Another of the 'Planar Pioneers' has passed, I was happy to have owned several pairs of his speakers.
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/jim-winey-1934-2024/
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/jim-winey-1934-2024/
Jim Winey - RIP
- Thread starter twich54
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
It's amazing to me that this technology has been around so long. It seems so advanced and the sound to me is so much better than conventional speakers. Why hasn't it gone more mainstream? I guess it's the expense of making the speakers?
I hope he has family or friends just as talented as him to take over his legacy.
I hope he has family or friends just as talented as him to take over his legacy.
Robert, for any planar, di-pole speaker, including ML stats, sufficient 'space' is paramount to optimal sound. For all my years of owning such speakers I NEVER heard a pair sound their best without at least 4-6' to 'breath' behind them.
Last edited:
amey01
Well-known member
The size of them
The space required around them
Amplifier requirements
Problems encountered (dust, buzzing, replacing panels, humidity)
Maintenance
Separate power input
Poor bass
Yes, they're magic at what they do well - but there are enough shortcomings to keep most people away.
Good points. I think the biggest obstacle is cost. I know guys that want some bad, but they don't have the funds and dont really know how to search for used. Many people only want to buy new. Of course, as you point out, the amp needs to be sufficient too and thats another expense.
amey01
Well-known member
Yep - cost of amp and other ancillaries.
If I think about it, I certainly wouldn't have them if I didn't have a dedicated room. They're really just not practical for a normal living area used by a family. In terms of the space they need, the space the supporting electronics require, keeping them clean and dust free, having to power them with AC, etc.
And if you value any aspects of the sound that panels don't do "best" (ie, almost everything but the midrange), then you'll probably get more enjoyment elsewhere too.
You can add sound - many find the sound "strange", either you love it or you find it too sterile
I don't have a dedicated listningroom but a "multipurpose" one used for dedicated listning, home cinima, party, even my gym. So perfect for nothing but good for everything and we find the sound excellent - i prefer the LS to my STAX 007 earspeakers (which is what STAX call them). Reviews talks about a mayching HiFi would be USD 50.000+.
Leporello
Well-known member
"J10"'s anecdote of mistaking Rubenstein's playing--I believe he was still living then--reproduced through the Maggies, with the real thing is one he has told before. One thing he mentions near the end of his tribute is the changing reviewing standards with the increasing predominance of "rock and rap and electronica of all types", a change I am less sanguine about than he is. Though I'm by no means a 100% classical guy, I don't care much for live amplified concerts, especially loud amplified concerts. I consider the ability of a system to reproduce sounds that never existed before the mixing console less important than to reproduce the "absolute sound". But these days, at shows, I practically have to beg the demonstrators--including ML's Dennis--to put on something acoustic.
It wasn't always that way. Back when the NYC show was run by Stereophile, when it wasn't classical it was usually vocals by Dianna Krall et al. To me the very best at reproducing the "absolute sound" were always ESL's, though people with other priorities of faults versus virtues feel differently. To me Maggies have a very natural, easy to listen to sound, but lack the "jump factor" of 'stats. But Jim Winey was every bit as much a pioneer as Arthur Janszen, Arnie Nudell, Jim Strickland and Gayle Sanders (many of whom are also gone now).
A lot of guys says "this or that sounds so naturel". Always puzzled me how you judge this unless you have the original performed next to you or you compare in the mixing room as the engineer does it. And since, at least i don't, doos one not go with what sound the best? Goes with out saying that you have to get your system set-up correctly so imaging etc. is as close to correct in one's listingroom.
I was fortunate to be able to make such a comparison at the Stereophile show in SF (I think it was 1989). Amanda McBroom performed on stage and the speakers used were none other than ML Sequels which I have used since I purchased them new in 1987. I frequently used her "Dreaming" album for evaluating my home system when deciding on set-up or changing components. I also ran into her in the tunnels under the venue and spoke to her very briefly; so I have a sense for her "natural" voice. I am 100% convinced that ML speakers are capable of producing natural sound with the right components driving them.
I will have to say that Sound Labs are just as capable though. I was walking down a hallway that the same show and heard what I would have sworn was a live performance coming from one of the rooms. When I reached the room where the music was coming from, I found Sound Lab A-1s were the source. They were being driven by KSS OTL monoblocks with sixteen (16) 6550s each and a CEC CD player. I was mesmerized by every track that I listened to across multiple genres of music especially classical orchestral pieces. I think if I had a room big enough I would have bought a pair A-1s. That said, I have loved my Sequels and am on my 3rd set of panels.
That was back in the late 80s. Do you think today's tech sounds even better? I was graduating from high school then and had no money. I'd never even heard a nice system. My dad's home stereo was one he bought from Sears. I can't remember the brand. One of those systems in a box. The receiver, turn table, and tape decks were all one piece,lol. My dad still uses it today. Still works at least!
Like this:
Last edited:
amey01
Well-known member
In a case of "(time + ebay = $$)", those '80s stereos (they like to call them "hi-fis", but I can't do that) can fetch a pretty penny these days.
I hadn't heard a decent sound system in those days either - but I certainly appreciated "better than what I had". So I walked into a hi-fi store with the intention of buying something better and my mouth dropped open at stuff I didn't even know existed.
