whitecamaross..focus on the inner third of each panel. That is where the "meat" of your music emanates from. If you start to toe it in too much you will twist that important part of the panel away from the listening chair and the sound will disintegrate. That is why a few of us have already mentioned to start straight. And then toe it in a 1/2 inch, then 1 inch ,then 1 1/2 inches,etc. But leave it in place at the first increment for at least a few of your reference tunes. Mark the spot with blue painters tape. Sip,rinse and repeat. Yes,it's tedious. I know it goes against all logic and past practices but this the way MartinLogans must be fine tuned. IMHO ...(but it's true..heh.) |
WC,
Fantastic, with the five foot distance. I knew you would appreciate the drastic improvement. Now you can do the toe-in refinements. 5 feet is far enough out, so that even if you do a full toe-in, the inner part of each speaker may be 4.5 feet from the back wall and the outer part may be 5.5 feet away. These are similar enough so that the tonal balance from the panel will be about the same in all parts of the panel. In general, the tonal balance is more brilliant and brighter (more HF, less bass) the greater the distance. If the speaker were only 2 feet away and toed in, then the inner part would be 1.5 feet away with the outer part at 2.5 feet, a big difference which could create weird patterns of summation of different tonal balances. This could be one reason why minimal toe-in is done if the distance to the back wall is small--less disparity in tonal balance, but then the sound is uniformly dead. What good is that?
So now you can really enjoy the lifelike sound of the Neo with the best amp (Momentum) you have heard in a long time. I am happy you have benefitted from my persistence in this area of room placement.
|
Viber,
Is it the same rule for dynamics speakers ? The farther from back and lateral walls , the more HF and less bass. I’ m asking this because I think mine are too close to back wall , could this be cancelling the highs.
|
mikepaul,
Yes, I see your point about the inner third. This is because of the fairly large curvature of the panel. A high 30 degree toe-in combined with the 30 degree panel curvature will create a situation where the extreme inner parts of each speaker are beaming at each other and not toward the listener, which is not good. Do you remember the original Beveridge electrostatics of about 1980 where they recommended the speakers be placed on the right and left walls firing at each other? That was extreme 90 degree toe-in, and utterly crazy. But the flat panel designs of the KingSound and Sanders Sound Systems let you do more toe-in to yield the most information, without the interference patterns if the curved panels are done with the same amount of toe-in. So you and ML are correct about getting optimum performance from ML curved panels.
|
thanks viber6...I do not go back to 1980 as an audiophile. But I have been playing musical chairs with many ML models since the early 90's.
Personally,I am addicted to this brand. I recognize they have some shortcomings (most speakers do), but for me ,they provide the most enjoyment.
Presently, I am fortunate to have the 15A's, but I do have an eye down the road to possibly checking out the CLX with (2) ML212 subwoofers. But,that might be waaaay down the road. And it's a bumpy pothole filled road!!..lol |
techno_dude,
Yes, about dynamic speakers. If the speaker is bass-shy like a mini monitor, you'll get more bass if they are closer to back and lateral walls. Ported designs try to get more bass by having the port blow the air to the back wall for reinforcement, but one poster here says he hates ported designs. But for full range dynamic speakers with plenty of bass, you'll get more life and sparkle the further out into the room they are. The HF are brought out fully by toe-in towards your head. I don't like designs where tweeters are on the side, aimed at the side walls, which creates ambient anomalies with smearing. As a relevant aside, 35 years ago there was a review in the ABSOLUTE SOUND of the world's great concert halls. Number 1 was the Musikverein in Vienna, where Harry Pearson said that ANY seat in that hall was great. WHAT NONSENSE. Shortly after I read that exciting article, I participated in a music program in Vienna. I went to that hall as a listener 3 times, sitting in the 5th row, 12th row and 25th row. The hall is very lively with lots of ambience, but that made for a disaster in the 25th row. By the time the sound got to my ears, it had bounced around so many times that it was grossly muddy with no focus at all. But the 5th row was heaven, because of much less time smear and much more brilliance in HF. Direct live sound. Try to get this in your system, with as much direct sound as possible, by minimizing back and lateral wall reflections, and by full toe-in of all drivers to your head.
|
mikepaul,
Yes, the CLX is the way to go. Someone here suggested the REL subwoofers. For a reasonable $30K total at retail, this is a no-brainer. No potholes in the road. Just ride the smooth road to your CLX destination. You are a ML stat man, so you won't get side-tracked with colorations from relatively mediocre overpriced dynamic speakers. Review my posts here about the CLX advantages.
|
@mikepaul,REL S Series or higher is going to make your 15a or a CLX sound better. The direct connection to the amplifier's speaker outputs allows for the character of the amp to go into the REL subs. The effect will go all the way up to the midrange. The RELs are not designed to be a smoking hot subwoofer that shakes the pictures off the walls. It is designed to complement your existing full range speaker and add dimension that is beyond expectation. The use of an Active driver shooting foward, and a passive Carbon Fiber facing downward allows for a loading of bass different than most of the others.
I own 4 REL S3 subs, but an only using 2 right now. Only in pairs, and wired in stereo will the true effect of enhancement be realized. The Martin Logan subs are superb for low bass, but not for enhancement of the speaker's low to midrange. For the money of the ML 212.... you could have a REL 212/SE or 2 REL S3.
I would buy some RELs first, before moving to the CLX. And run a couple of them with the 15As. Then if you don't think that the sound has improved (which they sure will be), you would still have them for the CLX speakers.
The question is whether you need to move up to the CLX? Most anyone I know say that it is the best money they have ever spent to improve their system. Hope this helps.
|
This thread is 2 years old...
|
bigddesign3..thanks for all the info...I am still a little fuzzy on sub hookups.. I use a REF6 preamp and it does not have a sub output or LFE output. What is meant by "direct connection to the amplifier’s speaker outputs"? Am i overlapping the speaker cable connections? on the amplifier? The preamp has (2) MAIN OUTS. One obviously goes to the amp L & R. Would other be used for subs L&R? Sorry if these questions are silly. The only familiarity with a sub I have had is my home theater setup with a receiver===plug n play..lol Thanks for the assist! |
mikepaul,
I agree with bigddesign3 just above. I differ slightly only whether you get the REL first for your 15a. The 15a is a hybrid with a woofer than goes down fairly low, but the CLX is a pure electrostatic whose -3dB point is a high 56 Hz, so the CLX is more in need of the added woofer. I forgot the crossover point of the 15a--maybe 300 Hz or so. The woofer in the 15a will contribute sound significantly higher than that. So for the range of 56 to maybe 500 Hz, the CLX gives you much purer electrostatic speed, etc. This is the range of all male and a lot of female voices in their fundamental tones. The voices will be far superior on the CLX. HF will be superior also, because of the narrower focused CLX panel for the mids/HF compared to the 15a. The HF overtones of the voices will be more accurate, so the complete tone of the voices will be more focused and pure. Now suppose you went for the CLX first, without the woofer. Of course, the low bass would be missing, but the mid bass and higher overtones would be much more accurately revealed by the CLX large flat stat panel than the 15a dynamic woofer. The CLX bass panel is still smaller than the Neo panel, and the smaller flat panel is more focused and accurate than the curved panel of the Neo, so the CLX is superior to the Neo except for dynamics. Psychoacoustically, accurate overtones makes you think that you are getting lower bass fundamentals, even though they are missing. My Audiostatics are markedly deficient in bass, but I am satisfied because I have very accurate mid bass. Think of the bite of bass instruments like the tuba and string bass. These instruments are best revealed if the entire frequency range is reproduced by the peerless electrostatic membrane, rather than a hybrid. Kettle drums in the orchestra have fundamentals about 100 Hz, so it is clear that the CLX would be superior for that. The same goes for most of the lower winds in the orchestra, and most saxophones. If money is tight, go for the CLX first, then add the woofer later. From bigddesign3's description, it seems that the accuracy of the REL better suits the CLX than the wall-rattling other woofers. The REL seems to be a good value, also. Maximum quality all the way, rather than quantity. |
