Every time I mention Martin Logan,
The Quad aficionardos greet me with cold hard blank stares.

But I think they sound better.

So when ppl say Quad ESL57 are still up there with the best.
I really wonder. Anyone have have any opinions about ML,
or hasn't anyone heard music thru them?

I have never been able to get an impedance plot for the ML,
so I assume they are harder to drive than Quad,
and just hard to drive.
But any well made tube amp should be able to cope.

Patrick Turner.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:08:46 +1100, Patrick Turner wrote:

Every time I mention Martin Logan,
The Quad aficionardos greet me with cold hard blank stares.

But I think they sound better.

So when ppl say Quad ESL57 are still up there with the best. I really
wonder. Anyone have have any opinions about ML, or hasn't anyone heard
music thru them?

I have never been able to get an impedance plot for the ML, so I assume
they are harder to drive than Quad, and just hard to drive. But any well
made tube amp should be able to cope.

Patrick Turner.

I auditioned a mid-range model of the MLs a year or two ago. They were
very good and I liked them, but just not as much as some other speakers I
listened to. Been some years since I heard the ESL57's but I remember them
being very musical, though I couldn't compare them directly to the MLs due
to the difference in years and listening situation.

The problem is even the best speakers - like any engineering project -
involve a series of compromises. Cars, jet fighters, bridges, electronics,
etc. all involve numerous decisions as to what aspects are more important
than others.

The best I can hope for is to find a speaker at a price I can afford where
the designer has made technical choices that mirror my tastes as to what
trades are acceptable to me when listening to music.

While I didn't buy either the MLs or Quads (ended up with a set of
Magnapan 1.6s that make me very happy) both of the former are well
designed speakers. I can certainly see why some people choose either of
them.

Hello Pat,
Did you compare the newer quads? How about stacked Quads? My main gripe is
the narrow sweet spot. When they come up with an electrostatic with wide
dispersion, I'll be first on line to buy. I use to own the Acoustats 2+2.
Loved them as long as I kept my head in a vise.
Cordially,
west

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
Every time I mention Martin Logan,
The Quad aficionardos greet me with cold hard blank stares.

But I think they sound better.

So when ppl say Quad ESL57 are still up there with the best.
I really wonder. Anyone have have any opinions about ML,
or hasn't anyone heard music thru them?

I have never been able to get an impedance plot for the ML,
so I assume they are harder to drive than Quad,
and just hard to drive.
But any well made tube amp should be able to cope.

Patrick Turner.

"west"

Hello Pat,
Did you compare the newer quads? How about stacked Quads? My main gripe is
the narrow sweet spot. When they come up with an electrostatic with wide
dispersion, I'll be first on line to buy.


** The ESL63 is wide as is the 988.



........ Phil

west wrote:

Hello Pat,
Did you compare the newer quads? How about stacked Quads? My main gripe is
the narrow sweet spot. When they come up with an electrostatic with wide
dispersion, I'll be first on line to buy. I use to own the Acoustats 2+2.
Loved them as long as I kept my head in a vise.
Cordially,
west

The Martin Logans I heard had the sizzle and warmth
on massed strings, and seemed to sound like real musicians.

I have not heard stacked Quads, or the newer types,
so afaik, they probably are worth it to those who can afford them.
I heard Stax as well, and just another speaker to me.

Seems like two or more schools of thought exist re ESL.
Some say ESLs are the only true way a virtual image can be heard,
others say that because there is only one position where you hear an image,
it is unatural, because that isn't the case at a concert, where
there is this wide sound stage, and it can't get better than that, and well
imaging speakers
should recreate the wide sound stage that you get at the concert.
And I mean a real concert, with live musicians, with no sound reinforcements
or any amps,
and all acoustic instruments, plus maybe a choir thrown in.

Is someone going to tell me that reproduced can be better than the real thing?

And then there is the recording techniques, with close miked versions
dedicated to either L or R,
rather than using just two mikes out in front like a pair of ears,
to capture what someone would hear.

