Why do Martin Logans sound lean/ thin (transparent) compared to other stats?

[MtnHam]

No dealer I know of carries Sound lab

It's true, there are only eight dealers in the U.S. To be a dealer, you have to love the speakers and not expect to sell many. B&M dealers won't floor them, but if you suspect you might be seduced (it's almost a cult) and want to audition them, these dealers can help: http://www.soundlab-speakers.com/dealer.html Often an owner will allow an audition. Most owners are knowledgeable audiophiles who believe SL's are the best of the electrostatic genre.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

When did lean/thin = transparent?

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

When did lean/thin = transparent?

Tim

When there's a lack of bass to screw up the midrange.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

When there's a lack of bass to screw up the midrange.

I'm confused. While transparent might be the highest audio compliment, lean/thin sounds like criticism. Is the lack of a screwed up midrange a good thing or a bad one?

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

I'm confused. While transparent might be the highest audio compliment, lean/thin sounds like criticism. Is the lack of a screwed up midrange a good thing or a bad one?

Tim

Listen to a CLS.

 

[mep]

I'm confused. While transparent might be the highest audio compliment, lean/thin sounds like criticism. Is the lack of a screwed up midrange a good thing or a bad one?

Tim

Huh?? What kind of question was that? Asking if not having a screwed up midrange (meaning it sounds 'right') is "a good thing or a bad one" is a wacky question. What's your real point?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Huh?? What kind of question was that? Asking if not having a screwed up midrange (meaning it sounds 'right') is "a good thing or a bad one" is a wacky question. What's your real point?

Just trying to sort out the subject of this thread, and how lean/thin, a bad thing, can also be transparent, a very good thing, and also trying to understand Myles' response to my attempt to sort it out:

When there's a lack of bass to screw up the midrange

Transparent is lean/thin when there's a lack of bass to screw up the midrange? A) If it lacks bass, it's not truly transparent. Not in that range, anyway.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

Just trying to sort out the subject of this thread, and how lean/thin, a bad thing, can also be transparent, a very good thing, and also trying to understand Myles' response to my attempt to sort it out:



Transparent is lean/thin when there's a lack of bass to screw up the midrange? A) If it lacks bass, it's not truly transparent. Not in that range, anyway.

Tim

Problem is that what you're calling transparent is not the textbook definition. See Gordon Holt's definition. Transparency is the ability to see through the stage to the rear of the hall, etc. It's in large part a room factor and a noise factor.

 

[mep]

Tim-You really need to go back to the original title and post by the originator-Caesar Appleseed. Caesar's claim is that ML speakers sound "lean/thin (transparent)." The postulation is they sound lean and thin due to the lack of low bass. However, the sound of the frequencies which they do reproduce is very transparent. Anyone who has owned ML speakers or listened to them for any length of time would probably understand that. That's why Myles told you to go and listen to a pair of CLS speakers which embody the characteristics being described here.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-You really need to go back to the original title and post by the originator-Caesar Appleseed. Caesar's claim is that ML speakers sound "lean/thin (transparent)." The postulation is they sound lean and thin due to the lack of low bass. However, the sound of the frequencies which they do reproduce is very transparent. Anyone who has owned ML speakers or listened to them for any length of time would probably understand that. That's why Myles told you to go and listen to a pair of CLS speakers which embody the characteristics being described here.

I used to sell them; I've heard a lot of ML, though not the CLS. I was responding to the original post, I think I the description just struck me me as contradictory. A small point, perhaps.

Tim

 

[LL21]

I used to sell them; I've heard a lot of ML, though not the CLS. I was responding to the original post, I think I the description just struck me me as contradictory. A small point, perhaps.

Tim

Tim,

I think people are suggesting that the treble/mids may be perfectly transparent, but without bass from below, it means that the overall presentation feels thin. Personally, that is EXACTLY what I found when I auditioned the CLX. I was so intoxicated by its alacrity, transparency but the presentation felt lighter and with less slam than I wanted...and the Descent subs mixed in did not quite get me there either. So I passed.

I am most intrigued by the new Neolith plus Balanced Force subs in the hopes it might provide more of the tonal and general 'weight' that I prize along with the remarkable transparency in the mids/uppers that I found so beguiling in the CLX.

 

[DonH50]

FWIWFM, I typically find dipoles fiendishly difficult to set up properly in a room. Get it wrong and you'll get lousy imaging, tubby bass or no bass, and comb filter effects that mess up the entire sound stage. Full-range 'stats that go to 50 Hz or below do not sound "lean" to me but of course you can (not) hear that missing bottom octave or two. In addition to dealing with the speaker placement and room, getting the subs properly phase-aligned at the crossover point is something a lot of folk fail to consider IME. I would estimate that when subs are added that is the issue that leads to "lean" or "thin" sound in most installs I have heard.

Room treatment can solve a lot of the upper bass on up frequency response issues, but if not done with great care leads to a loss of the reflected content so prized by most dipole owners. My room is dead, dead, dead -- any ambiance comes from the source and not the room. It works because the room is small, the speakers are large (Magnepan, not ML, but much the same issue), and the system is pretty clean (though orders of magnitude beneath WBF standards, natch).

IMO, FWIWFM, IME, YMMV, my 0.000001 cents, etc. - Don

 

[JonFo]

^^^ Don, totally agree that getting the setup right is the most critical thing and the most difficult part of owning large dipoles.
After a decade of measuring, tuning, measuring and treating the heck out the room, I have amazing soundstage, plenty of strong bass (a good IB sub helps) and even great mid-bass slam (custom woofer) all perfectly phase and time aligned with a speaker processor.

After owning MartinLogans for 20+ years, in my view being a dipole is a bug, not a feature and I'm going to experiment with turning my Monoliths into monopoles in an infinite baffle configuration, as I'm sure I'll get some great mid-bass performance out of that large panel if it's not fighting it's own rear wave. As you might imagine, that's not a solution for everyone, but I've been chasing the ultimate ESL setup this long, so why stop? ;-)

 

[rockitman]

Lean and thin mean the same thing to me. It has nothing to do with transparency, ime.

 

[microstrip]

I used to sell them; I've heard a lot of ML, though not the CLS. (...)

Tim,
Just to please my curiosity - can you still describe in detail the best system and recording you have listened to using Martin Logan?

 

[DonH50]

Thanks Jonathan. Planer dipole drivers are great for low distortion and a "big" sound stage but the back wave is usually a pain. Ages ago I recall discussing the back wave with somebody from Beveridge. I suggested a design that included absorption behind the driver to reduce the back wave. I think all I got was polite quasi-interest, but as a college kid I was used to that. IIRC, at one time I did a custom design that integrated an absorbing panel into a Magnepan or Quad (behind the speaker but attached to the frame). It did not work all that well, partly due to my limited understanding of acoustics at that time (probably 30+ years ago) and the owner did not like the deadened sound. One must remember that these panels act like line sources over most of the frequency range, so there is little side or top/bottom radiation. The only ambient sound comes from the back wave (and rear walls or later reflections, natch). That is part of their charm, and vexation...

All IMO - Don

p.s. microstrip -- We are in total agreement on lean/thin having nothing to do with transparency; those are different things to me.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
Just to please my curiosity - can you still describe in detail the best system and recording you have listened to using Martin Logan?

Nope. I know you will think I'm crazy, but back then ML had an affordable line that used conventional mid-bass drivers and ML's variation on the Heil Air Motion transformer. I thought they sounded better than the ML panels. Those panels definitely had their virtues, but they were a little flat-sounding in the sweet spot and bloody awful a hair of axis.

I get what people mean when they say thin, I just don't think bass fixes it, and I can think of plenty of other speakers with limited bottom end thats mids don't thin out without the bass support. Now, with all of that said, I haven't heard MLs in a few years and they've probably improved, particularly at the top of the range.

Tim

 

[LL21]

...

I get what people mean when they say thin, I just don't think bass fixes it, and I can think of plenty of other speakers with limited bottom end thats mids don't thin out without the bass support. Now, with all of that said, I haven't heard MLs in a few years and they've probably improved, particularly at the top of the range.

Tim

Having reconsidered my earlier statement about ML CLX being transparent and thinking its thinness was bass-related, I now think you are right Tim. When I had my SF Guarneris I never felt they were thin. Lacking weight? Yes. But not thin which is what I felt when I heard CLX...I thought bass would help (it didn't).

I saw the earlier post about insidious setup for the MLs to get them right...I could believe that, having played around with other panels long ago. Look forward to hearing the Neoliths when they become available.

 

[JonFo]

... The only ambient sound comes from the back wave (and rear walls or later reflections, natch). That is part of their charm, and vexation...

It also why so often people describe (as several posts in this thread have) the small sweet spot as being a problem, which has little to do with the front wave launch and everything to do with the high amount of reflected energy from front and side walls. As line sources, they do produce a LOT of rear facing energy, just as much as towards the front, and that energy delayed and reflected causes interference with the front wave launch such that only in a specific position where you are primarily listening to the front wave launch (precedence effect) and integrating the reflected energy does there seem to be a cohesion. But it a construct of our minds (Psychoacoustics), as measurements show the comb filtering.

In a system with a well damped front area, the soundstage is much wider as are the options for listening positions, since listeners now hear much more of the front wave launch and the rear wave is attenuated and not interfering as much. Paradoxically, diminishing that 'ambience' inducing reflection improves the soundstage tremendously. It also gives back a good bit of performance in the 250 to 600Hz range. Removing the 'lean' from the characterization.

 

[LL21]

...In a system with a well damped front area, the soundstage is much wider as are the options for listening positions, since listeners now hear much more of the front wave launch and the rear wave is attenuated and not interfering as much. Paradoxically, diminishing that 'ambience' inducing reflection improves the soundstage tremendously. It also gives back a good bit of performance in the 250 to 600Hz range. Removing the 'lean' from the characterization.

Interesting...will bear that in mind. Just to make sure I get it right, you are suggesting that in an ML set up, having room treatment to damp the wall behind the ML's is a good idea to get the improved soundstage and hearing more of the front wave launch for wider sweet spot?