Martin Logan non electrstatic

Gregadd · Jul 19, 2010

Those concerned with the future of Martin Logan should consider their new Motion Series. Not at all electrostatic. They use an a folded tweeter that squeezes the air and pushes it out like squeezing a watermelon seed between your fingers. To me it is reminiscent of the Heil AMT tweeter. I hope they keep making electrostatics.
http://www.martinlogan.com/motionSeries/index.php

es347 · Jul 19, 2010

like squeezing a watermelon seed between your fingers.....sounds very directional..

MiTT · Jul 19, 2010

I've got a full Motion setup in my home right now on loan from Martin Logan for evaluation. They sent it to me many months ago for review, but I've been too busy to post my findings and return the system to them. To be honest, I find them less directional than my CLS's in my main listening room - more precisely, they are less critical with regard to set up.

I'm pretty impressed with both the sound and the build quality at the price point. Comparing them to a full Gallo Neucleus 5.1 rig I have in my Family Room home theater, the Motion setup is jaw droppingly good. If I had the disposable income right now I wouldn't hesitate to purchase them.

Gregadd · Jul 19, 2010

MiTT said:
I've got a full Motion setup in my home right now on loan from Martin Logan for evaluation. They sent it to me many months ago for review, but I've been too busy to post my findings and return the system to them. To be honest, I find them less directional than my CLS's in my main listening room - more precisely, they are less critical with regard to set up.

I'm pretty impressed with both the sound and the build quality at the price point. Comparing them to a full Gallo Neucleus 5.1 rig I have in my Family Room home theater, the Motion setup is jaw droppingly good. If I had the disposable income right now I wouldn't hesitate to purchase them.

One of the most difficult things I have to remind myself is there is no need to have an opinion on everything. Just as important is even if you have an opinion no need to express it all the time. Just so you know my point of view IMO ML never needed to build any speaker other than the CLS.

nsgarch · Jul 19, 2010

Gregadd said:
One of the most difficult things I have to remind myself is there is no need to have an opinion on everything. Just as important is even if you have an opinion no need to express it all the time. Just so you know my point of view IMO ML never needed to build any speaker other than the CLS.

Have you heard the CLX (tube driven of course

) I haven't; just asking. Like you, I'd have to take a VERY deep breath before replacing my CLS's!

As for the Heil Air Motion Transducer camp of drivers (an excellent design which when properly implemented can certainly give ribbons a run for the money) but I have no faith in ML's version -- or pretty much any new technology they may explore now they're in corporate hands, because I just assume any such efforts would be for the purpose of squeezing more profit out of each product.

I could be wrong about that, but if you think about it, most successful audio equipment manufacturers made their name on one kind of product, or one type of technology. And when they expand their range of products and technologies, everything in their entire output gets dimished in quality. They can no longer do what they did best, and their "me-too" products can never excel over those from companies that specialize in them. McIntosh is a perfect example of spreading the catalog too thin and offering a lot of products which are middle of the road performers and WAY overpriced for what they are.

If you want to hear the latest and greatest of the AMT technology, the Mark & Daniel speakers (built in China) are the hot ticket http://www.markdanielofamerica.com/ The US headquarters are here in Tucson -- and I think they sound stunning, but still not well known. Only two problems I have: ugly (IMO) and expensive.

es347 · Jul 19, 2010

I've spent considerable time in the CLX sweetspot, the speakers being driven by various electronics. No offense to CLX owners but even though the image like crazy and are as revealing as anything out there, I found the soundstage depth lacking. The dealer pretty much was spot-on when he said it reminds him of the Wizard of Oz scene where the wizard appears as this big giant floating face. Other than the depth thing they really have some outstanding characteristics. I still own a great pair of the Aerius i's in my HT setup...along with a Cinema center channel. I wouldn't trade that for anything. It's a great HT front end.

Gregadd · Jul 19, 2010

As yet I have received no invite to hear the CLX.

DC area stores have historically been reluctant to carry big ticket items. I usually have to drive up to Delaware. I don't think Overture is going to display them. Also I have fallen into to disfavor with the local ML dealer. I'm not the only one.

I don't think my room would support the CLX. I do think I would buy them unheard.

MiTT · Jul 19, 2010

Gregadd said:
One of the most difficult things I have to remind myself is there is no need to have an opinion on everything. Just as important is even if you have an opinion no need to express it all the time. Just so you know my point of view IMO ML never needed to build any speaker other than the CLS.

Not sure I completely understand your post, but I suspect we are in agreement. While the Motions have been fun to explore and experiment with, I certainly wouldn't take them over my CLS's. I've gone from original Sequel's to the ReQuests and finally stopped with the CLS. Mind you, I've not heard the CLX either, and if I did I might lust for them. Who knows where I'll go along the way - I've thought about Reference 3A Grand Veena's and Avalons the past few years. I suspect I'll always keep the CLS's around though as a reminder of a vision realized.

