[SnowPuppy77]

Hi Jazzman,

After talking with Clayton I've moved the M5s apart a bit more.  So now they're 5.5 feet apart, about 8 feet from the listening position (which is about a foot from the back wall and about 3+ feet from the front wall.  They're imagining well, huge soundstage and very revealing. 

I put the Wilson's back in the system the other day and the performance/comparison is pretty much what i recalled.  The Spatial's definitely have better, more accurate bass and soundstage, but the Wilson's are sweeter and more refined on the top end.  I'm finding the Spatial tweeter to be a bit on the harsh and edgy side - I have about 160 hours on them now - does anyone know if that edginess abate with more time?  I've run the Ayre Irrational, but Efficacious Full Glide Tone (Break In) track probably 30 times.  It definitely helped improve the bass, less so the treble.  I've also wondered if the edginess of the highs is just the revealing nature of the tweeter and it's just reproducing what's in the source material, but I'm not yet convinced of that.  I'd appreciate hearing anyone else's experience.

Best, Larry

The full glide tone is really not ideal for break in.  You should do the brown or pink noise.  Try pink noise and put the track on repeat and let it run all day and/or all night and then do it some more.  Low volume is fine louder is better.  For me the M3S tweet/mid is not harsh or edgy on most of my recordings.  It is actually non fatiguing even at loud volumes.
 However I do have a few recordings that sound harsh in general and the M3S certainly does nothing to tame them.  It is definitely more of a reference speaker than a speaker that makes everything sound good.  The old model, M3TM, while not as extended and detailed were sweeter and less dry in the highs than the M3S.  I will say that my solid state amp class A/B is a little dry in the highs so perhaps the M3S is just revealing the truth about this.  Thus a pure class A or tube amp that has sweeter highs may be more pleasing on the M3S and perhaps overly wet on the M3TM.

That said the Wilson is a much more expensive speaker by a competent company and it would not surprise me if the Wilson's had a more refined Top end.

[lcd54222]

Thanks Snowpuppy, I'll give the pink noise a try.  Just to clarify, the edginess isn't across the board on the highs, but seems to most noticeable, unfortunately, with women's vocals.  Cymbals seem to be fine.

Larry

[lcd54222]

Anyone done a comparison between the M Sapphire tweeters and the new X models' AMT driver? 

[sockpit]

I’m in small room with M5s.  Speakers about 7.5 ft apart, and I find sitting closer takes some of the edge off the high end.  Get them as wide as you can, and scoot closer if you can.   IMHO 8 ft is too far back, given their current 5.5 separation.  I have a tube amp and may eventually try warmer tubes, given I like sweeter, mellower sound.

[morganc]

I have the X-5's and there is nothing harsh about that tweeter at all.  It's smooth as butter and I'm super sensitive to etched highs.  Having said that you need proper break in and may need to look at other components that maybe contributing to your issue. I have not heard the new M series.

[SnowPuppy77]

Thanks Snowpuppy, I'll give the pink noise a try.  Just to clarify, the edginess isn't across the board on the highs, but seems to most noticeable, unfortunately, with women's vocals.  Cymbals seem to be fine.

Larry

If you can access this with streaming try Mindy Smith One Moment More album.  To get a point of reference I played this on my 2nd system with a pair of Magnepan LRS.  If there is one thing the Magenpan LRS excels at it is mid-range.  Then played this on my M3S and the LRS are definitely smoother with her voice.  But my 2nd system does have some tubes in the chain while my 1st system M3S has only solid state.  Mindy's vocal sounded smoother but less dynamic on the LRS vs. the M3S.  M3S sounds dryer in the midrange or perhaps has more grain.  On the M3S I am hearing more inner detail.  Its like you can hear the air flow required to operate her vocal chords.  So the M3S has more resolution but the M3S also has better components driving them.  It is easy to get the M3S too loud due to efficiency and there can be some really dynamic bursts with voices causing some bite and for me backing off the volume fixes.  One of my best recording is Rutter's Requiem by Reference Recordings.  The female vocalist sounds breath taking on the M3S and the choir comes in with sudden strong dynamics that is captivating and brings tears to my eyes.  So makes me think that the M3S may just be very revealing of the recording and upstream components by I really will not know until I can try on some different components.  I would like to try a tube amp like the LTA Z40.  May sound much different than what I am hearing now with the Schiit Ragnarok 1st gen.  It may switch the tonal balance to smoother and sweeter (wet).

