| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
New Speakers raise the bar
Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full
range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either. They simply disappear. Everything sounds absolutely real. Played the Zampf "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach 'Goldberg Variations' (this is where a computer program "listens" to Gould's original 1955 master tape and "extracts" a midi file from it that can be played back on a Yamaha DisKlavier system) and the piano is right there in the room. Listening to Professor K.O. Johnson's recent recording of the Rachmaninoff 'Symphonic Dances' was like hearing it for the first time. Such a soundstage, unbelievable imaging and unlike many ES speakers a "sweet spot" that extends more than 60 degrees from the center position. For the first time in my life, I have heard a stereo system that sounds like real, live music being played in real space. The only place where the speakers fall down a bit is in bottom-end extension. In most rooms they are good down to perhaps 40 Hz (and they are spec'd only to 56 Hz +/- 3dB in an anechoic chamber), but as the M-L rep said, "Bass is cheap" and indeed, after spending that much money for a pair of speakers, what's another 2K or so for a pair of subs? The bass that is there is the fastest, tightest, most articulate bottom I've ever experienced. The drum solo of Dave Brubeck's 'Take Five' has never revealed such detail, such realism. At the same time, these speakers mercilessly expose the Brubeck disc for the three-channel mono affair that it is. These speakers require a large room. Not only are they physically imposing at more than 2 ft wide and almost 6-ft tall but they can easily overload smaller rooms as I heard last night. You owe it to yourself to give these speakers a listen. They will leave you both flabbergasted and wondering "where can I find the $20K to buy these and how do I convince the wife..." If I ever saw a product worth selling one's soul to the devil to own, this is it. The usual disclaimer: I have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, Martin Logan other than I own a pair of their (more modest) speakers. I am simply enthusiastic about what I heard and wanted to pass it along to the rest of you on this forum. |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either. They simply disappear. Everything sounds absolutely real. Played the Zampf "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach 'Goldberg Variations' (this is where a computer program "listens" to Gould's original 1955 master tape and "extracts" a midi file from it that can be played back on a Yamaha DisKlavier system) and the piano is right there in the room. Listening to Professor K.O. Johnson's recent recording of the Rachmaninoff 'Symphonic Dances' was like hearing it for the first time. Such a soundstage, unbelievable imaging and unlike many ES speakers a "sweet spot" that extends more than 60 degrees from the center position. For the first time in my life, I have heard a stereo system that sounds like real, live music being played in real space. The only place where the speakers fall down a bit is in bottom-end extension. In most rooms they are good down to perhaps 40 Hz (and they are spec'd only to 56 Hz +/- 3dB in an anechoic chamber), but as the M-L rep said, "Bass is cheap" and indeed, after spending that much money for a pair of speakers, what's another 2K or so for a pair of subs? The bass that is there is the fastest, tightest, most articulate bottom I've ever experienced. The drum solo of Dave Brubeck's 'Take Five' has never revealed such detail, such realism. At the same time, these speakers mercilessly expose the Brubeck disc for the three-channel mono affair that it is. These speakers require a large room. Not only are they physically imposing at more than 2 ft wide and almost 6-ft tall but they can easily overload smaller rooms as I heard last night. Thanks for the review. One question; what was the associated equipment driving these speakers? Since you say they are highly revealing and accurate, did you have a chance to hear them with a $295 receiver and $100 CD player while you were at it, to make sure what you heard was all due to the speakers? |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:52:03 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either. They simply disappear. Everything sounds absolutely real. Played the Zampf "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach 'Goldberg Variations' (this is where a computer program "listens" to Gould's original 1955 master tape and "extracts" a midi file from it that can be played back on a Yamaha DisKlavier system) and the piano is right there in the room. Listening to Professor K.O. Johnson's recent recording of the Rachmaninoff 'Symphonic Dances' was like hearing it for the first time. Such a soundstage, unbelievable imaging and unlike many ES speakers a "sweet spot" that extends more than 60 degrees from the center position. For the first time