Living with panel/electrostat speakers

Well Henry I hope it's improved since Julian and myself did the same demo down stairs (on advantage 250 mono's) Wm

 

I take it back. It looks like Soundlab predate ML who appeared on the scene in 1981.

reg

 

LOL Reg! I had exactly the same thoughts running through my mind after I put the phone down from speaking to JJ. A bit of coy marketing to whip up some interest in the brand and get some boxes shifting (which haven't been doing so).

This will be a first for me, not been to (the new to me) JJ Towers which houses the high-end department of SOM. Last time I was at SOM was well over 2 years ago before the refurbishment.

I specifically asked for the dem system to be matched as closely to my system at home as possible. He has the GamuT and dCS in stock, so that's a good start. Although I did ask him to try and find an alternative CD transport if poss to match the Accuphase I use, as I suspect the dCS one won't be quite as lively compared to what I have now possibly.

 

No Henry, no need really! Just making the point that they are probably the only dynamic speakers that I've heard that do a passable impression of panels. The fact that I am renowned for swapping kit, but these babies haven't gone anywhere must say something!

All speakers are a compromise, the Quads cannot do realistic levels or deep bass, the Logans give up some cohesiveness to acheive these goals. Only you can decide which approach you prefer, although the transition on the Ascent (particularly if it's not the new Ascent i) is more noticeable than on the Odyssy and Prodegy. In truth, my Stax Omegas take the piss out of both

 

Okay Henry,

Time to spill the beans - how did your sesh chez JJs go?

reg

 

It turned out to be a very interesting day indeed at JJ's, re-scheduled for Saturday instead of Friday. Not really the result I was expecting, but I'm sure some might be smiling gently and/or saying "I told you so" (as someone already has ).

WM, Robbo and Merlin also turned up towards the end of my dem, but they waited outside so didn't get to have a listen to what I was listening to, although Merlin briefly put the Quads on afterwards when JJ let everyone have free reign, as you might have been able to work out from reading the "in praise of old kit" thread.

First speakers I took a listen to were the SoundLab Millennium 3. Oh dear, I wasn't sure at all about these from the first few seconds. JJ came back in after a few minutes to see how I was getting on, I told him that I thought the sound was a bit thin and naisal sounding so he went round the back of the speakers to make some level adjustments to the speakers (there are level adjustments on the back of the speakers for bass/mid/treble and bias) - they weren't set at flat initially but were so after a quick twiddle. OK, it was better after the adjustment but not what I was expecting. I was under the impression that SoundLab used a massive single panel to cover the entire frequency range, but from what I was hearing obviously not, it was like listening to a big multi way speaker. The coherence and wide sweet spot of the Quads just wasn't there. I also had a problem with the soundstage being far too high off the ground, seemed a very weird listening experience. Big shock of the day, IMO, the Quads seemed to go louder than the SoundLabs before distorting. In fact I could hear some very distinct panel resonaces (and not caused by bass sounds either) at quite modest levels. Oh, and the SoundLabs just sounded too fussy, analytical and musically disjointed. Did I find anything postive to say about the SoundLabs, well yes the midrange was perhaps one of the most realstic I've ever heard on simple vocal based tracks. The bartione (is it a tenor) solo passages from the last movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony was the most realstic of the day. For the money though (and even if they were being offered at the same price as the Quads), I'd not bother.

Next up then were the Quad 989's. Everything I remember about them from my first demo of them the other week at a different location still applies, BUT this time they were being driven by a bigger amplifier. No problems with the Quads cutting out this time at all, although I didn't really push the issue, I'm now more than confident that the 989's should be capable of doing the loudness thing back at home, seeing as JJ's listening room is bigger than mine and I was also sat a lot further away from the speakers at JJ's than I would be at home. Yep, so the Quads can shake the room too under the right conditions. It's correct to say that there isn't any signficant output below 30Hz, but such was the quality of the audible/musical bass range compared to any box speaker I've yet heard at the price that that alone makes it a no brainer for me. Merlin's custom boxed 15 inch JBLs (which I also heard on Saturday) go deeper and with more ultimate slam and loudness capability, which would probably have club goers wetting their pants in awe, but for acoustic bass from acoustic instruments...

The gear being used to drive the SoundLab and Quads were a Burmester CDP, BAT VK-3i preamp and Hovland Radia 125w solid state poweramp. Cables were Argento.

Had to move to another room to hear the last speaker on my to-listen-to list of the day, the Martin Logan Ascents (Mk I). These were being driven by a BAT VK-300x integrated amp and source was a GamuT CDP. Hmm, not very impressed by what I heard here at all. Bass sounded very thick and lumpy, just like the worst that cones have to offer, oh it was a cone bass unit! Sweet spot seemed very beamed and narrow, sound from the panel didn't seem very well projected into the room, definitely coming from within or behind the panel rather than enveloping you or placed in front of you as I'd have preferred. Also, I got a sense of dejavu as I noticed the characteristc of the mid/treble from the panel that also leapt out at me from when I sat through an Absolute Sounds dem of a pair of ML's (can't remember which ones) a few years back at a hi-fi show - at that time being driven by an all Krell system - it had a "grainy" quality to it. Well, Merlin tells me that the newer and more expensive MLs use a different/upgraded myler panel and also have better integration with their cone bass drivers. An ML Odyssey dem is therefore probably in the pipeline at some point, but to be honest, it's going to have to be pretty special to convince me to spend more than twice what the retail price of the 989's are.