What amp and DAC are you using?

[lcd54222]

Thanks Sockpit, but when I sit closer the soundstage depth collapses to something very flat.  The speakers are about as far apart as I can get them in my little room.

Snowpuppy - I have a Pass Labs XA-30.8 class A amp and Sonore Sonictransporter i5 with Optical Rendu feeding an MSB Analog DAC.  I also have a Spiral Groove SG2 with Ortofon A95 feeding a Boulder 1008 phono stage - this is not any equipment that would be considered hard or edgy and nothing that I've experienced producing etched reproduction before unless it was in the source material.  That being said, the M5's are more revealing in high frequency range, so I guess it's possible that some of the material had the edginess and I just didn't experience it before? 

I'll continue the break-in process (the speakers continue to improve with time!) and continue with trying different source material to try to track down what's going on. 

Appreciate the feedback and input!  Larry

[SnowPuppy77]

Thanks Sockpit, but when I sit closer the soundstage depth collapses to something very flat.  The speakers are about as far apart as I can get them in my little room.

Snowpuppy - I have a Pass Labs XA-30.8 class A amp and Sonore Sonictransporter i5 with Optical Rendu feeding an MSB Analog DAC.  I also have a Spiral Groove SG2 with Ortofon A95 feeding a Boulder 1008 phono stage - this is not any equipment that would be considered hard or edgy and nothing that I've experienced producing etched reproduction before unless it was in the source material.  That being said, the M5's are more revealing in high frequency range, so I guess it's possible that some of the material had the edginess and I just didn't experience it before? 

I'll continue the break-in process (the speakers continue to improve with time!) and continue with trying different source material to try to track down what's going on. 

Appreciate the feedback and input!  Larry

Yes you have excellent components.  Keep us posted on your break-in and diagnosis.

[morganc]

Agreed.  Your components sound good.  Break in is real on these speakers.  I find it best to crank them up and leave the house for a day or two! 

[lcd54222]

Thanks, will keep you informed.  I have about 150 hours on the M5s now and the woofers have come around nicely - really opened up.

Best, Larry

[Jean-Paul]

Hi Jazzman,

After talking with Clayton I've moved the M5s apart a bit more.  So now they're 5.5 feet apart, about 8 feet from the listening position (which is about a foot from the back wall and about 3+ feet from the front wall.  They're imagining well, huge soundstage and very revealing. 

I put the Wilson's back in the system the other day and the performance/comparison is pretty much what i recalled.  The Spatial's definitely have better, more accurate bass and soundstage, but the Wilson's are sweeter and more refined on the top end.  I'm finding the Spatial tweeter to be a bit on the harsh and edgy side - I have about 160 hours on them now - does anyone know if that edginess abate with more time?  I've run the Ayre Irrational, but Efficacious Full Glide Tone (Break In) track probably 30 times.  It definitely helped improve the bass, less so the treble.  I've also wondered if the edginess of the highs is just the revealing nature of the tweeter and it's just reproducing what's in the source material, but I'm not yet convinced of that.  I'd appreciate hearing anyone else's experience.

Best, Larry

Can't comment on the M5, which I haven't heard, but the M4 Turbo S definitely can sound really abrasive and aggressive on many recordings. They do, however, have remarkable resolution: cymbals sound uncannily realistic. The comparison you made with your Wilson speakers is very similar to what I find with my M4s compared to my Lipinski L-707s. The Lipinski sounds sweeter but lacks the soundstage and bass definition of the SA. I'm wondering how the air-motion tweeter on the X3 and X5 compares to the one on the M series.

[lcd54222]

Hi Jean-Paul,

I now have close to 300 hours on the M5 Sapphire speakers and what I've found is that, after break-in and also replacing some old tubes in my preamp, the tweeters are more revealing than what I was used to and they represent the source material accurately.  So, if there is some distortion or edginess in the recording, the M5s will reproduce that, but with the right material they can be sweet and smooth.  I'm quite happy with the speakers now and spending more time listening to music! 

So happy in fact that I've listed my Wilson Duettes for sale.  Let me know if anyone is interested.

Best, Larry

[pelliott321]

I bought a pair of M3 Sapphires from Clayton at the Florida Show. It took me a good week of adjusting positioning with a couple of emails with Claton to settle on what I have now. I finally got the holographic sound I heard in Florida.
Check out my review at

https://www.myaudiophrenia.com/spatial-audio-m3-sapphires/

[Audiosaurusrex]

I bought a pair of M3 Sapphires from Clayton at the Florida Show. It took me a good week of adjusting positioning with a couple of emails with Claton to settle on what I have now. I finally got the holographic sound I heard in Florida.
Check out my review at

https://www.myaudiophrenia.com/spatial-audio-m3-sapphires/

Hi Paul
Very Insightful review.  Thank you! I’m 60 years old and can really appreciate what these speakers can do and I hope young audiophiles will too. I’ve had my M3’s since January, I have the earlier release before the base module.
I’ve went through some serious tweaking from room acoustics, footers, to cables to get these just right with my Solid State SPL Director/Performer Combo.Placement and toe-in are worth playing with. These speakers are just so revealing.

[Mr. Big]

Any speaker with a forward upper range will sound more detailed, think of turning up a treble control and you noticed more detail. A hot tweeter is very reveling but not correct. Many cables push the highs also making you think they are detailed but in the end, you tire of them, like speakers that are hot in the top when you have to start trying to find recordings to play that you can sit and enjoy that tells you something is not right, the balance is off somewhere. The room plays a big part in any system, but electrostatic speakers have no crossovers at all, sound natural, and makes music listening enjoyable while having the best details and vocals along with instruments having propper size, tone, and color. Of course, you cannot play them at ear bleed levels, but like we all should know any recordings has the right level where it sounds right and higher and you lose the magic.

I've heard many speakers in the 15K range that sounded just so unlike real music compared to Quads. All detail nothing else done right. Dealers want to sell only because anyone hearing what they said was great would know they have no idea what they were talking about. Not like the old days when dealers were hobbyists also, and really knew the gear they would and could put together components that would work for your tastes.

[smoothplate]

Thank you for posting your impressions of the M5s. I have been thinking about buying a pair. Right now I am using Zu Omens and I miss the full sound of 15 inch speakers. I will look forward to your next update on the harshness in the treble of the M5s.

[Jean-Paul]

Any speaker with a forward upper range will sound more detailed, think of turning up a treble control and you noticed more detail. A hot tweeter is very reveling but not correct. Many cables push the highs also making you think they are detailed but in the end, you tire of them, like speakers that are hot in the top when you have to start trying to find recordings to play that you can sit and enjoy that tells you something is not right, the balance is off somewhere. The room plays a big part in any system, but electrostatic speakers have no crossovers at all, sound natural, and makes music listening enjoyable while having the best details and vocals along with instruments having propper size, tone, and color. Of course, you cannot play them at ear bleed levels, but like we all should know any recordings has the right level where it sounds right and higher and you lose the magic.

I've heard many speakers in the 15K range that sounded just so unlike real music compared to Quads. All detail nothing else done right. Dealers want to sell only because anyone hearing what they said was great would know they have no idea what they were talking about. Not like the old days when dealers were hobbyists also, and really knew the gear they would and could put together components that would work for your tastes.

I have to admit I think electrostatics are overrated. I have owned old Quad's, and have heard lots of other stats. I also own two sets of Stax electrostatic headphones and I just never found any of them to sound at all realistic. Sure, they sound smooth and avoid most of the typical colourations of dynamic box speakers but they also lack any sense of the weight and tangibility you get from live instruments. In fact, it sounds as if the real instrument has disappeared and been replaced by a wraith. They also resonate like hell as can be seen from any waterfall plot; the bass is a waste of time; they not only do not play at "ear-bleeding"volume but simply cannot produce anything remotely approaching realistic sound-levels. And they're often unreliable to boot. I much prefer ribbons to stats; I have a set of Apogee Stage's and I think they're far more like real instruments than any stat I've encountered, even though they still have many of the drawbacks of panel speakers. Actually, I think stat enthusiasts are so transfixed by the theory of electrostatics (lightness = lightning transients and low distortion) that they completely overlook the fact that they sound NOTHING like reality. Put your hand on your heart and swear that your Quad 57's or 63's actually sound real.

[sockpit]

Larry,

Just a heads up that Ric is full of free tricks for Spatial customers despite his being asked more than once by Clayton to take them elsewhere.  I say this not to start something, but to suggest you contact Clayton about concern with the high end.  You don’t want to perforate a tweeter or void your warranty trying to remove the little grill from the uniwave housing.

Sockpit (also from the Bay Area)

[timing3435]

Hi Jazzman,

After talking with Clayton I've moved the M5s apart a bit more.  So now they're 5.5 feet apart, about 8 feet from the listening position which is about a foot from the back wall and the speakers are about 3+ feet from the front wall.  They're imagining well, huge soundstage and very revealing. 

I put the Wilson's back in the system the other day and the performance/comparison is pretty much what i recalled.  The Spatial's definitely have better, more accurate bass and soundstage, but the Wilson's are sweeter and more refined on the top end.  I'm finding the Spatial tweeter to be a bit on the harsh and edgy side - I have about 160 hours on them now - does anyone know if that edginess abate with more time?  I've run the Ayre Irrational, but Efficacious Full Glide Tone (Break In) track probably 30 times.  It definitely helped improve the bass, less so the treble.  I've also wondered if the edginess of the highs is just the revealing nature of the tweeter and it's just reproducing what's in the source material, but I'm not yet convinced of that.  I'd appreciate hearing anyone else's experience.

Best, Larry

Hi Larry I have the M3 Sapphires with 400 plus hours on them   My experience is an improvement in a wider soundstage,  dimensionality, coherence and smoothness.  I have a playlist I go through of my most listened material  and I was stunned how good they sounded. I  pay attention to the treble because it is the area was most concerned about early on.  It is hard to compare my experience of treble with yours other than to say keep track of 200  vs 300 hours in. The speakers really come into their own during that period .  I just keep getting more and more enjoyment out of them as time goes on and the early concerns are gone because the total sound quality has come forward in my mind.
 System - Matrix Element X ,Freya +( NOS Chrome Dome 6SN7GTB ) with Rowland 525 /quote]

[harley.guy07]

Hi Jean-Paul,

I now have close to 300 hours on the M5 Sapphire speakers and what I've found is that, after break-in and also replacing some old tubes in my preamp, the tweeters are more revealing than what I was used to and they represent the source material accurately.  So, if there is some distortion or edginess in the recording, the M5s will reproduce that, but with the right material they can be sweet and smooth.  I'm quite happy with the speakers now and spending more time listening to music! 

So happy in fact that I've listed my Wilson Duettes for sale.  Let me know if anyone is interested.

Best, Larry

Hello, When I first moved into the house we live in now. My listening room was smaller than the house we had before. When I put my M3TS in that room they were very bright. But what I found is that I have to set them with absolutely no toe in to get them to balance out. My old house with my larger room I have them toed in and they performed beautifully. Another thing that made all the difference is when I got into my new house with the smaller listening room I made some customer panels to absorb the first reflection points for both speakers on both sides. What I mean is the left speaker was dampened on both the left and right side first reflection point in the room and the same for the right speaker. This made all the difference in the world to how bright or over detailed the high end was. In smaller rooms I found the balance was off until i did that. Then i also added diffuser panels behind the speakers and everything seemed to fall right into place. I think the M3 either the Turbo's or Sapphires are designed and tuned for larger rooms and when you shrink the room around them you just have to do a few things to get the sound to balance out. I have always believed in room treatments but in this case it was a mandatory thing. Might help