it.

Try it and you’d be surprised at the improvement. Don’t forget to adjust the level to compensate for the loss of the rear wave reinforcement (even though it’s largely detrimental). Dialog clarity will be substantially improved.
 
JonFo said:
The only way to deal with this is to place a good broad-range absorber behind it.

Try it and you’d be surprised at the improvement. Don’t forget to adjust the level to compensate for the loss of the rear wave reinforcement (even though it’s largely detrimental). Dialog clarity will be substantially improved.
Click to expand...
FWIW I tried that and I could not detect any audible effect.

To put this into context I started years ago with a 4 x Clarity + Theater i + Descent 5.1 system, which I upgraded with the help of 2 Summits to a 7.1 system.

Overall I was not unhappy, but also not really happy with the sound homogeneity specifically with HT dialogues. At the end I decided to replace the Theater i with a Stage, and I have to say I found an improvement. The Stage appears to fit better to the Summit. No wonder given they use the same basic technology.

But the improvement was subtle, not a real breakthrough. Anyway, I couldn't probably expect more, because given the 165" size of my screen the center anyway has to sit on the floor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Well, my BF 210 has a big problem and I purchased it new in July 2021. Here is what it is doing.
6 7 8
Replies
147
Views
9K
Robert D
R
R
Impression of my new Power Sound Audio S2112M subwoofer
2
Replies
20
Views
5K
Rich
Rich
S
My New Dedicated Theater/Listening Room - Summit X and more
Replies
7
Views
2K
STDCMR19
S
B
Do I Really Need a Sub?
8 9 10
Replies
184
Views
20K
BDH55
B
B
Renaissance ESL 15 (and friends)!
2
Replies
23
Views
7K
GW1800
GW1800

Latest posts

Back
Top