Great post, Justin. Thanks for taking the time to give such a thoughtful reply. I don't have time to answer every point in depth, but I will respond to a few points. If I skip something you want me to respond to, just let me know and I will make an effort to do so.
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?
I can only respond based on what I have heard. If I had heard this midbass thinness, I would agree with you. But I haven't. And I have listened pretty extensively to Summits, Ascents, Prodigies, and less extensively to Vantages, Vistas, and Monoliths. So I have a pretty good breadth of experience to draw my conclusions from.
Hey hold on – read some of the other posts: danman, Beakman, JFM etc... aren’t they agreeing – at least partially in some cases?
Yes, they are. What I said was that I have never heard of anyone mention this in the past. Once you brought it up, some people agreed with you. That doesn't surprise me. But in this very active forum, it has never been brought up before as an issue that I am aware of. I have never heard it mentioned by a dealer or in a review of a Martin Logan speaker. As I said before, as many times as ML speakers have been reviewed, you would think at least one reviewer would point this out if it was a true limitation of the speaker.
Also, I think that the fact that you only had a few people agree with you on such an active forum of ML users pretty well makes the point that this isn't an issue for most people. Which goes back to my point that it is not an inherent flaw in the ESL panel or with ML speakers particularly, but a system/room integration issue.
As regards to specific frequencies, it’s difficult to be specific. But I always hear said “thinness” coming from the panel.
Well, this is part of our problem is a question of labeling. You said it was a mid-bass thinness, but the frequency range of the panel is more in the midrange and treble. The woofer handles more of the bass and midbass. This also doesn't really comport with your statement that the CLX doesn't have this problem because of the dual-membrane bass panel, which pretty much handles the same frequencies as the woofer in the hybrid models. The ESL panel on the CLX is no different than that on the newer model speakers like the Summit. Do you understand why I am saying that your reasoning about this issue is full of conflicting statements that don't seem to make a lot of sense? You blame the thinness on the single membrane panel, but say the CLX doesn't exhibit it, even though it also uses a single membrane panel for the same frequencies.
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.
One film is essentially massless. The weight of the diaphragm is miniscule. Two films would be miniscule times two. The weight of the air between the films? You have got to be kidding me. It is so small you could barely measure it. And you are comparing this to cone drivers which weigh anywhere from several grams to several ounces. It's like comparing the weight of a drop of water to a gallon of water. Sorry, but this is just not a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon you are hearing.
Now that is just the lowest of the low there... what a load of tosh!!! Of course I can be wrong.
. . .
Haven’t you ever been convinced you were right about something – only to find out you weren’t?
Me? No, never.
Sorry to offend you. Some comments you have made in the past lead me to make that comment, including this one in this particular thread:
I appreciate many may think I am wrong here. I don't think I am, though, and that's what counts!
I understand you were probably joking, but you do come off with a know-it-all attitude sometimes. No problem. I probably do to. As you said, no shortage of egos on this forum.
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.
Actually, Justin, I thought it was pretty common knowledge. Acoustically transparent grill cloth has a minor effect on the higher frequencies (lowering them by between .5 db and 1 db) but has no measurable effect on lower mid and bass frequencies due to the nature of these longer wavelenths. Sorry, but I am not going to go to the trouble to find a cite to a scientific text for you, but if you do a little research on acoustic science you will find that I am correct. If anyone else on the board with knowledge of this wants to weigh in, I would appreciate that too.
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.
True, I don't put a lot of stock in reviews. But if there were an inherent defect, I would expect it to come out in some reviews at some point in time (just as the small sweet spot or poor bass integration are talked about in reviews). The Spire review appears to be unavailable except to subscribers of HiFi+. If you have a link to it, please provide it and I will be happy to read and learn what I can about their measured frequency anomaly. But I was unable to find it on my own without having a subscription.
I was able, however, to pull up this
Stereophile review of the Prodigy. Their measurements don't show anything that might account for your issues. In fact, J.A. stated it was the best electrostatic speaker he had ever measured and that the response trend was basically smooth and flat up to 10 khz. Larry Greenhill raved about the bass and midrange in his review. I bring this up because the Prodigy is the same generation of ML as your Ascent. My own experience with both the Prodigy and the Ascent reflects the comments made in this review.
All of this is just meant to point out that the problem may not be an inherent flaw in the speaker or the electrostatic panel, but with your setups.
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.
Ahhhh, very interesting. You see, here I think you are missing something major. You assume biamping the Ascents will only help the bass. You have no idea how wrong you are. Let me give you a quick synopsis of my experience. I had my Ascents hooked up to a Conrad Johnson Premier 140 tube amp. Plenty of power from those four 6550's per side and I thought it sounded incredible. But, on suggestions from others, I played with biamping them. I put some cheap Outlaw audio monoblocs on the woofers (200 wpc) and I was totally blown away at the improvement in sound from top to bottom.
Yes, the bass was a little deeper, tighter, and better sounding, as I expected. But what I didn't expect was how much more the midrange and treble opened up. Smoother, deeper, and more liquid midrange, sweeter, more extended treble, better dynamics and imaging. The entire sound, top to bottom, improved by an order of magnitude! This was a completely unexpected surprise. I think you are doing yourself a big disservice by not at least experimenting with biamping these speakers. You really are not experiencing what they are truly capable of.
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.
I don't mean to insult you here, Justin, but with this statement you just revealed your complete ignorance of acoustics. First of all, plasterboard is not "dead." Just the opposite, it is very live and reflective in the at all frequencies. And the insulation behind it will do little to alleviate this. And sorry, but towels, blankets, etc. are not acoustic treatments and will not give you much idea of what acoustic treatments can do for you. They will only have an absorptive effect on the highest frequencies, leaving the mid and bass frequencies to bounce around, muddying your imaging and totally screwing with your mid-bass and bass response. Do a little research on room nodes, standing waves, bass trapping, etc. and you will learn about a whole facet of this hobby which you seem to have no clue about at this time. Your ability to appreciate your audio system, no matter what speakers you use, will benefit tremendously from this knowledge.
I am not even talking about dampening the rear wave here. I am talking about proper absorption of sidewall reflections (to improve imaging) and proper bass trapping. The biggest hindrance to getting proper sound in the mid-bass and bass in just about any listening room is uneven frequency response caused by room nodes, which can really only be solved with proper bass trapping.
I personally believe that if you biamped your Ascents and put in a few bass traps, you would have a very different take on the quality of sound coming from your speakers. You would not believe the difference. You would wonder how you listened to them all those years before. Just my opinion, of course, but it comes from direct experience doing it both ways. And I firmly believe that the acoustic treatments will improve your sound with any speakers, not just the ML's.
Good luck with the Apogees. I hope it works out well for you no matter which way you end up going. Enjoy the journey.