I rarely sit still while I listen, there is always 1,001 things to do,
and the music often has to come around walls and corners to get to me,
and accurate imaging is the least of my concerns, its the
sound detail, and the music itself which is the most important thing.
But seated optimally, the speakers I have do have reasonable imaging,
and one don't have to use a vice to get an image.

Surround sound has a long history dating back to medieval times when
cathedrals were fun places to go on a sunday, as there were choirs and
instrumentalists
placed all around the guts of the cathedral, to give a dose of heaven on
earth.
A different version of the sound was heard depending where you knelt
to pray for forgiveness of your sins, and for the pretty girl 3 rows away to
turn
and notice you.

I know about the imaging of ESLs, and how would a stereo pair recreate
the spacials of a cathedral?
The flavour of the catheral is there, but not the spacials,
unless someone deliberately set out to create a score where the
singers walked while singing, and then the distances and
revebrations tell you that the choir is on the move, and
your imagination fills in the details.

I have heard such cathedral type singing, and had it well
portrayed on a system with vinyl source, set amps,
and large reflex boxes with Tannoy concentrics from 1969.
I just sat back and enjoyed.

The real test is that even at concerts, a blindfolded person would make
serious
mistakes about where performers were.
A person born blind may have a better idea, because they often have a
more acutely developed sense of hearing, and they have not had to endure
the damage to hearing that so many well sighted folks sustain in a world full
of noise.

Patrick Turner.







"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
Every time I mention Martin Logan,
The Quad aficionardos greet me with cold hard blank stares.

But I think they sound better.

So when ppl say Quad ESL57 are still up there with the best.
I really wonder. Anyone have have any opinions about ML,
or hasn't anyone heard music thru them?

I have never been able to get an impedance plot for the ML,
so I assume they are harder to drive than Quad,
and just hard to drive.
But any well made tube amp should be able to cope.

Patrick Turner.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:02:38 +0000, the highly esteemed west enlightened
us with these pearls of wisdom:

Hello Pat,
Did you compare the newer quads? How about stacked Quads? My main gripe is
the narrow sweet spot. When they come up with an electrostatic with wide
dispersion, I'll be first on line to buy. I use to own the Acoustats 2+2.
Loved them as long as I kept my head in a vise. Cordially,
west

The Martin Logans have wide dispersion due to the curved panel design.
FWIW, I have used ML Aerius i's, and I thought they were excellent. My
opinion is that they were better with tubes than SS, although most SS
fanatics disagree. Interestingly, I got excellent sound from these
speakers with a 25W SE tube amp (output devices were SV811-10s
operating in class A2, driven by a VERY serious cathode follower)
despite the "difficult" load it presents. While an ES panel is a difficult
load on paper, it isn't in reality. The reason is due to the fact that it
is basically a capacitor, and capacitive reactance, and hence the
panel's impedance, drops with increasing frequency. Since real music
contains little power in the upper octaves (where the panels impedance
is lowest), it turns out not to be a terribly demanding load for an
amplifier, even an SE amp with low power and no feedback. Most
of the time, however, they were powered by PP 6550s giving 70
watts of power, which really made 'em sing ;-)

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

"Patrick Turner"

I rarely sit still while I listen, there is always 1,001 things to do,
and the music often has to come around walls and corners to get to me,
and accurate imaging is the least of my concerns,


** So Turner the Turd is not even aware of stereo.


I know about the imaging of ESLs,


** The ****wit lies and lies and lies and lies and lies .......



and how would a stereo pair recreate the spacials of a cathedral?


** Asks a stupid **** who has no clue what stereo is.

****ing bricklayer !!!!!!!!

Utter cretin.




............ Phil

Patrick Turner said:

Every time I mention Martin Logan,
The Quad aficionardos greet me with cold hard blank stares.

Not me, though. They're both nice, AFAIK.

But I think they sound better.

Your loss :-)
Ever tried Magnepans?

So when ppl say Quad ESL57 are still up there with the best.
I really wonder. Anyone have have any opinions about ML,
or hasn't anyone heard music thru them?

