What do you NOT like about the sound of your MLs?

[Rich]

What I mean is entirely in the mid-band, where they can sound very "thin" with the right (make that wrong) material. Surely everone here knows what I am barking at when I say that if they own Ascents - or even Summits/Spires.

I own Ascents and Summits, and I firmly believe that what you are experiencing is not a speaker issue but an interaction issue with your room, your setup, or your equipment. I have experienced no thinness in the mid-band with either my Summits or my Ascents. In fact, with Roger Sanders' preamp and my Pass Labs X350.5 amp (in my untreated basement, no less), my Ascents sound incredibly warm and full through the midband. I have also heard Prodigies on many occasions (which is the same generation as the Ascent) and never heard them to sound thin or weak in the midband. Just the opposite, in fact.

I strongly suggest you play with setup, room treatments, or perhaps some other equipment. It could be that something in your current setup is a limiting factor, and you are not getting the most out of the speakers you have right now.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Tes as well as I did ?????????



Time for a real ML and a large panel to refresh your love . I personally agree with you on a few things. The smaller panels on the Accent are thin sounding to me. I prefer the older sound of a Quest with its rather large panel. Many new ML are not my cup of tea either. Now all you Summit owners do not get in a hizy and say its new technology. I LOVE the summit and the Spire. they use a different technology to get big sound from small package. However : the smaller panels of the older but newer than the original Logan's does sound a bit thin.

Go CLS and never look back. Large and in charge

Love the thoughts and arguements on this site. I totally disagree with these comments, CAP. I've heard four different pairs of CLS's in people's homes and all but one pair sounded "thinner" to me than my Aerius's. Why is that? Because of room acoustics. Everything is relative; it matters not one whit how wide the panel is unless you take the room into consideration. When I first moved my speakers into their new dedicated listening environment, they sounded thin. It wasn't until weeks of trial and error of positioning and acoustical treatments that the fullness of sound that I enjoy now came into being.

 

[User211]

I own Ascents and Summits, and I firmly believe that what you are experiencing is not a speaker issue but an interaction issue with your room, your setup, or your equipment. I have experienced no thinness in the mid-band with either my Summits or my Ascents. In fact, with Roger Sanders' preamp and my Pass Labs X350.5 amp (in my untreated basement, no less), my Ascents sound incredibly warm and full through the midband. I have also heard Prodigies on many occasions (which is the same generation as the Ascent) and never heard them to sound thin or weak in the midband. Just the opposite, in fact.

I strongly suggest you play with setup, room treatments, or perhaps some other equipment. It could be that something in your current setup is a limiting factor, and you are not getting the most out of the speakers you have right now.

Rich - let's try and qualify it a bit more.

My system sounds absolutely great with most stuff - when I come home from shows I am usually very happy with my system. It can sound warm, lush and very spacious with the right recordings.

However, MLs can and have always had a tendancy to sound thin in the mid with some recordings. With all the (half decent) dynamic speakers I have owned, it has never been a problem. However, I believe the dual diaphram used by the CLX stops this phenomenon - purely because of it's greater effective mass. I think it's this that stops good dynamic speakers from sounding thin too.

One thickness mylar can produce astonishing detail and it is ultra fast. But it is precisely this hyper-detailing/speed which can make it sound a bit "thin". This is especially true and becomes readily apparent with recordings with little bass, and prominent electric guitar playing, say, a la Jimi Hendrix.

I appreciate many may think I am wrong here. I don't think I am, though, and that's what counts!

I have run all sorts of amps (including solid state) through my Logans, and in various different rooms over the years. I have always thought this is the case with MLs.

Maybe I am just looking for an excuse to change speakers to some extent - there probably is quite a bit of truth in that. And let's face it, after the many years I have owned MLs, it really is time for a change... what remains to be seen is if I stick with the change - or revert back quickly!

Thanks for your concern and advice as to possible causes.

 

[Irishtom]

User---I don't understand what driver mass has to do with overall tonal balance of a speaker given I understand you correctly and tonal balance is the problem.

