Electrostatics sound "thinner"?

Klavierman · « **on:** 31 Jul 2016, 06:32 am »

While I love their clarity, sometimes I think electrostatic speakers' sound seem to have less body or texture than dynamics. Am I hearing things? I had a pair of Martin Logan Theos first driven by a Sony receiver (yeah, I know), then a Parasound A 51 when I had a multi-channel system. While clear, the sound just seemed "thin," so I sold them and bought my current and fine-sound DALI Epicon 2s. Now, I find myself missing the absolute transparency of the MLs! I have a PrimaLuna tube amp now, so perhaps that would counter any/most perceived thinness. A pair of ML Montis are on my short list. Any thoughts?

DTB300 · « **Reply #1 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 12:04 pm »

Have you been over to Martinloganowners (.com) forum? Lots of people there to help with setup, components, etc.

Wayner · « **Reply #2 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 12:40 pm »

There are a couple of things that ML owners should know. First, the impedance of the speakers can go pretty low. That simply means that they need an amplifier that can also dish it out to low impedance loads (which the Sony receiver could not do).

Next, they need a certain amount of power. I would recommend an amp with 250 to 300 watts RMS per channel. Finding an amp that is capable of such power into such ridiculously low impedance loads may be a challenge, but they are there.

I currently run my Martin-Logan reQuests with an older, Bob Caver Sunfire II amp which has 325 watts per channel RMS and about 1300 watts per channel at clipping. This level of power is what gives the ML its dynamic range and slam.

Wayner

timind · « **Reply #3 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 12:50 pm »

Not exactly sure what you mean by thinner, but my experience with planar speakers may be similar. I've never owned Martin Logan speakers, only Magnepans but what I find lacking is the 3 dimensional sound which is available with my Revel M20s and several other more conventional speakers.

When I bought the Maggie 12s I went to pick them up. The seller had replaced the small Maggies with a very large a pair of Martin Logans, wish I remembered the model. What I remember, besides how they physically dominated the room, was how wonderful they sounded. He played a few songs for me. Unfortunately, I didn't have an opportunity to listen critically, but what I heard was impressive.

As you say, the clarity can be amazing. It's something that can be addictive and sorely missed when gone. But the depth I hear with the small Revels is also addictive and for me, is more important. As with anything in life, perfection is hard to find. There always seem to be trade offs. You just have to decide which attributes are most important.

Doublej · « **Reply #4 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 12:52 pm »

Good ears. They always have to my ears including the $$$$ MLs I heard at a retailer once in the $100K+ room. Sometimes subtle but always noticeable to my ears.

Which leads to issue number 2, differences in presentation between the cone driver and panel can be problematic.

RDavidson · « **Reply #5 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 02:27 pm »

There are always tradeoffs regardless of how much $ you put into this hobby. A couple of years ago, the audio path lead me to single driver speakers (Omegas) and Pass / First Watt amps. It really boils down to figuring out what compromises you're willing to accept in order to build a system that suits the majority of your preferences. This isn't a simple or easy thing, but to me is also very rewarding and fun. I've learned A LOT along the way, thanks to AC.

Regarding ML's, I think what you're finding is that they require quite a bit of experimentation to get right in your room. I think the same can be said for Magnepans. But when all factors are figured out, one can get some of the best sound in home audio possible. Better than dynamic drivers? In some ways, yes. In other ways, no. "Best" is relative, not absolute. What's best for you is absolute, though your preferences may change over time. The merry go round may slow down, but it hardly ever stops. So have fun, keep an open mind, and keep trying different things....including ML's again.

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #6 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 02:37 pm »

The best I heard from Martin Logans was with a Jadis Orchestra integrated tube amp. Was not thin sounding, more golden glow. Speakers were in a small room and we did not play really loud, so power may be wanting. Point is, certain tube amps will fill out the sound.

Rocket Ronny

Starchild · « **Reply #7 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 03:05 pm »

While I have never owned a pair of or M/Ls or electrostats, I have listened to them extensively. The clarity and trasnparency is to die for but I also found them to be lacking in "body". Over the years I have become a ribbon man. I've owned the Carver AlIII+, Apogee Duetta Signature and now own Newform Research 645 v2. I suppose, as has been suggested, with the right amplification and room set up, those apparent shortcomings could be addressed. Ultimately it comes down to what floats your boat. I certainly could live with an electrostat but my preference is for a ribbon.

mfsoa · « **Reply #8 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 03:05 pm »

I am on the fence about picking up some Montis, but life keeps getting in the way...

