First Audition of New Stats. Heresy to follow!

[IWalker]

I just spent the last few hours listening to the speakers I bought to replace my Quest Zs. The Final Sound 400is, (shown being unpacked in another thread by jtwrace), are 4' tall flat front stat panels that retail for around $3k. First, the caveat...being relatively diminuative(around the size of a Vista panel-taller but skinnier), and without the help of any powered woofers...there's definitely some lower bass missing (my sub and midbass arrays will be hooked up to it later...and I'll give an update then. (I'm also in a project to improve/update the woofer arrays)

But, how do they sound? In a word, phenomenal! The detail retrieval is as good or better than any speaker I've heard. Definitely has a similar sonic character to the logans (as you'd expect from another stat)...but has one MAJOR perceived improvement. These things move air! When you hear a string plucked...you can feel the
string reverberate. When tracy trapman's voice wavers...you can feel it. This quality makes a huge difference in terms of "body" of the music. A lot of music that I love...but never really listened to on the logans (even with the midbass array) because of that "thin" sound that made the music sound harsh...(ex. Killers-Hot Fuss (Mr. Brightside)) ... sounds great on these speakers (even without the needed bass enhancement). Yet, the music I loved on the Quests sounds even better to my ears as well (Tracy Chapman, Norah Jones, etc.)

Now for the real kicker. I'm auditioning these on Jason's (jtwrace) system (much nicer electronics than mine)...so it'll be interesting to see what they sound like on mine...but just did a number of A/B comparisons to jason's summits ...and I actually SIGNIFICANTLY prefer the new Finals over the SUMMITS! *GASP* Is this possible? Some of the harshness that I sometimes hear on the top end of horns and piano through the summits, sound much more coherent and natural on the Finals. I could be crazy. I've been called worse, and this was just a first audition... But I'm going to be one happy camper when I get these home!

*Flamesuit ON* Release the Hounds.

 

[Chris J.]

Final

Hello IWalker,

you're going to burn in hell!
Just kidding, enjoy your new speakers, they are still electrostatic :bowdown:

Happy Listening,
Chris.

 

[Joey_V]

In that case, Cherian should've let me audition his Finals...

 

[risabet]

Some of the harshness that I sometimes hear on the top end of horns and piano through the summits, sound much more coherent and natural on the Finals.

The magic of no crossover is the cause for your enthusiastic response and the proof for me is in the improved coherence you mention. No x-over is the best x-over and doing w/o one is the way to go, all things being equal. The lack of harshness is another benefit to no x-overs.

 

[Beat_Dominator]

Interesting impressions. I wish one of the HiFi magazines would do a 'stat shootout with Quad, ML, Final, and KingSound. I'd be interested to hear the strengths/weaknesses of the different methods used.

 

[IWalker]

Interesting impressions. I wish one of the HiFi magazines would do a 'stat shootout with Quad, ML, Final, and KingSound. I'd be interested to hear the strengths/weaknesses of the different methods used.

Very good idea! It'd have to be one that gets zero advertising dollars from any of them, though...

Even better, I think, would be to have a shootout of sorts...where a BUNCH of people can give their impressions...since everyone has a different set of preferences. See if there's any sort of clear winner among the group, or if it's broken up fairly evenly.

And don't forget Soundlab and audiostatic!

 

[IWalker]

The magic of no crossover is the cause for your enthusiastic response and the proof for me is in the improved coherence you mention. No x-over is the best x-over and doing w/o one is the way to go, all things being equal. The lack of harshness is another benefit to no x-overs.

Good point. Crossoverless...and flat, (though it seemed like it was the HF stuff that benefited, not the low end...which is where the ML Xover is, no?) I think are both benefits, though I didn't test the dispersion characteristics of them, so the benefits of the flat panel in the sweet spot might be reversed elsewhere. I'm going to completely ruin that crossoverless benefit when I tie in my other seakers/sub!

With the extra "body" that these things had...I just felt myself tapping my foot to music that normally just couldn't quite get me "involved."

 

[IWalker]

In that case, Cherian should've let me audition his Finals...

Definitely might be worth another listen! (I'd do them the honor of putting them on the good gear though, if it's worth the trouble)

I'd definitely love to hear your impressions of them, to see how they compare/contrast with mine!

For the 400s, I am in the rare position of having the bass panels to supplement the main lacking area for these (though the audition was done without them), so they will fit me as a full range speaker better than most...but I'm REALLY interested to hear a shootout at the $10k price point...between summits and 1000is...since both should have similar sonic range. Even the 600is would be interesting to hear in that comparison

 

[jtwrace]

I'm REALLY interested to hear a shootout at the $10k price point...between summits and 1000is...since both should have similar sonic range.