I have. They're nice speakers, but totally different from QUADs.
Chaque son gout.......

I have never been able to get an impedance plot for the ML,
so I assume they are harder to drive than Quad,
and just hard to drive.
But any well made tube amp should be able to cope.

Agreed in full.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

Hi Patrick,

I have listened to a number of M/L electrostats . . . I owned a pair of
Aerius for a few years (drove them with both tube and SS power ranging from
6-500 wpc) and actually, just set up a M/L surround system yesterday with
Sequel IIs and the matching center (dynamic rear channels). My experience
listening to Quads have been in retailer's stores, and at CES . . . most
recently I spent about an hour and a half (6 mos. ago) with the 988 driven
by all Naim gear at Pro Musica, Chicago.

I personally feel that electrostats, or any dipole radiator for that matter,
are much harder to set up properly if coherant imaging, with a consistant
center placement, is a goal . . . the dedication to proper setup maybe
results in an overwhelming percentage of owners (esp. Quads) being extremely
devoted to the speaker. Since different people have different criteria in
setting up the room, and the level of priority that speaker placement can
have, it definately remains true that electrostats are not for everybody . .
..

Having said that, I always liked the tonal presentation of my Aerius, but
they were always quite understated on dynamics, no matter how ballsey the
amp was driving them. I really like a system to be able to "lift"
instruments out of the mix both in a spacial and dynamic sense (I like to
sit 6th row orchestra in a concert hall much better than first row balcony)
.. . . and I was never happy with this aspect of the Martin-Logans. They
also seemed significantly less sensitive than their specs suggested.
However, they were an extremely rugged speaker . . . they never seemed to
sustain any damage from playing loud (even when being driven by 2 1/2 times
rated max. power), and my cat (with claws) climbed up one once (that I know
of), and I never noticed any difference in sound quality. I finally got rid
of them after I moved to a smaller space, and could never get an image I was
happy with in the places that I wanted to listen . . . but I continue to
greatly respect the company, the people, and their products (they're made
about a 45-minute drive from where I live).

The Sequel IIs that I set up yesterday were also difficult to get a coherent
center image from, but they were much less sensitive to differences in
height (standing up/sittting down) than my Aeriuses (Aerii?) In both cases,
best results were obtained with the speakers closer together (or me seated
further away from) what I normally would have with the dynamic speakers I've
owned. Also, both needed to be at least 2' away from the back wall (back of
bass cab), with minimal stuff around them and in between them, for good
results. For home theater use, I was very impressed by the clarity (esp.
the center channel) but the Left-Center-Right blend wasn't as seamless as
most of the dynamic-driver systems I set up.

I was quite impressed with the Quads I heard at Pro Musica . . . I actually
thought "wow, finally here are a pair of Quads with dynamics and bass I
could enjoy" in addition to all of that tonal stuff that ESL63 did so well.
However, I did have the benefit of a fixed seating position, electronics
that have a reputation for rhythm and dynamics, and careful setup by a
longtime Quad geek. Whether or not I could duplicate the bulk of this
experience in my own home I'm not sure of, but I wouldn't rule it out
either. I am a bit worried about feline-compatibility (look like good
scratching posts).

Anyway, my two cents . . . maybe somebody finds this helpful.

Regards,

Kirk Patton


"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
Every time I mention Martin Logan,
The Quad aficionardos greet me with cold hard blank stares.

But I think they sound better.

So when ppl say Quad ESL57 are still up there with the best.
I really wonder. Anyone have have any opinions about ML,
or hasn't anyone heard music thru them?

I have never been able to get an impedance plot for the ML,
so I assume they are harder to drive than Quad,
and just hard to drive.
But any well made tube amp should be able to cope.

Patrick Turner.

Sander deWaal wrote:

Patrick Turner said:

Every time I mention Martin Logan,
The Quad aficionardos greet me with cold hard blank stares.

Not me, though. They're both nice, AFAIK.

