Where to go from Electrostatics ?

[krelldog]

This will be a confusing post...but here it goes....

I've had electrostatics for 20 years...probably about 6-7 pairs.

I currently have Martin Logan Montis's .. which I'm very happy with.

On a whim...I recently bought an immaculate pair of Harbeth Super HL 35's

I had no expectations other than the Harbeth's reviewed extremely positive, and I love the look of them.

I still have both and after extensive comparisons...its not even close..my Martin Logan sound much better.

My question is...under 10K used..what non electrostatics sound better?

The Harbeth's on acoustic...voice dominant recordings are awesome, but on more complicated multiple instrument recordings..not so much.

Just wondering if anyone else has tried to make this transition....and what were their findings ?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I cannot answer your price point question.

I had Martin-Logan Monolith Is and then Monolith IIIs and then finally Prodigys. I had the Prodigys for almost 18 years. I preferred the Prodigys to Summits.

I love the MartinLogan Neolith, but after a lot of auditioning I decided to switch to a ribbon driver speaker. To oversimplify I think that by switching from electrostatic to ribbon driver I lose one iota of transparency on vocals but I pick up two iotas of corporeal body and weightiness on vocals and instruments.

 

[Uk Paul]

ML's most certainly offer a lot of sound quality for their cost, and at the Montis level, you are going to struggle to comprehensively beat them for 10k used IMO. What you will be able to achieve is a presentation change, i.e. a more propulsive sound into the room, better depth front to back, maybe a larger sweet spot which isn't great with stat's, and most likely an easier load on your amps.
Like you I have been using stat's (ML) for many years, and still love many aspects of them, but will soon have a pair of Franco Serblin Proscenium Ktema also, which is one of the few loudspeakers at sub 25k (UK £) that do all of what my upgraded Spire does, plus more in terms of projecting a more visceral soundscape. Ktema is a remarkable speaker at the price point, but unlikely available in your budget..
Harbeth couldn't be any more polar from your Montis, and while I do actually like them, (they are very local to me here in the UK) I wouldn't make a shift to a speaker like that in one move..
Good luck with your adventure!

 

[christoph]

This will be a confusing post...but here it goes....

I've had electrostatics for 20 years...probably about 6-7 pairs.

I currently have Martin Logan Montis's .. which I'm very happy with.

On a whim...I recently bought an immaculate pair of Harbeth Super HL 35's

I had no expectations other than the Harbeth's reviewed extremely positive, and I love the look of them.

I still have both and after extensive comparisons...its not even close..my Martin Logan sound much better.

My question is...under 10K used..what non electrostatics sound better?

The Harbeth's on acoustic...voice dominant recordings are awesome, but on more complicated multiple instrument recordings..not so much.

Just wondering if anyone else has tried to make this transition....and what were their findings ?

In your situation, I would try to listen to a pair of overhauled Apogees (Duettas would be in your Budget).
I always prefered Apogees over Martin Logans

 

[wisnon]

Linear motion tech drivers, AMTs, FAL flat drivers, Bending wave drivers, Omni speakers, etc

 

[Bodhi]

You could pick up this pair of one-owner Infinity IRS Gamma's in good shape for $6.4k from a genuine seller. These speakers have evidently been well cared for & recently re-coned. The only caveat is the Gamma's (like their big brother, Beta) like plenty of power & should be ideally bi-amped. A popular choice back in the day was a big Threshold or Krell amp on the bass & ARC tube amp driving the mid/highs.

 

[paolo]

Open baffle perhaps?

 

[Gregadd]

I am a big open baffle fan. I think that is only the beginning because there are many different approaches. I would check out Spatial. The M3,X3, and X5.
Before you leave electrostatics checkout Sanadersounds.Yeah.Yeah. Limited sweet spot. Blah ,blah.blah...

 

[Gregadd]

I cannot answer your price point question.

I had Martin-Logan Monolith Is and then Monolith IIIs and then finally Prodigys. I had the Prodigys for almost 18 years. I preferred the Prodigys to Summits.

I love the MartinLogan Neolith, but after a lot of auditioning I decided to switch to a ribbon driver speaker. To oversimplify I think that by switching from electrostatic to ribbon driver I lose one iota of transparency on vocals but I pick up two iotas of corporeal body and weightiness on vocals and instruments.

So this is unrelated to the OP. I had the Martin Logan CLS. I auditioned the Monoliths in the store, The dealer could not get them to sound any where near as good, What did you ou drive your Monoliths with? Did you use a sub?

