[samplesj]

Planners and vertical arrays can't image vertically.

Is this an aspect of planar drivers themselves or more an aspect of line source/arrays (where planars are generally used)?  I'm not sure I agree with either, but I have heard the same said of any line source/array.  If it were only a 1-2" planar tweeter would you still feel this way?  What I'm trying to get at is it the technology itself or just the height of the driver used?

Planners can't image left/right very well either.

I definately don't agree with this.  I have much better left/right instrument/voice positioning with my 3.6s than any other speaker I've had down here.  Of course I run my ribbons on the inside for that very reason.

Planners and open baffles need lots of room behind and distance to the listener to avoid image smearing.

Again lets be a bit more precise with terminology because not all planars are diploes.  It is true that if a dipole of any type is too close to the rear wall then its rear reflection can cause issues with smearing.  However like you said either place it further out and/or add diffusion to the wall behind the speakers.  That rear wave adds a nice sense of spaciousness as long as it doesn't arrive too quickly.

In the end there are tradeoffs with any technology and its up to the end user to decide what they like best.  Just be careful with blanket statements. 

Doesn't everyone know that all generalizations are false

Jeremy

[Russell Dawkins]

I get the impression that the common perception is that the slower rise times of the cone driver lead to improper integration between dissimilar driver types (cone, planar).

I suspect that the reason that so many hybrid cone/planars disintegrate in the crossover region is the settling or stopping speed of the cone not matching that of the planar section. When an attempt is made to combine the woofer and planar panel in one structure, it is hard not to compromise the design of the bass section, typically by making it too small.

I used to design speakers and work in a store that sold Martin Logans. We did a little trick to the ML woofer that really helped fundamental sound and integration a lot. ML owners PM me if you want to know more.

As regards imaging, let me say this: set up carefully, a pair of MLs actually has provided the most convincing L-R image I have yet heard, of a Steinway piano recorded in pure (unaltered) Blumlein. It was holographic and complete, almost visual, as if the speakers, although standing there, were silent.

[DTB300]

I had completely forgotten about this thread after listening to Dan's Martin Logans.  Dan really has done a good job setting his system up with the limited space that he has.  His Plinius running hot in class a produced very real sound that didn't bring attention to the speakers but let the music through.  They are not as dynamic as some I have heard but are very enjoyable.  They are different form my ribbon/woofer combo and even different from another stats I have--Soundlabs--but I liked the clear and precise presentation.  Dan's were not set up "hot" at all.

ML's are not the type of speaker you want if you like to listen to higher SPL levels, as most who own and like them would agree on.  I own the full range ML Panels and still like them the best, as the Hybrid's (older models specifically) had the integration issues that some here talk about.  But the lastest versions, Summit (especially) and the Vantage have taken a step forward in making the integretion much better.

The sweet spot with ML's is always a topic of discussion. and can be much smaller than one would like, but like any other speaker, there are tradeoffs one must decide if it is worth it or not.  With regard to sound reproduction I feel I get with my ML's, it is worth the sweet spot trade off.  And with my very small room that I have to deal with, this is not as big an issue.  If I had a larger room with more spread out seating arrangement, it would be more of an issue.

The Plinius Woodsyi is referring to is the SA-102, and in Class A mode, after about 1 hour of warm up in "A", sounds superb.  I auditioned many, many, many Tube Amps for my full range panels, and nothing touched what the Plinius does for my panels - low end control, superb midrange, and smooth accurate high end (no SS glare most complain or notice with a SS amp).

The room with any speakers has a large effect on the sound one will get - as we all know.  I have done some careful room treatment with Auralex (cost wise it fit into my budge) and have arrived at a point where I get what I consider very good sound reproduction.  I have tried to base my setup on a small jazz club setting with the listener sitting right up front in the first couple of rows.

Back to the ML topic...They can sound very bright if not setup correctly with placement, room, and associated upstream components.  They are not your typical, buy and place speakers.  They take quite a bit of work to get them to sound their best in your home and in an Audio Showroom.  Probably the reason for most people not liking them is the lack of time and effort in the setup by store staff.
Dan

[Wayner]

I have owned a pair of ML reQuests since I bought them new in 1998. I don't think they were a mainstream speaker back then as they were $4500 for the pair. I believe they were discontinued in 1999 for the reason, I was told, they were too underpriced for their performace value. The replacement model sold for $10,000.

At the time I purchased these speakers, there was only one amplifier that could handle the 1 ohm impedance dip, and that was Bob Carver's 300 wpc Sunfire. In 2001, I sold my Sunfire for the Sunfire II. I have the reQuests bi-wired to the Sunfire using the current output source on the electro-static panel and the voltage output source on the woofer. I also have intergrated a sub-woofer into the system. To drive the Sunfire II, I use a SonyES ta-E9000ES Black Knight pre-amp (Revision D) with a Sony XA20ES single well CD player run through a Van Alstine TOPPDAC D/A converter. The vinyl is played through an AR-XA turntable. I also run two rear surround speakers in a 4.1 surround configuration as I can't stand the center channel. The Sony pre-amp allows this 5th channel to be redistributed through the fronts. Yes, I am committing the ultimate sin of not being a 2-channel purist and for owning horrible Sony and Sunfire products. Not high end by many standards at all.

For the sound of the ML's, let me say this about that. I have had the Sony up to -16 on the volume control and the sound from the reQuests is the most dynamic, uncompressed sound I have heard anywhere at anytime from any system I have ever auditioned, period. They can play at concert levels with very little distortion, indeed.

Positioning must be done with a tape measure to within an 1/8 of an inch. The speakers must be perfectly vertical in all directions. They must be at least 3 feet from the rear wall and in a delta formation from the listeners. I also have the rear surround speakers out-of-phase 180 degrees. This helps to blend direct and indirect into a wall of sound. The soundstage goes 10 feet past the speakers.

One excellent CD performance is the Brian Setzer Orchestra that I have played at concert levels to friends. They sat with smiles on their faces.

I do agree with many that ML speakers are not for everyone. they do have their bad points. However, you would have to undo the death-grip to take the present system away from me.

W

[twitch54]

I had to reply and second Dan's (aka DTB300) opinion. I currently own M/L Vantage's and last fall when I was making my speaker purchase I had alot of very fine speakers to audition in the 5-8000k range, the Vantage's have proven to be a great speaker to my ears. Yes they take time and patience to properly set-up, and their sweet spot can be considered small but it's all worth it in the end ! as with any di-pole radiating type of speaker if you can't give them the space they need, buy something else. FYI my associated equipment is: Plinius SA-102, ARC LS-26 pre, Music Hall mmf-9 turntable, Musical Fidelity phono-pre-amp, Musical Fidelity 3.5 CD Player, Audioquest King Cobra I/C's, Bedrock speaker cable. primary listening is Instrumental, Jazz and classical, some Blues and "classic' rock (I am over 50 !) Also I must add that the faithfull reproduction of the piano buy my M/L's is as good as I ahve heard regardless of speaker brand or type.   

[SundayNiagara]

I have heard from a good source that M-L has another full-range 'stat in the plans.

[DTB300]

I have heard from a good source that M-L has another full-range 'stat in the plans.

This has been rumored for many, many years now, in fact since the CLSIIz's ended production.  The biggest problem with the CLS line was the cost versus sales, hence the stoppage of the line.  Lastest discussions with ML this year have made the outlook not too promising.   But you never know what may or may not happen unless you are part of the company. 

Dan

[hifitommy]

mainstream?  NOT!  too costly for that moniker.  bright?  NO.  need tubes?  NO.  play loud?  YES.  worth the money?  YES.  small sweet spot?  YES.  for everybody?  NO.

driven with counterpoint pre (sa3000) and adcom 5400, XLNT!  so much dor the brightness theory, adcom OR martin logan.

broad stereotypical statements dont cut it with this speaker.  and they are not to be confused with CLSs either.  bass is respectable, especially if biamped (5500 on the lows).

i am sure they would sound WONDERFUL with BIG tube power.

[sleepysurf]

Having just bought ML Summits, and still in the process of tweaking their placement and settings, I can already unequivocally state they offer the most incredible holographic soundstage that I have ever heard.  True, it takes a LOT of work getting the placement and toe-in just right, but it's well worth the effort.  To my ears, the new ice-powered woofers are extremely fast, and integrate very well with the stat panels.  ML's come in a variety of different flavors and price points, and not all their designs will integrate well with ALL room acoustics and components.  But when they do... WOW!  Today, listening to the Chesky Records Jazz Sampler & Audiophile Test Compact Disc (Vol 1), I believe I have finally achieved audio nirvana. 

[bpape]

I think it's a lot of personal preference.  They're definitely a one spot speaker but they can throw a nice image too. 

I will say that I've never personally heard ANY hybrid that would keep pace with a good all electrostatic design - not just MLs.  Sound Labs will smoke the MLs top to bottom, SPL, imaging, quickness, bass tightness, etc.  Quads won't go as deep or play as loud but the mids and the imaging is leagues ahead of the MLs.  Even some of the old Acoustats (if driven by the old direct drive tube amps and with a few mods) would IMO be far preferable to the MLs.  Forget the newer Acoustats with the hybrid design - ala ML.

Even some other planar (non-electrostatic) designs are superior - despite their quirks.  Apogees (nevermind the 1.5 ohm load).  Maggie MG20's - one of the best when driven properly and set up properly. Etc.

But hey, if it's your cup of tea, go for it.  Personally, I want a speaker that's coherent top to bottom and IMO that's where the MLs lack a lot.  It's like listening to 2 different speakers with 2 very different voices.

Bryan