viber6 and bigddesign3...I appreciate your input. I recall that whitecamaross had both CLX and 15A and he lauded both. Just to clarify, I absolutely love the 15a's. I would not consider using any subs with them because ,in truth, they pretty much cover all my bases. I am set for quite awhile. I just happened to mention or ponder, like we all do, what kind of an upgrade or change would I consider in the future. And the only thing I would consider (and afford) and to keep the "house sound" aka MartinLogan===is possibly the CLX/SUBWOOFER setup. But as i mentioned to viber6, I am comfortable with my present gear and now I/we are living vicariously through whitecamaross and enjoying his journey! |
mikepaul,
Good for you that you are presently happy with the 15a. It is an excellent full range speaker. It beats any dynamic speaker at any price for accuracy and musically important criteria, except for possibly bass. If your priority is bass, you aren't looking at ML anyway. But for all other criteria, ML is just about the best available. But I think it is interesting that the price of the CLX is the same as the 15a. For the same money, you get significantly superior accuracy above 56 Hz. Just adding the reasonably priced REL would let you have it all, the ultimate accuracy and bass extension and quality. Save for the CLX, maybe get a good trade-in on your 15a. This would be a better investment than getting better amps, cables, etc. No rush, since you are happy. |
@viper6
In your 11/7 post you stated "Ported designs try to get more bass by having the port blow the air to the back wall for reinforcement, but one poster here says he hates ported designs."
Which poster are you referring to? |
Understanding the focus is primarily on stats at the moment, I also would echo how well RELs can complement the lower end for certain dynamic speakers connected directly to the amp posts. My 11 year old REL B3 has been a workhorse and has paired well w Dynaudio Confidence C1s and now my YG Carmel 2s. Moved from a 15x18 room to now a 15 x 28 room and I am still pleased with the pressure and tightness of below 50hz as well as the RELs disappearance. Currently all Simaudio/Moon front end. Man, I would love to hear the Neos... |
https://rel.net/shop/powered-subwoofers/serie-s/carbon-limited/Check out this new limited edition REL. It’s $3,499. That’s $1,000 more than the regular REL S5. Is it worth it? Oh yes, for all systems that cost 15k or more. "Carbon Limited". Is a special offering that provides a unique blend of our Reference carbon fibre 12”driver from the Reference G1 MKII. and our finest passive driver from the 212/SE, all packed into the proven S/5 chassis, which is then fitted with triple chrome plated hardware. They are only going to make a certain amount of these. I saw about 4 years ago, the same thing that REL doing a Limited Edition. They got rave reviews. But remember, the REL S5 is super good, and costs only $2,499. Either one is so good that you will keep them for 10 years or more. |
no need for REL subs with the neolith lol. Just switch the jumpers on the back and the massive bass will make your head rattle. |
@ klh007 Just a correction regarding your statement about the Alsyvox Botticelli speakers. The bass panel is push-pull planar magnetic. The midrange and tweeters are true ribbons (ie, a strip of conductor suspended only on top and bottom with magnets straddling both sides of the conductor). |
@viber6
Have to disagree with you regarding your claim that electrostats have the highest resolution. A true ribbon and electrostat are pretty much neck and neck on resolution. Depends on how they're implemented. |
@ viber6
I would argue your claim that the Alsyvox Botticelli is a "ripoff" is ignorant, given you have not heard or even know the construction of these speakers. There many more expensive speakers that do not sound as good. The GTA3R retails for around $17-18k last time I checked. The frame of the speaker is the ubiquitous inexpensive MDF/HDF from talking to the designer. It has a freq response 40 Hz to 30 kHz and 92 dB efficiency. I'm not sure if Neodymium magnets are used to get that efficiency. It has a ribbon tweeter and planar midrange/woofer. It is claimed to be crossoverless, but a speaker designer I know sees issues with this design causing comb filtering. Each speaker weighs around 80 to 90 lbs if my memory is correct, but I could be wrong. Bass can be extended to 15Hz with addition of dipole servo controlled subwoofer towers at a significant increase in cost ($8-10k?). It is a GR-Research design, and I own a scaled down version of these. They sound excellent but does not compete with the best planar bass in terms of speed, clarity, and tonality. The Botticelli retails for $87k, very expensive yes. The frame of the speakers is precision steel sandwiched between acrylic/wood panels. It has a freq response 22 Hz to 40 kHz and 94 dB efficiency. It uses Neo magnets to get that efficiency. Each speaker