Magnepans vs. Electrostatics. What is the better technology? What do you prefer?

Greetings from Melbourne, got my mojo back and enjoying the music once again!
Nice to see this thread, as it is certainly one up my ally!

I would have thought that the question/topic should be ribbons vs. electrostats, but since maggies have been mentioned, it makes the comparison a bit more focused.

Caesar, I guess it all depends on what one person actually wants in terms of "overall sound, soundstage presence and musicality" based on a reference standard.
My reference standard is the "absolute sound". I clearly remember back in the student days in Chicago, listening to several live performances by Kurt Elling, George Benson, Dianna Krall, Casandra Wilson, Liz Wright, Tracy Chapman, and of course the masterful Chris Botti, which was one of my all time favourites, including Patricia Barber. That sound is my reference, and I have built my system around that standard.

Now by no means am I claiming that the present system is capable of delivering those live performances, not quite. However, in terms of inner detail, spontaneous transients, remarkable depth of soundstage and imaging, and that special "enveloping sound" just shines through with Conrad Johnson amplification and Quad electrostats.

With ribbons, I have previously owned the following: MGIIIa, MG3.3, MG3.5, and Apogee Diva's.
With electrostats, I have owned: Quad ESL63, Martin Logan CLS IIZ, Martin Logan Aries, and the Sequel III.

Overall both designs were great, however one of each certainly stands out; with ribbons the Apogee's are far by still the best! Have been and will always be. No maggies comes even close, although the MG20 series is not bad...
With electrostats, the Martin Logan's can sound a bit thin, and have bass driver integration problems, although I did like the SL3 for a while. The electrostat ML speaker system that I really enjoyed but could never afford at that time was the awe-inspiring Martin Logan Statement Evolution III, and now that's what I call an electrostat!

If anyone has ever auditioned the ML Evolution Statement III, it is simply a treat!

Having said that, it all depends on the person's interests and source material, plus of course the amplification. Some prefer SS and others Tubes...
What I have experienced and learnt along the way is just to keep the system as "simple" as possible. Perhaps just a pre-power combination and a fine pair of speakers to whatever your liking is. The rest will depend on the room and cabling accessories. Fine tuning the system towards "your reference sound" should be the goal, and currently I have achieved that. Therefore, I do not intend to upgrade for a very long time...

If the question also included dynamic driver types, I could only think of two speaker systems that I could certainly have as a second system, and that is the Wilson Alexandria's and SF Stradivari. With the right tube amplification these systems are simply superb! They're probably the ultimate in terms of TAS. The level of performance shifts up to a totally different league, and there are so many factors you have to consider under these circumstances, including insurance!

Keeping with my motto, simpler the better, and less on the premium with insurance, I think it's time for that scotch and electrostatic-tube bliss...
Cheers to all, RJ

Magnepan does not make full-range ribbons. The planer dynamic panels Magnepan makes differ from true ribbon drivers (though the Magnepan models you cite do include a ribbon tweeter).

ML is bringing out a new large-panel ESL hybrid, the Neolith. Looks interesting though way out of my price range. I remember when ML started with their original Monolith, and of course have heard the Statement and a few others over the years. IMO the bass integration problems exhibited by earlier ML designs have largely been solved though I have not listened critically recently.

Hey Don,

Yes agreed, I actually forgot that part entirely. Maggies are not true ribbons (other than the tweeter) compared to Apogee's full range ribbons. To me Apogee's were the best a ribbon design can offer under any price. This is very expensive to design, maintain and execute well enough to stand time... hence they're out of business! There is some chap named Graham in Queensland, who used to do up some sort of Apogee design new under special order but I haven't heard anything successful about his venture. They take a couple months to put together a pair and ship directly, that was the last correspondence I had, which was somewhere back in 2007/08

So martin Logan is putting together something new, that's great! Good to see some new exciting models from a well respected electrostat brand. Although my experience has been with the older Martin Logan's, I never really preferred to hold onto any of them for too long. They all either lacked that well-balanced finesse of one sonic wave front, and the CLSIIZ was too thin on certain tones, specially in the upper frequencies and upper mids. These sort of shortfalls I also experienced with Inner Sound and Sanders electro stats as well.

Don't get me wrong, these are all well designed electrostats in all their regard with very experienced and knowledgeable people. However, to me the "true classic" electrostat of all time will always be the Quad ESL, and this is one hell of design that still remains as a reference standard.

Bass on the CLSIIz was absolutely useless! That's when I went into the Sequel range for a short while, before giving up on electrostats altogether. Then came ribbons, ah! what a nice "well balanced" sound with fantastic depth and presence, that gets the scale of musicians on par, Apogee's did all of this very accurately. On the flip side, the ML Statements took the electrostat design with an overdose of steroids! Suddenly scale and depth were thrown out of the listening room and into the backyard so to speak... Sounded like a live concert right in front, and it was loud!
Very dynamic and transients were so fast that George Lucas would have loved to feature these speakers in one of his new Star Wars sequels...

At the end of the day, may it be ribbons, stats or hybrids that comes close to your reference sound, that's when you know you've got it!
Cheers mate, RJ

I think, based on very limited listening and more research, that both ML and Sanders have made great improvements in integrating the LF dynamic driver with the panel. IMO Sanders has it better but opinions vary. I was not a fan of the CLS either but again limited experience with it. I am probably one of the few who also did not care for the big Soundlabs.

It seems like I have read about a company trying to revive the full-range ribbon design, and I know there are a few companies who will rebuild older Apogees (do not recall names off-hand, however). I thought the original Apogees were stunning, but they were a heckuva' load! Very few amplifiers could handle them. The later versions were slightly better but some said they did not sound quite as good. I honestly did not notice much difference, and they were still a very low load.

I believe one such company that you are referring to currently manufacturing 'Apogee-like' designs is Analysis Audio, who refers to them as full range planar - ribbon loudspeakers.

That's the one I had in mind, thanks!

Not clear from the first page what the technology really is, says "full range, magneto-static membrane loudspeaker". That implies something more like Magnepan but could apply to ribbons as well. I'll have to read over their info again now you've reminded me where to look!

Edit: Took a look (lunch break). It looks like they are using planer dynamic membranes for the bass/mid range and ribbon tweeters, similar to Magnepan's 3.x and 20.x speakers.

I owned ML Summits, have heard Apogees, Analysis Audio, most Maggies except the 20s, Audio Exklusiv, and Quads

I don't rate Maggies much, to be honest. Quads have very good imaging and are coherent but lack dynamics and speed for orchestral. I heard an excellent 5.1 Quad system, by the way, pretty cheap setup, one of the best systems I have heard, we watched Claudio Abbado perform with the Lucern Festival Orchestra on screen while performing Mahler's 5th. Also watched Carmen. Shame they are not powerful enough.

I like MLs better than these. they are really good, and I will soon be listening to a 5.1 ML system with Dirac set up for classical.

I am hearing the Soundlab ultimates this Saturday, will report back.

I find the Apogees dynamic for rock, but their midrange vocal lacks the magic of Quads or Logans.

To answer your question, Lloyd, the Quads, MLs, Audio Exklusivs, are stats - their panels are fired by plugging the speaker into the mains.

Apogees, Maggies are planars. Stats are planars too. But these are non-stat planars. Some have ribbons, and some magnets.

The best I have heard so far is the Analysis Audio. I have heard the Omega, which should suit most homes. The Amphitryon is even bigger, and the Orion is the Amphi with bass panels.

I have put up a detailed comparison of Analysis, Apogees, and MLs here http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...DAC-on-redbook&p=289595&viewfull=1#post289595

The reason I am not interested in Sanders is they are known to be speakers where you can't move your head from it's position. You have to sit transfixed in one spot

Handwaving alert.

Ribbons use magnets, but on the sides of a metal film instead of behind and/or in front of a membrane with embedded wires. Signal current through the conductors (film or wires) generates a magnetic field that interacts with the permanent magnets to move the conductor back and forth. If you ever made an electromagnet as a kid you know that electrical current flow generates a magnetic field as well (that is how many electric motors work). Conventional dynamic speakers work pretty much the same except the conductor (voice coil) is a coil around a permanent magnet. Planer dynamic speakers take that coil of wire, stretch and "flatten" it, embed it in a membrane (think wire glued to a thin sheet of plastic), and put the membrane in front of (or behind, or both) strips of magnets. So instead of a coil of wire around a magnet, we have a planer array or magnets and the coil is spread out on a membrane in front of (or beside, for ribbons) the magnets. Works the same, but the speaker is now a planer array of wire and magnets.

ESLs (electrostatic loudspeakers) use charged panels/membrane. There are plates with a static (D.C.) charge and signal panel(s). Positive and negative voltages attract, equal polarities repel, so again a membrane moves in response to the applied signal (voltage, this time). The D.C. panels (stators), one positively and one negatively charged, are on each side of the signal membrane (some may do it the other way around). They are usually thin sheets of metal filled with holes (perforated panels; some might look like window screens). The signal applied to to membrane in the middle alternates in polarity, causing it to move back and forth as the signal is repelled and attracted by the D.C. panels. Sort of like static cling, in a dynamic way.

HTH - Don

edit: I think Magnepan has pix of both their regular and ribbon panels. Most ESL manufacturers have a description of their operation on their web sites.

The directionality of Sanders, or any similar flat panel, is a pro or con depending upon your point of view. I personally do not find Sanders significantly more directional than other planers, but the panels are a bit narrower than many Maggies so they seem more directional. Note ML (and perhaps others) use a curved panel to provide less directionality, but this also means more interaction with the room. It is up to the listener whether they prefer ambiance solely from the recording, or want the ambiance (reflections) from their room adding to the sense of space. I normally prefer the former but close-mic'd recordings have little ambiance in the recording and tend to sound "flat". As an aside, when I close mic, I typically add an omni mic or three further back from the performers so I can add some ambiance to the recording. I am no recording guru so have no idea how the pros do it (though I have seen similar setups in some concert halls, and have talked with some real recording engineers).

Don't fool yourself. The Apogees are one person speakers also. They do indeed sound nice out of the sweet spot, but when you are dialed in, in the center they do some very special things. But I guess you can say that about most speakers too.

The guy in Australia (Graz) picked up the Apogee name and the manufacturing of new speaker ribbons. He has a few people around the globe who he will sell these to for refurbishing the old Apogees. The refurbished speakers with new ribbons are truley awesome (I own an original Duetta Sig and my local buddy has the completely new ones). I would put them up against anything out there today as state of the art, and for a fraction of the cost of those big boys.

Here's a link to that website for more info:

http://www.apogeespeakers.com/

I have heard the Duetta Sigs. There is a guy who in the UK restores them for Graz. One of the systems was very well set up too, CLO TLX + Kondo dac + Kondo preamp + CJ Premier 8s (he had Bryston SS before). And excellent room

I prefer the Analysis Audio much more, also the Logans. I agree about the cost factor

intriguing...need to hear Audio Analysis and big Apogees.

I've also heard the Analysis Audio speakers paired with Lamm electronics (yeah, big $$$). They sounded sublime. Hugely transparent, immersive, musical experience.

But I've also heard them with other amps where they sounded thin and anemic. All about proper pairing and synergy of course. They are an easier load to drive than typical Apogees, for sure.

Lets face it, we may be splitting hairs here. Both are pretty awesome.

Have you heard them with the Arion digital amps, how are they? The AAs I heard were modded, and the ones you liked were too I guess. I have also heard them with awesome amps (NAT) and then just a crown power amp

DonH50 said:

Handwaving alert.(...)

Click to expand...

Don,

It is not possible to present all the important facts about planar magnetics versus electrostatic speakers I will add some details to your description.

Electrostatics can be split in two groups with fundamental differences concerning sound signature - constant charge (high resistivity) and variable charge (low resistivity). The signal voltage creates an electrical field and the forces on the Mylar causing vibration are due to the interaction between charges and the electrical field. In order to create significant forces we have to create high electrical fields - it is why the step up transformers - and have significant charge - high voltage is needed. All these elements are non ideal and create sound signatures.

Although pure ribbons were considered to have a better field configuration due the symmetrical characteristics of the magnets placement, some quasi-ribbon and wire planar speakers have similar field configuration - the designers put the the magnets on both sides of the membrane and positioned in rows alternating the poles between the wires or the quasi-ribbons. Due to great progress in the magnetic materials, the performance of modern planars has improved significantly in recent years, with increased sensitivity and much lower distortion. I know that my experience with the old Magnepan Tympani and 3.3R is not anymore representative of the brand capabilities - as well as my current A1 PX SoundLab are miles ahead of the old 90's A1.

Electrostatic speakers are governed by a scalar product - the forces have the same direction of the electric field - easy to explain. Unfortunately due to the not so simple physics of the interaction between currents and magnetic fields we must use the famous "right hand rule" (cross product) to figure the way magnetic panels and ribbons work.

Just to end we must remember that besides the electrical aspects we also have the very different mechanical properties of the structures needed to support all these elements.

Thanks for the extra insights!

I decided to not try and explain the right hand rule... I checked the ML web site and they have a decent explanation with pictures, as I imagine most of the others do as well. Magnepan has a page as well though I see they have taken off the description of the "old" still since the line is all QR now (mostly).

http://www.martinlogan.com/learn/electrostatic-speakers.php
http://www.magnepan.com/magneplanar_technology

Magnepan 20.x has always had magnets on both sides; not sure if the current 20.7 quasi-ribbon model does it that way. The QR design works with magnets on one side but opposite polarity, with the conductor a film on mylar (vs. a pure metal film). Not sure if it matches completely the linear displacement properties and speed of a true ribbon, but it should be much more robust.

All planers suffer from modes in the panels; "ripples" sort of like when you flap a bed sheet. There have been some creative attempts to solve that problem. I think these days new panel materials are the preferred solution (?) Compared to conventional speakers, planers (any type) still generally offer much lower distortion and much better time response, although I have noticed the conventional designs have by and large caught up on both points.

I was thinking of listening to a pair of 20.7's over Christmas break, but just found out tonight one of our vehicles is dying, so I think that will do it for my reserve funds this year.

bonzo75 said:

I owned ML Summits, have heard Apogees, Analysis Audio, most Maggies except the 20s, Audio Exklusiv, and Quads

I don't rate Maggies much, to be honest. Quads have very good imaging and are coherent but lack dynamics and speed for orchestral. I heard an excellent 5.1 Quad system, by the way, pretty cheap setup, one of the best systems I have heard, we watched Claudio Abbado perform with the Lucern Festival Orchestra on screen while performing Mahler's 5th. Also watched Carmen. Shame they are not powerful enough.

I like MLs better than these. they are really good, and I will soon be listening to a 5.1 ML system with Dirac set up for classical.

I am hearing the Soundlab ultimates this Saturday, will report back.

I find the Apogees dynamic for rock, but their midrange vocal lacks the magic of Quads or Logans.

To answer your question, Lloyd, the Quads, MLs, Audio Exklusivs, are stats - their panels are fired by plugging the speaker into the mains.

Apogees, Maggies are planars. Stats are planars too. But these are non-stat planars. Some have ribbons, and some magnets.

The best I have heard so far is the Analysis Audio. I have heard the Omega, which should suit most homes. The Amphitryon is even bigger, and the Orion is the Amphi with bass panels.

I have put up a detailed comparison of Analysis, Apogees, and MLs here http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...DAC-on-redbook&p=289595&viewfull=1#post289595

The reason I am not interested in Sanders is they are known to be speakers where you can't move your head from it's position. You have to sit transfixed in one spot

Click to expand...

Hey Bonzo,

Interesting claim you make about the Quads... but sorry mate I sincerely don't agree with you there.

Ref to that the Quads aren't dynamic, lack speed, and cannot do orchestral is a load of bollocks!

You are probably referring to the old Quad ESL63. Times have changed now mate, and I have the ESL 2905. It is built like a tank, weighs over 42kgs and cannot flinch at high volumes compared to other panel types like Maggies, Martin Logan's or other panels that are not heavily braced. Any large panel starts flapping like crazy when they go taller, they are not braced and designed the way the new Quads are, unless the owner was to do a DIY project. Read Ken Kessler's review on the ESL 2905, where he rated the ESL 2905 best speaker of all time with a perfect score of 20/20. He is not only talking about sound quality but also build quality...

Also, you don't own any Quads for that matter, and have not lived with the newer versions such as the new ESL 2905 or the 2912. I currently drive my ESL's with all Conrad Johnson amplification and McIntosh source equipment. That's pretty decent.

In order to top that gear, I have personally heard the very same model driven with top of the line Lamm monoblocks, McIntosh Tube monoblocks (300 waters) and the awesome Conrad Johnson ART monoblocks; the Quads took off onto a totally different league mate!

If you are in doubt on the big Quads, come over to my place any time and I'll give you a nice ride with some real electrostatic dynamics that you have never heard from Quads before. Trust me mate I have been living around many panel types for decades...
Like I said the only two panel types that I really enjoyed, and thought were far superior were the Apogee Diva's and Martin Logan Statement Evolution-II.

Analysis Audio may have struck on something new, but there will never be another Apogee nor anything to replace them.
As far as Quad is concerned, Peter Walker did the ground work and he was a genius with his special dispersion pattern. After that our audiophile guru the A man from SME had two ESL 63's stacked and heavily braced with reinforced steel brackets from top to bottom (again read Ken Kessler's review); and this is what prompted David Patching to come up with the new design of the ESL 2905. It is totally radical and is solid. I have not come across a big panel type this well built, and this was done for one specific reason, to knock off the old thinking that Quads aren't dynamic...

They are also totally amplifier dependent, perhaps the amplification you auditioned was too weak in terms of current and voltage drive, not necessarily watts.
Anyway, I would suggest next time tell the dealer to drive any pair of ESL 2905's or the latest version 2912's with top of the line monoblocks as the ones I have mentioned, and you'll both be very surprised.
Cheers mate and enjoy your music.
RJ
BTW: what speakers are you using now?

A problem regarding the Quads for those located in the US is the lack of any distribution here for the last several years. It's a very strange situation, and even if you can manage to acquire them from a seller in another country the lack of any in country service is troubling to say the least.

The quads I heard were 2905 for L and R, shd 2805 for the centre. Driven by musical fidelity monos, modded.

They were excellent, but I found them slower on orchestral pieces like mussorgsky's pictures and scherezade, which has a lot of brass attack.

You can do your research on Analysis best by listening to them, otherwise just read up comparisons with apogee on audio asylum, and even on the apogee forum.

I owned Martin Logan summits which I recently sold. I sold them off after hearing the AA

I heard the German quad company makes a special form of quads that are better

bonzo75 said:

The quads I heard were 2905 for L and R, shd 2805 for the centre. Driven by musical fidelity monos, modded.

They were excellent, but I found them slower on orchestral pieces like mussorgsky's pictures and scherezade, which has a lot of brass attack.

You can do your research on Analysis best by listening to them, otherwise just read up comparisons with apogee on audio asylum, and even on the apogee forum.

I owned Martin Logan summits which I recently sold. I sold them off after hearing the AA

Click to expand...

Bonzo75,

I must agree with Big Dog RJ on this aspect - even the ESL63 are not "slower" if you have an adequate system to drive them. They have dynamic limitations and most probably they will not be able to play brass instruments at very loud levels, but they reproduce the "byte" of brass instruments in a very true way.

Most people use them with solid state. IMHO we only know about the real dynamics of the Quad ESL's using high power tubes or, even better, OTLs.