Martin Logan Neolith

bwraudio

New Member
Jan 24, 2011
54
1
0
Coherency, huge soundstage

IMG_1546.jpg My answer to the Neolith hybrid is combining Magneplanar Tympani IV bass panels
with Martin Logan Summits (woofers not used) and extend the bass down to 1 hz,
with a rotary subwoofer. This results in total coherence, a huge sound-field,
bass that has power (transients that are stunning)!
 

nsgarch

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
88
2
915
View attachment 18856 My answer to the Neolith hybrid is combining Magneplanar Tympani IV bass panels
with Martin Logan Summits (woofers not used) and extend the bass down to 1 hz,
with a rotary subwoofer. This results in total coherence, a huge sound-field,
bass that has power (transients that are stunning)!

My only caveat to your (very rational) approach, is the Summits' panels drop out at (I think) around 200 or 250Hz. So do your bass panels go up that high? I guess so? And do you only have a single rotary subwoofer? Where is it placed?

Thanks.
 

bwraudio

New Member
Jan 24, 2011
54
1
0
Martin Logan Summit, Magneplanar Tympani, Rotary sub

The effective crossover point for the Tympani bass panels is 250 hz, which works out well
with the Summits.
Yes, I have one rotary sub which extends up to 25 hz and the Tympani bass is filtered below
30 hz. Doing this reduces distortion of the Tympanis and also improves loudness capability.
The rotary and Tympani are a perfect match with each other (transient bass is fantastic).

From the picture you can see the (4' x 4' opening for the rotary sub.) The actual location
of the sub is directly beneath the the Tympani bass panel.
IMG_1553.JPG
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
Agree 100% REAL electrostats are full range, as far as I am concerned hybrids are NOT electrostats no matter how good they may be, my Acoustat 1+1s go down to 30hz and that is low enough for me, most important it is bass from a panel not a woofer.

Your speakers may go down to 30 hz, but how much distortion are they creating at that frequency?
 

MrAcoustat

New Member
Jun 5, 2012
847
7
0
78
Quebec Canada
Your speakers may go down to 30 hz, but how much distortion are they creating at that frequency?

Sorry this i don't know because i LISTEND more than i MEASURE and they sound pretty darn good to me.:)
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
Sorry this i don't know because i LISTEND more than i MEASURE and they sound pretty darn good to me.:)

Well that is all that counts. As long as YOU'RE happy.

I happen to disagree with you regarding the need for bass to be reproduced by panels. I have yet to hear any panel put out decent bass. I guess everyone has different tastes.
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
The effective crossover point for the Tympani bass panels is 250 hz, which works out well
with the Summits.
Yes, I have one rotary sub which extends up to 25 hz and the Tympani bass is filtered below
30 hz. Doing this reduces distortion of the Tympanis and also improves loudness capability.
The rotary and Tympani are a perfect match with each other (transient bass is fantastic).

From the picture you can see the (4' x 4' opening for the rotary sub.) The actual location
of the sub is directly beneath the the Tympani bass panel.
View attachment 18871

That looks like an interesting approach. Have not heard Tympani bass panels before. How loud can they play?

Have not heard the rotary sub either, do your neighbors complain about it?:D
 

MrAcoustat

New Member
Jun 5, 2012
847
7
0
78
Quebec Canada
Well that is all that counts. As long as YOU'RE happy.

I happen to disagree with you regarding the need for bass to be reproduced by panels. I have yet to hear any panel put out decent bass. I guess everyone has different tastes.

Yes you're right, everyone has different tastes, some like blonde hair - some red - some brown - me i like them all.:)
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Everytime i see that rotary sub, i start to feel seasick..but equally, i remember that i really need to hear one someday!!!
 

bwraudio

New Member
Jan 24, 2011
54
1
0
Loudness, Tympani 4, Rotary

IMG_1265.jpg The tympani 4 bass panels when properly braced and frame modified (I bolt the braces
down through the floor and each of the two panels are bolted together) can play at
very high levels. As I also mentioned, the Tympanis are rolled off below 30 hz which
lowers distortion, helps with total amplifier power requirements. With the rotary sub,
pipe organ music with 16 hz hertz content can be played at levels that are quite
extraordinary along with movie sound effects down to below 5 hz!

