explain martin logan speakers

leftwinger57

For a very simple minded dude like myself could anyone explain the topography for lack of a better term of those
Martin Logan speakers w/ those tall screens.What do they do,why are they so high andis there a relation to
electrostatics which is whole other issue that I really do not understand.In simple terms a boxed speaker is just that w/ or w/o ports and differing ways of x-overs and suspension,that I get these others I have no idea what's going on.1 other thing is there any comparison of sound w/ standard type speakers visa vi Martin Logans ,or like speakers
themselves completely subjective.

pitdogg2

the screens have a mylar film that is between front and back panels that operate on a push/pull behavior to make the sound. they have a driver in the bottom box that plays the bottom octaves. Hybrid electrostatic unlike Maggies that are 100% electrostatic.

think of a sheet of paper placed over a comb in which you blow across to make a noise.

zingo

A) Diaphragm
Spars
C) Stators

Opposite charges attract. Like charges repel. The diaphragm holds a constant positive charge.

Syndil

Let Martin Logan explain it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGhFYSk4zJI

mhardy6647

They are electrostatics. Electrostatic panels for sound transduction have been around for a long, long time. The QUAD ESL-57 is the seminal full-range electrostatic loudspeaker.

www.quadesl.com
http://www.quadesl.org/

These are push-pull electrostatics (two sets of charged plates); cheap electrostatic tweeters (e.g., those used in the Radio Shack "Electrostat" speakers in the 1960s ) are "single-ended". In theory, the single-ended electrostatics are very nonlinear and thus very inferior - in practice... heh, they ain't half bad.

Look at early to mid 1960s catalogs in www.radioshackcatalogs.com

mhardy6647

For the record, the "Maggies" (Magneplanars) mentioned in the second post to this thread are not electrostatics. They are dynamic (magnet-powered) speakers just like conventional cone and dome drivers - they just use a large flat diaphragm and a more "distributed" voice coil.

Magneplanars are also not "ribbon" transducers - but that's another topic...

asindc

^^^^^
You beat me to it.

pitdogg2

mhardy6647 wrote: »

For the record, the "Maggies" (Magneplanars) mentioned in the second post to this thread are not electrostatics. They are dynamic (magnet-powered) speakers just like conventional cone and dome drivers - they just use a large flat diaphragm and a more "distributed" voice coil.

Magneplanars are also not "ribbon" transducers - but that's another topic...

for the record i got 50% right:redface:

I have always heard them called electrostatic or ribbons...my bad

polkfarmboy

I love electrostats and when it comes to the human voice nothing comes closer to its reproduction. When setup properly the sound comes out of nowhere or they vanish as audiophiles would say. You need the right size of panel for this vanishing otherwise they really draw attention to the individual channel.

When I put some music on my Polk rti8's then as I walk up to the speaker and put my ear closer to the cone the volume becomes significantly louder. With my Vista mains I hear it playing but as I get closer and closer it seems like the volume does not increase at all on the panel. Another comparison to a cone speaker in this case being my rti8 is that I can play the rti's loud and get thrashing guitar music from hard rock to the point where I cover my ears and think 'holy ****'. With my Vista stats I could take out an spl meter and play the track to those same decibels the rti pumped out but it will not sound as loud. This is caused by 2 things

A: The way the panel disperses the sound that travels to your ears as it has like a 30 degree cone so the sound pretty much gets to your ears faster and reflects less of the walls.
B: There is way less distortion from the panel because of the moment of inertia of mass and air resistance and this makes things sound very natural and organic.

Does all this translate into better sound ? I don't think it does but it gives you everything and with the right bluray or the proper recording its very hard to go back to a conventional speaker of a similar price and wonder about all the details your missing. Thats why audiophiles should always have 2 set's of speakers

leftwinger57

Hey guys thanks a lot.Looks like I did learn something today.One other item about these types of speakers.It just appears that
they need an uber amount of care and protection given the size of these things.With box type a little pledge,no cats ,kids the
usual suspects and all is well w/ the world.With these it just looks like you breathe on them wrong and it's over.Mind you I
never really saw them close so I may be wrong and they could be a stout ,strong device.I would guess anyone who spends
that much cash does know the care and feeding of this type of speaker.I guess this could be Googled but who invented
this system.

mhardy6647

pitdogg2 wrote: »

for the record i got 50% right:redface:

I have always heard them called electrostatic or ribbons...my bad

I believe that the "correct" nomenclature for them is "planar dynamic" :-)
There have been numerous planar tweeters over the years; they make nice tweeters.