weighs 265 lbs. As have said earlier, the tweeter and midrange drivers are true ribbons and the bass panel push pull planar magnetic. The crossover components are Mundorf and Jensen. I've heard the prior generation model called the Leonardo, which to my ears sounded utterly transparent rivaling electrostats. Bottocelli is claimed to have unbelievable bass dynamics rivaling the best dynamic cone drivers while retaining the speed, clarity, and tonality of best planar speakers. The build quality is exceptional, rivaling the best that's out there and far surpassing Magnepan, Martin Logan, or GT Audio Works quality. Both speakers have garnered positive feedback from audio show attendees, but it seems like the Botticelli is getting much more enthusiastic feedback, as it should for its price. I do not think the Botticelli is a "ripoff", given its competition. It is expensive for a reason. |
whitecamaross....I do not believe that you used subs with your M-L CLX. So if I asked you which you preferred : the CLX or the 15A's ,I think you would choose the 15A's for the added bass boost. You would probably say they were both very good. Exactly what would your summation be? one vs the other? thanks |
Mikepaul: the clx is a better speaker. The issue is that it is quite unreliable. I had issues with mine so I got fed up. There are
way more electronics in the clx than in the 15a. I still think the clx is just better. I didn’t even feel like i needed more bass to be honest.
|
WCSS,
So how is it coming with listening of the Neolith?
|
So I just got done listening to them. Last night I was listening through an optical cable connected to the esoteric. I managed to keep them almost 60 inches off the back wall measuring from the panel and enough toe in to where the flashlight shines on the inner third and almost where I joins the second third of the panel. I played music and thought they really sounded better so today I went from listening via optical and used the platinum usb and coming from my MacBook. The impression is that now things sound more detailed. More of everything. It’s impressive how this speaker lets me hear when going from a cheap optical to a high end usb. I was the first one Believe there wouldn’t be any changes by using usb and let me tell you I was wrong. It’s almost like you can’t hide from this speaker. The sound is so gigantic that it’s much easier to pick up the changes in sound right away.
Without a doubt, this speaker won’t forgive poor recordings. I’m telling you, old cds from the 90s sound less detailed and a little dull. It’s like going to your 4K tv right now and try to play a movie from 1990. You would immediately see the drastic change in detail and resolution. That’s the same
here. You need to have quality music to really be like holy sh@t! When you listen to it or else you won’t be impressed. It will still sound big but it won’t have the huge detailed sound.
|
Cool WC !!
Asynchronous USB is the best on paper. SPDIF is flawed to begin with.
|
dracule1,
Good food for thought. Of course, I haven't heard the Alsyvox ribbons, but I have heard a few models of the Wisdom Audio ribbons, which are the best ribbons I have heard. They still didn't approach the articulation of my unusual Audiostatic 240's. I agree that it is all about the implementation. You can review my posts to see why I believe the curved panels of Martin Logan and Soundlab are an inferior implementation compared to my flat panels, and also inferior to the original KingSound King electrostatic which uses separate flat lower midrange/bass and narrow tall tweeter panels. The King in concept is similar to the ML CLX, but using all flat panels. Compared to the King, the CLX and all the other ML models have rolled off HF. HF are reduced from the curvature-induced off axis radiation pattern, just as with cardioid condenser microphones, which you can see from the plots of mic frequency response versus degrees off axis. Also, microphones are like speakers, and it is well recognized that ribbon mics are not as resolved as condenser mics. Technically, the electrostatic field has tighter control of the diaphragm than a magnet controlling the somewhat loose ribbon. However, today's curved electrostatic speakers use inferior implementation of that technology, so it is possible that a properly implemented ribbon design would be fully competitive with those stat designs, maybe better. I hope you can hear the middle models of the Wisdom Audio, which are still tall, but priced much lower than Alsyvox. Even the GTA ribbons are better than Maggies which have inferior panel technology. Maggie resolution is inferior, which is why Maggie users want to push the volume with powerful amps since resolution at low levels is relatively mediocre.