For actual measured levels check out these examples (on the web just type in
Tympani 4 loudness sati) and this is without the rotary sub!

I do not listen to rock music or anything approaching ear damaging levels.
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
View attachment 18878 The tympani 4 bass panels when properly braced and frame modified (I bolt the braces
down through the floor and each of the two panels are bolted together) can play at
very high levels. As I also mentioned, the Tympanis are rolled off below 30 hz which
lowers distortion, helps with total amplifier power requirements. With the rotary sub,
pipe organ music with 16 hz hertz content can be played at levels that are quite
extraordinary along with movie sound effects down to below 5 hz!

For actual measured levels check out these examples (on the web just type in
Tympani 4 loudness sati) and this is without the rotary sub!

I do not listen to rock music or anything approaching ear damaging levels.

Cool. Bolting my speakers to the floor is something I have thought about, but is not practical at this time. I plan on trying it some day though.

I did not find the info you are talking about through a google search. Could you post a link please?
 

VFA

New Member
May 24, 2015
18
0
0
The Neolith, with the largest panel ML has made to date -- really? 22" x 48"? I have a pretty good eye, so decided to measure my CLS panel. OK, so it's an inch shy in both directions: 21" x 47". I'd say that's negligible.

Now about those woofer sections. What I've discovered over 25 years of living with my ML electrostats, and listening to all kinds of other designs/offerings, is that no one (including ML, and Sanders) has ever been able to make a "hybrid" electrostat (that is, an ES panel + an EM woofer per side) that will create the same sound field as a truly "full range" electrostat would, if possible. It simply has to be full-range-all-electrostat, or nothing (more on why in a minute.) The best (or closest) examples we have, of full-range electrostatic panels, are the big Soundlabs, the nearly-as-full-range CLS, and the barely qualifying CLX. In fact, the Soundlabs are the only ones that can be considered truly full-range; although at the lowest frequency registers, their output has a hard time "keeping up", so to speak.

If you have a pair of electrostatic panels that go down respectably low (Soundlab - 24Hz, CLS - 32Hz, CLX -52Hz) and that produce a credible sonic hologram (sound field) on their own, then the job is NOT to add/match bass to each panel in the form of a non-electostatic driver! The out-of-control phasing alone just screws up the whole sound field! And if the panels themselves don't go low enough, as was begun with the Statements for example, the problems are further compounded, because the EM low frequency drivers now have to produce sound above 100Hz, which suddenly makes them easy to locate, and therefore to separate out from the panels! This approach is a disaster. It always was and always will be. Which is why those with the money and the space finally wind up with Soundlabs, if the wife allows.

The best solution, for adding more bass to the limited low frequency output of (even the most full range) electrostatic panels, is to somehow match a "bass sound field" (below say 30Hz - 40HZ) to the electostatic sound field produced by the panels above that frequency.

So. What are the characteristics of a stereo sound field produced by a pair of electrostatic panels? Well first, as we all know, the front-propagating wave is 180 degrees out-of-phase with the rear-propagating wave. Second, there is an approximately 20 degree "null" area extending from the left and right edges of each panel -- due to frequency cancellation between the front and rear waves. And third, and most important to keep in mind, the frequency response of even the most full range electrostatic panels falls off significantly below 80Hz - which just so happens to be the very point at which sound becomes non-directional to human perception! This is important to remember because if you can limit your need for bass augmentation to below 100Hz, and preferably below 40Hz (which is entirely possible with the full-range panels I mentioned,) then you don't need two sources of bass in order to preserve the soundstage!

I'm hoping there are no strong objections so far? ;)

OK. So what would be the characteristics of a "bass sound field" that could be easily superimposed on the holographic sound field already created by the panels? Well first of all, it would only need to have a single source, since there would be no need to create a "stereo image" at frequencies below that magic 100Hz. Second, the bass transducer/driver would need to be in the same plane as the one formed by the two panels, in order that the bass wave be "launched" from the same point (time-aligned) as the wave(s) produced by the panels. And third, the front-facing half of the low frequency wave would need to be 180 degrees out-of-phase with the rear-facing half.