The rest is history - a lifetime customer right there.
Leporello
Well-known member
It's very subjective. Memory of sounds is not very reliable. And what sounds natural or convincing at first hearing may not stand up under more critical listening. But the more often you can convince yourself it sounds real the more fun it is. That's what this hobby boils down to.
It has nothing to do with the emotional content of a great performance or composition. You can get that from a scratchy 78. People who justify kilobuck expenditures for "the music" are deluding themselves. You can get the emotional essence from a pirated crappy mono recording of Charlie Parker in a smoke filled jazz club, so long as the recording isn't so bad as to be actively annoying. It's just more fun if it sounds real. That's my opinion, anyway.
With my setup now, I've heard some sounds in movies that sounds so real that I end up pausing the movie to see if it's real. Others watching with me are fooled too. That's always neat. Sounds like a clock ticking, plane flying over head, dog bark, etc. The dolby atmos setup really seems to make a difference. Sounds like a real grandfather clock north east of me.
Leporello
Well-known member
Those were sometimes called "rack systems", simulating individual components mounted in a rack, but they were all one piece.
I am older than some of you guys. In the late 80's I was lucky enough to own a SOTA Star Sapphire TT, PS Audio pre, Adcom 555 power amp and Acoustat 1+1 speakers. During my tours of the Stereophile shows, in NYC, I loved seeing and hearing all the gear but the only ones I would have traded in my gear for were the ESL systems. One highlight was Sound Lab A3's driven by Jeff Rowland electronics, playing a Chesky reissue of Reiner and the CSO playing Risky-Korsakov's Scheherazade, a recording I knew very well at the time. Another was a Sound by Singer demo with ML CLS II's playing a Dallas Symphony recording of Rachmaninoff's "Symphonic Dances". I grabbed that recording at the show. I still have that SOTA table, which still gets regular use. I finally got the CLS II's (pre-owned) a few years ago, which replaced a pair of Ascents.
I can only say the same, but also from my old system.
Leporello
Well-known member
One thing I will say is, while I still don't believe "all amps sound the same", they sound more the same than they did then, due to tighter tolerance and higher quality components and better construction techniques. If you spend more than 4 figures on an amp today you are chasing very rapidly diminishing returns.
It seems like the older gear from back then was built better. Like my father's stereo that still works like new and its over 40 years old! Some stuff these days, like my crappy Marantz receiver, only last about 7 years. Tvs don't last long at all.
I always wanted Adcom! They had really nice amps for car stereos too. I did own a very nice Alpine car stereo setup. Several small Alpine amps that the shop called "popcorn amps". Later on I upgraded to a big Alpine. The Adcom amp was out of reach for me because of cost.
To me the projector wins over the HDR TV. Vinyl wins over over other sourses. But why? I think these sources requires that you built yourself up to the event, meaning you start programming both your head and evening ahead. Projector the big big screen, big sound, the imperfect HDR image but a true cunematic ambiance, getting the old fashioned popcorn machine crancked up, the light setting set before it starts (have philips hue), etc.
And the same with the vinyls - finding that album, having the cover in your hands making that physical playlist (with room to play something else when appropriate) looking through (or perhaps listening) the scratches somehow adding to the experiense. Feamale/male voice as standing in the room etc. To me just a perfect imperfect thing creating the perfect evening.
Where I judge a bit on natural sound is when my wife sings througt the system it sounds the same (a bit louder though), and she can sing pretty OK ( l take over when we want the guests to go home
).You can persue the perfect and never achieve it one reason being that you wouldn't know because, IMO, you would need a A/B test all the time.
I'll head off to prepare the film and playlist for tonight
I would not compare a consumer rack system to a a hi-end component system. That said, within the category of consumer rack systems, advancements in tech have made it possible to manufacture systems that sound better than those sold 30 or 50 years ago. But, the best rack system with the newest tech still will not reproduce music as realistically as a well assembled high-end system.
I have an ARC D-70 MKII amp (very old, early ARC tech) that I have put up against some very costly, much newer tech solid state amps and at the end of the day decided to keep the old tech amp and sell the new tech amps. If a person has unlimited funds, they might be able to put together a better system than mine. But, I myself have reached a point of diminishing return where other than minor tweaking would dictate that continuing the search for audio nirvana would prevent me from enjoying the beautiful music I can already hear.
I will admit that when I first started putting my system together about 40 years ago, I often looked at equipment specs and the newest tech to decide which components to audition. It probably took me about 10 years to realize that specs had reached the point where they are almost meaningless because $200 rack system can have specs as good as a $10K component within any sensible measurement that might affect sound reproduction. There is something "magic" that a good system captures that is beyond measurement.
To be honest, when I evaluate changes I make in my system I don't so much listen to every detail or minutiae as I just feel. If the music makes me feel better then the change I made stays in the set-up. The truth is that when "everything" is right it just "feels" better. This is true regardless of the tech. I mean who goes out for live music and sits thinking: "the transient attack could be better or the bass needs more slam" Yeah, I know when the mix is bad and the lead singer's mic needs to be turned up but that is a different thing.
Last edited:
