Subwoofers and electrostatic speakers


There have been a few threads about this in the past, but I thought I would share my experience in this thread:

I have had electrostatic speakers (ESL) for the past 20 years. I initially had QUAD ESL’s, but have since upgraded to Sound Lab ESL (Majestic 745). I have always appreciated the detail and clarity that ESL’s brought to music reproduction. I have only listened to classical and acoustic jazz music so, the well known fact that ESL’s lack the bass slam, didn’t deter me from the product.

However, in the past few years, I have pursued more reality to the musical presentation, and upgraded my entire 2 channel stereo system, and the results have been very rewarding along the way. I have been quite pleased with the musical reproduction of my current system, but when playing larger orchestral works, it’s easy to note that the tympani sound distant, and the double bass almost imperceptible. However, with smaller chamber and solo instrument pieces, the reproduction was near perfect. Because of the former deficiency, I decided to try integrating subwoofers into my system.

I communicated with several members of this forum, and I considered their recommendations. Based on my current experience, I think the recommendation by @mijostyn to purchase Martin Logan Balanced Force 212 subwoofers was a great piece of advice. They were manufactured to integrate with ESL’s, are not ported, and are designed to prevent the distortion that other subwoofers can cause with the bass sounding too slow and "boomy" when integrating with ESL’s.

I was told that getting the subwoofers would be the easiest part, but that integrating them with the ESL’s with proper high-pass filters (HPF) and low-pass filters (LPF) would be more challenging. There were all sorts of recommendations about HPF’s, including passive vs active vs analog vs digital. The LPF was easier, as it’s integrated into the subwoofer itself.

It seemed that integrating a HPF would be most challenging, and all methodologies would change the sound quality (SQ), and since my system was very transparent, detailed, and musical, I didn’t want to interfere with the superb SQ, whether that be integrating a capacitor into the interconnect feeding my amplifiers, or changing a pre-amplifier to some sort of DEQ device with unlimited fidding with orders of filters, etc. 

Ultimately, I decided not to even bother with using a HPF, and, as you can determine from my description below, I am very content with the SQ and musical presentation without any HPF. 

I decided that I would start simple, and I just connected the subwoofers to my preamplifier via interconnects, and played with the LPF, volume, phase, and position of the subwoofers. I decided on a rather simple placement of the subwoofers, just to the inside of the larger ESL’s, and had to adjust their positions slightly, but not markedly, as it turned out that the best stereo SQ was achieved by slightly staggering the subwoofers, one about 18 inches closer to the listener than the other, but both just to the medial (inside) aspect of the ESL’s.

I toyed with the phase and volume, but it turned out that simple was the answer: 0 phase shift, and middle volume worked best.

The LPF wasn’t too tricky either: with the Sound Lab ESL, I started with the LPF at 30 Hz, and just moved it up until I heard too much, and then backed it off a bit. It turns out that 50-60 Hz for the LPF did sound best, and the subwoofers must have a high order LPF, because I hear nothing discernible above those frequencies, even with the ESL’s off, playing music only through the subs.

These subwoofers don’t interfere with any of the SQ from what I can hear playing digital sources. If I play a solo piano from an analog source, I do hear a slight change to some imaging with only a very few notes on the piano, but I don’t hear this with any other instrument, and there’s definitely no perceptible detraction in imaging with larger compositions, involving more instruments.

Overall, adding the subwoofers to my system was a significant improvement in the overall musical presentation. I was surprised to hear that even in solo instrumental pieces, that the subwoofers added to the overall presentation. In larger, orchestral pieces, the subwoofers added markedly to the overall presentation, especially with the tympani, double bass, or continuo. Even in more modestly sized compositions, the subwoofers added to the musical experience. Overall, I would say that the subwoofers made the SQ sound more "full" or "robust", while not detracting from the clarity. Everything sounds like a more complete performance now, and brings me closer to the recording experience, insofar as the slight movement of the ground and air pressure around me causes me to feel "closer" to the performers, whereas previously, with only the ESL’s the SQ was slightly (although imperceptibly so, if you don’t compare the SQ with subwoofers) on the sterile side.

Thanks to many on this forum for their recommendations and suggestions in my musical journey!

drbond

@drbond I have a similar set-up (1 ML BF210 and ML CLXs). ML provides custom crossover firmware(s) for all/most their models on their website, that can be uploaded into your BF212 with a USB stick. I run my CLXs direct from the line stage. You might want to see if any of the ML models are close to the frequency response of your Sound Labs and try it.

 

What I would do for sure is to get a Perfect Bass Kit (PBK) from ML and create a custom room response filter and upload it to the ML212’s. This will give you much more musical bass, as the loudness up and down the scale will be much more even, and has a bigger impact than the custom crossover. I suspect this is potentially even more important with your unusual floor plan. I will note the I could not get the newest version of the ARC Genesis software to work on my MBP, so I had t borrow a Win11 laptop from work to measure the bass frequency curve and upload the inverse curve to the BL210. Note I only have one. For two you would correct each one individually, and the compensate with a combination of the overall level of the two. I would talk with ML and Anthem about that for advice.

@delm @docknow @m-db

Yes, the Martin Logan version of MSO is the PBK. The problem is that with current placement the subwoofers sound fantastic, without all the complicated DEQ, PBK, HPF, etc.

Before the purchase, I was told that the subwoofers and electrostatic speakers are poor matches, and I was prepared to follow through with complex HPF, etc, if necessary, but either I’m just lucky with my placement, and set up, or the Martin Logan Balanced Force subwoofers just match perfectly with my Sound Lab electrostatic speakers, with simply placing the subs in a standard stereo postiion. Consequently, I’m reluctant to start with endless fiddling when it’s perfect now, with only a slight stagger to the subs. (I did note that if the subs were placed symmetrically, that there was a band of low frequnency sound that got cancelled out between the two subs.)

However, since the ML PBK seems quite simple to use, I might try that in a couple of months, but I suppose I’ll have to investigate how to use the PBK with two subs, and if two subs makes the PBK obsolete, or less effective.

I thought my one 210 sounded great, so I procrastinated running PBK for a while, until the results of PBK the first time.  Now I do it as soon as I can when setting up the system in a new location (3 since that first time)

I have spoken with ML about PBK with two subs, as I am on teh fence about getting a 2nd 210.  PBk works with two subs.

@docknow 

Yes, I read that the Martin Logan PBK works with up to four subwoofers; however, it analyzes each one independently.  I would think a more effective way would be to measure all the subwoofers together, since there may be interference between two or more subwoofers.  Regardless, I think I’ll buy the PBK kit this weekend, and run it in a week or two, and try to discern what difference there is.  As I understand it, if I don’t like the results, I can always turn the PBK programming off, and revert to the present state.

 

 

@docknow 

So, I got the Martin Logan Perfect Bass Kit (PBK), which is room EQ software that can either be automated or manually set up using a microphone measuring from 5 different points in the room.  
Firstly, l have really been appreciating the marked improvement in texture that the subwoofers give to all musical instruments with just the standard operation using the LPF set at 55 Hz in conjunction with my Sound Lab electrostatic speakers.  Regardless, I followed through with proper room EQ set up using the PBK, and at first I was rather pleased:  the bass sound did sound more refined, slightly more precise, and not quite as thick at the lowest register.  
Without any EQ, my room has an increased signal from 20-40 Hz, and then dramatically drops between 40-50Hz, before slightly rising back up to ideal flat signal after 60 Hz or so.  After the PBK, the Room EQ flattened out the signal rather markedly, to make it appear almost ideal.  
When I first listen with the Room EQ, as I mentioned, the bass sounds more refined, and perhaps slightly more precise, but it does seem to detract from some of that more visceral component of the lower frequencies.  If I only listen for an hour or less, then I am content with the Room EQ; however, I noticed that if I have a longer listening session for a few hours or more, that I get rather significant ear (listening) fatigue, which has never before been a problem with my system.  So I turn the Room EQ off, and listen to the standar subwoofers without any EQ, and the fatigue immediately disappears…so I’ve reverted to listening to the subwoofers without any EQ, and I think that it sounds superior, although it measures worse!

So, that somewhat supports my opinion that audio measurements are an idealized representation of what some people think music should sound like but they are mostly wrong…