Discussion About the Differences Between Different Panel Sizes

[barjohn]

My experience is limited. I recently purchased a pair of Classic 9's and prior to that I has the ESL's. I have listened to a comparison between the Expression 13A's and the Neolith in a dealer show room. My general conclusion is that as the panel area increases, the sound seems fuller, especially in the mid range, and better balanced. Without A-B comparing them you might not be aware of the difference. Some of that difference may also be attributable to the difference in the woofers and woofer cabinet size but in most cases these don't come into pay until below 400Hz. Of course the larger panels can play louder but most audiophile listeners don't play at those levels for listening.

There is a large jump in price as you move up models. In my opinion the law of diminishing returns is rapidly at play in the Masterpiece series. I'm curious whether anyone has a similar opinion in terms of what you get as you move up. Generally bass response is only improved 5Hz or less between models. a pair of very high end and fast sub woofers could be purchased for less than the difference in price. Those of you have that have gone up the line, what did you think you were getting when you purchased and what did you find you actually got when you put it in your home?

 

[sleepysurf]

I upgraded over the years from Aerius i's, to Summit's, to Expression 13A's. Aside from progressively deeper and better integrated bass, I found each step up in panel size widened my soundstage a bit. I can't definitively say the sound was fuller, at least in the sweet spot. In fact, I think the midrange of the Summit's was actually slightly fuller than my Expression's, which I attribute to implementation of DSP in the latter. However, I never compared them side by side, and the net benefit of DSP/ARC with the Expressions, IMHO, outweighs any minor loss of midrange fullness.

BTW, if you're in Sarasota, you should check out the Sarasota and Suncoast Audiophile Societies!

 

[barjohn]

It's logical that the sound stage would widen, as well as the sweet spot since 30 degrees of a larger circle is a larger space, especially as one is likely to be further removed as the speakers get larger and also occupy a larger room.

I was able to directly compare the Classic 9's to the ESL's in my room in nearly the same location and I remember my first thought was that the highs in the ESLs was not present in the 9's but as I listened more and to different tracks I realized the highs were the same, it was the mids that were more pronounced. Of course, one issue that may account for that difference is the fact that the panel is the same distance from the front wall for each at 26" but the cabinet end with a bass driver in the 9's is now only inches from the wall whereas the ESL's have much more distance behind the cabinet to the front wall and no woofer firing into the wall. I can't bring them further out without intruding into the walk space.

On the other hand, I heard the Neoliths and the Expressions in the same room with more than 5' to the front walls. I could definitely hear a tonal balance difference. The Expressions seemed thin and lacking the warmth of the Neolith but in all fairness I didn't listen that long as I did not want to tie up the salesman's time when I knew I wasn't a customer for the Neoliths.

 

[twich54]

for me, if I were to go back to M/L it would be the 13a's, given my room size. But if I had a big enough room and IMO the sweet spot in the line up is the CLX's combined with a pair of subs. I suspect Brad would concur with this .....

 

[JonFo]

The Monolith has the same size panel as the Neolith, and I find that the width (24") allows for a wider sweet spot, which improves dramatically when you mitigate the rear reflections (listening to mostly direct sound from the front of the panel).
The larger panels are also able to more authoritatively produce midrange and even the upper reaches of the mid-bass. Even though I cross over at 340Hz with a sharp 24dB / octave. I see the diaphragm vibrate (modulating the reflected light) even when not playing very loud (avg low 80's dB). So the larger panels have more output in that range, leading to a better balance.
The downside is with all that surface area radiating the same signal, there is progressively more comb filtering as it goes up the freq. range. So a 9 will have a cleaner >1.5K Hz in that respect.

Comparing the SL3 panel in my SL3XC center to the Monoliths, I find that the center can keep up, but mostly because I shift the mid-bass to the woofer line array (XO at 425Hz 48 dB / octave these days), so the panel is not stressed by those frequencies.
Once the room corrector is applied, the front soundstage has very smooth pans, in spite of radically different panel sizes.

