Living with panel/electrostat speakers

I'm sure those of you who've been following this thread have been (eagerly ) awaiting to see how I got on with the 989's on Saturday. Well, see here for a review:

https://www.audio-forums.com/as-rediect/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1400

Apart from a pair of Logans of some description (and a pair of 7V's of course Steve ), another speaker that I'm going to add to my dem list will be a pair of SoundLab electrostats - anybody have any experiences with this brand? I'm thinking of looking at the Millenium 3s (yes the one's JJ's got on special offer this week). Having looked at the SoundLab site, their designer certainly look very interesting - strikes me on paper at least that they look like heavier (better?) built variantations on the Quad 98x theme. The SoundLab Speakers themselves are heavier and come with spikes to add stability, something the Quads seem to lack unless you invest in a bit of DIY with house bricks weighting down the lower back quarters, etc?

 

Henry, it was good to read your summation of the Quad experience, seems to echo the thoughts of many who have listened to them.

IMO their output ceiling is just a little too low for many of the ZG listeners. I have seen just how loud you guys play your systems, and Quads just end up shutting down at those kind of levels. As you found out, they excel at certain things, but if you find the shortcomings in other areas difficult to live with, then you need to look elsewhere.

The Logans are a good starting point, given that they have nearly all the coherence of the Quads, but far greater loudness capability and perceived dynamics. Still don't get down and dirty though, although they do a passable impression of a posh club system.

I also don't understand why you are going away from the idea of seperate subs. Properly positioned and designed subs can give you a bottom end that few floorstanders can match, particularly in the bottom octave. they can be optimally placed to generate the best bass response without impinging on the imaging qualities of your monitors, and are likely to be relatively discrete compared to something like a Proac D100.

I would recommend a demo of the ML Odyssey vs. the ML Ascent i/ Descent combo. I genuinly think you will be impressed. you can come up here if you like and I'll drive over to Watford. And what exactly are those Soundlabs going to be worth once you decide you don't like them?

 

Yes, you're right about many ZGers. Of course some of us more subtle souls believe that it's equally important for a system to sound good at low levels as at high. Many speakers won't even get going until they have surpassed the 'kids in bed' or 'wife going back to her mother' levels.
:baby:

I couldn't agree more, in fact my favourite speaker designer has a similar philosophy. I seem to remember reading it on a web site somewhere.

One point worth bearing in mind however is that, when coupling with electrostatic or panel speakers, dipole subs may work better .

In a similar vein, has anyone experienced Linkwitz's designs? I haven't yet but I'd like to. From what I've read, Linkwitz is a designer who impresses me. :respect:

 

Merlin - would definitely like to meet up with you for an ML dem, not for a week or two yet as the diary is a bit full but will PM nearer the time.

-----------------------

I do definitely agree about seperate subs being able to ultimately produce lower and better quality bass than most (reasonably priced) floorstanders. "Properly positioned and designed" is the crux though. I've come to the conclusion that in my room, I suspect to get the integration better than what I had, I'd need some form of either extra tuneable electronic processing (a route I'm not prepared to go down), or a different sub with more flexible crossover options or an electronic crossver of some sort.

I had the crossver frequency set at the lowest the subs would go to, 30Hz. The Verities are -3dB at 25Hz according to the specs, so in theory the two shouldn't be encroaching upon each other too much. The output level on the subs were set at about 8:30 (eight thirty) on the dial (dial goes round from 7 to 5 o'clock) Although, I suspect the real problem was that the slope on the MJA subs wasn't steep enough and that there was still significant enough contribution to affect and cloud up with midrange on the main speakers. The subs *were* actually of benefit, no quibble, helping to flesh out harmonics and give body to the sound. But some recent upgrades have opened the sound open further all round, and it turns out that even more openess and transparency is now available if the sub is removed from the equation, whereas before it was definitely of benefit. Ultimate ultimate room driving ability not what it was, but for the increase in performance in other areas I think I can now live without. It's faithful reproduction of audible bass I'm after and a bit of room driving ability, but chest thumping and room shaking stuff I can happily live without.

The other conclusion I've now drawn is that unless a sub has been designed hand in glove to partner a particular speaker, to work as one, then ultimately you're never going to get the seemless integration of an "as one" set of units (unless you resort to electronic means and the compromises that that can introduce). This integration and coherence thing was actually inspired by what I heard at the ESL dem on Saturday and the desire to see if I could emulate some of those aspects which the ESLs bettered the Verities at. The dem really woke me up to what coherence and *wide* sweet spot listening are about and to what they can contribute to the listening pleasure. I sit quite near field to my speakers and have always liked getting as much of the direct sound from the speakers as possible, the wide radiating/dispersion area of the ESLs (and other panels) that channel and envelope the listener with an even bigger wall of direct sound energy which I think is the key thing which I doubt I'm going to get with cones at a price I can afford and which is really attracting more towards stats/panels.

