Weakness of Electrostatics

[JonFo]

Is the 260 dBx a digital processor/equalizer? Does it have provision for simply throughput for high pass or must it be processed as well?

Ted, The 260 is a full suite of speaker management tools. You feed it two channels and it can output up to three independent channels per input.
Each output can have no processing (a pass-through as I think you’re asking about), or it can have any number of interesting things applied to it.
You can cross-over, EQ, delay, phase adjust and post process EQ.

I'd be hard pressed to find a speaker management problem this puppy can't address.
It is a pro level piece of gear and uses balanced interconnects at pro levels of gain, so you must use appropriate cabling and gain matching solutions. See my site for how I deployed.

 

[JonFo]

Update post-Midbass line array build

OK, so I’ve drunk my own Kool-Aid regarding some of the recommendations and theories listed in this thread.

As many of you know (if not, read the SL3XC build thread) the new center system features a line array of mid-bass drivers to address this critical frequency range.

I’m happy to report that my theories and expectations have all been proven to my satisfaction. It does indeed take a substantial amount of mid-bass capability to keep up with the ESL panels at high SPL.

Listening to music in the >90db average range is now very satisfactory across the frequency range. It really does take tremendous output at low and mid bass frequencies to maintain the balance with the ultra-clean output of the ESL drivers.

Also, maintaining low distortion (another aspect that has the be keep in balance) requires lots of driver radiating area in the low frequencies. The six mid-bass drivers in the line array I built do a wonderful job of producing very high SPLs with incredibly low distortion (the full frequency, in-room THD of the new center is an amazingly low 0.59%). This translates into pleasing sound that does not sound ‘loud’ even when playing with peaks of 105db.

I’m now thoroughly convinced that the ideal design needs to include sufficient mid-bass output, which is why CLS and Monoliths sounds very nice, especially if the rear wave is damped at the mid-bass. Other designs can sound great if sized appropriately to the rooms and correctly treated.

But this experience has underscored for me the correctness of the Statement e2 design as well.

 

[bonesetter]

My previous speakers were the Nautilus 802. I was initially wowed by the gigantic scale and slam of realism that came from them. But, after a year or so of owning them I became tired with them - for slam is tiring, and so I left B&W with the view that they are a traditional sounding, one might say British sounding speaker. I wanted excitement.

So, I went after something more musical, with more 'soul' as it were. I auditioned the Vantage and Summit in my home for some weeks. The panel was very seductive and the transparency simply amazing, but apart from the panel/woofer integration issue I thought they were just not quite right. The soundstage was, for want of a better description like I was looking at a pane of glass. It was flat and didn't seem to have the depth and width I have experienced in the past - especially with monitors (flame proof suit on!). The latest version of the Quad ESL is also similar in this respect.

I am not bashing ML, I'm just saying they are not for me

 

[sleepysurf]

Bonesetter, looks like you finally settled on the Zu Druids. Do they really create a deeper and wider soundstage than the Vantage or Summit? Did you audition the Zu Definitions also? I'd be curious to hear more about how the Zu's compare to the ML's.

 

[roberto]

My previous speakers were the Nautilus 802. I was initially wowed by the gigantic scale and slam of realism that came from them. But, after a year or so of owning them I became tired with them - for slam is tiring, and so I left B&W with the view that they are a traditional sounding, one might say British sounding speaker. I wanted excitement.

So, I went after something more musical, with more 'soul' as it were. I auditioned the Vantage and Summit in my home for some weeks. The panel was very seductive and the transparency simply amazing, but apart from the panel/woofer integration issue I thought they were just not quite right. The soundstage was, for want of a better description like I was looking at a pane of glass. It was flat and didn't seem to have the depth and width I have experienced in the past - especially with monitors (flame proof suit on!). The latest version of the Quad ESL is also similar in this respect.

I am not bashing ML, I'm just saying they are not for me

Hola Bonesetter. For critical listening, the new products from ML needs some work, and the combination with electronics and cables. Also they need to be more toe-in than the old panel, for the sense of depth and size of the instruments. The problem that I have with other speakers is that my ears are very sensitive to distortion, and the clean sound of ML is very difficult to match unless by other electrostatic speaker. To my liking and my ears, the piano is easier to listen, the left hand and also the soul, the nuance, the shade of the musician playing for you is more evident. There is no ping-pong notes any more. And the natural resonance of the instruments are so real that I have not found yet any other that matches this feature at the same price range. Please, don´t get me wrong here. Of course there are in the market place other very muscial, pleasant speakers, but you have to pay a lot more to get this. The spanish guitar, classical guitar, the F sharp and the B flat resonates right on ML. This notes have a natural resonance that allow a guitar player to understand the fingering at the board and the way that the strings were plucked. The inner detail, the right size, the presence of the musician in your room is breath taking. Of course they are not perfect but which is?...perhaps you have not found the right combination in electronics with them...of course you have the right to dislike, but when I found people like you, that you did like ML products before, my advise is...keep trying...cables are important in the sound chain, change them, use different brands and composition like silver or copper or the combination between them...don´t give up. When you are going to test, use solo instruments or voice, it is better this way to understand what you are getting. Dynamics are much better with better focus sound, air between instruments and the size of the scenario. At the begining, to adjust the right bass in your room, take all the controls at the minimum position (Summits or vantage) and with solo piano, give the tonal balance that you feel it is right there in your room...and keep it there...soon you will in love with their sound as some of us are...happy listening,
Pura vida,
Roberto.

 

[bonesetter]

Bonesetter, looks like you finally settled on the Zu Druids. Do they really create a deeper and wider soundstage than the Vantage or Summit? Did you audition the Zu Definitions also? I'd be curious to hear more about how the Zu's compare to the ML's.

sleepysurf, no haven't settled with the Druids. I bought them not so long ago to ‘try’, and they’re still here until I get something I’m more happy with. They are an enjoyable, fun, and comfortable to listen to speaker. But, very different to a panel – nothing like the transparency, although there’s no shortage of emotion and involvement. All with no listener fatigue. Reminds me of the 'old fashioned' type of full range speaker with its single driver.

Roberto, I did try all sorts, and all manner of music and positioning. The dealer came over to my house and said the Summit was 70% ‘there’ and with tweaking they would probably get to a little over 80 (room acoustics being left alone etc).

The other thing is the Summit here in the UK is 15,500 USD and for the same money I can buy something like the Peak Consult InCognito X which is a much more refined speaker, with immense soundstaging, imaging
and all the (more natural) slam of B&W

 

[Bimotarich]

B&W 604s V ML SL3s

I made the switch from B&W 604S2s to ML SL3s about 6 months ago (the 604s are now my rear channels in a 5.1 surround system (not HT but music via DVD-A). The SLs sound a bit smoother, more relaxed, with more detail than the B&Ws. I can listen to them all day long and not feel any fatigue. I hear things in the music that I had never heard before. And as for the bass.. well I would say that there really is not so much difference... in fact I have the bass turned down -3db via back panel switch on the SLS... the B&Ws are excellent speakers... and for the price VERY good.. but the SL3s are better in my opinion (but 2x the cost) at least for everything but extremely loud music (which I admit I do listen to). So for everything short of full on speed metal... I like the SLs better.

 

[Joey_V]

I have realized that much of a system's capability is determined by the amp... though source and pre's may have just as much influence, that talk is for another day.

The amp, I realized AGAIN, is very crucial. I cannot go back to the 1070 now that I have the 1090 hooked up. There is beauty when the image focus just snaps THAT much more!

So... moral of the story, make sure your Oddyssey is getting it's due power!

 

[Rik_Rankin]

My previous speakers were the Nautilus 802. I was initially wowed by the gigantic scale and slam of realism that came from them. But, after a year or so of owning them I became tired with them - for slam is tiring, and so I left B&W with the view that they are a traditional sounding, one might say British sounding speaker. I wanted excitement.

So, I went after something more musical, with more 'soul' as it were. I auditioned the Vantage and Summit in my home for some weeks. The panel was very seductive and the transparency simply amazing, but apart from the panel/woofer integration issue I thought they were just not quite right. The soundstage was, for want of a better description like I was looking at a pane of glass. It was flat and didn't seem to have the depth and width I have experienced in the past - especially with monitors (flame proof suit on!). The latest version of the Quad ESL is also similar in this respect.

I am not bashing ML, I'm just saying they are not for me

I found the Summit and vantage to be missing that "chesty" lower mid range and rounded high frequencies that made them so musical. To me the new ones sound sterile on top even with top of the line Classe separates with a bright overly revealing treble and that nice lower mid-range I described is gone. I wonder if someone other than Gayle designed these models since I heard he sold the company.