First Audition of New Stats. Heresy to follow!

[JonFo]

IWalker, Interesting to hear about your assessment of the harshness contrast between the two speaker systems. It could either be a factor of the upstream components (crossover, etc.) or potentially, a frequency response artifact. If the Finals are rolling off highs (say, like an old ML panel might), then the sense of ‘harshness’ might be influenced by more or less high-end level.

I know that right after I updated the panels on the Monoliths, I thought they sounded a bit ‘harsh’, but it was the fact that they had a good 3dB or more of >8Khz response that contributed to that impression.
Once everything was gain matched and EQ’d, the results are quite pleasing. But yes, they produce a good bit of highs compared to before.
Do you think there is a difference in HF response?

Anyway, one reason why an ETF session in the same room is what I’d like to see.

Jtwrace, thanks for the feedback, and your comments about the width of the soundstage are intriguing, as that’s always one of the hallmarks of a good speaker.

I also use grand piano as my reference, and while it’s taken some years, I’m pretty close to max on that front. I find that almost any ESL trumps a dynamic speaker on piano reproduction, but it takes some big ESL’s and lots of room tuning to get it just right.

If you guys like the 400’s this much, I sure wonder what you’ll think of the 1000’s, as I’m sure their mid-bass performance will be much better.
Look forward to future installments of this story.

 

[IWalker]

IWalker, Interesting to hear about your assessment of the harshness contrast between the two speaker systems. It could either be a factor of the upstream components (crossover, etc.) or potentially, a frequency response artifact. If the Finals are rolling off highs (say, like an old ML panel might), then the sense of ‘harshness’ might be influenced by more or less high-end level.

I know that right after I updated the panels on the Monoliths, I thought they sounded a bit ‘harsh’, but it was the fact that they had a good 3dB or more of >8Khz response that contributed to that impression.
Once everything was gain matched and EQ’d, the results are quite pleasing. But yes, they produce a good bit of highs compared to before.
Do you think there is a difference in HF response?

Anyway, one reason why an ETF session in the same room is what I’d like to see.

Jtwrace, thanks for the feedback, and your comments about the width of the soundstage are intriguing, as that’s always one of the hallmarks of a good speaker.

I also use grand piano as my reference, and while it’s taken some years, I’m pretty close to max on that front. I find that almost any ESL trumps a dynamic speaker on piano reproduction, but it takes some big ESL’s and lots of room tuning to get it just right.

If you guys like the 400’s this much, I sure wonder what you’ll think of the 1000’s, as I’m sure their mid-bass performance will be much better.
Look forward to future installments of this story.

It's certainly a real possibility that's it's HF artifacts...it's really hard for me to determine what it might be. I hate being this imprecise, since I am at heart a measurements guy...but what it seems like is almost "beaming"...there must be some sort of HF spike with the summits that causes an extra amount of energy at just that range, and when it hits, I cringe. I really look forward to comparing the two.

I've always thought ESLs do piano and horns and cymbals pretty well. I agree with jason that they sound a little better on the finals....but it's a night and day change for me on strings. The extra "weight" of the notes makes such a big difference here.

 

[Joey_V]

It's certainly a real possibility that's it's HF artifacts...it's really hard for me to determine what it might be. I hate being this imprecise, since I am at heart a measurements guy...but what it seems like is almost "beaming"...there must be some sort of HF spike with the summits that causes an extra amount of energy at just that range, and when it hits, I cringe. I really look forward to comparing the two.

I've always thought ESLs do piano and horns and cymbals pretty well. I agree with jason that they sound a little better on the finals....but it's a night and day change for me on strings. The extra "weight" of the notes makes such a big difference here.

Anyone ever thought it could be amplification (or a deficiency of it)? Isn't this a possibility considering the inversely proportional impedance:FR of the SUmmits?

 

[Dreamer]

You know, when considering a purchase of this magnitude, I would have three questions after the "How does it sound"...

1) Where are they made,

2) How long have they been around as a company, and

3) how is their track record with regards to long-term reliability and service/support.


The answers to all three questions, when asked of Martin Logan, would give me a LOT of confidence in a new product.

So does anyone know the answer to theses questions regarding Final?

Just a thought...

--Richard

 

[jtwrace]

1) Where are they made

Denmark-where many high end speakers & drivers are made

2) How long have they been around as a company
since 1990

3) how is their track record with regards to long-term reliability and service/support.

it's gotten better with time and service/support have not been used by me with anything major. I had one very small issue and they shipped out the new part immediately. To be honest, sound is still more important to me though. Of course, as long as it's not a true headache. So far so good.

--Richard

......................

 

[IWalker]

If a Pass X250 can't do it, though...that makes it a difficult proposition, no?

 

[[email protected]]

Summit/Final

I own a two channel system with Summits and a five channel all Final set-up with 600is front, 400i center and 150is as rear channels, with a Descent to handle 40 cycles and below. The 2-channel set-up is all tube and the 5 channel is SS. I use both systems for exclusively for their own purpose, but I have dragged the 500is into my music set-up and vica-versa. Moving the Finals is a breeze, moving the Summits a chore, but one gets curious.