But I think they sound better.

Your loss :-)
Ever tried Magnepans?

Well I did once listen carefully to a pair which a customer wanted to
purchase, second hand,
for USD $500, and he asked me to test them AB against my own.
I gladly accepted the challenge and after two nights of listening,
he concluded that my dome and cone jobs
were far better, especially with bass.
My speakers were far too expensive for him, since a recent divorce had
cleaned him out,
and he bought the maggies.
The ones I tried were about 4 ft high, 18" wide, with ribbons tweeters
on one side of the panel.



So when ppl say Quad ESL57 are still up there with the best.
I really wonder. Anyone have have any opinions about ML,
or hasn't anyone heard music thru them?

I have. They're nice speakers, but totally different from QUADs.
Chaque son gout.......

???? My french is attrocious...

Patrick Turner.

I have never been able to get an impedance plot for the ML,
so I assume they are harder to drive than Quad,
and just hard to drive.
But any well made tube amp should be able to cope.

Agreed in full.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

Kirk Patton wrote:

Hi Patrick,

I have listened to a number of M/L electrostats . . . I owned a pair of
Aerius for a few years (drove them with both tube and SS power ranging from
6-500 wpc) and actually, just set up a M/L surround system yesterday with
Sequel IIs and the matching center (dynamic rear channels). My experience
listening to Quads have been in retailer's stores, and at CES . . . most
recently I spent about an hour and a half (6 mos. ago) with the 988 driven
by all Naim gear at Pro Musica, Chicago.

I personally feel that electrostats, or any dipole radiator for that matter,
are much harder to set up properly if coherant imaging, with a consistant
center placement, is a goal . . . the dedication to proper setup maybe
results in an overwhelming percentage of owners (esp. Quads) being extremely
devoted to the speaker.

Those who do like great imaging, at just one place, get it with quads.
I'd like to aquire a pair, to add to my collection, just for fun,
and not because I have great devotion to the brand.
I never ever had much devotion to any brand name amps or speakers,
I just made all my own gear, and it isn't hard to better Quad amps.
In the bygone 50s and 60s, many blokes did just that using
ex-army disposal store 807, and splendid Oz made OPTs available over the
counter.
The determined diyer can wind his own OPTs and use russian KT88,
and better the Quad 40.

Making DIY ESL is a little harder......

Since different people have different criteria in
setting up the room, and the level of priority that speaker placement can
have, it definately remains true that electrostats are not for everybody .

Well this "not for everybody" means somefolks won't have a bar of Quad speakers
Some folks loathe all horns. Some swear by ribbons.
Each unto their own, I say.

Setting up does seem to be fiddly, even with dynamic speakers,
and then the room quality
is important, and its shape, and its acoustic damping...

Having said that, I always liked the tonal presentation of my Aerius, but
they were always quite understated on dynamics, no matter how ballsey the
amp was driving them. I really like a system to be able to "lift"
instruments out of the mix both in a spacial and dynamic sense (I like to
sit 6th row orchestra in a concert hall much better than first row balcony)
. . . and I was never happy with this aspect of the Martin-Logans. They
also seemed significantly less sensitive than their specs suggested.
However, they were an extremely rugged speaker . . . they never seemed to
sustain any damage from playing loud (even when being driven by 2 1/2 times
rated max. power), and my cat (with claws) climbed up one once (that I know
of), and I never noticed any difference in sound quality. I finally got rid
of them after I moved to a smaller space, and could never get an image I was
happy with in the places that I wanted to listen . . . but I continue to
greatly respect the company, the people, and their products (they're made
about a 45-minute drive from where I live).

The ML I did hear sounded well to me, driven by an SS amp.

The Sequel IIs that I set up yesterday were also difficult to get a coherent
center image from, but they were much less sensitive to differences in
height (standing up/sittting down) than my Aeriuses (Aerii?) In both cases,
best results were obtained with the speakers closer together (or me seated
further away from) what I normally would have with the dynamic speakers I've
owned. Also, both needed to be at least 2' away from the back wall (back of
bass cab), with minimal stuff around them and in between them, for good
results. For home theater use, I was very impressed by the clarity (esp.
the center channel) but the Left-Center-Right blend wasn't as seamless as
most of the dynamic-driver systems I set up.

I was quite impressed with the Quads I heard at Pro Musica . . . I actually
thought "wow, finally here are a pair of Quads with dynamics and bass I
could enjoy" in addition to all of that tonal stuff that ESL63 did so well.
However, I did have the benefit of a fixed seating position, electronics
that have a reputation for rhythm and dynamics, and careful setup by a
longtime Quad geek. Whether or not I could duplicate the bulk of this
experience in my own home I'm not sure of, but I wouldn't rule it out
either. I am a bit worried about feline-compatibility (look like good
scratching posts).

I'll have to win the lottery before aquiring a pair of new quads, let alone
a surround system
For surround, I go to the ANU film club, or to a local cinema.
Master and Commander sounded OK with Russell Crowe.
But many other movie sound tracks are not worth the price of the HT.
The story of Farinelli, the castrated opera star was OK though.
For such stories, stereo is all I would need.
I like a BIIIIGGGG screen for movies, and I doubt I will ever get a
HT outfit. Not unless I can get a screen which
is 3M wide and a metre high, and HD, and for $500.

Patrick Turner.


Anyway, my two cents . . . maybe somebody finds this helpful.

Regards,

Kirk Patton

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
Every time I mention Martin Logan,
The Quad aficionardos greet me with cold hard blank stares.

But I think they sound better.

So when ppl say Quad ESL57 are still up there with the best.
I really wonder. Anyone have have any opinions about ML,
or hasn't anyone heard music thru them?

I have never been able to get an impedance plot for the ML,
so I assume they are harder to drive than Quad,
and just hard to drive.
But any well made tube amp should be able to cope.

Patrick Turner.

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

I'll have to win the lottery before aquiring a pair of new quads, let
alone
a surround system
For surround, I go to the ANU film club, or to a local cinema.
Master and Commander sounded OK with Russell Crowe.
But many other movie sound tracks are not worth the price of the HT.
The story of Farinelli, the castrated opera star was OK though.
For such stories, stereo is all I would need.
I like a BIIIIGGGG screen for movies, and I doubt I will ever get a
HT outfit. Not unless I can get a screen which
is 3M wide and a metre high, and HD, and for $500.

Big home theater is nice for the privacy . . . it's just hard to go back to
a cinema after you've had a nice one to yourself (yourselves) . . . 110"
screen from 12' away is plenty big.

Actually, you might be able to get what you're after for close to the price
you're after if you look for an old 35mm film projector . . . the problem
then is just getting the software. Just need to make the right friends so
they'll loan you a print . . .

Regards,

Kirk Patton

Kirk Patton wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

I'll have to win the lottery before aquiring a pair of new quads, let
alone
a surround system
For surround, I go to the ANU film club, or to a local cinema.
Master and Commander sounded OK with Russell Crowe.
But many other movie sound tracks are not worth the price of the HT.
The story of Farinelli, the castrated opera star was OK though.
For such stories, stereo is all I would need.
I like a BIIIIGGGG screen for movies, and I doubt I will ever get a
HT outfit. Not unless I can get a screen which
is 3M wide and a metre high, and HD, and for $500.

Big home theater is nice for the privacy . . . it's just hard to go back to
a cinema after you've had a nice one to yourself (yourselves) . . . 110"
screen from 12' away is plenty big.

Nah, I like to get out of the house and to the cinema
with my friends, its far better than being stck at home.
Sure, a 9" screen would be nice, but I am happy with the ANU films,
I see about 1/2 the total of 180 per year for USD 32c each.



Actually, you might be able to get what you're after for close to the price
you're after if you look for an old 35mm film projector . . . the problem
then is just getting the software. Just need to make the right friends so
they'll loan you a print . . .