|
WC, what technical problems did you have with the CLX?
|
ron17,
I forgot the name of the poster who hates ports, but it was a few days and a few pages ago.
|
I agree with techno dude! When I auditioned the ML esl & x at the dealer I was streaming Tidal from a Cambridge 851 audioquest cables & marantz integrated. When the track "Hotel California" came on. A fully formed head of Don Henley was floating between the speaker. It was warm & airy too!. So I buy the speaker set it up I have same dac different pre & power. I feel my gear is better than the Marantz. So why didn't I get the same Sonic hologram! It was the room and placement. Different acoustics. So if a esl entry model can do the solid 3D imaging. For sure Neo can too if set up optimally!
|
Today's a big delivery day. The Beatles 50th Anniversary White Album 4LP vinyl box set arrives!! Now all I have to do is pack my turntable and box set and fly to whitecamaross's house to listen to it in all it's glory!! Then I woke up! Damn! Man, I wish I could!!!.... lol |
@dracule 1, I’m sorry but I think you are wrong about the Alsyvox mid and tweeter, all their drivers are push-pull planar magnetic. They use the term "ribbon" too loosely to describe any planar driver, but a true ribbon does not operate in a push-pull manner with magnets in front and behind. A planar magnetic uses a mylar (or similar) sheet as a carrier and has a "voice coil" glued or etched onto it and magnets in front and/or behind. A true ribbon, see RAAL, uses just an aluminum diaphragm and side magnets. I asked the designer, Daniele Coen about the Botticelli in Denver at RMAF and he said all his drivers were planar magnetic. Look closely at all the Alsyvox drivers, they look the same just narrower. Now look at the GTA 3R, the tweeter is smooth and is a true ribbon. With the language difference, I could be wrong, but I believe the Alsyvox drivers are all push-pull planar magnetic. I also think the Botticelli speakers I heard in Denver are sensational and if I could afford them, I’d own them! They decimated most other mid-sized rooms at RMAF and really brought a big band into the room, huge dynamics, drum kit had live impact and believability, very transparent, beautiful tonal color, a speaker to die for! |
Mikepaul: id have the liquor of your choice here so we can have fun man. I’m all about enjoying this hobby and I think the Neolith could be the ticket.....
anyhow, what would be a better choice for these speakers:
a pair of 1.2kw or
four 601s to biamp them?
state your reasoning !!! Let me know your thoughts |
WCSS, Be sure to pick an amp that can drive 0.43 Ohm load as the Neoliths droop to that impedance @20KHz. I'd bet above 5 to 8KHz the impedance is close to 1 Ohm or below, very tough load for even a powerful amp, I'm thinking the Dag Int is up to the task.
|
@ viber6
ron17,
I forgot the name of the poster who hates ports, but it was a few days and a few pages ago.
I checked a few days and a few pages ago and can't seem to find (as you stated) the poster on this thread who hates ports.
|
whitecamaross..I have bi-wired older model Logans in the past with success. But I have no experience with bi-amping. That said, I personally would see how these speakers performed on the most basic level: one killer amp. After doing the mind-meld with a certain amp I think it would be easier to judge both the speaker and the individual amp on it's own merit. Of course, the door will always be open down the road to further experiment. But your mind will have been stamped first with a ground level impression before switching gears. just my 2 cents. |
WCSS,
A single powerful amplifier is going to help you find the proper amp for the Neolith. As discussed, it should be 2 ohm or 1 ohm stable with a massive current capability. There is no such thing as having too much current available.