Here are my observations, the Summits have way more high end information, the Final 600i sounds rolled off by comparison. Some have decribed this difference as "harsh", but I have heard harsh and the Summits with tubes sound nothing like that, just wonderfully extended in the top in ways that no tweeter can approach. It is indeed the lack of crossover between midrange and top that makes strings and piano overtones so beguiling. The subtle harmonies over a concert piano are better described by the Summit, they deliver more micro information.

So why not use Summits in the 5-channel set up? There is of course the price (an all ML set would cost 30-40% more), but a full range five channel system without crossovers has a coherence that cannot be imagined.
Most films are at least 90% dialogue (other than most Hollywood pulp which stresses boom-boom), and the Finals all speak with the SAME voice, giving an overall transparency to human voice that approaches bodies in the room or on the stage.

One thing has suprised me though, I expected the flat panel Finals to have a narrower sweet spot than the curved Summits. It turns out that the Final disperse the sound equally over a much broader area. The Final membrane is configured over four ever widening bands from the center and this seems to project sound in broader patterns. My three-seater couch has even dispersion over it's full width.

To answer some questions raised by others, Final has made speakers for at least 7 years, they have an US office and distribution center not just an importer. They are made in the Netherlands where they have a very good reputation. They have shown their line at the last three CES shows where I first heard them.

In short, I would not replace my Summits in my music room, but I would replace them in a jiffy if or when ML makes a version with a larger ESL panel. I still think they lack the ultimate authority in the midrange.
Listening to film soundtracks, which are mostly manufactured sound anyway, the Final identical full rang voicing offer some real advantage over the crossover in the Summit (where is the CLS when you really need it?).

Picture attached.

 

[IWalker]

Very true, Dreamer...that remains to be seen in my personal case. Being an overseas company means that the dealer and distributor become a bigger factor in the customer service relationship. In my research, it looks like the old final models had some issues, but the new ones have been pretty solid.

 

[[email protected]]

......................

Denmark is not the Netherlands where Final is made. They are not even neighbouring countries and have very little in common other than being in Europe.

 

[IWalker]

I own a two channel system with Summits and a five channel all Final set-up with 600is front, 400i center and 150is as rear channels, with a Descent to handle 40 cycles and below. The 2-channel set-up is all tube and the 5 channel is SS. I use both systems for exclusively for their own purpose, but I have dragged the 500is into my music set-up and vica-versa. Moving the Finals is a breeze, moving the Summits a chore, but one gets curious.

Here are my observations, the Summits have way more high end information, the Final 600i sounds rolled off by comparison. Some have decribed this difference as "harsh", but I have heard harsh and the Summits with tubes sound nothing like that, just wonderfully extended in the top in ways that no tweeter can approach. It is indeed the lack of crossover between midrange and top that makes strings and piano overtones so beguiling. The subtle harmonies over a concert piano are better described by the Summit, they deliver more micro information.

QUOTE]

Very interesting impressions. Thanks. I thought the same thing might be true at first...but then listening again, found that detail retrieval seemed pretty equal between the two to my ears...and the harshness I heard wasn't adding more information...it was masking the detail...so when the harshness was present....the final's actually seemed to present more nuance/detail. It almost seemed like what I would assume "beaming" sounds like, at high frequencies...but that's just a shot in the dark.

With tubes, I think it varies by tube amp manufacturer and the tubes used in the amp, but I think they have a tendency to roll off the highs of the MLs (due to an inherent disadvantage in handling the lower impedences), while accentuating the mid-treble (that's a difference i've measured by adding tubes into my system) - which would mask any issue that's arising in the HF, and also accentuate the feeling of additional detail. Just from a design standpoint,(as I understand it) the drawback of a curved panel is general "smearing" of the sound, while a flat panel shouldn't have that issue. The benefit is better dispersion characteristics. If the dispersion of the finals are good with a flat panel, it seems to, from purely a design perspective, have an advantage. Glad you enjoy the summits though, even if our impressions are different!

I definitely want to have the chance to compare tube to solid state on the finals, and on the summits as well...as my impressions are off a single audition, with a single set of gear.

 

[Beat_Dominator]

...Just from a design standpoint,(as I understand it) the drawback of a curved panel is general "smearing" of the sound, while a flat panel shouldn't have that issue. The benefit is better dispersion characteristics. If the dispersion of the finals are good with a flat panel, it seems to, from purely a design perspective, have an advantage....

This "smearing" has been attached to ML speakers since the beginning. Must we assume that no improvements have been made to the curvilinear design?

Conversely, I would love to know what ML could do with a flat-paneled design

 

[IWalker]

Went back and spent another evening with the speakers (they move to my place on saturday). Did some A/Bing again (stayed for about 4 hours) and stand by my first impressions. The comparison of vocal for me, which was particulary present on Norah Jones' first CD, was that the summits sounded like she was singing through a mic, while the finals sounded like she was singing about 4 ft behind the speaker in person. There was a hollower sound to the summits than the finals.

I'll post impressions one more time, once I get these back to my place...and hook up my arrays and sub...can't wait!

 

[Joey_V]

Went back and spent another evening with the speakers (they move to my place on saturday). Did some A/Bing again (stayed for about 4 hours) and stand by my first impressions. The comparison of vocal for me, which was particulary present on Norah Jones' first CD, was that the summits sounded like she was singing through a mic, while the finals sounded like she was singing about 4 ft behind the speaker in person. There was a hollower sound to the summits than the finals.

I'll post impressions one more time, once I get these back to my place...and hook up my arrays and sub...can't wait!

For me,

As I moved upstream... I noticed that the Summits were more resolving with what appeared to me as people sounding like they're singing into a mike. Summits are notoriously good at getting out of the way of the recording and projecting INTO the room. And this is one aspect I LOVE LOVE LOVE about the Summits.

So your impressions do not surprise me.

As to whether it sounds hollow or not... I think it sounds more transparent.... and the end result of whether or not you enjoy the musical piece is more dependent on the recording than on the Summits themselves.

IMO.

Joey

 

[slowGEEZR]

I briefly listened to the 1000i's today at Galen Carol's in San Antonio. I was there to pick up a new VPI cleaning machine. The 1000's definitely sounded different to my ears than the ML's I've heard, but there was something wrong. The imaging was wrong and there was not the fullness of sound I'm use to hearing. I only listened for a short while. As I was begining to leave, Galen came out to my car to tell me the speakers had been wired out of phase. Hah! No wonder I wasn't that impressed! He also mentioned that he hadn't played with the speaker positioning, yet. Based on the what I heard that was good, I will definitely go back for another listen. But, I'll give him time to play with the setup! - Steve

PS. The speakers use a wall wort to supply a DC voltage to the panels, rather than AC like the MLs.

 

[IWalker]

For me,

As I moved upstream... I noticed that the Summits were more resolving with what appeared to me as people sounding like they're singing into a mike. Summits are notoriously good at getting out of the way of the recording and projecting INTO the room. And this is one aspect I LOVE LOVE LOVE about the Summits.

So your impressions do not surprise me.

As to whether it sounds hollow or not... I think it sounds more transparent.... and the end result of whether or not you enjoy the musical piece is more dependent on the recording than on the Summits themselves.

IMO.

Joey

Yeah...who's to say what's more accurate to the true recording...(I'm sure it could be tested) but the sound was much less coherent and less accurate to the actual instruments (I can't attest to voices...since I haven't heard the people I was listening to in person) ... The string instruments (I played violin and/or viola for 13 years, and in a semi-pro orchestra) to me just sound MORE right on the finals. The seem to provide that body to the music that the body of the instruments vibrating (not just the strings themselves) gives to the sound. It's at the point for me now, having changed things around so much in the last few months, that I'm finally just happy. Don't care if the summits are "better." I like the finals better Just satisfied to sit back and listen without thinking about what could be done better. Would definitely love to have you over for an audition if you ever find yourself in the Charlotte area. There are sick people in need of services here too, you know!!!

 

[Joey_V]

Understood, Walker.

 

[FireStealth]

The fact that the impedance of a Final Stat never drops below 4 Ohm may very well contribute the the difference in sound, because especially the Summit requires an almost perfect amplifier to handle the 0.7 Ohm dip around 20Khz

FireSpy

 

[raygunn]

Hmmm...

The fact that the impedance of a Final Stat never drops below 4 Ohm may very well contribute the the difference in sound, because especially the Summit requires an almost perfect amplifier to handle the 0.7 Ohm dip around 20Khz

FireSpy

A very telling statement indeed.
So actually, what you are saying is that the Final's do not tax your amplifier as the Summits did.
That certainly does not make for a very level playing field. I have heard ML's sound horrific due to mediocre and unstable amplification.

I can only wonder what your impressions of the Final vs. the Summit would be if you heard each under ideal amplification conditions. I'm thinking that the Summit would fair better in such an even-handed comparison.

Cheers,
Ray

 

[FireStealth]

Hi,

I was just making a general remark.

I am sure we cannot blame Final for coming with a new technology that has a few improvements over other more classic electrostat manufactures, like wider despersion with a flat panel without any smearing, output impedance not lower than 4 Ohms, lower X over frequncy for the elctrostat itself (65 Hz for the Final 400i of 3 K per set),
do we.

Right now I am in the stage of comparing technologies.

I have no favorite brand or model in mind right now.

After that I will test the real thing and make A/B comparisons.



All in order to choose the best solution for my goal, which is get the most out of enjoying the music,

regards,

FireStealth

 

[raygunn]

Understood....

I myself have tried different Electrostatic technologies over the years and it seems that they are all a compromise in some way (have you ever heard of ES Translator? They were designed by a Michael Driver in California).

Anyway, I just wanted to point out what may be obvious to you or to me but perhaps not to all who read this thread. The speaker is the end of a chain of components and if the speaker in some way forces any component in that chain to function outside of its ideal operatiing conditions, things start to disintegrate very quickly.

Please keep us posted on the Finals. I am fascinated with companies that take a fresh approach to ES panel design and construction!!

Cheers,
Ray