That said, I've no difficulty with the notion that your MLs have some inherant characteristics that you interpret as flaws. There's no perfect speaker nor even a consensus on what a perfect speaker should do.

 

[danman]

You mention that some recordings can sound thin in the mids, well that is my point concerning the smaller panels of today compared to say my Quests which have superb mids. You have much better bass response than I do but with my much bigger panels, I may still have a slight advantage. One model cannot do it all and this has been what has held me back from buying the newer models. I love mids and most music I listen to requires that the mids be clear and precise for my ears.

Like I said before, I have solved my bass problem by properly integrating a good sub and after much placement issues, have found the right spot that does not effect the timing of the panel. The difference is substantial and very satisfying. However, I don't know of a method to help your mid problem other than better placement and sound absorbers. Usually the room is the main problem and I would think that the quality speakers you have would not be the problem but I am not a reference for this.

I do believe that if you change, you will realise rather quickly that you may solve one problem only to discover another as there is NO perfect speaker. I am also sure that after a while you will miss the magical sound that Martin Logan offers. Good luck.

 

[jfm]

Justin,

I'm with you on this one. I love my hybrid MLs but the one thing I do not like is close to what you describe, the lack of meat on the bones. It's the same with every ML I've heard save one.

I suppose what I am also saying is that the one thing I don't like about them is that they are not CLXes.

 

[Rich]

Just so I can try to understand the logic in this thread . . . what frequency range are you guys considering to be "lower mids" where you hear this "thinness"?

I agree with IrishTom. I just don't see what diaphragm mass has to do with the overall tonal balance of the speaker. It seems to me what Justin is complaining about is more related to the transparency of ML's and how they show the inadequacies of poor recordings. Perhaps they are too accurate, and that is perceived as thin lower midrange on certain recordings.

Justin says that cone driven speakers don't exhibit this issue, and yet the hybrid ML's have a cone speaker for everything below about 300 hz. He says the CLX doesn't exhibit this problem because of the weight of the bass driver mass, and yet it handles very close to the same frequency range as the bass drivers on the hybrids. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Justin, you never answered my question and I am curious: Have you experimented with biamping your Ascents with tubes on the panels and powerful solid state amps on the woofers? This setup really makes a world of difference with the Ascent in my experience. Have you done any frequency response testing to see if you have a drop in the lower mids?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I really don't hear what you are hearing with my Ascents or my Summits and I am just trying to understand the issue.

 

[Craig]

Basically, the mid-range speed with no supporting weight makes them sound weak & thin. They have no weight because the driver (a piece of film) has no mass. There is no cure here, apart from the CLX, which cludges the thin film high freq. driver with what I predicted as a thicker sounding mid/bass unit. It works well.

Mass of the driver has no bearing on "weight" of the sound. The sounds wave themselves have zero mass but the air molecules they ride on have less mass than the film. Cone speakers have more mass but they try to make them as light as possible. Heavy cone speakers can sound thin too. I don't think the driver material has any effect on the sound being "thin" or "weighty".

I think you might be referring to dynamics when you say they lack weight. The more recent ML models seem to perform better with dynamics, especially the Vantage and Summits. You have some very nice tube amps but have you tried a powerful SS amp with the Ascents? Do you really use the sub at all? You mentioned you don't use the sub or have it down low when playing vinyl.

Lack of integration with the woofer or sub was true with the very early ML hybrid models but that just isn't the case anymore with more modern designs, improvements in crossovers and todays subwoofers. Yet the stigma lives on.

If all else fails then change to cone speakers. However, you may eventually miss the transparency and accuracy of MLs. Been there, done that and now I'm back again with a pair of Cremonas but with a difference this time...I kept my MLs. There are other very nice looking and sounding speakers out there.

A little change can be a good thing.

 

[Len44]

I also own both Ascents(i) and Summits, and must say I think Rich and Craig offer very solid insight. Biamping the Ascents made quite a difference, as did experimenting with placement and "managing" the room dynamics.

ML speakers are very revealing, and will quickly expose a poor recording or a weak amplifier (although the more recent MLs need less raw power than earlier models).