I will have pair of 1000is coming soon. As much as I hate to say it...the Finals panel was much better then the summit. I don't think the Summit can compare. I'm totaly blown away with them. Especially since the Final 400i is less then a third in cost. Imagine what the 1000i will sound like. OMG!!! I can't wait

 

[risabet]

Good point. Crossoverless...and flat, (though it seemed like it was the HF stuff that benefited, not the low end...which is where the ML Xover is, no?) I think are both benefits, though I didn't test the dispersion characteristics of them, so the benefits of the flat panel in the sweet spot might be reversed elsewhere. I'm going to completely ruin that crossoverless benefit when I tie in my other seakers/sub!

With the extra "body" that these things had...I just felt myself tapping my foot to music that normally just couldn't quite get me "involved."

Though the x-over is low on the ML the signal still pass through the caps and inductors which will affect the sound. Though expensive the Summits are still built to a price point and as such compromises had to be made.

 

[IWalker]

Thought the x-over is low on the ML the signal still pass through the caps and inductors which will affect the sound. Though expensive the Summits are still built to a price point and as such compromises had to be made.

Point taken! Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Charliemike]

Someone is unfairly taunting us with promises of pictures and I see no links

 

[jtwrace]

Someone is unfairly taunting us with promises of pictures and I see no links

Charliemike,

I always deliver when I promise....

http://www.martinloganowners.com/~tdacquis/forum/showthread.php?t=4369

 

[sleepysurf]

I got to audition a pair of the Final 400i's at a local Tampa Bay area dealer a few months back. They were indeed GOOD, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they outperformed ML's. For full-range sound, they absolutely must be paired with a fast subwoofer, so you're gonna hafta deal with a "crossover" one way or the other. ML's stator frames are a LOT more rigid, which I think is critical for better sound projection (Newtons 3rd Law... every action has an equal and opposite reaction). It seemed to me the entire Finals speaker sometimes resonated. The dealer was driving them with decent separates, but I forget which ones. Admittedly, I only listened to the 400i's for about 20 mins, and the larger panel versions might be more robust. I'll definitely try to give them a listen again if my dealer (St. Cecilia Sound Gallery in Clearwater) still has them.

 

[risabet]

I got to audition a pair of the Final 400i's at a local Tampa Bay area dealer a few months back. They were indeed GOOD, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they outperformed ML's. For full-range sound, they absolutely must be paired with a fast subwoofer, so you're gonna hafta deal with a "crossover" one way or the other. ML's stator frames are a LOT more rigid, which I think is critical for better sound projection (Newtons 3rd Law... every action has an equal and opposite reaction). It seemed to me the entire Finals speaker sometimes resonated. The dealer was driving them with decent separates, but I forget which ones. Admittedly, I only listened to the 400i's for about 20 mins, and the larger panel versions might be more robust. I'll definitely try to give them a listen again if my dealer (St. Cecilia Sound Gallery in Clearwater) still has them.

Yes to the x-over but you can still drive the panel full range and simply roll out the woofer. Thus the panel is still x-over less. I'll need to find a final dealer in the LA area and take a listen.

 

[IWalker]

I got to audition a pair of the Final 400i's at a local Tampa Bay area dealer a few months back. They were indeed GOOD, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they outperformed ML's. For full-range sound, they absolutely must be paired with a fast subwoofer, so you're gonna hafta deal with a "crossover" one way or the other. ML's stator frames are a LOT more rigid, which I think is critical for better sound projection (Newtons 3rd Law... every action has an equal and opposite reaction). It seemed to me the entire Finals speaker sometimes resonated. The dealer was driving them with decent separates, but I forget which ones. Admittedly, I only listened to the 400i's for about 20 mins, and the larger panel versions might be more robust. I'll definitely try to give them a listen again if my dealer (St. Cecilia Sound Gallery in Clearwater) still has them.

Thanks for your impressions! You're right about the sub...and I can't wait to mate it to my rythmik servo...I'll post more impressions then. I'm also going to be putting my woofer array's into the mix...so that's another crossover involved. Passive crossovers have certain issues that active crossovers don't as well, though...so hopefully it will work out well.

Panel to panel, though...what the final panel DOES do, I think it does better than the ML panel. If you can live with or adjust for its limitations, it's a killer panel.

I'll post impressions whenever I get to hear the 1000is, though at that point, it's no longer a value proposition...so they must REALLY wow me (even in comparison to the 400s..since they cost over 3 times as much!) For the price, IN THE RIGHT SYSTEM, the 400s are great.

I'll check out what you said about rigidity...though in my pair of dipole woofers (they're not particularly well built...or rigid (rebuild in the works)), there's really no movement. I think it's much less of an issue with dipoles than it is with closed box systems.

 

[IWalker]

Another point to note...these things are lower efficiency than most logans...so probably need some pretty solid amplification to sound good at volume. My audition was on a Pass X250, and sounded great (but the meter was showing more power usage per given volume than on the summits)

 

[JonFo]

OK, first you espouse heresy with the consideration of BG ribbons for your DIY array, and now you tout these Final things as the superior ESL panel.

I’m warming up the Tar and plucking the feathers right now….



Just kidding

I also agree that one of biggest benefits you are probably hearing is the lack of a passive crossover.

As all of you who have read my posts in the past few years know, I am totally convinced actives are the only way to go for maximum purity. Heck, even inserting a 1 Ohm load in front of the ESL transformer induces a significant 10Khz dip in the frequency response. Image what the rest of that crap does to the sound.

So a valid shoot-out would be between the Final panel and an ML panel, minus the passives. I happen to have a room full of the later, so if you ever want to try a comparisons (and we can do ETF measurements as well), just pop me a note and we can set up a time.

Another point is that the Final panel is flat, and therefore has different dispersion characteristics than the curvilinear panel of an ML. Does that factor into your sound preference?

A flat panel will likely engage fewer room reflections, but will also give a much smaller listening area, correct?

 

[IWalker]

OK, first you espouse heresy with the consideration of BG ribbons for your DIY array, and now you tout these Final things as the superior ESL panel.

I’m warming up the Tar and plucking the feathers right now….



Just kidding

I also agree that one of biggest benefits you are probably hearing is the lack of a passive crossover.

As all of you who have read my posts in the past few years know, I am totally convinced actives are the only way to go for maximum purity. Heck, even inserting a 1 Ohm load in front of the ESL transformer induces a significant 10Khz dip in the frequency response. Image what the rest of that crap does to the sound.

So a valid shoot-out would be between the Final panel and an ML panel, minus the passives. I happen to have a room full of the later, so if you ever want to try a comparisons (and we can do ETF measurements as well), just pop me a note and we can set up a time.

Another point is that the Final panel is flat, and therefore has different dispersion characteristics than the curvilinear panel of an ML. Does that factor into your sound preference?

A flat panel will likely engage fewer room reflections, but will also give a much smaller listening area, correct?

I'm going to try to make it down to your GTG, if I'm free...and would definitely be interested to hear that shootout...especially since I think the sl3 panel you have is of similar size to the final. As I likely won't have my own closed back array (using maybe the Usher 8945A instead of the P if it's going to do only bass duty) finished by then, it'd be very interesting to hear the final with your array as well, (I've come around on the sealed vs dipole bass array) .

If there are any 600is around at that point, by someone else attending (I think jtwrace indicated he'd be interested in going, and he's the one who would have them) that might make for a fun comparison as well. The 1000is would be great...but might be a tad large to try to transport (even though they're remarkably light!)

The crossover certainly may have something to do with it...but there are other aspects as well I think. The flat panel likely has much to do with it...I didn't spend much time listening off axis, so can't speak to that yet.

The 2 big things that I liked a LOT that keep coming back to mind, are 1. the elimination of that described harshness that I SOMETIMES have heard from the logans (in fact, in brief A/Bing against the summits, (this is not meant as a true A/B test...so don't punch holes in the test procedure, please)) everytime I'd hear a part I remembered being harsh, and it wasn't...I'd know without a doubt it was the finals...and if I heard that harsh sound...I'd know for sure it was the summits. I was 100% in guessing during that short little test.

2. The sense of "body"/dynamics/weight. No idea what caused this...and JonFo's crossoverless MLs could very well do the same thing...but I enjoyed it.



The normal caveat applies to this...this is MY taste...and others may think differently, or have different priorities (1 box solution, etc.) that make these finals not fit as well. But I think they're certainly worth an audition for any stat lover who's looking for something a little different.

 

[jtwrace]

A flat panel will likely engage fewer room reflections, but will also give a much smaller listening area, correct?

JonFo,

I always enjoy reading your posts. They are full of knowledge and input. I find the flat panel amazing. I must say that the photos I have posted show that the setup is far from ideal (i.e. in front of the Summits, not spaced apart enough etc) The panel rigidity from the Final to Summits is better. Please remember the 400is that we are comparing are still only $3,000. I can tell you that I have been disgusted with the strength of some of the other ML panels. I will not bash their products though as this is not about that. I will say that I always have and alway will love the ML sound. BUT the Final has that sound that I've been seeking from a stat. Oh, I've never heard it, even from Quads.

As far as the listening area goes. I actually find the Final to be wider and taller and the presentation to suit MY taste better. It's just spot on. The realistic sound truly captivates me. The cymbals sound like cymbals the strings sound like strings and a piano has NEVER I mean NEVER sounded like a real piano in front of me like these do. I look forward to receiving the 1000is.