Ribbons are similar but not identical - the ribbon is metal and it operates as both diaphragm and voice coil (so to speak). Ribbons and other planar drivers are widely held in high, but not universally high, regard. For a non-believer's perspective :-) see http://www.zaphaudio.com/nondomes/

As to electrostatics - everyone who is serious about hifi owes it to him/her self to spend some quality time with a pair of good electrostatics. For me, it's Quad ESL-57s :-) but there are numerous others past and present (including Quad, still extant and still producing, last I knew, electrostatics as well as more conventional loudspeakers).

polkfarmboy wrote: »

I love electrostats and when it comes to the human voice nothing comes closer to its reproduction.

Well, yeah... but you should drop by and hear the 604E Duplexes in my living room sometime :-)

That said, you'll probably never hear a more neutral and honest sounding loudspeaker than a Quad ESL-57 or ESL-63. Ever.

tonyb

There are also different types of electrostat speakers. With ML's, you have to worry about kids, sun, pets, smoke, humidity. Others such as ESL have a more robust panel thats not all that touchy with conditions. Different designs but same principle.
Electrostats in general have a smaller sweet spot, but if your in it, can be heaven.
Big ribbon panels like Carver Amazings, Apogee, also need to have some care taken. This stuff isn't cheap to replace either.

Dig those Quads btw.....

leftwinger57

mhardy ,I did notice a cat prowling around.I thought rule #1 no cats near any gear.it also kinda looks stuffed if that's the case sorry.

mhardy6647

Non-stuffed; that is Harpo the Kitteh from Heck. He was my son's girlfriend's cat and he boarded with us for three years while she was in college accommodations that didn't allow pets. Harpo and his mistress were later reunited. Harpo wasn't the type to follow the rules.

Between the perforated metal grilles and the 5000 VDC polarizing voltage on the Quads, they're pretty kitteh-proof.

EDIT: The horizontal dispersion of the ESL-57s is excellent but the HF dispersion from the tweeter panels is only about 15 degrees :-O They need to be rather carefully aimed vertically to keep them on-axis with the listener's ears. The 57 is also not capable of sinking much power without destructive arcing of the Saran panels (i.e., they'll hit the stators and cook) - their successor, the ESL-63, is more robust (late 57s and the 63s had some rather Draconian protective circuitry built into them). I presume modern Quad ESLs are likewise fairly tough.

leftwinger57

Good stuff and not to dwell on the subject but those speakers in outword design look like Dalquists D-10s-20s.I know those are
of the box type in a line array before I think that was even a technical term for speakers and p.a systems.Two entirely different
types of speaker systems from what I learned in the last day or 2.

mhardy6647

leftwinger57 wrote: »

Good stuff and not to dwell on the subject but those speakers in outword design look like Dalquists D-10s...

Oh yeah, and there's a reason for that. Jon Dahlquist (and Saul Marantz, who was also involved at the beginning with Dahlquist) quite deliberately "borrowed" the cosmetic values of the ESL-57 for his first product, the DQ-10.

The ESL-57 was introduced in 1957.
The DQ-10 was introduced in the early 1970s.

In fairness, the DQ-10 was one of the first loudspeakers deliberately designed to promote depth and imaging and move away from the "monkey coffin" sealed box designs that were prevelant by that time (thanks to AR and its "descendents" such as KLH, Allison, EPI, etc.). The DQ-10 used the same woofer as the "Original Large Advent" (and in a sealed box), nice Philips midrange and nice (German?) dome tweeter drivers, and the somewhat infamous Motorola "lemon juicer" piezoelectric tweeter.



FWIW, while I like(d) the DQ-10s - then and now - I consider(ed) them overpriced - then and now - for what they are and how they sound and have never actively sought to own a pair. If I find a pair at my favorite local emporium, though, I will pick them up! :-)

EDIT: can't find a good closeup of my ESL-57s; here's one sandwiched between a couple of FR DIYs :-)



My poor pair of 57s don't have their little legs :-( I do have some aftermarket stands for them, but I most often just shim 'em up with some wooden props for listening.

vc69

I've always wanted to hear some Quads. I had a set of ML Aeons in my rig for some time. I find them intoxicating. Yet, over the long haul, I wind up back with my LS90's.

leftwinger57

Again MH thank you for your real forth coming answers.I think I did hit upon a subject that I knew little of but learned a great deal
here.The look alike features between your Quads and the Dalquists I mentioned for some reason I thought I was way off base but
it turns out w/ your story it was a direct copy of cosmetic design but not sonically.

TroyD

I own a pair of newer Quad 988's and I've owned the DQ-10's. The DQ-10's are a sentimental favorite and I disagree, I think that they deliver a lot of good sound for not a lot of coin on the used market. I think that they are a must own.

The 988's are a fabulous speaker....I've owned Quads for a long time now and love the sound. There are things that they do in terms of transparency and so forth that a conventional speaker just can't. However, as always, there are tradeoffs. They don't play really loud, they don't play really low and they lack the dynamic impact that a good conventional speaker has. This latest PF has confirmed that in spades for me.

BDT