in my life, I have heard a stereo system that sounds like real, live music being played in real space. The only place where the speakers fall down a bit is in bottom-end extension. In most rooms they are good down to perhaps 40 Hz (and they are spec'd only to 56 Hz +/- 3dB in an anechoic chamber), but as the M-L rep said, "Bass is cheap" and indeed, after spending that much money for a pair of speakers, what's another 2K or so for a pair of subs? The bass that is there is the fastest, tightest, most articulate bottom I've ever experienced. The drum solo of Dave Brubeck's 'Take Five' has never revealed such detail, such realism. At the same time, these speakers mercilessly expose the Brubeck disc for the three-channel mono affair that it is. These speakers require a large room. Not only are they physically imposing at more than 2 ft wide and almost 6-ft tall but they can easily overload smaller rooms as I heard last night. Thanks for the review. One question; what was the associated equipment driving these speakers? Since you say they are highly revealing and accurate, did you have a chance to hear them with a $295 receiver and $100 CD player while you were at it, to make sure what you heard was all due to the speakers? They were using a Levinson amp and a Classe preamp when I got there. After about an hour, they replaced the Classe with a Levinson preamp. As soon as they turned on the Levinson and music began to play, the store "guy" sighed and said, "That's better". There was no difference that I could detect. The source was a Wadia combo SACD/CD player. What I heard was the speakers. No electronics could make any speakers that were less than stellar sound THAT magnificent. |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
Sonnova wrote:
Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either... Perhaps this is true. Perhaps your observations are the result of expectation bias. Objectivists are quick to point out that there are real differences between some types of components - such as speakers and microphones - so blind testing to establish differences is less useful. Indeed, blind testing of speaker systems is especially tricky. Still, expectation bias is just as likely to intrude when evaluating a speaker system as it is with an amplifier, for example. And, given the imposing nature of some speaker systems, it's possible that expectation bias is especially likely to be a factor. This is why many subjectivist audiophiles prefer to evaluate components using long term listening. Over time, the genuine qualities of a component tend to emerge. |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:54:30 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either... Perhaps this is true. Perhaps your observations are the result of expectation bias. Objectivists are quick to point out that there are real differences between some types of components - such as speakers and microphones - so blind testing to establish differences is less useful. Indeed, blind testing of speaker systems is especially tricky. Still, expectation bias is just as likely to intrude when evaluating a speaker system as it is with an amplifier, for example. And, given the imposing nature of some speaker systems, it's possible that expectation bias is especially likely to be a factor. This is why many subjectivist audiophiles prefer to evaluate components using long term listening. Over time, the genuine qualities of a component tend to emerge. Whatever. Speakers aren't amps or interconnects and vary wildly in both their approach to recreating sound and the sound that they produce. A pair of Magneplanars do not sound like a pair of Wilson Watt/Puppies and only a fool would expect them to as they use wildly different technologies and methodologies to produce their individual sound . Speakers are one component where listening is the only practical way to evaluate them. One could use D-B methodologies, but in this case, I do not see the point. With amps, interconnects, green pens and myrtlewood blocks we are D-B testing to ascertain WHETHER there is really a difference between before and after (applying these dubious tweaks), or between A and B. With speakers, we already KNOW that there is a difference as no speaker is perfect nor does any one speaker brand or model do all things well. Simple physics tells us that this has to be true. The same physics that tells us that Interconnects and speaker cable can have no "sound" and that all modern amplifiers will sound alike. With speakers we are merely listening to hear which set of reproduction compromises with which we are willing to live. The CLXs have fewer compromises than any speakers I've ever heard at any price up to more than 5X their $20,000 asking price. I've never heard speakers that cost more than $100,000 pair, but they do exist. If they sound better than these Martin-Logans, I'd love to know how. But certainly, don't take my word for it. Arrange to hear them yourself. If you do, take along your favorite recordings. You're in for a treat! |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
C. Leeds wrote:
Sonnova wrote: Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either... Perhaps this is true. Perhaps your observations are the result of expectation bias. Correct. Objectivists are quick to point out that there are real differences between some types of components - such as speakers and microphones - so blind testing to establish differences is less useful. Indeed, blind testing of speaker systems is especially tricky. Still, expectation bias is just as likely to intrude when evaluating a speaker system as it is with an amplifier, for example. And, given the imposing nature of some speaker systems, it's possible that expectation bias is especially likely to be a factor. Correct. This is why many subjectivist audiophiles prefer to evaluate components using long term listening. Over time, the genuine qualities of a component tend to emerge. Or, perhaps your observations are the result of expectation bias. "Long term listening" does not obviate the need for 'sighted' controls. -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:52:03 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either. They simply disappear. Everything sounds absolutely real. Played the Zampf "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach 'Goldberg Variations' (this is where a computer program "listens" to Gould's original 1955 master tape and "extracts" a midi file from it that can be played back on a Yamaha DisKlavier system) and the piano is right there in the room. Listening to Professor K.O. Johnson's recent recording of the Rachmaninoff 'Symphonic Dances' was like hearing it for the first time. Such a soundstage, unbelievable imaging and unlike many ES speakers a "sweet spot" that extends more than 60 degrees from the center position. For the first time in my life, I have heard a stereo system that sounds like real, live music being played in real space. The only place where the speakers fall down a bit is in bottom-end extension. In most rooms they are good down to perhaps 40 Hz (and they are spec'd only to 56 Hz +/- 3dB in an anechoic chamber), but as the M-L rep said, "Bass is cheap" and indeed, after spending that much money for a pair of speakers, what's another 2K or so for a pair of subs? The bass that is there is the fastest, tightest, most articulate bottom I've ever experienced. The drum solo of Dave Brubeck's 'Take Five' has never revealed such detail, such realism. At the same time, these speakers mercilessly expose the Brubeck disc for the three-channel mono affair that it is. These speakers require a large room. Not only are they physically imposing at more than 2 ft wide and almost 6-ft tall but they can easily overload smaller rooms as I heard last night. Thanks for the review. One question; what was the associated equipment driving these speakers? Since you say they are highly revealing and accurate, did you have a chance to hear them with a $295 receiver and $100 CD player while you were at it, to make sure what you heard was all due to the speakers? They were using a Levinson amp and a Classe preamp when I got there. After about an hour, they replaced the Classe with a Levinson preamp. As soon as they turned on the Levinson and music began to play, the store "guy" sighed and said, "That's better". There was no difference that I could detect. The source was a Wadia combo SACD/CD player. What I heard was the speakers. No electronics could make any speakers that were less than stellar sound THAT magnificent. It is quite possible you were "expecting" no difference and the salesman was "expecting" a difference. I'd still be interested in what they sound like pushed, say, by an older Bryston, a Dynaco 416, or some other amp often claimed to sound "no different". |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 17:39:42 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:52:03 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either. They simply disappear. Everything sounds absolutely real. Played the Zampf "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach 'Goldberg Variations' (this is where a computer program "listens" to Gould's original 1955 master tape and "extracts" a midi file from it that can be played back on a Yamaha DisKlavier system) and the piano is right there in the room. Listening to Professor K.O. Johnson's recent recording of the Rachmaninoff 'Symphonic Dances' was like hearing it for the first time. Such a soundstage, unbelievable imaging and unlike many ES speakers a "sweet spot" that extends more than 60 degrees from the center position. For the first time in my life, I have heard a stereo system that sounds like real, live music being played in real space. The only place where the speakers fall down a bit is in bottom-end extension. In most rooms they are good down to perhaps 40 Hz (and they are spec'd only to 56 Hz +/- 3dB in an anechoic chamber), but as the M-L rep said, "Bass is cheap" and indeed, after spending that much money for a pair of speakers, what's another 2K or so for a