Phelonious Ponk · Jul 20, 2010

I've had the chance to hear a few hours of the Motion series. I don't really see much point in comparing them to the CLS, as they are a completely different approach, regardless of price. There are some things the Motions do better than the CLS, important things like bass dynamics and breadth. And of course there is that indescribable thing that a couple of big electrostatic panels do in a room, that no other design can seem to emulate. I can completely understand the addiction.

The Motion 12s are the best of the series; I've seen customers choose them over speakers at twice the price, and I understand why. The midrange driver and tweeter are dipole in that model and the pull off the pretty remarkable trick of a deep, enveloping sound stage that also provides good pinpoint imaging. The sweet spot huge. The center is so rock-solid people think a center channel speaker is turned on. And there is the feeling of good openness and clarity in the highs...air.

Unfortunately, after a longer listen, the highs seem a bit brittle and the bottom a bit boomy. They wear on me a bit; they send me back to old-school materials (silk dome tweeters) and designs that don't seem to be trying to extend beyond their reach. But I'm really nit-picking here. For a passive floor-stander that retails at $1500 a pair, they do very well for themselves.

P

Gregadd · Jul 20, 2010

I did not intend this thread to be a review of the Motion series. Rather it was a discussion of the direction ML was headed. All things considered I want them to stay in business. It does not appear that the CLX has been an overwhelming success(big seller). I base this on the fact that my ML dealer and Overture have chosen not to display it. I cringe at the thought of smaller and smaller versions of the electrostatic. I believe the panel should be as large as practical. ML and Magnepan for that matter have been very successful selling fairly large speakers to non fanatical audiophiles. There are those who are not going to make that commitment regardless of price or sound. The Motion series seems to be aimed at the surround sound customer. A customer who is unlikely to commit o five large electrostatics. While Magnepan has declined to go that rioute, I know that Quad has gone dynamic with its Quad Lite series. I had the sub for a brief stay. A low price with remarkable build quality.

Phelonious Ponk · Jul 20, 2010

Gregadd said:
I did not intend this thread to be a review of the Motion series. Rather it was a discussion of the direction ML was headed. All things considered I want them to stay in business. It does not appear that the CLX has been an overwhelming success(big seller). I base this on the fact that my ML dealer and Overture have chosen not to display it. I cringe at the thought of smaller and smaller versions of the electrostatic. I believe the panel should be as large as practical. ML and Magnepan for that matter have been very successful selling fairly large speakers to non fanatical audiophiles. There are those who are not going to make that commitment regardless of price or sound. The Motion series seems to be aimed at the surround sound customer. A customer who is unlikely to commit o five large electrostatics. While Magnepan has declined to go that rioute, I know that Quad has gone dynamic with its Quad Lite series. I had the sub for a brief stay. A low price with remarkable build quality.

I just thought I'd give a few impressions, because I've had the chance to hear them; didn't mean to drift your thread. I think the direction, with a more accessible line, is a good business move for a company that now has a national retail presence, and I think they've made that move well with a quality product that will hopefully sell well.

P

RUR · Jul 20, 2010

Phelonious Ponk said:
..... I think the direction, with a more accessible line, is a good business move for a company that now has a national retail presence, and I think they've made that move well with a quality product that will hopefully sell well.

Completely agree that new, profitable product can only benefit in the long run. We also know that ML is committed, at least in the near-term, to ESL development: They've just released the Ethos and have two more ESL products notionally scheduled for introduction this year.

Gregadd · Jul 20, 2010

RUR said:
Completely agree that new, profitable product can only benefit in the long run. We also know that ML is committed, at least in the near-term, to ESL development: They've just released the Ethos and have two more ESL products notionally scheduled for introduction this year.

The Ethos is probably a lateral move. Flooding the line with new models traditionally has been a bad sign for companies in MLs' position. In the past we expected new models to push the envelope. The question is that business model still viable.

Gregadd · Jul 20, 2010

New vp head of Martin Logan sales. http://www.cepro.com/article/paradigm_names_bob_gassel_intl_vp_of_sales/K291

es347 · Jul 20, 2010

I think we may see more and more high end speaker mfrs. targeting the lower market niches where the demand is likely much greater. I'm all for it if it succeeds in keeping their doors open. That way they can keep building the truly high end stuff too.

RUR · Jul 20, 2010

Gregadd said:
The Ethos is probably a lateral move. Flooding the line with new models traditionally has been a bad sign for companies in MLs' position. In the past we expected new models to push the envelope. The question is that business model still viable.

The Ethos is clearly an incremental improvement (larger panel, DSP bass driver control) over the Vantage, which I theorize will soon disappear. The CLX most certainly did push the envelope and there are only a couple of places ML could go that I can think of.... An updated CLS would be one sweet product. I'd also love to see something between the Summit, which I own, and the CLX, which may or may not be too big for my room.