And, Oh Yes -- amplification (Quality and Power) does make quite a difference.

In any case, quite interested in the decisions to be made (or that have been made), and updated reports on how this all plays out.

 

[tonepub]

I appreciate many may think I am wrong here. I don't think I am, though, and that's what counts!

Thanks for your concern and advice as to possible causes.

Dude, you never think you are wrong... At least that is consistent!

I agree with the rest, it's an acoustic issue. I have the same problem in my living room, to an even greater extent than you do.

 

[JonFo]

I’ve found that room issues can cause a lack of what’s being called ‘dynamics’ (which is really due to mid-bass to mid-range suckouts from 150 to 500hz)

Since much of modern music is in that range, then room placement or other factors affecting that range will ‘tilt’ the presentation to other ranges, either to the bass if the sub is turned up to high, or to the upper-midrange / treble.

One thing that is ML specific is the huge sensitivity to placement, which leads to huge variances in how the mid-bass performs in a given room.
One of the reasons so many of us advocate and use good bass trapping and absorption panels on the walls behind the speakers is to mitigate the mid-bass cancelation a dipole is naturally susceptible to and to also mitigate the amount of reflected mid-range and treble energy, to further improve the ‘tilt’ issue.

But well setup, the ML’s can rock-out with the best dynamic speakers I’ve heard, and excel at the highs.

But if you can’t (or won’t) set them up to leverage their strengths and mitigate the weaknesses then you probably would be better off with a dynamic speaker. In general, they have fewer placement challenges. But remember, any speaker has room issues below about 300hz.

 

[repman]

having heard Jonathans system it has Dynamics and it ROCKS Hard

 

[User211]

Gulp!

I thought this thread might be dangerous!

I mean, essentially it's saying MLs have some issues that perhaps I don't like in a hardcore devotees site! And - it's coming from a long time hardcore devotee!

Of course, "it can't be the speakers - it must be something else", if you catch my drift.

Of all the posts (I can't answer them all) I think Rich is probably closest with:

I just don't see what diaphragm mass has to do with the overall tonal balance of the speaker. It seems to me what Justin is complaining about is more related to the transparency of ML's and how they show the inadequacies of poor recordings. Perhaps they are too accurate, and that is perceived as thin lower midrange on certain recordings.

It's precisely (as I indicated before) the thinness of the diaphragm that allows this to be the case. And I believe it is the overshoot of heavier dynamic drivers that prevent it, and add what most people perceive as extra dynamics. In some ways, as I am pretty sure most of us are aware, the speaker's strongest strength can also be it's worst enemy.

With maximum respect to JonFo, no room treatment can stop this fundamental nature of the ESL driver. What is weird is I have never heard it in Quad 2905s, ESL63s or 57s - but they all use grills that I think removes detail and "softens" the sound. All those Quads are pretty laid back and smooth, to my ears.

Also, those who read the thread properly - I am not proposing a change to dynamic speakers. I just want a change and am trying to get hold of some Apogees - nothing more, nothing less. Hell, I might not even like them. In which case I'll just pass them on.

There's a certain amount of insanity given my above judgement - I mean, Apogees use a light membrane, too, right? But I haven't heard any lack of weight in the ribbons I have heard in the past. Then again, they have been Analysis speakers and they use grills

Another possibility as to the cause may be the break up in the frequency response of the panels as measured by Hi-Fi News. Just check the tech. report on the Spire pubished recently. They always see this anomoly in MLs - not just the Spire. It's there and it exists, according the HFN. Then again, I have seen Stereophile measure the Prodigy and they didn't seem to find any such anomoly. It it the bigger panel preventing it? Or just Stereophile making bad measurements. Or even HFN? I don't know.

Maybe I ought to sling some stockings over my Ascents Try everything, right? Maybe that's not as stupid as it sounds. Then again...

Look, guys, I'll post a comparison thread about what I think when the Apogees arrive, and I can switch between both speakers.

Oh and JFM - right on!

 

[Rich]

I mean, essentially it's saying MLs have some issues that perhaps I don't like in a hardcore devotees site! And - it's coming from a long time hardcore devotee!

Of course, "it can't be the speakers - it must be something else", if you catch my drift.

Justin, please give us a little more credit than that. I and many others on the site have no problem acknowledging defects in ML's when we hear them. Much has been said on this site before about the small sweet spot, the poor integration with bass modules of many older hybrids, the perceived shortcomings of the newer, smaller panels, the congestion and breaking down of the soundstage exhibited on complex passages when driving them with inadequate amplification, and so on.

Yes, this is a fan site. But we aren't blind (or deaf). Yet you are proposing an issue that I have never heard or heard as a problem from other ML speaker owners, or from any reviewer, and quite honestly, the logic you are using does not appear to be based on any physical reality. You have yet to accurately describe what frequency band you are referring to, how the mass of the driver contributes to the perceived "weight" of the sound, or why you perceive this problem with ML's but not other electrostatic speakers (or why it is just a problem on some recordings but not others).

And honestly, you seem to have a tendency to spout off whatever comes off the top of your head without putting a whole lot of thought and reasoning into what you say. If you didn't contradict yourself so much, and provided an explanation based a little more on real science and a little less on your own off-the-wall untested hypotheses, it would add a lot of credibility to your argument.

It's precisely (as I indicated before) the thinness of the diaphragm that allows this to be the case. And I believe it is the overshoot of heavier dynamic drivers that prevent it, and add what most people perceive as extra dynamics.

So you are saying driver overshoot of dynamic drivers prevents this issue. Which is exactly what I said about you possibly not liking the accuracy of ML's and perhaps preferring the less accurate sound of a cone driver (at least in this one respect). Any particular reason you totally ignore my point about hybrid ML's using cone drivers for the majority of the frequency range for which the CLX uses an electrostatic driver? The same part of the frequency spectrum that most people think adds "weight" to music?

Also, although the CLX uses a dual-diaphragm bass driver, which may have twice the weight of a single-diaphragm ESL driver, the actual weight of the driver mass is still virtually nothing compared to a cone driver. I can assure you that the CLX driver does not suffer from overshoot. Which pretty well shoots down this theory since you say the CLX does not suffer from this problem due to its "greater mass." You have provided no logical reason why a dual-driver ESL panel can provide more "weight" to the music over the cone speaker in a hybrid ESL like the Summit or Ascent. I promise you that it has nothing to do with driver mass or overshoot.

With maximum respect to JonFo, no room treatment can stop this fundamental nature of the ESL driver.

Unless, of course, you are wrong and the problem is not the ESL driver, but the speaker's interaction with your room. Again, you completely ignored my question about whether you have done any frequency response testing in your room to see if you have a suckout of some sort that is causing this issue. But why would you want to take accurate scientific measurements? Since you are never wrong, what possible good could come from gathering data about your room's frequency response?

What is weird is I have never heard it in Quad 2905s, ESL63s or 57s - but they all use grills that I think removes detail and "softens" the sound.

But wait, didn't you just say above that this problem was the "fundamental nature of the ESL driver?" You seem to contradict yourself every other sentence. You say the CLX doesn't exhibit this problem because of the mass of its double layer bass driver, while ignoring that hybrids use a cone driver for the majority of this same frequency spectrum. You say the issue is "fundamental to the nature of the ESL driver" but then say it is only a problem on some recordings and that you don't hear it with Quads. You say no room treatment can solve this issue, but then say that the Quads don't exhibit the issue because the grill covers "softens" the sound. (By the way, grill covers would have absolutely NO effect in the frequency band which you are talking about. They may soften the highs, but would have no effect in the lower midrange).

You say it may be because of a frequency breakup measured by hi fi news, and yet in another thread you go on about how much Ken Kessler loves the Spire and the Summit. Did Kessler mention anything about midbass thinness in any of his reviews? Seems like a professional reviewer would notice and want to mention a lack of weight in the midband. You may very well believe that you are right. But you sure aren't making a very good case to convince anyone else.

Finally, since you have ignored the question twice now, I will just have to assume that you haven't tried biamping your Ascents. I propose that biamping your Ascents properly, combined with some good acoustic treatments in your room, will do more for your sound than any other upgrade you could make to your system.

Please note that I am not trying to convince you not to experiment with other speakers. Part of the fun of this hobby is experimenting with all kinds of technologies to find the right combination that works for you. All kinds of speaker drivers have their advantages and disadvantages. I just think that ESL's require a lot more work to set up properly to get the most out of what they are capable of, and I suspect that you are poo-pooing some of that advice and not realizing the full potential of your Ascents.

 

[Irishtom]

But well setup, the ML’s can rock-out with the best dynamic speakers I’ve heard, and excel at the highs.

I must respectfully submit that you haven't heard the right dynamic speakers, I'd find it very hard to believe that any MLs can match the dynamics of Altec Nineteens for instance, not to mention A7s and A5s and various "real" JBLs like the 3115.

I recently sold off quite a number of Altec and JBL horns and got MLs. And while I appreciate the formidable virtues of the MLs I ain't kiddin' myself they're a match in dynamics for a big horn system. But that's OK, I love them all the same.

 

[raanan]

Dynamics,thinness,etc.

Before getting CLSs,about 20 years ago,I had stacked QUAD 57s.
Even with the QUADs,I felt that they were not up to reproducing dynamic material.
When I got the CLSs,I did not have the money for a suitable amp,had to make do with a QUAD 405 for some time,before switching to a MOSCODE 600.
Later,someone brought over a KRELL KSA-100.Incredible dynamics,but awful,unrefined sound.
I would hasard a guess, that with the right amplifier,biamped,in order to relieve the panel amp of the need to drive the bass,and vice versa,lots of experimentation with placement,maybe even the addition of a sub for the lowest frequencies,the problem of dynamics may be overcome.
I should add that I also have modded JBL L200s with wooden horns and added on ribbon tweeters.The end result with the JBLs is not all that different from the CLSs with a sub.

 

[User211]

Justin, please give us a little more credit than that etc...

Great post Rich. I'll try and answer some of it later when I get the chance.

 

[spectral]

Gulp!
Also, those who read the thread properly - I am not proposing a change to dynamic speakers. I just want a change and am trying to get hold of some Apogees - nothing more, nothing less. Hell, I might not even like them. In which case I'll just pass them on.

If there is still time to offer some thoughts here, and to answer your original question... What I don't like about my MLs: diffuse images, not the ultimate in dynamics, a little glare in the midrange especially with female voices - fixed with the CLX (and potentially other models like Summit X, which I have not heard) as compared with the same electronics as mine but different MIT cabling. Having said that, there is a lot I like about my MLs, but you didn't ask for that.

Up until last year I also owned a pair of 25-year old Magnepan MGIIIa's in another system, and from this vantage point, my MLs cannot compete with that ribbon, period. I don't get the goosebumps like I did with Magnepans in terms of shear truth of timber in the upper midrange/treble.

So from my perspective, I have a feeling you are going to love the Apogees, and to be honest with you, I have been looking for a good pair myself. However, the last time I heard Apogees must have been over 20 years ago driven by Krell, and the sound just floored me back then (playing analog, of course).

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts when you do get your pair.

 

[User211]

I mean, essentially it's saying MLs have some issues that perhaps I don't like in a hardcore devotees site! And - it's coming from a long time hardcore devotee!

Of course, "it can't be the speakers - it must be something else", if you catch my drift.

Justin, please give us a little more credit than that. I and many others on the site have no problem acknowledging defects in ML's when we hear them.

I see how you’ve read that, Rich – it wasn’t meant to be discrediting, but I see your point 100%. But I do believe there’s a grain of truth in it, no?

Yes, this is a fan site. But we aren't blind (or deaf). Yet you are proposing an issue that I have never heard or heard as a problem from other ML speaker owners, or from any reviewer, and quite honestly, the logic you are using does not appear to be based on any physical reality.

Hey hold on – read some of the other posts: danman, Beakman, JFM etc... aren’t they agreeing – at least partially in some cases?

You have yet to accurately describe what frequency band you are referring to, how the mass of the driver contributes to the perceived "weight" of the sound, or why you perceive this problem with ML's but not other electrostatic speakers (or why it is just a problem on some recordings but not others).

It is pretty obvious that I am having a go at the ESL panel – at least in the ML hybrids I have heard. But I did say, and I have said on many occasions, why I think the Quads sound much more laid back. They have a dust cover and a fabric grill to fight through – and that does mute detail – at any frequency. I have always removed covers on my speakers, including the Ascent cone covers.

I have also quoted references to Hi-FI News’s findings and Stereophile’s, suggesting that another possible cause is the frequency break up measured by Hi-Fi News. What else am I supposed to do, write a dissertation on it?

As regards to specific frequencies, it’s difficult to be specific. But I always hear said “thinness” coming from the panel.

And honestly, you seem to have a tendency to spout off whatever comes off the top of your head without putting a whole lot of thought and reasoning into what you say. If you didn't contradict yourself so much, and provided an explanation based a little more on real science and a little less on your own off-the-wall untested hypotheses, it would add a lot of credibility to your argument.

But is that what I am really doing Rich? Or am I playing with ideas, trying to gain insight and attempting to find out what others think? I’d like to think my presentation was more along the lines of “I think this is right, in fact, I’m pretty damn sure it is, but hold on, I might be wrong – what about this?” Obviously, you’re not taking it that way. I do try to write and put my points as well as I possibly can, and am always editing my posts in an attempt to do so.

If challenged, though, I will stick up for what I believe until you can prove to me beyond doubt that I am wrong – or at least agree it can’t be proven either way.

Originally Posted by User211
It's precisely (as I indicated before) the thinness of the diaphragm that allows this to be the case. And I believe it is the overshoot of heavier dynamic drivers that prevent it, and add what most people perceive as extra dynamics.

So you are saying driver overshoot of dynamic drivers prevents this issue. Which is exactly what I said about you possibly not liking the accuracy of ML's and perhaps preferring the less accurate sound of a cone driver (at least in this one respect).

Pretty much along those lines, Rich. I do believe most cone drivers don’t exhibit the problem – but some metal driver’s I have heard can display a thin quality – prime example – Acoustic Energy AE1 from quite a while ago. Also, some dome tweeters can make a real mess of things.

Any particular reason you totally ignore my point about hybrid ML's using cone drivers for the majority of the frequency range for which the CLX uses an electrostatic driver? The same part of the frequency spectrum that most people think adds "weight" to music?

Not much, apart from the fact I have been at work, and as I said, I can’t answer you all. Rich, while I value your posts a lot, which is why I am giving you so much time in this response, there are others around!

This is potentially a good point. Has ML published the exact upper limit cut off of the dual force driver? We know it rolls off steeply around 60 odd Hertz...

Another point, the CLX also uses a single film driver too. But the merger of the two seems to provide it with weight and finesse. Note, I didn’t hear the CLX with a sub – so no “weight” coming from there. But as my CLX recordings showed, and from which I posted TFFTs to show, there was low frequency grunge coming from other rooms.

Also, although the CLX uses a dual-diaphragm bass driver, which may have twice the weight of a single-diaphragm ESL driver, the actual weight of the driver mass is still virtually nothing compared to a cone driver. I can assure you that the CLX driver does not suffer from overshoot. Which pretty well shoots down this theory since you say the CLX does not suffer from this problem due to its "greater mass." You have provided no logical reason why a dual-driver ESL panel can provide more "weight" to the music over the cone speaker in a hybrid ESL like the Summit or Ascent. I promise you that it has nothing to do with driver mass or overshoot.

Rich – it has a load of air in between the film – so it’s at least twice as heavy overall plus the mass of the air it has to move back and forth. So, no, I don’t agree here.

With maximum respect to JonFo, no room treatment can stop this fundamental nature of the ESL driver.

Unless, of course, you are wrong and the problem is not the ESL driver, but the speaker's interaction with your room. Again, you completely ignored my question about whether you have done any frequency response testing in your room to see if you have a suckout of some sort that is causing this issue. But why would you want to take accurate scientific measurements? Since you are never wrong, what possible good could come from gathering data about your room's frequency response?

Now that is just the lowest of the low there... what a load of tosh!!! Of course I can be wrong. I dunno whether you got that off Jeff’s comment, and yeah sure, we have disagreed on some issues, but I think Jeff and I are both pretty strong minded people, so it’s not surprising. I think I won a few of those disputes. Jeff won’t agree to it – but hey – that’s human nature and pride kicking in on both sides, I guess. And whilst I’m sure I was right, there is of course the possibility I wasn’t – if you catch my drift. Haven’t you ever been convinced you were right about something – only to find out you weren’t?

What is weird is I have never heard it in Quad 2905s, ESL63s or 57s - but they all use grills that I think removes detail and "softens" the sound.

But wait, didn't you just say above that this problem was the "fundamental nature of the ESL driver?" You seem to contradict yourself every other sentence. You say the CLX doesn't exhibit this problem because of the mass of its double layer bass driver, while ignoring that hybrids use a cone driver for the majority of this same frequency spectrum. You say the issue is "fundamental to the nature of the ESL driver" but then say it is only a problem on some recordings and that you don't hear it with Quads. You say no room treatment can solve this issue, but then say that the Quads don't exhibit the issue because the grill covers "softens" the sound. (By the way, grill covers would have absolutely NO effect in the frequency band which you are talking about. They may soften the highs, but would have no effect in the lower midrange).

Provide some scientific proof for this one (your grill theory) and even then I’d find it hard to swallow. But it would add weight to your argument.

You say it may be because of a frequency breakup measured by hi fi news, and yet in another thread you go on about how much Ken Kessler loves the Spire and the Summit. Did Kessler mention anything about midbass thinness in any of his reviews? Seems like a professional reviewer would notice and want to mention a lack of weight in the midband. You may very well believe that you are right. But you sure aren't making a very good case to convince anyone else.

No, Rich, but as I have indicated, some here seem to be in agreement – read the other posts. I don’t think Ken did say anything. But then you yourself have stated how little reviews mean to you, in no uncertain terms. The Spire review is online, though, together with the frequency response and waterfall plots.

Finally, since you have ignored the question twice now, I will just have to assume that you haven't tried biamping your Ascents. I propose that biamping your Ascents properly, combined with some good acoustic treatments in your room, will do more for your sound than any other upgrade you could make to your system.

No, I haven’t tried bi-amping my Ascents. Nor do I feel the need to – very happy with the bass and the Descent – as I have already said.

As I have said quite a few times, the walls in my room are plasterboard, with insulation behind it. It is the “deadest” room my MLs have ever lived in by far. But yes, you are right, I have never tried any “real” treatments. But I have hung three towels against the wall (trying to see what the effect of actually spending money might have) and not liked the results. I like some rear wave reflection – it does add space and air to the sound.

Please note that I am not trying to convince you not to experiment with other speakers. Part of the fun of this hobby is experimenting with all kinds of technologies to find the right combination that works for you. All kinds of speaker drivers have their advantages and disadvantages. I just think that ESL's require a lot more work to set up properly to get the most out of what they are capable of, and I suspect that you are poo-pooing some of that advice and not realizing the full potential of your Ascents.

Rich – I have dearly loved them for years. Massively so – but those Apogees are definitely on the way. I will keep you posted!

After all that, I truly hope at least some of your “issues” have been resolved.

All the best,

Justin

 

[miljac]

I can only say that indeed Ascent can sound "thin" - mine did in the beginning.

Having found the right cables, biamping them with tubes on the panel, getting a great tube preamp, finding the right spot to place them and having a proper source eliminated the problem completely.

It's the system as a whole that is either in synergy or not - mine took time, effort and patience. Not that I did not enjoy the process , it's a nice hobby. But today it sounds like music.

Anything I have done so far has not exhausted the loudspeakers' capabilities, any improvement was very clear and audible. And I sincerely believe that these speakers have still some more surprises lurking behind ... I would not blame any shortcomings in sound on the speaker itself, rather on other factors.