With that said.... the AR Reference 750 SE is a boatload of tubes that may work in your favor. I saw online that one of the Neolith Demos have the AR 750 SE. They come very cheap used too. The risk you take is all the freakin' tubes on these monoblocks. Testing different powerful amplifiers, like you are doing is the answer. Personally, I would stay away from sterile amplifiers, that are too neutral (Boulder, for example). I'm not sure Pass Labs are fast enough for the Neoliths. But it wouldn't hurt to borrow some of them. You'll know it when you hear it. The D'ag Integrated may not have enough power to make the Neolith shine. But the Momentum Monoblocks may be the cure.
Bi-amping with your AR REF10 should be painless. There are two sets of outputs in XLR. Perfect for bi-amping. I would say that matching amplifiers would be the easiest, but I have seen many go with different brands. The only caveat is.... there has to be a way to control the gain from each amp. Some amps do allow for gain adjustment in the back of said amplifier. Will it sound better? There are no guarantees. But you could use 400w/ch at 4 ohms amplifiers in a bi-amp situation and have 800w/ch total. But because of the bi-amping it could sound a lot less strained.
Personally...... I would love to hear the Simaudio 880 monoblocks with the Neoliths. And these Block Audio amps look like a winner. Hope this helps.
|
Just to set the record straight dracule 1 has to be aware of the fact that the GT 3 AR speakers are true planar magnetic designs that use true neodymium magnets. They do not use MDF but use it much more expensive and more inert material called Medex. They are also utilizing a special membrane that is sourced from Japan that is unlike The other designs you have mentioned in you post in that they do not have any resonance break points.These other manufacturers are only using either mylar or kapton in their speakers. This is not the case with the GT speakers they are utilizing a quasi-membrane that is just thin as the other planar membranes but are more durable and do not
Exhibit those aforementioned resonances.
Additionally, GT speakers are utilizing an ultra thin space-age pure 6N copper- not inferior aluminum traces. There is no crossover on the main 6 foot planar magnetic panel. Greg Takesh personally mechanically Tunesevery speaker to avoid any comb filtering between the main 6 foot tunnel and the truth ribbon tweeter.
The speakers also exhibit frame within frame vibration control technology the actual 6 foot tall planar magnetic driver is on a special frame that is constrained layer Baltic Birch wood that eliminates resonabce break up on the driver that in turn is mounted to be specially constructed MedEx frame.
They received rave reviews at 2018 capital audio fest- you can clearly go onto audionirvana website and read the review from Miles Astor who thought that they were great speakers.
You need to audtion these speakers before passing judgment there will be a review out very soon from AVS show rooms that will quiet all critics of the speaker. Most people criticize what they don’t know or fear.
|
WC,
Biamping the Neo could be an opportunity or a risk. As bigddesign3 says, you must be able to adjust the relative gains from each amp, or else the tonal balance could be way off. The Momentum integrated allows you to adjust the gain, so the other amp doesn't need a volume control. But it is safe to assume that ML designed the Neo to have proper balance of the woofer and panel sections. One high quality amp is enough, and the Momentum probably delivers 800 watts into 1 ohm and 1600 watts or so into 0.5 ohm, PLENTY OF POWER for sane listening. Pure sound at the natural volume level is the highest fidelity and lifelike, but cranking the volume to unnaturally loud levels is NOT high fidelity and is just plain wrong if you enjoy intelligent listening. Excessive loudness also causes bloated, fuzzy images. The Neo imaging is already large, so you don't want an elephant with a big beard that needs a shave. I also discourage the use of mellow tube amps for this accurate speaker. The Neo is not cold so you have to take shelter in a mellow amp. Also, tubes do not like very low impedances. That's where SS amps shine, particularly the Dag. From your descriptions and reviews, Dag beats tubes in every way, unless you want rolled off excessively sweetened sound.
|
WC , do not biamp. Monoblocks yes . Biamp , no need.