Be interesting to see what ML comes up with for the additional new models announced.

nsgarch · Jul 20, 2010

A multi-reply

to MiTT:

I suspect I'll always keep the CLS's around though as a reminder of a vision realized.

That's it!! A vision realized, hands down, the best description I ever read to explain the undying attachment to this loudspeaker! It just never gets old does it . . . . . . . .

to RUR: "No thank you" to digitizing ANY of the signal I put into my speaker without my permission!! The Ethos is clearly a flawed design which would probably SUCK without digital correction. Turning a sow's ear into a virtual silk purse by digitally processing part of the signal the speaker should be reproducing in the analog realm is a lazy, profit-motivated cop-out! Not my idea of a quality product. They should have (and could have) reworked the Vantage and kept everything in the analog domain. But it's all about profits now. So sad. Not an incremental improvement at all RUR, but rather a decline. An abdication from the art of speaker design and a commitment to the corporate God of cost-cutting.

Gayle Sanders is the one actually responsible for this sad state of affairs. He sold to the highest bidder who of course needs a good return on his (probably too large) investment. His lust for the dollar comfirmed by the unceremonious dismissal of possibly the BEST sevice manager in the business just for the sake of the sale! If Gayle wanted to extend ML's legacy of innovation and improvement in the field of the ESL, he could have sold the company to a buyer with perhaps less money but interested in furthering the technology which put the company on top in the first place, and not in spreading product across every imaginable demographic!

I was looking forward, before the sale, to seeing the lessons of the CLX (primarily the 5-layer electrostatic bass panel) applied to the development of a truly FULL RANGE electrostat (you know, 20Hz to 20KHz

). A speaker that I dreamt would finally replace the geriatric Soundlab -- still the king of the electrostatic hill, whether we want to admit it or not.

I won't be holding my breath. MartinLogan is melting into a puddle of chocolate like the witch in the Wizard of OZ.

caesar · Jul 23, 2010

nsgarch said:
I was looking forward, before the sale, to seeing the lessons of the CLX (primarily the 5-layer electrostatic bass panel) applied to the development of a truly FULL RANGE electrostat (you know, 20Hz to 20KHz ). A speaker that I dreamt would finally replace the geriatric Soundlab -- still the king of the electrostatic hill, whether we want to admit it or not.

I won't be holding my breath. MartinLogan is melting into a puddle of chocolate like the witch in the Wizard of OZ.

Have you ever heard the new Soundlab px? It is anything but geriatric. Its macro and micro dynamics are better than the Logans!

Also, what is it about the CLX you don't like? It is a superb speaker. If you like the Logan sound, it is a good as it gets.

nsgarch · Jul 23, 2010

caesar said:
Have you ever heard the new Soundlab px? It is anything but geriatric. Its macro and micro dynamics are better than the Logans!

Caesar, by 'geriatric' I wasn't referring to the sound ;-)) Just the age of the technology. The big Soundlabs are still the only full-range electrostat on the market. But geez, this is the 21st century and their basic design/technology is OLD, and the full-range models are still HUGE.

Also, what is it about the CLX you don't like? It is a superb speaker. If you like the Logan sound, it is a good as it gets.

I don't understand how you thought I was being critical of the CLX? I just noted the CLX wasn't a full--range electrostat -- not YET! But it is more compact than the Soundlabs (the full range ones!) and I hoped/expected (before the sale of ML) that the CLX would be the first step in an effort to replace the CLS (which is ALMOST full range, and actually goes lower than the CLX) That the CLX would eventually be developed into a full-range electostat, but much smaller and less mechanically complex than the Soundlab. Now, I don't think that will happen.

By comparison, I feel the Soundlabs, great sounding as they are, (if you can give them a proper home) have reached the end of the line for that particular design approach; meaning it can't be made any smaller or less complex while at the same time retaining its legendary full-range performance. I just don't think it's the best that can be achieved, all things considered.

caesar · Jul 24, 2010

Nsgarch,

Thanks for clarifying - our language is ambiguous enough as is, let alone in this communication medium.

As for electrostatic design, I agree that no engineer has been able to overcome the size issue to create meaningful bass. The latest Soundlabs, the Majestics, are even bigger than the huge older A1's, and they go lower. The latest electrostat to be introduced, the King, is huge also. It is about 6 feet high and 2.5 feet wide.

Martin Logan has chosen wife acceptance factor over function in their design philosophy, even probably under Gayle Sanders. They don't make 'huge" speakers any more, such as the Monolith (which is still awesome). With the CLX, they stopped at a certain size and instead chose to focus on integrating the speaker with the Descent subwoofer.

Even with these larger sized models, the knock against electrostats is that the bass is not fast enough for some people and it doesn't have the weight of a speaker like an expensive Focal or a Wilson.

Martin Logan non electrstatic

WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads