Hi, I was just curious what the advantage of electrostatic seakers such as magenpan and martin logans have over conventional speakers? From what I understand they are very big and inefficient.
Advantages of electrostatic speakers?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Go have a listen They have wide dispersion from their drivers basically. They can sound fantastic, especially in the right room and well positioned though they do tend to be inneficient as you pointed out and generally don't play very low either, usually requiring a built in powered sub/bass driver etc.
If you hear them though, you'll likely understand what people like about themJason- Bottom
-
Just to clarify something.
Electrostatics are not the same as Magnepan, but they do fall into the category known as planar.
Electrostatic technology is rather more expensive.
A lot of people find that Magnepans ( called Maggies by many) are a better value. They also come in smaller sizes. You can get a pair of Maggie MMG for $550 with a 60 day money back guarantee. Of course, once you hear the small ones, you may well want to hear what the tall ones sound like.
The hight of planars can be one of the most appealing features. It can be nice to hear your singers voice coming from a source 5 feet high; maybe more lifelike, in a way.
They tend to have a more spacious sound because they radiate from the back as well as the front. This bipolar sound has advantages and disadvantages.
Having said all that, they certainly sound different.
True electrostats give you less bang for the buck and tend to be harder to drive.
As was mentioned, low bass is a problem with both designs.
If you like the sound, be prepared to spend at least $1,000 for an entry level Maggie and sub. Also, they tend to be more difficult to work with as center channel and surrounds.
I'm kind of sorry I could not afford to get a pair of Apogees before they went out of business. They were a third technology called ribbons. The mid range and highs were stunning.
There is a small but highly dedicated group of users who have discussed virtually every aspect of the Maggies. If you want I can post a link.- Bottom
Comment
-
As was mentioned, low bass is a problem with both designs.
Sub-bass is a different animal again.
Also depending on the panel design they will have limited horizontal dispersion, which can be good and bad, but they tend to have a very small "sweet spot", you'll sometimes hear the term "head in a vice" used with them.
Andrew- Bottom
Comment
-
Thanks Andy
The OP asked what the ADVANTAGES of the design are. Maybe I've been living in another world, but I have never heard that good bass is an advantage of planars. On the contrary, if we talk about bass per buck, I would say that planars are way at the low end. How much are those Soundlabs with the good, but still needing a subwoofer stats?- Bottom
Comment
-
There is a difference between bass and sub bass, big planars have excellent bass response with the same "pros and cons" of planar designs. As for bass per buck, that's hard to quantify, I can think of cone/dome designs that give good bass for the buck and I can think of $10k "bookshelf" speakers that have absolutely horrid bass response, and I can't think of too many speakers, even getting into the $50k+ range that don't require a subwoofer for true sub-bass performance.- Bottom
Comment
-
Thanks Andy
So you are saying good bass response is an ADVANTAGE of planar designs?
I would ask you once again. How much do those huge Soundlabs cost?
We know there are cheap cone/dome with good bass. The MMG is $550. No bass below maybe 55Hz? That same $550 can get a pair of speakers with response to at least 32Hz.
Please try to keep the discussion to real world type considerations. But if you want to start talking about mega buck speakers, I would start and stop with the fact that the biggest selling >$10,000 speaker for many years has been the Wilson Watt-Puppy, a cone-dome deal.- Bottom
Comment
-
So you are saying good bass response is an ADVANTAGE of planar designs?
I would ask you once again. How much do those huge Soundlabs cost?
We know there are cheap cone/dome with good bass. The MMG is $550. No bass below maybe 55Hz? That same $550 can get a pair of speakers with response to at least 32Hz.
Please try to keep the discussion to real world type considerations. But if you want to start talking about mega buck speakers, I would start and stop with the fact that the biggest selling >$10,000 speaker for many years has been the Wilson Watt-Puppy, a cone-dome deal.
Here's a question for you, what large planar designs have you heard? Have you heard anything by SoundLabs? Have you heard Magnepan 3.6's or 20's? How about some stacked Quad's? No Martin Loagans in the list as all but 1 or 2 designs (in their history) have all crossed over to a cone bass driver (x-over point in the 150-300Hz range).
Andrew- Bottom
Comment
-
tboooe
The primary benefit of 'planars' (ESL, ribbon, magnetic-planar designs) is their distinctive sound. Most have a moving mass (the radiating element) that weighs less than the weight of the column of air they're vibrating. So they have amazing transient response. They throw a very wide sound stage and have inherently very low levels of distortion.