The point of about low level listening is valid too, and the ESLs were very good at that, again due to the large radiating area spreading direct sound around and filing the room even at low volume levels. I do find I have to crank my system to get the necessary articulation and presence sometimes, not really a big issue, other bigger fish to try at the moment though.

 

Henry, my Merlins are -3db at 35hz. I am using them full range with the subs' LP filter set to a brick wall at 80hz. Don't have to use EQ (but can't see a negative below 80hz). Have a look at Julian's comments. I think the key here is low distortion and rapid roll off, although in my case this occurs a full octave above the Merlins'. There are very few subs I have heard that really integrate, certainly haven't heard a Rel that does it. ML Descent does though, would like to hear the new B&W 800, and I am very pleased with the JBLs which as PM said, ain't slammingly powerful but intensly musical and natural.

PM me nearer the time and I will happily arrange a dem of the Martin Logans, alternatively look out for a good SH pair of Duetta Signatures and get some damned good monoblocks

 

Hi Merlin,

I agree with you on the issue of rapid roll off from the cut off frequency, and I think that's exactly the problem I'm having with my MJA sub's integration with the Verities - I think they were working much better being used only with the Verity's mini monitors. It's strange, but you would think that either a brick wall or some other kind of very steep filter would be emplyed. I mean, when you set the cut off at 30Hz, you assume that nothing significant above that gets output. So, as I eluded to previously, some kind of external processing/crossover is required which I can't be bothered with. Unless you know of any powered subs which have brick wall type filtering? There's still issues of positioning and time domain crap - that's where I start getting a headache - I want the easy life!

Apogees would be very nice I'm sure, but realistically, whatever happens I don't want to spend any more significant money on hardware charges for the foreseeable future to accomdate any speaker changes (unless the exercise is effectively zero cost).

WM reckons he could tweak a significant amount more out of the Verities, yes in certain areas I'm sure, but enough to make me forget about the things I've liked about what I've heard so far from the Maggies at the show and the ESLs on Saturday that I don't reckon you can get from reasonable priced cones? The wheels have been set in emotion for some more external additions - a parcel has just arrived on my desk as I type - but as for the internal fettering we'll have to see!!

 

Henry,

you can pick up a pair of Sig's for between £1500 and £3000, so you are quids in. Statistically, they will go 112 db louder than Quads, go 15hz deeper, and have similar coherence due to the use of the ribbon panel.

I liken to stuff at 90db on a regular basis. that's the Quad's limit really, whereas I would be tempted to push beyond that on peaks.

Just food for thought, I can't see the point of Quads when you are looking for the bottom octave and you don't want subs. they simply don't do it, end of story.

 

I think the reason sub manufacturers shy away from high-order low-pass filters is that they really muck up the phase, which leads to even greater difficulty integrating than using low-order low-pass filters that let more high frequencies through. I would imagine the best plan is to use a high order crossover - e.g. 4th order low-pass on the sub at x Hz and a 4th order high-pass on the main speakers at x Hz.

Dunc

 

F**k me that's loud

Are the apogees built in a similar way to maggies? If, as I suspect, they are, I'd guess that you wouldn't get the level of coherence that the quads give you due to the separate bass and treble panels employed in the apogees.

I think the 989s will theoretically go to about 98db (but my maths could be wrong!).

If Henry wants bass below 35hz at -3db (measured in room), then I think the larger Soundlab at JJs is where it's at.

reg

 

I am with merlin on this one. I think it would make far more sense to pick up a second hand or ex dem pair of Logans which will hold their value and be far easier to sell on.

 

There is a chap in Canada somewhere on the web who has rebuilt two pairs of ESL63s into a 989 type array. The 63/988 have four panels, 'bass' at top and bottom and two of the clever full range 'point source' in the centre. The 989 has two extra bass panels. So it's quite possible to build a DIY 989 from 63 bits. Simply stacking 63s won't work because of the point source emulation.

IIRC the SME guy used to use two pairs of ESL63 arranged at 90 degrees, so the point sources coincided.

Paul

 

112dB *louder* than the Quads eh? Wow, so that's at least 200dB, much louder than anybody on this forum needs (apart from maybe Hippy for any of his outdoor events)!

Point taken about the resell value of the Soundlabs. Although, it seems to me that some people have taken risks with unheard of or unsong products (in this country at least) and have ended up with something which is very good value for money; and kept it of course too. I mean, how many people in the UK outside of this forum have ever heard of Meadowlark and would get as enthusisastic as some people here if they had the chance to buy a pair second hand at a good price. Then there's the LC-Audio amp that Graham picked up? If I'd known what I know now I'd probably have joined in the bidding!

