Why Do Martin Logan Speakers Lack Dynamic Energy?

Several possibilities come to mind that might have a bearing on what you're experiencing.

First, the differing radiation characteristics of point-source woofers and line-source panels means that their integration is somewhat distance-dependent. The sound pressure level from the panels rolls off more slowly with distance than it does for the woofers. So if the room is too large for that particular pair of Martin Logans, the bass and midbass energy will be lacking.

Second, some earlier model Martin Logans had a response dip in the crossover region (ballpark 200-300 Hz) that would result in a lack of lower midrange energy.

Third, electrostats in general are extremely demanding of associated amplification, and the Martin Logans are no exception. From my own experience with Sound Lab electrostats, I can tell you that choice of amplification makes a huge difference in dynamic contrast and liveliness.

Fourth, it is possible that the dynamic compression characteristics of the woofer and panel are very different. The primary source of woofer compression is thermal compression, while the primary source of compression in the panels is probaly transformer saturation, which does not set in until you reach a very high input level. So what may happen is the woofer compresses more than the panel does up until the point where the panel compresses severely. I frankly do not know if this situation applies to the Martin Logans - I'm only mentioning it as a possibility in a dynamic/electrostatic hybrid.

Ahem... also, ah... at the risk of coming across as somewhat self-serving, I can think of at least one large, full-range electrostat that has good weight and body in the midbass region...

Cheers,

Duke

hahahahaha

he said piston

hahahha

because they are not Dynamic speaker. Dah!

Dynamics is a function of moving air rapidly. Your perception is correct. I too had the same concern--I also own a pair of Monoliths that have been modified (a lot).

First, a large planar such as a monolith can absolutely move a lot of air rapidly, however, you have to look at how it's focused to the listener. Fact is--it's not. The room can be designed to specifically account for this and focus the back wave kinetic energy towards the listener--thereby increasing the dynamics. However, what happens to the bass--nothing in that scenario. This has been one of the main difficulties with hybrids. They have the so called promise of "dynamics of a full dynamic speaker transparency of an electrostatic", but in general don't deliver.

One of the problems is cost. The basic issue can be overcome and has been proven with the Statement--but $80k--well it better do just about everything perfect and paint my house too.

Before I get into methods to overcome, you should probably just consider the very basic issue here first. Dynamics are perceived by kinetic air movement focused at the listener--it's that simple. What focuses energy at the listener best? A horn. What focuses energy the least? A planar, and particularly one that is curvilinear spreading out the energy to all directions.

Let's say both a horn and a planar can deliver the same amount of air movement for 1 watt of power, but the horn is focused, where as the planar is not. Let's say the room has no losses--all energy gets to the listener (eventually). What is the perception--it hasn't changed. The direct energy of the horn is very dynamic. The indirect and more diffuse sound field of the planar is far less dynamic, but to a large degree more etherial. Many of us like this room interaction that gives us a sense of space and imagery. I personally like it, and although I've owned horns--I am willing to sacrifice the dynamics for the transparency and imaging.

Now on to what can be done. ML uses woofers that integrate will with their speakers and don't cost obscene amounts of money. As I said previously--I modified mine. The panel was fabulous--the bass wasn't. It was slow and undefined and did not give me the dynamics I wanted in the lower octaves. So I changed it--it's not so simple. I had to bi-amp with an active cross over that was pretty flexible and bipass the internal cross over. The engineers at ML were kind enough to help me with the loading of the new woofers which were Focal Audiom. The results were spectacular--but as the saying goes "don't try this at home".

This excellent explanation was emailed to me by "lrsky".

"As former Director of Sales for a competing line of Martin Logan, and
previous owner, 20 year industry veteran, I believe I can answer your
question.
Dynamic drivers punch a small (relatively) diameter of air a great
(relative to Electrostatics) distance. Example, the midrange driver slaps
the air forward the greater part of an inch (the actual distance the
driver travels is very speaker dependant). This abrupt slam, creates sound
and a percussive, resulting, dynamic moment. (Think air rushing back
into the void after a lightning strike) Conversely, when an electrostatic
is called on to make the same tonal sound, a large panel, many times
larger than the dynamic drivers, moves forward, fractionally as far as
the dynamic driver. This Electrostatic displacement creates the same
tone, and set of harmonic information, but the lack of that dramatic slam
of air displacement gives it an overall, more polite sound.
Imagine, cupping your hand, against the water in a pool, and pushing
down. The result is that you displace the amount of water proportionate
to the size of your hand. Now do the same thing, smacking the same
amount of water, simply raising your hand a few inches away. There is a
whack which is loud and startling, verses very little sound, even though
you have displaced the same amount of water. (This is really simplistic,
but ok for a quick look)
On the plus side, some people ask, "How can a small tweeter, midrange
and woofer can create the lifelike size of a piano, compared to a three
feet by five foot, panel, which is certainly more nearly the actual
size of that piano.
This is an example of almost oppostite approaches to accomplish the
same thing. Finesse, versus raw energy. Which one is better, is wholly a
function of your tastes and sometimes, unfortunately your reference. I
say unfortunately, since many people think that their current speakers,
however poor they may be, sound correct, since it has been their
reference point for so long.
I owned the Prodigys, which are the $11K ML speakers, and thought them
to be very good. Fast smooth, and with the two conventional woofers,
ofered good bass, with nice blending of the two disparate technologies.
Plus, Gayle Sanders is an acquaintence of mine, and I have been to his
home. He gives a good honest value for the price. Listen carefully to
those speakers which you narrow your choices down to. Any flaws you hear
in q quick demonstration, become multiplied, and exagerrated,
exponentially over time. If you're an audio nut like me, the flaws are all you
CAN hear once you've identified them! HA!"