 

[Al M.]

I love the MartinLogan Neolith, but after a lot of auditioning I decided to switch to a ribbon driver speaker. To oversimplify I think that by switching from electrostatic to ribbon driver I lose one iota of transparency on vocals but I pick up two iotas of corporeal body and weightiness on vocals and instruments.

Ron, I would say transparency is a relative thing. As soon as the tonality acquires more weight, apparent "see-through" transparency is diminished slightly. But this usually has little to do with a loss of quality, it is a simple psychoacoustic phenomenon.

 

[Ron Resnick]

So this is unrelated to the OP. I had the Martin Logan CLS. I auditioned the Monoliths in the store, The dealer could not get them to sound any where near as good, What did you ou drive your Monoliths with? Did you use a sub?

I never cared for the pure electrostatic panel speakers because I found them too thin and skeletal sounding.

I think the Monolith IIIs integrated better than the Monolith Is.

I drove them with Manley 150 monos.

I did not use subwoofers.

 

[MtnHam]

"I never cared for the pure electrostatic panel speakers because I found them too thin and skeletal sounding."

My experience with Sound Lab electrostatic is anything but "thin and skeletal"!

It is unfortunate that in discussions like this Martin Logans are usually mentioned, almost never Sound Labs. SL's are never advertised, and certainly not available at Best Buy. Before giving up on electrostats, you owe it to yourself to listen to a well set up pair. I would welcome WBF visitors to my home in San Francisco.

 

[microstrip]

I never cared for the pure electrostatic panel speakers because I found them too thin and skeletal sounding. (...)

Ron,

Electrostatics have many problems, particularly in macrodynamics and they are not universal speakers, but for example SoundLabs and Quad ESL63 are not thin or skeletal sounding. IMHO they have meat, not fat around the bones!

 

[microstrip]

( ...) Just wondering if anyone else has tried to make this transition....and what were their findings ?

I have both electrostatic and box speakers, IMHO we need more details about your preferences, system and room before advising.

 

[Zero000]

In your situation, I would try to listen to a pair of overhauled Apogees (Duettas would be in your Budget).
I always prefered Apogees over Martin Logans

Agreed. I used Martin Logan's for 17 years.

I personally think rebuilt Apogee Duettas to a spec above the originals are superior to Martin Logans. At least comparing Ascent/Descent to Duettas which is where I stopped with MLs. Trust me, a single pair of Duettas are a lot better than Ascent/Descent.

There is a challenge with a decent pair of Duettas as I have found out. They just keep giving with better and better amplification. To the point where I am running around £30K retail worth of amps with large 211 monos on the mid range/treble and Luxman class A on the bass. This simply sounds absolutely brilliant.

 

[Zero000]

Ron,

Electrostatics have many problems, particularly in macrodynamics and they are not universal speakers, but for example SoundLabs and Quad ESL63 are not thin or skeletal sounding. IMHO they have meat, not fat around the bones!

This is true. It's the ML hybrids that suffer from sounding thin as the bass frequencies emanate only from the bottom of the speaker.

They are also poor at low volume IMHO sounding vague and ill defined.

I still like them though. Flawed like anything else, but still pretty good speakers.

 

[DonH50]

Sanders' ESLs are crossed over lower and so provide closer to a full-range experience than the hybrid MLs. The panel/woofer transition has historically been an issue though when I last listened a year or two ago it was much better than say ten years ago (IME/IMO). Never heard the Neolith and too long since I've heard Monoliths to comment. If you like them, why change?

Magnepan also comes to mind as an ESL-alternative (not better or worse, just different -- they all have their pros and cons). I switched from Maggies to Revel in a small'ish room and have been happy. Gained in a lot of ways and did not give much up, but my room is both fairly small by WBF standards and heavily treated.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Gentlemen,

I was referring to CLSs in answering a question about CLSs. I was not rendering any opinion on electrostatic loudspeakers I have never heard.

 

[thedudeabides]

Had four ML models. CLS2A, Aerius, SL3's, and the Summit over 25 years or so. Next speaker was used MBL 116's. See avatar. If you can find a pair around your price range, that would be my recommend.

 

[Gregadd]

Ron,

Electrostatics have many problems, particularly in macrodynamics and they are not universal speakers, but for example SoundLabs and Quad ESL63 are not thin or skeletal sounding. IMHO they have meat, not fat around the bones!

Roger has solved these problems. Sandersounds.