 

[barjohn]

@JonFo, your post brings up an interesting thought for further discussion. In looking at who besides Martin Logan produces Electrostatic speakers today, the other three vendors all seem to only produce a large panel size. The Sander's Sound System, the Model 10e is a flat panel hybrid with a 15"x42"=630sqin and incorporates DSP which is about the same as the ML 15A at 46"x15"=690sqin. The Sound Lab Speakers are pure curved large panel Electrostatics. The Quad ESLs are flat panels like the Sanders but are pure ESLs like the SoundLabs. Interestingly, both the Sanders and the Soundlabs claim to solve the problems created by dust, oils in the air, and high humidity salt air environments. I have never had the opportunity to compare these various approaches to ESLs and I am curious as to the findings of others that have had that opportunity and can comment based on first hand experience.

 

[Brad225]

I can't say enough about, for me the quality of the sound of full panel CLX's. They aren't for everyone but I haven't heard a sound I enjoy more.
Panel size definitely is a factor in the sound quality.
I was instantly sold on SL3's when I heard them at a dealer shortly ofter they first entered the market.

Probably 10 years later I bought some CLSIIz's, replaced the panels and used them with a pair of Vandersteen subs. The SL3's never had a chance. Not that the SL3's aren't great speakers just the large panels have a different sound.

barjohn if you want to listen to newer full range panels let me know. Wesley Chapel is not to far away.

 

[barjohn]

I may take you up on your offer in early August. I have my daughter and grandson coming to visit this week and they will be here for a week then they and my wife go to CA and Hawaii for 3 weeks and I will be here by myself so I will have time to take a ride up and listen.

 

[Brad225]

My wife and I will be leaving town next Monday to continue an around the country RV trip. We flew in from Seattle for a grand nephew's 2nd birthday.
We are planing to be home by the end of August but nothing is set in stone. I realize this week is short notice for you or I will reach out to you when we return.

I totally understand spending as much time with children as you can. We spent more time looking at videos and face timing with them than we would ever have imagined while traveling.

 

[gvera]

Twenty years ago I compared the Prodigy to the odyssey.
My feeling was the opposite to most posts here, I found the Odysseys warmer sounding than teehee bigger Prodigys, and bought them.

 

[GW1800]

I’ve had the Summit X’s , 13’s and CLX. I have heard the Neolith a couple of times with Mac amps at shows. Was never that impressed with the Neolith in fact if I move on beyond the CLX they would not be on my list.
The CLX like Brad said is just hard to top. Which questions again the logic to discontinue them but that fight is over. The CLX w/subs is just a great setup. I had Stirling here a few months back to set my speakers and I’m in love with them all over.

 

[JonFo]

Which questions again the logic to discontinue them but that fight is over

My guess is it's the cost to build the double diaphragm bass panels vs the annual sales volume (guessing low at that price point) is what did it.

A shame, as that is very cool tech.

 

[ttocs]

Recently, I finally got a good demo of the Neolith at a local dealer. They had them setup in a couple other places previously but not very well.

This time the room was more than large enough and the speakers were setup very well. There was no sweet spot, it was a large sweet area at least 6' wide, and what transition there was from best sound to less than best was very not a hard line at all, just a smooth transition to less than optimum. Also, when moving around on the extremely large sofa (about 16' wide) the soundstage never collapsed, or even moved much. When I sat directly inline with the Left speaker, the center of the image moved a bit to the left, but I still heard the entire soundstage, all the way across. It was a really good demo.

So I can attest to the fact that larger panels Improve the width of the listening area. The larger sweet spot is one of the reasons I got the 13A instead of 11A.

 

[JonFo]

This time the room was more than large enough and the speakers were setup very well. There was no sweet spot, it was a large sweet area at least 6' wide

That is a product of both panel width and managed rear reflected sound, which is either damped or delayed (room size) so that the listeners primarily hear the direct sound from the front of the panels.

As I evolved my room treatments, the sweet spot got wider and wider and now spans about the same 6' you observed.
It's the only way I can ever listen to a dipole now, as it allows the music to fully resolve.

 

[ttocs]

Recently, I finally got a good demo of the Neolith at a local dealer. They had them setup in a couple other places previously but not very well.

This time the room was more than large enough and the speakers were setup very well. There was no sweet spot, it was a large sweet area at least 6' wide, and what transition there was from best sound to less than best was very not a hard line at all, just a smooth transition to less than optimum. Also, when moving around on the extremely large sofa (about 16' wide) the soundstage never collapsed, or even moved much. When I sat directly inline with the Left speaker, the center of the image moved a bit to the left, but I still heard the entire soundstage, all the way across. It was a really good demo.

So I can attest to the fact that larger panels Improve the width of the listening area. The larger sweet spot is one of the reasons I got the 13A instead of 11A.

I was at this dealer last week and checked which amps were being used for the Neoliths. They are Classe Delta mono amps. Also, the front wall is mostly damped with absorption panels. The panel of each speaker is about 4' from the front wall.

 

[amey01]

My guess is it's the cost to build the double diaphragm bass panels vs the annual sales volume (guessing low at that price point) is what did it.

A shame, as that is very cool tech.

A shame indeed.

I'm trying to understand the logic of this expensive double-diaphragm panel. It was ML's method to extract better bass performance out of an ES panel - which is well and good - but given that bass extension of the CLX was never even near acceptable anyway - and everyone who is anyone used them with a subwoofer at least........what is the point of all that engineering to get a few extra Hz out of the panel?

The CLS style design remains elusive.

And a speaker with no bass is easier to deal with than a crazy complex, expensive design, which still has ...... no bass.

 

[Robert D]

So does the Nvidia Shield still have all of the Google ads on the homepage? That alone seems like a deal breaker to me.

Remove the new ads on the home scree | NVIDIA GeForce Forums

 

[Big Dog RJ]

A shame indeed.

I'm trying to understand the logic of this expensive double-diaphragm panel. It was ML's method to extract better bass performance out of an ES panel - which is well and good - but given that bass extension of the CLX was never even near acceptable anyway - and everyone who is anyone used them with a subwoofer at least........what is the point of all that engineering to get a few extra Hz out of the panel?

The CLS style design remains elusive.

And a speaker with no bass is easier to deal with than a crazy complex, expensive design, which still has ...... no bass.

Ah! This has been discussed more than the next launch of Nasa's space mission... and is still being heavily debated on other forums to no end. It does end though only when that person has made such claims and is actually invited to a demo where the CLX's are set up properly. Once they do experience the Low Frequency reproduction, they are stunned and leave shocked! Now, with this response, keeping things in perspective, I will address the basics of LF.

1. How do you define bass? Most people define LF and bass as the same thing... this is not the same. Listen to any live acoustic instrument that plays LF; Cello, Acoustic bass, double bass, bass violin, bass clarinet, saxophone, drums, electric bass etc., listen carefully to these instruments and tell me do any of these go as low as subs? Any?

2. Synthesized bass and organ bass does go low, and for that the CLX's do require subs. However, most of the frequency spec lies in the mid-band, and upper frequencies, this is where electro-stats excel and this is only one of the areas where the CLX impress like no other.

3. When ML designed the CLS, they wanted to achieve ultimate transparency and inner detail, which they achieved at a fine level! After a while people began to complain that their CLS's were bass shy... and so they designed the CLSIIz. This was slightly better but still lacked the LF people were craving for. This "bass" that people think is the norm is actually artificial bass. It comes from LF being bombarded within a cabinet before it's launched out of that driver into the room. This LF is augmented by the cabinet's walls reinforcing that LF to greater boom effect, and this is the bass that most people think is bass! Sadly people, this is not real bass nor is it natural LF recreated.
Therefore, when you listen to a full range stat, there's no bass...uh? Obviously because there's no cabinet or box to add artificial enhancements!

4. And so ML re-designed the full range stat. They redesigned the entire stat panel to tighter tolerances, capable of withstanding 10,000V. They used clear spars with vacuum bonding tech, which is stronger than welding. They incorporated micro-perf stators that has a greater area of sound passing through, overall enhancing transparency and inner detail. Then they totally did a radical design on the bass-stat panels. Triple stators with dual diaphragms, emulating the "dual force" effect found in their hybrid designed built-in subs.

5. If you listen to a CLX system properly set up, and compare it to any man made sub out there, there's no sub on earth that can match the sheer speed of the CLX's bass panels. No chance! The speed in which this dual force, triple stator reproduces LF detail is like no other! It can go quite low with inner detail and layering that was not possible on conventional cones and then it can suddenly accelerate to startling dynamics in mid and upper bass, which subs just cannot keep up. This rise and fall in LF pressure happens with lightening speed, and when compared to normal subs, it's not even funny.

6. Of course there are musical genres that require further LF information, such as synthesized bass and deep organ bass as I mentioned. Plus a full orchestra in full flight may require that added depth in LF if that's what the user is after. There is one other very important aspect of ML stats in general and the CLX's. That is, if that particular LF information is on the recording then ML stats will reproduce exactly that! If this extra low bass information is not on the recording the stats won't reproduce it, simply because it doesn't exist! So, why reproduce something that's not even on the recording!

This artificial enhancement in LF and so called "bass" is what most people crave for, and if this is not reproduced on your stats or panels then maties I'm afraid that stats and panel type speakers aren't for you! And this is why people refer to them as "bass-less" speakers.

Now mate, if you ever happen to pass through Melb, and want to audition what a pair of well set up CLX's are capable of, let me know. There's also another mate of mine who drives his CLX's with a Pass Labs XA30.8 amplifier, and this delivers 30w pure muscle in Class A, the LF and bass detail is even more powerful here than anything I've heard to date, it's phenomenal! Similarly, I've done the required mods on my CJ monoblocks to deliver 60w of Class A bias, and boy do they drive the triple stators to full effect! This is where most "ordinary" amplifiers just can't drive CLX's or full range stats properly. The amplifier has to be able to fully grip and control the dual diaphragms, be able to control dynamic peeks and startling transients with perfect force, and this is done with high current and voltage, not just power in terms of watts, means nothing!

I have tried subs with my CLX's, several brands. REL, Vandy's, Gotham's and the ML matching subs, which also require the internal bass switches to be adjusted. Although very good in terms of added depth and LF heft, it was no match for me compared to the CLX's being driven full range by a Class A designed amplifier. If I had a very large area, such as 40ft by 50ft sq then perhaps...

Cheers maties, have a good one.
RJ

 

[amey01]

listen carefully to these instruments and tell me do any of these go as low as subs? Any?

I tend to disagree with this - I can tell if I have forgotten to turn on my sub with solo flute. While the fundamental may not be in the sub-bass range, there are certainly harmonics down there.

Now mate, if you ever happen to pass through Melb, and want to audition what a pair of well set up CLX's are capable of, let me know.

I am coming to Melbourne in June for the audio show. I'd love to hear how the CLXs sound with your setup I'll PM you closer to the time.

I'll bring some of my best bass recordings - which incidentally - do include pipe organ !

 

[Big Dog RJ]

I tend to disagree with this - I can tell if I have forgotten to turn on my sub with solo flute. While the fundamental may not be in the sub-bass range, there are certainly harmonics down there.





I am coming to Melbourne in June for the audio show. I'd love to hear how the CLXs sound with your setup I'll PM you closer to the time.

I'll bring some of my best bass recordings - which incidentally - do include pipe organ !

Ok, sounds like you're still doubting that CLX's can reproduce LF detail... or bass for that matter. I really didn't know that a speaker is only judged by bass...

I also don't want to hijack this thread based on CLX's alone, that's not my intention. The only reason why I replied to your post is because you labelled them as "bass-less."
This was also a very common claim made on other forums, where it got to a point where several members were banned. I managed to keep my cool only just, and mainly due to proving to those chaps that they were terribly wrong. Most of them had only heard of CLX's through You-tube... and at shows... seriously? Hardly any of them had actually auditioned these in proper demo rooms or at private places. So because they don't have access to such private demos, they go ahead and make such claims so as to quickly prejudge bass performance. It is not what makes a speaker!

Again, the type of music I listen to does not involve synthesised bass or deep pipe organ music. I'm not interested in that type of genre.

Most of my listening sessions are way past midnight, starting around 10pm and go past 3am. So it's a custom type of sound I've built with the amplifiers and a custom type of sound I want reproduced from the CLX's. It's totally engaging and fully immersive, allows me to relax and listen for endless hours. If on another occasion I wanted to demo to a potential customer then I would arrange during the arvo, and turn things up and they usually end up placing orders with the importer. On occasions where they didn't place orders is because now they cost 50grand.

Therefore, you're not going to hear any overhang, bloom, fat, slow, deep bass whatsoever. What you will experience is speed, depth, agility, linearity, definition, transparency and most of all inner detail in bass lines, all the layering and fine detail you could possibly ask for, and as I said before, if it's on the recording, it will be reproduced!

I think I'll end with that because I don't want to make this thread only CLX focused, that's not why we're all here.

We're here as a caring and passionate community, who love ML stats, regardless of what stats, model or when they were made, who cares? Just as long as we're enjoying our music from our beloved stats in whatever shape, size or form.

Cheers, and enjoy those fine tunes!
RJ