The simplest, most obvious (and oldest!) solution would be to mount a woofer in an infinite baffle, and position it right between and in line with the panels, and it's done! Well not quite, unfortunately. First of all, placing a large enough (infinite?) baffle in that location would all but destroy the soundstage created by the panels. And expecting a woofer mounted in an infinite baffle to have transient response (fast enough) to match that of the panels is out of the question. So alas, an enclosure of some kind is needed.

The most respected dipole subwoofer design (front and rear drivers in a single enclosure, connected out of phase) is this one: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/woofer.htm but I think you have to build it yourself (none available commercially, I don't think); and custom tailor it's characteristics to your panels, amplifier, etc. A simpler (OK, more expedient!) solution would be to purchase a subwoofer with an omnidirectional radiating pattern, and set its phase response to 90 degrees (splitting the difference between 0 deg. and 180 deg.). The candidates would be one of the better down-firing subs (with good transient response, of course!) or one of the "Balanced Force" ML subs: the old Depth/Descent, or their current offering 210 and 212. I'm partial to the Depth/Descent, but only because the newer units use DSP (digital signal processing) and I prefer to keep all digitizing, when necessary, on the other side of my preamp, if you know what I mean!

This arrangement has provided me with electrostatic bliss for many years:
1. Full range electrostatic panels, with the low frequency response allowed to decay naturally (no low-pass cut off.)
2. A single, omnidirectional subwoofer, centered exactly between the panels left/right and front/back; with phase response set to 90 degrees, and high-pass set near or just below the lowest frequency response of the panels (usually somewhere between 30Hz and 50Hz)
3. Set level to taste, but keep it lower than you think it should be;)

And as for the "amazing" new (now TOTALLY PASSIVE, mind you!) ML Neolith? I ain't buying it! Literally and figuratively!
You certainly know much more about sound reproduction than me. However I must respectfully disagree with you on many counts. Not long ago I listen to the CLX with two decent I subwoofers. I even listened to the same CLX without the sub Woofers. In the same room and switching to the same electronics I listen to Focal $35,000 speakers. I preferred the CLX with the sub woofers to the other two speakers with the CLX alone being a distant third. The CLX as a standalone had beautiful sound but it was very flat like a Coke cola with no carbonation. It taste the same but it's very bland in other ways. The same can be said for the CLX without the subs. This was a prolonged several hours audition in the exact same room with the exact same Electronics on all three speakers. I then purchased the Montis with two balanced force 212 subs and feel that the sound is terrific. Obviously this is a personal preference and you may see things completely differently but to me sometimes measurements and scientific theory don't add up to the sound that you hear. I wonder what other Martin Logan fans think about the hybrid no hybrid question. I know I'm not the only one who feels subs properly set up can work extremely well in a high-end system dynamic or electrostatic.( see recent particles in the absolute sound by Roger Skoff and Robert Harley).
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
I find this topic perpetually interesting. My sense of logic agrees with nsgarch, but my ears disagree with both nsgarch and VFA.

I have lived with Martin-Logan speakers since 1989. I originally had Monolith Is (suggesting that I am not particularly acoustically sensitive to the electrostatic panel/cone driver discontinuity problem to begin with!). Then I switched to Monolith IIIs, and then, finally, to Prodigys, which I use today.

I always hoped that Martin-Logan would produce a scaled down version (but still a four tower configuration) of the Statement (in the way that the Genesis 2.2 is a scaled-down version of the Genesis 1.2). I thought the release of the CLX was the perfect opportunity for me to create my own mini-Statement by deploying next to the CLX a pair of subwoofer towers. I listened at length to the CLX, and I could listen through the speakers to enjoy the sound without being tripped up by the absence of any output below 50 Hz. I knew that if I like the sound of the CLX, then I would happily add some subwoofer tower system.

But the CLX just did not do it for me. The CLX, to me, sounds skeletal and lacking in body. It sounded incredibly transparent and high in resolution, but it did not sound real or musical or sonically pleasurable.

I realized that I was missing sonic warmth and acoustic output in the (I think) 200 Hz to 400 Hz range. I don't know anything about musical instruments so I do not know exactly what goes on in that frequency range, but, to my ears, something important and impactful and realism-creating goes on there. With the CLX I was missing warmth and impact in that frequency range -- above the frequency range handled by subwoofers.

In the design of each of the Monolith Is and the Monolith IIIs and the Prodigys one or more cone drivers significantly supplement the electrostatic panel in the 200 Hz to 400 Hz range. My desire for warmth and oomph in that frequency range explains why I am happily willing to sacrifice the perfect continuity of the full range electrostatic panel in favor of some discontinuity in the hybrid electrostatic panel/cone driver configuration.

Adding subwoofers to the CLX with a crossover frequency of 60 or 80 Hz does not, it seems, provide significant impact in the 200 to 400 Hz range. I have learned that I prefer a hybrid speaker system in which the panel crosses over to an integrated cone at a higher frequency than the frequency at which a full-range panel (i.e., the CLX) would cross over to external subwoofers.

This explains why I like the Prodigys, which have two 10” cones crossed over at 250 Hz. This also explains why I loved the Statement E2, whose panel crossed over to eight 7” cone drivers at up to 200 Hz.

I wish I agreed with VFA that all I had to do was add some custom, over-the-top subwoofer tower system to the CLX. (Maybe I could buy a pair of subwoofer towers from one of the companies which makes “ultimate” four tower speaker systems.) But even there, unless I cross the CLX over to the subwoofer towers at 200 or 250 Hz I will not get the warmth I want in the 200 Hz to 400 Hz range.

I am very interested in the Neoliths, which seem to be giant Prodigys. The 12” cone in the Neoliths, which crosses over at 250 to 400 Hz will, I am sure, provide great warmth and impact in the 200 to 400 Hz range. I am going to T.H.E. Show significantly so I can listen to the Neoliths.

As happens often in this hobby the theoretical ideal (i.e., a full-range electrostatic panel) does not, to my ears, beat a theoretically inferior (integrated cone driver/hybrid) design.
 

Argonaut

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2013
2,380
1,615
530
N/A
Somewhat in defence of the CLX, I thought that I would make reference to the suite of measurements taken during the course of Noel Keywoods Hi-FI World July 2009 issue review.

"Our measurements show the CLXs go very low, down to 40Hz (-6dB), which is lower than most box loudspeakers, and their dipole radiation pattern little excited our listening room's main mode at 24Hz, something I also noticed in use. Wherever I listened in the room, even against a wall (which is a high pressure point) there was no bass boom, or 'room boom'. So the CLX has strong bass that runs deep, but it does not excite room boom and this helps keep things lean and clean. This is a positive feature of dipole radiation and contributes to bass quality"

I would concede that the base output of an CLX, sub 56Hz, would never be considered as prodigious or the weapon of choice for the Organ Officionad or Base Head, Still, It is measurable, and more importantly for my part audible enough in my own listening space to be both palpable and enjoyable In transducing my main diet of early Classical, Blues, Jazz and singer songwriter fare.

I should also say that I have 'tuned' the response in my own room with the aid of an Zilplex anti resonance set that deals very well with Reflection and Echo, whilst not Over damping the room, which I feel aids in making the best of the lower register capabilities of the CLX, sans any form of base augmentation.
 
Last edited:

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
I find this topic perpetually interesting. My sense of logic agrees with nsgarch, but my ears disagree with both nsgarch and VFA.

I have lived with Martin-Logan speakers since 1989. I originally had Monolith Is (suggesting that I am not particularly acoustically sensitive to the electrostatic panel/cone driver discontinuity problem to begin with!). Then I switched to Monolith IIIs, and then, finally, to Prodigys, which I use today.

I always hoped that Martin-Logan would produce a scaled down version (but still a four tower configuration) of the Statement (in the way that the Genesis 2.2 is a scaled-down version of the Genesis 1.2). I thought the release of the CLX was the perfect opportunity for me to create my own mini-Statement by deploying next to the CLX a pair of subwoofer towers. I listened at length to the CLX, and I could listen through the speakers to enjoy the sound without being tripped up by the absence of any output below 50 Hz. I knew that if I like the sound of the CLX, then I would happily add some subwoofer tower system.

But the CLX just did not do it for me. The CLX, to me, sounds skeletal and lacking in body. It sounded incredibly transparent and high in resolution, but it did not sound real or musical or sonically pleasurable.

I realized that I was missing sonic warmth and acoustic output in the (I think) 200 Hz to 400 Hz range. I don't know anything about musical instruments so I do not know exactly what goes on in that frequency range, but, to my ears, something important and impactful and realism-creating goes on there. With the CLX I was missing warmth and impact in that frequency range -- above the frequency range handled by subwoofers.

In the design of each of the Monolith Is and the Monolith IIIs and the Prodigys one or more cone drivers significantly supplement the electrostatic panel in the 200 Hz to 400 Hz range. My desire for warmth and oomph in that frequency range explains why I am happily willing to sacrifice the perfect continuity of the full range electrostatic panel in favor of some discontinuity in the hybrid electrostatic panel/cone driver configuration.

Adding subwoofers to the CLX with a crossover frequency of 60 or 80 Hz does not, it seems, provide significant impact in the 200 to 400 Hz range. I have learned that I prefer a hybrid speaker system in which the panel crosses over to an integrated cone at a higher frequency than the frequency at which a full-range panel (i.e., the CLX) would cross over to external subwoofers.

This explains why I like the Prodigys, which have two 10” cones crossed over at 250 Hz. This also explains why I loved the Statement E2, whose panel crossed over to eight 7” cone drivers at up to 200 Hz.

I wish I agreed with VFA that all I had to do was add some custom, over-the-top subwoofer tower system to the CLX. (Maybe I could buy a pair of subwoofer towers from one of the companies which makes “ultimate” four tower speaker systems.) But even there, unless I cross the CLX over to the subwoofer towers at 200 or 250 Hz I will not get the warmth I want in the 200 Hz to 400 Hz range.

I am very interested in the Neoliths, which seem to be giant Prodigys. The 12” cone in the Neoliths, which crosses over at 250 to 400 Hz will, I am sure, provide great warmth and impact in the 200 to 400 Hz range. I am going to T.H.E. Show significantly so I can listen to the Neoliths.

As happens often in this hobby the theoretical ideal (i.e., a full-range electrostatic panel) does not, to my ears, beat a theoretically inferior (integrated cone driver/hybrid) design.

Hi Ron,

do let us know what you think of the Neolith once you've had a chance to listen to it at the THE Show. My impressions of the CLX have been mostly like yours - and can be summarized as: beautiful, but they just lack heft and weight, especially with large-scale orchestral. I also find nsgarch's comments very interesting, and along the lines I was thinking of...

PS: got your PM on my mailbox but never on WBF, weird - will respond to your email address
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Dear Harlequin,

I appreciate and respect everything you wrote. That is what makes horse racing -- and this hobby fascinating.

Dear ack,

I will make a full report!
 

VFA

New Member
May 24, 2015
18
0
0
I own Montis which has a powered 12 in woofer in a closed cabinet. The base shook the panel so much it diminished the midrange clarity. Therefore I Added 2 ML Balanced subs 212 and decreased the Montis woofer to minus 10 dB. Then used the custom low pass filter and PBK room correction that comes with the subs to allow the subs to do most of the work under 300 Hz. The panels then became much less stimulated and more dead. This really cleaned up the midrange. Despite the 2 large and powerful subs the base is not at all boomy and completely undirectional . A huge improvement and not the bland CLX you describe. I go by sound only and my preferences seen thru listening. But I can't believe that if you auditioned this type of system ( you're Prodigy with the ML Balanced subs. You would not agree). Ngarsh or whoever he is has no clue
 
Last edited:

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
I already agree with you. I have a REL Stentor III with the Prodigys. I am sure your system sounds great!

PS: I am having the most amazing time at the Newport show!
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing