hey now ...

I'm finding myself dissatisfied w/the current configuration of my
playback system.
Lacking punch, slam...and serious bottom end. I realize that
Electrostatics are not a speaker style that will produce that slam like
cone/box/traditional setup, but I feel that I can squeeze a little more
out of this by adding some low end.
my setup consists of:

24'deep x 17'wide listening room. deep carpets, lots of big plants,
things on the walls (hard sheetrock). a sturdy room

Philips 963sa front end cheap monster interconnect
Audio Experience Symphonies tube pre cheap AR interconnect
McCormick DNA-1 MIT term 2 biwires
Martin Logan SL3
the speakers are well placed (I think). 4' in from side walls, 4' in
from back wall and spaced 9'. They are also toe'd in a few inches and
the listening spot is 13' away.
I know, I need new interconnects. they are comming.

The MLs can get pretty low, but not on everything. I listen to a good
blend of Jazz, live rock, classical...but mostly live rock.

I know that mating a sub w/speakers like these can be a challange. I'm
dissapointed that the dual 10' whoofers in these SL3's dont go to places
that a single 8" sub can go.
I'm thinking that a multiple driver sub might be the way to go? I would
think that they are quicker than a single large driver?

Any recomendations?
same goes for super quick single driver subs.
I'm trying to stay as cheap as possible, of course. Used as well.
Vandersteen's 2wq is on my list. I know Velodyne makes a dual driver,
not sure about REL. I figure that I might end up paying more for a
single driver sub that would match up (as that sort of performance gets
pricey). I'm all about good value. While I dont like to make many
compromises, I would be happy with something tht you might rate a 7 out
of 10 that costs $500 than getting an 8.5 that would cost a grand.

Maybe my problem is the McCormack as well? I can't decide what I think
of this amp. I miss my old B&Ks warm sound.

I would start with the ML subs.

S888Wheel wrote:
I would start with the ML subs.


too expensive. I dont think that I need to stick w/the brand to find
something that will match up nicely w/the SL3s. Those would be a great
place to start though.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:20:47 GMT, Nick's Picks wrote:

S888Wheel wrote:
[2 quoted lines suppressed]

too expensive. I dont think that I need to stick w/the brand to find
something that will match up nicely w/the SL3s. Those would be a great
place to start though.

You won't be disppointed with the REL products, although I think they are
on the high price end of the market. I have never owned Electrostats
before, but I'm not sure the sub will cure all evils. Make sure if you get
one, it has a precise crossover that can be dialed to the natural roll off
if the speaker. within 3 Hz.
--
Chet Marino

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 02:13:21 GMT, Chet Marino
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:20:47 GMT, Nick's Picks wrote:

S888Wheel wrote:
[2 quoted lines suppressed]

too expensive. I dont think that I need to stick w/the brand to find
something that will match up nicely w/the SL3s. Those would be a great
place to start though.

You won't be disppointed with the REL products, although I think they are
on the high price end of the market. I have never owned Electrostats
before, but I'm not sure the sub will cure all evils. Make sure if you get
one, it has a precise crossover that can be dialed to the natural roll off
if the speaker. within 3 Hz.

This is of course *not* the same problem as combining a sub with a
conventional 'stat like a Quad, since the SL3 is *not* a dipole below
250Hz, but is a normal box speaker in the bass. Hence, combining a sub
with the SL3 is the same as combining a sub with any other speaker.
Try the Paradigm range for excellent value and high-quality sound.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Nick Georges wrote:

Any recomendations?
same goes for super quick single driver subs.
I'm trying to stay as cheap as possible, of course. Used as well.
Vandersteen's 2wq is on my list. I know Velodyne makes a dual driver,
not sure about REL.

I'd recommend a servo-type sub. $500 just isn't going to do it if you
want huge amounts of bass, but $900-$1000 will quite easily.

"Nick Georges" wrote in message
news:2K9rb.105933$275.299194@attbi_s53...
I'm all about good value. While I dont like to make many
compromises, I would be happy with something tht you might rate a 7 out
of 10 that costs $500 than getting an 8.5 that would cost a grand.

Maybe my problem is the McCormack as well? I can't decide what I think
of this amp. I miss my old B&Ks warm sound.

Maybe you should go back to the B&K.
I'm using a Hsu VTF-2 with Quad 63's driven by
Krell KSA-150.

I think it works quite well.

ScottW

"ScottW"

"Nick Georges" wrote in message
news:2K9rb.105933$275.299194@attbi_s53...
I'm all about good value. While I dont like to make many
compromises, I would be happy with something tht you might rate a 7 out
of 10 that costs $500 than getting an 8.5 that would cost a grand.

Maybe my problem is the McCormack as well? I can't decide what I think
of this amp. I miss my old B&Ks warm sound.

Maybe you should go back to the B&K.
I'm using a Hsu VTF-2 with Quad 63's driven by
Krell KSA-150.

I think it works quite well.

ScottW

I highly recommend the VFT-2 with any speaker system. However many other small
8-10 inch powered subwoofers may be a good match for these ML speakers; because
they generally lack strong low frequency output.

The main "matching" problem with electrostats is that the falling dynamic
capability at lower frequencies cannot keep up with a powerful subwoofer. IOW
the electrostats figuratively aren't dynamically "fast" enough to kep up with
the subwoofer; especially in the crossover range. This can result in mid-bass
compression or too-fat bass if the subwoofer gain is increased to try to
fill-in the crossover hole.

As a general rule, most of these issues can be resolved satisfactorily with
careful crossover/level set-up. For this reason you may wish to try for a
subwoofer model that has high-pass facility for the mainsf that's not already
provided in your electronics.

Nousaine wrote:

As a general rule, most of these issues can be resolved satisfactorily with
careful crossover/level set-up. For this reason you may wish to try for a
subwoofer model that has high-pass facility for the mainsf that's not already
provided in your electronics.


Better yet, get something like Outlaw Audio's ICBM and have it electronicaly
process the sound. This should allow you to look at a less expensive non-servo
sub like the VTF or simmilar.

I highly recommend the VFT-2 with any speaker system. However many other small
8-10 inch powered subwoofers may be a good match for these ML speakers; because
they generally lack strong low frequency output.

The main "matching" problem with electrostats is that the falling dynamic
capability at lower frequencies cannot keep up with a powerful subwoofer. IOW
the electrostats figuratively aren't dynamically "fast" enough to kep up with
the subwoofer; especially in the crossover range. This can result in mid-bass
compression or too-fat bass if the subwoofer gain is increased to try to
fill-in the crossover hole.

Now, i'm no audio pro but you have just said the exact oppossite of what
has been explained to me.
the problem matching subs w/ electrostats (or plannar) speakers is that
speakers of this type are *very fast* when comparred to moving cones and
coils. So you end up w/a sluggish bass responce if not done properly.
this is what iv'e been told by ML recently and prior by Magneplannar
when I used to be a Maggie fan (still am, btw).
I dont mean to be the guy who asks for help, and then tells others the
way it is...I just didn't want to be spreading disinformation, or
following it should I be the one mistaken.


As a general rule, most of these issues can be resolved satisfactorily with
careful crossover/level set-up. For this reason you may wish to try for a
subwoofer model that has high-pass facility for the mainsf that's not already
provided in your electronics.


It took me a long time to finaly dial in the sub I ran w/my Maggies, and
that came down to placement in the room above all else.

"Nick's Picks" wrote:

nousaine wrote: ... snips....

The main "matching" problem with electrostats is that the falling dynamic
capability at lower frequencies cannot keep up with a powerful subwoofer.
IOW
the electrostats figuratively aren't dynamically "fast" enough to kep up
with
the subwoofer; especially in the crossover range. This can result in
mid-bass
compression or too-fat bass if the subwoofer gain is increased to try to
fill-in the crossover hole.

Now, i'm no audio pro but you have just said the exact oppossite of what
has been explained to me.

By people who dont fully understand how this works. It IS true that people
often have better luck matching panel speakers with subwoofers that have more
nearly matched dynamic capabilities especially near the crossover frequency.
That means using a subwoofer with relatively poor dyanmic capability .....
which 'matches' it to a main speaker with that characteristic in its lower
bandwidth.

the problem matching subs w/ electrostats (or plannar) speakers is that
speakers of this type are *very fast* when comparred to moving cones and
coils.

This is just an Urban Myth. To maintain a given SPL at low frequencies requires
a given level of displacement. Because panel speakers have a large surface area
(an advantage) but a limited stroke they are dynamically limited at low
frequencies.
In other words they are dynamically "slow."

In physical terms a cone speaker with a much smaller surface area must move a
greater distance to maintain the same SPL but also must do so it the same
amount of time (60 times a second at 60 Hz, for example). Therefore it
literally has to be physically "faster."

So you end up w/a sluggish bass responce if not done properly.
this is what iv'e been told by ML recently and prior by Magneplannar
when I used to be a Maggie fan (still am, btw).

Actually the condition you describe is usually attributable to set-ups that
overcompensate for the mid-bass compression that comes with matching a
dynamically more capable subwoofer with a dynamically limited satellite by
setting the subwoofer level too high.

I dont mean to be the guy who asks for help, and then tells others the
way it is...I just didn't want to be spreading disinformation, or
following it should I be the one mistaken.

Thank you for the question. The "fast" bass Urban Myth is widely spread but
doesn't stand the test when studied with an eye to finding out what really
happens.

As a general rule, most of these issues can be resolved satisfactorily with
careful crossover/level set-up. For this reason you may wish to try for a
subwoofer model that has high-pass facility for the mainsf that's not
already
provided in your electronics.


It took me a long time to finaly dial in the sub I ran w/my Maggies, and
that came down to placement in the room above all else.

Placement is also important. But crossover/level matching is equally important.

Let me give you another example. A few years ago I built a subwoofer that would
produce 120 dB SPL 10% distortion from 12 to 62 Hz. When matched with a
multichannel system that had very capable active 6.5-inch satellite speakers at
all channels.

What I then got was the classic mid-upper bass compression with high-output
bass material because the 6.5-inch woofers didn't have dynamic capability near
the crossover to "keep up" with the subwoofer.

The "fix" for this was an additional 10-inch powered bandpass "subwoofer" that
operates between 45 and 100 Hz for the left and right main channels. I wasn't
interested in choking-off the bass (using a limited capability subwoofer) to
get the best overall blend.

Another little trick that some might not think of was to increase the
electronic low pass frequency for the subwoofer to 120 Hz. The unit begins
rolling off acoustically around 70 Hz anyway; so a little additional output
just above the acoustical crossover frequency was helpful.

All this simply tells me that basic understanding about
dynamic-capability-matching aspects of sub/sat set-up is very useful and not
widely understood by the industry.

"Nick Georges" wrote in message
news:2K9rb.105933$275.299194@attbi_s53...
hey now ...

I'm finding myself dissatisfied w/the current configuration of my
playback system.
Lacking punch, slam...and serious bottom end. I realize that
Electrostatics are not a speaker style that will produce that slam like
cone/box/traditional setup, but I feel that I can squeeze a little more
out of this by adding some low end.
my setup consists of:

24'deep x 17'wide listening room. deep carpets, lots of big plants,
things on the walls (hard sheetrock). a sturdy room

Philips 963sa front end cheap monster interconnect
Audio Experience Symphonies tube pre cheap AR interconnect
McCormick DNA-1 MIT term 2 biwires
Martin Logan SL3
the speakers are well placed (I think). 4' in from side walls, 4' in
from back wall and spaced 9'. They are also toe'd in a few inches and
the listening spot is 13' away.
I know, I need new interconnects. they are comming.

You stated that your goal is added "punch, slam...and serious bottom end".
You should know that no amount of money spent on new interconnects will do
that. In fact, it's a good bet that you'd be able to detect no difference
after such an upgrade. Save that money for what you need, which is a sub.

The MLs can get pretty low, but not on everything. I listen to a good
blend of Jazz, live rock, classical...but mostly live rock.

I know that mating a sub w/speakers like these can be a challange. I'm
dissapointed that the dual 10' whoofers in these SL3's dont go to places
that a single 8" sub can go.
I'm thinking that a multiple driver sub might be the way to go? I would
think that they are quicker than a single large driver?

Any recomendations?

Highly recommend the Paradigm Servo 15 with their excellent x-30 crossover.
List price is $1,500 but there's one on Audiogon for $700. It's among the 2
or 3 best powered subs available.
*snip*

Maybe my problem is the McCormack as well? I can't decide what I think
of this amp. I miss my old B&Ks warm sound.

It's highly unlikely that the McCormack is causing a leaning out in the bass
unless it's broken. It's a very capable amp.

"Nick Georges" wrote in message
news:2K9rb.105933$275.299194@attbi_s53...
hey now ...

I'm finding myself dissatisfied w/the current configuration of my
playback system.
Lacking punch, slam...and serious bottom end. I realize that
Electrostatics are not a speaker style that will produce that slam like
cone/box/traditional setup, but I feel that I can squeeze a little more
out of this by adding some low end.
my setup consists of:


/cut/

Try to find some VMPS sub that suits you: they are very good and excellent
choice for the money.
Other than that, I would go for REL or similar, but VMPS would be my first
choice for the sub.

Respekt,
J.

using an ACI Titan II LE with Martin Logan Odysseys. took me a bit of work
to get them working together but its now seamless sound. nothing booming,
just a nice thick low end fill. I looked at the ML subs but felt the $ was
too high.

"Nick Georges" wrote in message
news:2K9rb.105933$275.299194@attbi_s53...
hey now ...

I'm finding myself dissatisfied w/the current configuration of my
playback system.
Lacking punch, slam...and serious bottom end. I realize that
Electrostatics are not a speaker style that will produce that slam like
cone/box/traditional setup, but I feel that I can squeeze a little more
out of this by adding some low end.
my setup consists of:

24'deep x 17'wide listening room. deep carpets, lots of big plants,
things on the walls (hard sheetrock). a sturdy room

Philips 963sa front end cheap monster interconnect
Audio Experience Symphonies tube pre cheap AR interconnect
McCormick DNA-1 MIT term 2 biwires
Martin Logan SL3
the speakers are well placed (I think). 4' in from side walls, 4' in
from back wall and spaced 9'. They are also toe'd in a few inches and
the listening spot is 13' away.
I know, I need new interconnects. they are comming.

The MLs can get pretty low, but not on everything. I listen to a good
blend of Jazz, live rock, classical...but mostly live rock.

I know that mating a sub w/speakers like these can be a challange. I'm
dissapointed that the dual 10' whoofers in these SL3's dont go to places
that a single 8" sub can go.
I'm thinking that a multiple driver sub might be the way to go? I would
think that they are quicker than a single large driver?

Any recomendations?
same goes for super quick single driver subs.
I'm trying to stay as cheap as possible, of course. Used as well.
Vandersteen's 2wq is on my list. I know Velodyne makes a dual driver,
not sure about REL. I figure that I might end up paying more for a
single driver sub that would match up (as that sort of performance gets
pricey). I'm all about good value. While I dont like to make many
compromises, I would be happy with something tht you might rate a 7 out
of 10 that costs $500 than getting an 8.5 that would cost a grand.

Maybe my problem is the McCormack as well? I can't decide what I think
of this amp. I miss my old B&Ks warm sound.

"sukhdev" wrote:

using an ACI Titan II LE with Martin Logan Odysseys. took me a bit of work
to get them working together but its now seamless sound. nothing booming,
just a nice thick low end fill. I looked at the ML subs but felt the $ was
too high.

This is a good example of choking the bass to match the satellites. The Titan
is really a relatively low-output/limited extension common woofer.

I think you've articulated the problem very well. First the ML's do lack
punch. I use a sub with Maggies- a cheap Paradigm X100 Xover dials it in
very well. Second the BK's have a much different, warm and (very high
current) big punch sound. I love BK 150 amp mono M200. You should follow
the scientific method and change, audition and buy things incrementally
noting the improvements as you go. I have no idea if your system is
synergistic or parasitic.

"Nick Georges" wrote in message
news:2K9rb.105933$275.299194@attbi_s53...
hey now ...

I'm finding myself dissatisfied w/the current configuration of my
playback system.
Lacking punch, slam...and serious bottom end. I realize that
Electrostatics are not a speaker style that will produce that slam like
cone/box/traditional setup, but I feel that I can squeeze a little more
out of this by adding some low end.
my setup consists of:

24'deep x 17'wide listening room. deep carpets, lots of big plants,
things on the walls (hard sheetrock). a sturdy room

Philips 963sa front end cheap monster interconnect
Audio Experience Symphonies tube pre cheap AR interconnect
McCormick DNA-1 MIT term 2 biwires
Martin Logan SL3
the speakers are well placed (I think). 4' in from side walls, 4' in
from back wall and spaced 9'. They are also toe'd in a few inches and
the listening spot is 13' away.
I know, I need new interconnects. they are comming.

The MLs can get pretty low, but not on everything. I listen to a good
blend of Jazz, live rock, classical...but mostly live rock.

I know that mating a sub w/speakers like these can be a challange. I'm
dissapointed that the dual 10' whoofers in these SL3's dont go to places
that a single 8" sub can go.
I'm thinking that a multiple driver sub might be the way to go? I would
think that they are quicker than a single large driver?

Any recomendations?
same goes for super quick single driver subs.
I'm trying to stay as cheap as possible, of course. Used as well.
Vandersteen's 2wq is on my list. I know Velodyne makes a dual driver,
not sure about REL. I figure that I might end up paying more for a
single driver sub that would match up (as that sort of performance gets
pricey). I'm all about good value. While I dont like to make many
compromises, I would be happy with something tht you might rate a 7 out
of 10 that costs $500 than getting an 8.5 that would cost a grand.

Maybe my problem is the McCormack as well? I can't decide what I think
of this amp. I miss my old B&Ks warm sound.

I know that mating a sub w/speakers like these can be a challange. I'm
dissapointed that the dual 10' whoofers in these SL3's dont go to places
that a single 8" sub can go.
I'm thinking that a multiple driver sub might be the way to go? I would
think that they are quicker than a single large driver?

Since you said yourself that the two 10" woofers do not go as low as a
single 8" woofer can go, the question arises why not?

Is it strictly a matter of cabinetry or is it a matter of different
crossover circuitry? If it is indeed the latter, perhaps you could change
the crossover to one of the 10" woofers in your M-L electrostatics, and then
actually "run it" like a subwoofer. Perhaps others in this group can
provide suggestions how one might do this, or perhaps even M-L can provide
some help.

Of course part of the problem might also be the voice coil travel length and
the resonant frequency of the supplied M-L woofers, and if this is indeed
the case perhaps one them could be replaced with a 10" speaker that will "go
down" much further.

Peter wrote:


Since you said yourself that the two 10" woofers do not go as low as a
single 8" woofer can go, the question arises why not?

Good question.
I cant' remember the Xover freq. that ML has by default, but I think I
remember it being very high.


Is it strictly a matter of cabinetry or is it a matter of different
crossover circuitry?

beats me, but that is the way it is.
Strange, some recordings...they play fine. They go real low. Lots of
grunt.
Most recordings though, they have nothing.

If it is indeed the latter, perhaps you could change
the crossover to one of the 10" woofers in your M-L electrostatics, and then
actually "run it" like a subwoofer. Perhaps others in this group can
provide suggestions how one might do this, or perhaps even M-L can provide
some help.

I've read Sssssooooo many good things about the SL3, its transparency,
its "window to the true music", its quality as a reference speaker...id
be afraid to mess w/it.


Of course part of the problem might also be the voice coil travel length and
the resonant frequency of the supplied M-L woofers, and if this is indeed
the case perhaps one them could be replaced with a 10" speaker that will "go
down" much further.