While my brother doesn't have a pr at his store, I've been spending some time with the Summits there.

No doubt they do things that box speakers don't do , transparency-wise and instrument separation-wise. It's totally addicting for some. Yet when I get home and listen to my Revel F206, I hear a coherence to the entire musical event that you don't get with the MLs. The MLs dissect and lay bare, which BTW is addicting and I can see someone (like my wife) who heard MLs once and who now does not want to go back to a box speaker.

But I'm not sure its an effect, or if the result is either closer to or further from the "truth"

It is addicting, any other warts be damned...

-Mike

OzarkTom · « **Reply #9 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 03:14 pm »

M/L's with Krell was the worst I ever heard at the CES shows. It gave me a severe headache the rest of the day. Acoustats with the DD servo amps never sounds thin, and is the most transparent of all the ESL's.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #10 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 03:25 pm »

Quote from: Klavierman on 31 Jul 2016, 06:32 am

While I love their clarity, sometimes I think electrostatic speakers' sound seem to have less body or texture than dynamics.

Many years ago I had full range Acoustats and I can't say that I share your view. If anything, I find stats full bodied, rich in texture and dynamically challenged.

OzarkTom · « **Reply #11 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 03:37 pm »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 31 Jul 2016, 03:25 pm

Many years ago I had full range Acoustats and I can't say that I share your view. If anything, I find stats full bodied, rich in texture and dynamically challenged.

Did you have the Acoustat DD servo amps driving them? It is a night and day difference.

I.Greyhound Fan · « **Reply #12 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 04:09 pm »

I agree, Martin Logans can sound thin. When I bought my Magnepan 1.6's the dealer had a pair of ML's right next to them. We compared the 2 and the ML' sounded too thin. They did have more air and transparency and the sound was floating in air but it did not have the body and soul that the Maggies presented. And a few people that walked into the room and listened to the A-B between the 2 speakers agreed that the Maggies sounded better except for 1 guy. It just shows that we all have our preferences.

I would consider a music source that has a full bodied and mid to forward mid range. Something like a Hugo DAC which has a lush mid range.

drphoto · « **Reply #13 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 04:20 pm »

I always liked the sound of the panels on ML. My beef with them, is I can clearly hear the conventional woofer which doesn't seem integrated well. Or at least I think I can.

Plus they have a razor thin sweet spot. A one person speaker.

And yeah, I'll take a Maggie anyway. Maggies have their flaws, but man they do a lot right. And especially at the price point.

Klavierman · « **Reply #14 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 04:21 pm »

Thanks for the replies--I certainly have a lot of food for thought! Any sane person would be perfectly happy with my current speakers! I just hate that nagging sense of "is there something better out there?"

I am somewhat limited by speaker placement--MLs could not be as far away from the wall as optimal. My DALIs seem less fussy, and they are certainly clear and musical. That should suffice!

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #15 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 05:46 pm »

Quote

Did you have the Acoustat DD servo amps driving them? It is a night and day difference.

No they were not. What is the difference you heard sonically?

Rocket Ronny

*Scotty* · « **Reply #16 on:** 31 Jul 2016, 06:07 pm »

Some of the "thiness" maybe due to the fact most straight electrostats have very low THD and IM distortion, as low in fact as many amplifiers. In many cases an entire order of magnitude less than a conventional driver loudspeaker.
This doesn't entirely explain the differences heard but it is certainly a factor to be considered.
I have also thought that at times it was like listening to a ghost of the performance, as though somehow the performers were not all there.
Scotty

OzarkTom · « **Reply #17 on:** 1 Aug 2016, 03:37 am »

Quote from: Rocket_Ronny on 31 Jul 2016, 05:46 pm

No they were not. What is the difference you heard sonically?

Rocket Ronny

The medallion transfoermrs veiled the Acoustats tremendously, night and day difference. Servo amps made them much more open and transparent.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #18 on:** 1 Aug 2016, 03:43 am »

Veiled? That was the term we used for Maggie's back in the day.

The difference between Maggie's and Acoustats and was night and day.

OzarkTom · « **Reply #19 on:** 1 Aug 2016, 03:48 am »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 1 Aug 2016, 03:43 am

Veiled? That was the term we used for Maggie's back in the day.

Yep, very, very veiled. I was the fifth largest Acoustat dealer back in 1982-83.