Here, Alpha NR powercord is very fast. Definitely more clarity and resolution. Yes , a little less low midrange bloom. It is always a price to pay for more clarity in cables.
|
With all due respect to suggestions of different speaker cables and power cords to try, I suggest something different and inexpensive for you to try. Purchase a can of Craig Pro Gold G5. It is a contact enhancer. Apply to your speaker cable terminals including the amp and speaker terminals. This works especially well even on brand new cables and terminals. For the money and time you are spending on this journey you have virtually nothing to lose. Apply with a cotton swab each time you reconnect cables. I would like to hear your impressions of this application. I believe the results will be surprising.
|
Hi WC!
My setup isn’t on the level as yours, but I’d like to leave my experience.
I bought a pair of 802d3 paired with a Krell Evo 402. Sound was right, but it seemed like something was missing.
After my dealer suggestion, I decided to bi-amp them with a JRDG 625 and it was night and day!
Powerful bass, perfect mids and soundstage!
Hope this helps |
@viber6,
yes, I have auditioned the Wisdom Audio Adrenaline several times. Its sound is majestic, but I’ve always heard a subtle coloration or veiling that made it less transparent compared to the best electrostatics and ribbon speakers. You may argue an electrostat is technically superior in resolution, but to me a ribbon speaker properly implemented sounds more realistic and natural. The original Martin Logan CLS was the most transparent speaker I’ve ever heard but it tended to sound too hyper realistic. The Apogee Duetta properly setup just sounded plain real without any hyper resolution. I agree curved electrostat panel speaker has a notable drawback, rolled off high end. I never liked any of ML hybrids. |
@viber6 Tubes are real sounding, not rolled off. Different tubes and Tube Amps have different sound , just like any ss amps and their components and design have different sounds. It is true that it would be difficult to find the right tube amps to work on the Neoliths. Here is some mono tube amps that should do it well. https://www.usatubeaudio.com/product/amplification/atma-sphere-ma-3-mk-3-3/. These are much less than the amps he is wanting ,and well worth a try IMO. I keep getting the feeling that if the treble doesn’t pierce your ears or rip your head off, you think that it is lacking. I and, many others here will disagree. |
dracule1,
OK, I respect your observations of the Wisdom Audio Adrenaline. I don't know that model, but a few years ago I heard the Sage series. However, my impressions of all Apogee ribbon models I heard is that they were excessively smooth, kind of like old school tube amps, and markedly rolled off in HF. Yes, lacking in RESOLUTION, not hyper-resolution. (There is no such thing as hyper-resolution in an accurate speaker without quirky frequency anomalies.) The reason is the LARGE ribbons. A large panel of any driver, whether electrostatic, ribbon, planar magnetic will create off axis HF rolloff from the edges to your ears. This is why the Stax F83 was rolled off compared to the F81--the tall F83 created large off axis HF rolloff from the high vertical parts. But a NARROW quarter inch ribbon won't create any horizontal HF rolloff, because that ribbon has full HF delivery way off axis. But there is still the problem of the large vertical height. Line source promotional material still ignores the HF loss from higher vertical "segments". Even though at ear level you are getting everything, and you can stand and still get everything if there are vertical segments at ear level, if you do some integral calculus you see that the taller the driver, the more off axis segments there are, creating more HF rolloff. Also, sitting too close to a tall line source magnifies the angle of off axis, creating more HF rolloff and a tonal balance shifted to the bass. The remarkable thing about the ML CLX is that it has the highest resolution of any commercial speaker available, except for the flat panel KingSound King. The fact that the CLX can attain this excellent resolution DESPITE one curved panel, leads me to speculate about how great the CLX would be if they just straightened the curve out. That would be a testament to ML's superior membrane/stator technology, if only they straightened it. The disadvantage of the very tall and wide King is the off-axis vertical dispersion I just spoke about. The CLX is a reasonable height and width, to get a focused, non bloated image. My ideal speaker would be a near point source quarter inch square electrostatic to yield no off-axis rolloff, and I would be the size of an insect to hear the delicate tiny volume sound. But the size of the CLX is a reasonable compromise to get enough volume with minimized rolloff.
By the way, someone recently had a valid point that the larger electrostatic membrane enables less excursion than a smaller membrane for the same volume level. Less excursion would create even more linearity and less distortion. However, I believe that the disadvantage of the HF rolloff effect of the larger membrane outweighs the benefit of less excursion in the large membrane.
|
Greyhound: I agree with your comments about the highs. That said, I think there’s one element here that we are all not mentioning: we need to allow our ears to adjust to the new sound. I believe that there needs to be an adjustment period in which your ears need to capture what’s happening. When I first sat down to hear the Neolith I felt like the highs lacked detail. I moved them forward about a foot and more detail began to emerge.
This speaker is the only speaker I’ve owned that makes you feel as if the mids are floating in the air between the speakers. The size of the instruments is much larger; The mid bass is present and with lots of energy. The bass is more than you could ask for.
Whats the biggest drawback so far? Well it’s that the speaker is like a huge canvas. It will expose everything you draw on it and will let you hear it. If you enjoy older recordings that aren’t perfect then be prepared to hear them not so perfect to the point that you feel as if the speaker sounds like sh@t.
Is it as dynamic as a Wilson Audio? No it is not but it is more dynamic than any other electrostatic I’ve owned. No speaker has been more dynamic than Wilson. Not even magico. Wilson audio had dynamics that sometimes made you jump out of your chair. However, the bass was another story...
my biggest issue I believe is power. I need serious juice and current. I will tell you that if you all lived close by and wanted to have my opinion about how good is the bass on an amp you have, I’d tell you to bring it and connect it to the Neolith. You would find out right away.
For those of you who don’t know, the Neolith does not have powered woofers. It has passive 15 inch and 12 inch drivers. the amp needs to do all the work.
|
grey9hound, we addressed this subject before. I explained my perspective of close up listening. You may never have had this experience, or you just happen to prefer laid back sound, like some people who like pasta soggy rather than al dente. All different tastes, which is OK, but realize you are missing much true HF info which is NOT piercing if volumes are at sensible levels. I know that for your music, you like to play it loud which you can't tolerate from amps that deliver full HF detail and extension. But that is not about true high fidelity, which means low distortion at natural volume levels, not cranked. |
@Viber6
That is your opinion, which , of course is wrong . I am not missing HF info. It is all there . |
WC,
For your priorities of dynamics plus good purity, I think the Neo is the best speaker for you. As a hybrid, it gives you everything you want. For those who want the ultimate in clarity and are willing to sacrifice some bass and overall dynamics, the CLX is better. Do you remember the mid/HF characteristics of the CLX to compare it with the Neo? I believe that you liked the CLX even when they were closer to the back wall than your Neo is now. Just imagine the clarity, fresh air and space you would have if you listened to the CLX at the 5 foot distance. I also am guessing that you thought the bass on the CLX was adequate because they were a lot closer to the wall and got bass reinforcement from that closeness. At 5 feet, you would probably find the CLX to have inadequate bass. Then the ultimate system would be the CLX positioned at 5 feet, plus REL woofer, although the Neo would probably still have more dynamics throughout the entire frequency range because of the larger woofers and panels. |
grey9hound,
You still don't know what you are missing, due to lack of close listening experience. A child with better hearing than me is entitled to say that my perceptions are flawed, and would be correct to say that I am wrong because I don't know what I am missing. I would not say to the child that he is wrong, because I THINK that I hear it all, when the reality is that compared to the child, I don't. The next reality is that HF's evaporate with distance, and it is an objective fact that there are marked HF loses at greater distances, objectively measured by microphones as well as heard by educated listeners.
|
viber6
... The next reality is that HF's
evaporate with distance, and it is an objective fact ... Sorry, but sound doesn't "evaporate" at any frequency.
... there are
marked HF loses at greater distances, objectively measured by
microphones as well as heard by educated listeners Of course, all frequencies diminish with distance and you can measure that loss as 6 dB with each doubling of the distance.
|