Well yeah, private 35mm would be something, but not really a viable option.
I have access to plenty of commercial cinemas,
and the ANU film club. The audio system in the ANU is tops for
an SS PA surround system.

Patrick Turner.



Regards,

Kirk Patton

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
Every time I mention Martin Logan,
The Quad aficionardos greet me with cold hard blank stares.

But I think they sound better.

So when ppl say Quad ESL57 are still up there with the best.
I really wonder. Anyone have have any opinions about ML,
or hasn't anyone heard music thru them?

**The CLS sounds excellent, but the hybrid models (I've heard) lack decent
intgration with the bass drivers.


I have never been able to get an impedance plot for the ML,
so I assume they are harder to drive than Quad,
and just hard to drive.

**They vary from pretty hard to very hard, depending on model.


But any well made tube amp should be able to cope.

**Yes.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...


** The ****wit lies and lies and lies and lies and lies .......

and how would a stereo pair recreate the spacials of a cathedral?

** Asks a stupid **** who has no clue what stereo is.

****ing bricklayer !!!!!!!!

Utter cretin.

........... Phil

I'm not a violent man, phil, but if I lived down under, I think I'd come
visit and kick your ass to shut you up for good. Something like you must of
gotten their ass kicked plenty. That's why you are so obnoxious and anal.

"west" wrote in message
...

I'm not a violent man.....


** Oh yes you are you stinking asshole.



phil, but if I lived down under, I think I'd come
visit and kick your ass to shut you up for good.


** Care to spend the rest of you life in jail ??

Whackos like you are a dime a dozen.



Something like you must of
gotten their ass kicked plenty. That's why you are so obnoxious and anal.


** So says a ****head who posts fantasy death threats ??

What a piece of vile ****.





........... Phil

I'm not a violent man, phil, but if I lived down under, I think I'd come
visit and kick your ass to shut you up for good. Something like you must of
gotten their ass kicked plenty. That's why you are so obnoxious and anal.

And when I mentioned that I would not cry a single tear if someone
were to take him out, he went off the deep end and called me all the criminal
whatsits he could think of, and sent me a registered letter saying he would
report me to the
Australian Federal Police.

As I explained to him then, it would take me long to explain why
my concerns for his welfare are negative, and have the police
think he really asks for a beating.
My solicitor took a very dim view of what his antics were.

Basically, he has used up all the available insults in the English language.
so they are having less and less effect.

He is insane because he MUST get through a day with hourly insults to someone
or a bunch of ppl.
He needs a hit of the hissy fit.
If he did have some self control, simply explaining in simple technical terms
why he disagrees, without shooting the messenger, all would be OK.


Patrick Turner.

"Patrick Turner"


And when I mentioned that I would not cry a single tear if someone
were to take him out,


** That was not all you said by a mile - arsehole.


he went off the deep end and called me all the criminal


** You are.


what sits he could think of, and sent me a registered letter saying he
would
report me to the Australian Federal Police.


** Want me to post the letter here ???



As I explained to him then, it would take me long to explain why
my concerns for his welfare are negative, and have the police
think he really asks for a beating.


** More criminal stuff.



My solicitor took a very dim view of what his antics were.



** Name your solicitor Turner - so I can speak with him.




He is insane because he MUST get through a day with hourly insults to
someone
or a bunch of ppl.


** More libel.



If he did have some self control, simply explaining in simple technical
terms
why he disagrees, without shooting the messenger, all would be OK.


** Shame charlatans like Turner never, ever want to know even one fact
that exposes them.




.............. Phil

"west" writ:
in nk.net,

: "Phil Allison" wrote

: ........... Phil
:
: I'm not a violent man, phil, but if I lived down under, I think I'd come
: visit and kick your ass to shut you up for good. Something like you must of
: gotten their ass kicked plenty. That's why you are so obnoxious and anal.

Contradiction, Supposition, Theory.
PKB

Patrick Turner spluttered:

: Chaque son gout.......
:
: ???? My french is attrocious...

And your english execrable ...

Each to their own taste.