And as for compromises, that's spot on the money. Thing is I haven't totally rationalised in my mind what compromises I could live with yet until I've heard the speakers (ESL vs Logan vs Sound vs Xyz) in question viz dynamic vs coherence. Better coherence allows you to play at lower volumes and still get as much detail as a more dynamic but less coherent design, that's my theory at the moment... again we shall see.

Edited to add: Yep, the SME guy ARA as he is sometimes known as IIRC , remeber reading an article about his heavily customised ESL setup. He did use an array, and they were totally stripped of their protective outlayers too along with some other customised bracing that was added.

 

Henry,

I think the key to all this is the retrieval of very low level detail, something panels excel at IMO. Now it may interest you (probably not though!), to know that Bobby used the Quads as a reference point when designing my beloved Merlins, looking particularly to match or exceed the portrayal of low level signals and microdynamics.

Microdynamics seem to be the key to low level listening, the faithful reproduction of which requires the speaker to have a low noise floor. Stats have this, in conventional cone loudspeakers it seems to require a huge amount of effort.

Just like lowering the noise floor in electronics is expensive, the careful selection of parts and RFi shielding in the crossover circuit, and very high quality drive units cost money. But just as lowering the noise on an amp improves things such as detail and soundstaging, the same applies to speakers.

The joy of my Merlins is that they sound outragiously good when ticking over at 65db, and importantly are still capable of making you jump when the music has a dynamic contrast. As a previous panel man, I can say that the VSM's actually better my old Logans in some areas, only losing out in terms of absolute scale.

The other thing that screws up low level listening is a less than linear frequency response from speakers that rely on bass interaction with the room for balance. Excess in one area will obscure low level detail and cause it to effectively disappear at background volumes. It will also screw up the imaging. As most frequency aberrations are the result of interaction with the room (with the exception of many Sonus Fabers which are unbalanced on purpose), then a lower level of room coupling should help. Given their narrow directivity, this is another advantage panels have.

Just my ramblings, but I can say that my current speakers are the only ones I have heard that stop me missing the alluring qualities of panels

 

Makes sense to me. I've also had similar thoughts about speakers which rely too heavily on room interaction to attain their tonal balance, espcially in the bass. I definitely feel the port loading on the Verities is their most significant weakness - currently getting some reasonable results without subs but now that I've heard a stat/panel or two their seems to be sense of a lack freedom or natural breathing quality to the midbass - claustrophobic - almost boxy but that's not quite the description I'm looking for...

Another set of phrases I've just added to my audio vocabulary since yesterday are "line source" and "point source" (with reference to speaker radiation patterns). Yes, not familiar terms to me before, but having read a single web page summising their definitions, I think this is what I've been trying to convey as maybe the one that I feel I've never heard from a cone based speaker systems yet that I've gotten and am really smitten with in a panel/stat. That surprising lack of wide variation of tonal/timbral balance and wall of sound imaging effect you get, even if you move left/right/forward/backward quite significantly of the hot spot.

Do I detect a bit of sales pitch running throughout your last post!

 

Exactly - which is why you need to audition the Logans that Merl has been suggesting in your room (see the link to Duke's explanation of hybrid integration issues at the bottom of page 1 on this thread).

I have no doubt that they'll go louder, but in my view, they represent an unnecessary compromise - one which I'm not sure you could live with given the areas you've highlighted in your appraisal of the 989s. From what I've been told, if the 989s don't quite do it for you on the spl front, then the Soundlabs will.

I don't think that resale on the Soundlabs will be an issue. If someone is unorthodox enough to go for 'stats, then they'll know that Soundlabs are SOTA. I guess the Soundlabs don't have quite the mass market appeal of the Logans because they haven't been around as long, are more expensive and haven't had quite the same exposure (Friends, anyone!)...

reg

 

How long have ML been around for? I was quite surprised to learn that Soundlab have been going for a lot longer than I'd initially thought - 1978 IIRC according to their website.

Right, well just phoned JJ this afternoon to arrange a Quad vs Soundlab dem for next Friday. Unfortunately, the second hand Millenium 3's have already been snapped up, so if I like them, it'll have to be the full £8k asking price. Also asked JJ if he had any Logans in stock, only the Accents, but I did ask to have those put into the melting pot too. In that case, an Odyessey dem for next Saturday Merl?

 

Henry,

Tony at Central Audio has a s/h pair of soundlab millenium 3s at £4995

 

Cheers for that Robbo.

Hmm, seem to an awful lot of these coming up all at once. Are Central Audio part of the JJ chain (i.e. they deal with Metropolis Music)?

 

Central is one of JJs Metropolis dealers but independent. It's uncanny, though, how often stuff that JJ lists also appears at Central. You may find that 'Tony's Soundlabs' have sold too (to the same punter as bought JJ's )

reg