If you want high output levels yes the panels must be large. And most present a fairly difficult load for the amplifier (this usually means receivers need not apply for the job)
All planars (yes even the really big ones) need a sub if the goal is 'realistic' SPL in the lower octaves. How do I know this? I've been using a ESL/magnetic-planar/leaf array for a couple decades....:wink:
IB subwoofer FAQ page
"Complicated equipment and light reflectors and various other items of hardware are enough, to my mind, to prevent the birdie from coming out." ...... Henri Cartier-Bresson- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by ThomasWAll planars (yes even the really big ones) need a sub if the goal is 'realistic' SPL in the lower octaves. How do I know this? I've been using a ESL/magnetic-planar/leaf array for a couple decades....:wink:
Also, I'd say the above applies for quite a bit of the "normal" cone based speakers as well (but obviously there are plenty of exceptions). The Watt Puppy isn't going to produce realistic SPL levels in the lower octaves either, a pair of "short" throw 8" drivers just isn't going to move that much air.- Bottom
Comment
-
And in this corner we have Moderator T... and in that corner we have moderator A...
Andy
I have heard a few planars in my time. Starting with Apogee Divas, Manepans, Apogee Studio, etc.
Oh yeah, my brother in law has large Martin-Logans driven by Pass class A. Moved his Thresholds to drive his Heil ESS Towers. (Ever heard them?)
As far as why WP is so popular. We could probably start with dynamic range and efficiency.
Not that it matters, but some dude on HTF (or was it AVS) went around to listen to the most expensive speakers he could find. His clear choice, WP. Don Keele raved about WP as does virtually everyone who tests them.
Still, if you re-read my first post. If I had had the money, I would have bought the Apogee Studio Grand. That 25 inch ribbon tweeter would have been real sweet. Not to mention the "ribbon" mid-woof, and twin 10 inch subs.
I keep all my old brochures. My Magnepan brochure is dated 11/86 and features SMGa, MG-lC, MG-IIC, and MG-IIIa.
It has been a long time since I listened to Maggies, but I do listen to the MLs when I visit my BIL. When I figure out which ones he has I'll post it.
I like planars, but I still think they have problems with bass and apparently are not easy to drive. If I were to get WP, I would supplement the 16-32 octave with a sub. But I would do the same with the $30K U1s.
Finally.
The absolute best sound I have ever heard in 40 years of listening was a pair of no-name 3 way bookshelves with 12 inch woofs. The guy worked for Dolby Labs and word got around about these things. This was before subs were popular, but never-the-less, the FR, sound staging, imaging, naturalness was beyond anything I have ever heard at any price, including Wilson MaXX.- Bottom
Comment
-
And in this corner we have Moderator T... and in that corner we have moderator A...
Regardless, for me and my listening habits big planars would be more than enough to be run full range 99% of the time for my listening habits. I have "bookshelf" (it would have to be a VERY big & strong shelf) speakers now that might get into the mid 40Hz range, and I run them without a sub all the time (since the integration stinks) with music.- Bottom
Comment
-
I was reading a review about the Quad 989's, below is a portion of the review that raised a questions for me.
1) Why is the SPL compromised at higher elevations?
2) Beyond what elevation would you not want to be these speakers?
Setup
Listening was carried out in my lightly damped, rectangular, 5400-cubic-feet living room, which has a 12' semi-cathedral ceiling. The listening room is only 30' above sea level, which is important—the ESL-989's peak SPL output becomes compromised at higher elevations. I placed the Quads 5' from the back wall and 5' from the side walls.- Bottom
Comment
-
Beat's me. I sold Quad and Acoustat ESL's the mid 1970's, I've owned my current ESL's since 1987 and have never heard of this.
Quads in general have limited output generally because they simply aren't very big.
IB subwoofer FAQ page
"Complicated equipment and light reflectors and various other items of hardware are enough, to my mind, to prevent the birdie from coming out." ...... Henri Cartier-Bresson- Bottom
Comment
-
....my biggest thing with electrostatic speakers is that the instruments and vocals have no weight. The soundstage has very little mass to it. Lastly the sweetspot is crazy, you scratch your nose and you lose it.
What they do deliver though, is a lot of texture to the sound and a great mid range. They are never aggressif.
As for the comment on the bass, a buddy of mine has Acoustats and they are far from being lean on the bass, as a matter of fact he almost gets the first octave.Got a nice rack to show me ?- Bottom
Comment
Comment