Also got a listen to one of JJ's Lumley Lampros (model 400 MKII) speakers in the Burmester/BAT/Hovland system. They were OK actually, and less offensive to my ears than either the SoundLab or Logans. Integration and coherence was quite surprising considering the number of drive units being used, a very solid and palpable stage being projected across the back wall. Seemed a bit hooded to me in the upper mids, but were essentially transparent, open and laidback. Speakers which are more seductive than grab you by the sphericals.

So where now then? Look for a second hand/ex-dem/discounted pair of 989's to have a play with at home. If I don't like them, I can always sell them on. Also, it's not as if the 989's are out of production or difficult to track down, so therefore I'm in no rush at all at the mo and also very happy in the knowlege that there is more expensive kit out there that I wouldn't touch even if I won the lottery. :MILD:

 

I only managed a very brief listen to your Stax Omegas on my recent visit but, on what I heard, I agree that they make a fabulous sound. In fact I believe that many aspects of this sound could be used as a reference by which moving coil speakers are judged.

I also agree with an earlier comment that one problem with using electrostatic speakers to get an electrostatic sound is that the soundstage can be larger than life. I haven't heard all of the panels and electrostatics out there so don't know whether the over-large soundstage is universal. Still, this, plus the difficulties of room placement for this genre leads me to believe that dynamic speakers could be the way to go. Certainly for me as a dynamic speaker designer 'electrostatic' is the direction of the sign in my mind that says 'This way up'.

I'd be interested to hear your view and that of other Merlin owners on how the Merlins sound by comparison with the Omegas?

 

Quads are big wooly and larger than life Much like Henry's avatar actually.

Henry, get some proper speakers and a pair of Stax. At least that way you won't feel like you are listening with headphones all the time

 

Fascinating stuff Henry!

I kinda like the idea that you prefered the british Quad stuff, from a flag-waving point of view!

NB My experience with ML's and other panel/cone hybrids - like the Cadence range is the difficulty in trying to encorporate a cone with a panel..

To my ears the sound of both drive units are very different, and they just dont seem to marry seemlessly. I cant put it better than that really. Im sure this conclusion is very model dependant, but still I think the sound characteristic of a cone/panel are very different to each other.

Ribbon hybrids dont seem to have the same integration problem... have you heard a good pair of ribbon hybrids - like a Dali .. just before you take the plunge?... I shant tell you which one my favorite is, because one day I'll see a pair second hand, and sell the kids into slavery to get a pair!

:JOEL:

 

I think that Dipole bass drivers marry better with panels although these bring their own difficulties.

It's definitely better to extend the timbre and sonic characteristics of the mid-band into the bass (and treble) regions, rather than just to 'add a bass cone'.

 

Henry, all speakers interact with the rooms that they are in. It's not possible to separate them. Could you clarify your comment?

 

Steve

Apart from ensuring that there is at least 3 feet of space behind the speakers, ESLs are inherently LESS difficult to place than their coned and boxed cousins. This is because of the dipole radiation pattern which excites fewer room nodes.

As for the larger than life soundstage, I reckon that because ESLs can do this trick, many dealers demonstrate them that way to elicit the 'wow' response from their listeners. The easiest way to get the s/stage to the right size is to move the speakers closer together

reg

 

Henry,

I'm glad that the dem went well and answered some of the questions you had of the various approaches to ESL implementation.

If you're after a decent price on some 989s, I'm sure that JJ could be encouraged to do a 'special' deal for you. Alternatively,

Dr Jules

has a new pair at £3,800.

I wouldn't have 'told you so' since I haven't heard the Soundlabs or Ascents myself - but I am smiling gently at your obviously discerning taste...


:Quad:

reg

 

Reg, I don't think having a seven foot wide guitar string is a "trick", more an inaccuracy. I do agree that it could be down to poor setup, but there cannot have been more than six feet between the panels and everything was just larger than life.

It's confusing because many dynamic speakers I have heard have produced a far more realistic and better layered soundstage than the Quads managed. I thought this was upposed to be their strength?

I just felt hat the panels themselves seemed to be scaling everything up to match their size rather than portraying it naturally, the singer had a mouth that was about four feet wide for instance. Are you saying that repositioning would eradicate this? If so which virtues would you lose in doing so?

 

Hmmm. I wasn't there so it's difficult to know where the problem lies. I certainly don't suffer from an overblown s/stage in my room which is approx 23ftx16ft. The 989s are about 5-6ft apart, firing down the long axis. They are 4ft from the front wall and are toed in towards the listening position which is about 13ft away. My ceiling is 8.5ft high.

I can only guess that the overblown presentation you had may have been due to positioning within the room, a lack of toe-in or (and here's my get-out clause ) the ancilliary equipment.

Not in this dem you didn't...

In all seriousness, though, you may find that some electronics major on s/stage and all the other round earth virtues such as inky blackness etc. I don't think I'm going too far in defence of the Quads to suggest that perhaps they were accurately reproducing the signal that they were being fed. And in this instance, the signal was a little larger than life in order to cater for the majority of systems where a box speaker would need a little boost in this department.


reg

 

I Gotta see the reply to this The quads were on Full £25K DCS , I'm saying nothing

 

Sorry Reg, I 've heard that recording on numerous systems, including on my old Logans and it is one of the better discs out here. I've never heard the massive mouth syndrome before on any other system so my supposition would be that what I heard at JJ's was inaccurate. That means it could have either been the Hovland amp or the Quads.

 

Sorry to rain on your parade tone

But,

Whaddaya think? Not quite a 25K dcs rig but I have no experience of the Burmester, BAT or Hovland in isolation, let alone in partnership. Do you think that a system comprising the above components could come across as a little 'larger than life'?

reg

 

Ah - we're in agreement then. It's the Radia...

reg

 

Odd that an £8K could sort out a panel?, best stick with proper speakers then