pair of subs? The bass that is there is the fastest, tightest, most articulate bottom I've ever experienced. The drum solo of Dave Brubeck's 'Take Five' has never revealed such detail, such realism. At the same time, these speakers mercilessly expose the Brubeck disc for the three-channel mono affair that it is. These speakers require a large room. Not only are they physically imposing at more than 2 ft wide and almost 6-ft tall but they can easily overload smaller rooms as I heard last night. Thanks for the review. One question; what was the associated equipment driving these speakers? Since you say they are highly revealing and accurate, did you have a chance to hear them with a $295 receiver and $100 CD player while you were at it, to make sure what you heard was all due to the speakers? They were using a Levinson amp and a Classe preamp when I got there. After about an hour, they replaced the Classe with a Levinson preamp. As soon as they turned on the Levinson and music began to play, the store "guy" sighed and said, "That's better". There was no difference that I could detect. The source was a Wadia combo SACD/CD player. What I heard was the speakers. No electronics could make any speakers that were less than stellar sound THAT magnificent. It is quite possible you were "expecting" no difference and the salesman was "expecting" a difference. Actually, I wasn't expecting anything, but certainly the sales guy was, otherwise he wouldn't have swapped-out the Levinson for the Classe. I'd still be interested in what they sound like pushed, say, by an older Bryston, a Dynaco 416, or some other amp often claimed to sound "no different". So would I. I suspect that the difference would be how well the older amps tolerate an impedance of 0.7 ohms at 20 KHz. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 14:07:06 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): C. Leeds wrote: Sonnova wrote: Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either... Perhaps this is true. Perhaps your observations are the result of expectation bias. Correct. Objectivists are quick to point out that there are real differences between some types of components - such as speakers and microphones - so blind testing to establish differences is less useful. Indeed, blind testing of speaker systems is especially tricky. Still, expectation bias is just as likely to intrude when evaluating a speaker system as it is with an amplifier, for example. And, given the imposing nature of some speaker systems, it's possible that expectation bias is especially likely to be a factor. Correct. This is why many subjectivist audiophiles prefer to evaluate components using long term listening. Over time, the genuine qualities of a component tend to emerge. Or, perhaps your observations are the result of expectation bias. "Long term listening" does not obviate the need for 'sighted' controls. I recall when M-L came out with the Prodigy model loudspeaker about 8 years ago. I hated them, thought the bass sounded terrible on them. What a disappointment they were. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 17:39:42 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:52:03 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either. They simply disappear. Everything sounds absolutely real. Played the Zampf "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach 'Goldberg Variations' (this is where a computer program "listens" to Gould's original 1955 master tape and "extracts" a midi file from it that can be played back on a Yamaha DisKlavier system) and the piano is right there in the room. Listening to Professor K.O. Johnson's recent recording of the Rachmaninoff 'Symphonic Dances' was like hearing it for the first time. Such a soundstage, unbelievable imaging and unlike many ES speakers a "sweet spot" that extends more than 60 degrees from the center position. For the first time in my life, I have heard a stereo system that sounds like real, live music being played in real space. The only place where the speakers fall down a bit is in bottom-end extension. In most rooms they are good down to perhaps 40 Hz (and they are spec'd only to 56 Hz +/- 3dB in an anechoic chamber), but as the M-L rep said, "Bass is cheap" and indeed, after spending that much money for a pair of speakers, what's another 2K or so for a pair of subs? The bass that is there is the fastest, tightest, most articulate bottom I've ever experienced. The drum solo of Dave Brubeck's 'Take Five' has never revealed such detail, such realism. At the same time, these speakers mercilessly expose the Brubeck disc for the three-channel mono affair that it is. These speakers require a large room. Not only are they physically imposing at more than 2 ft wide and almost 6-ft tall but they can easily overload smaller rooms as I heard last night. Thanks for the review. One question; what was the associated equipment driving these speakers? Since you say they are highly revealing and accurate, did you have a chance to hear them with a $295 receiver and $100 CD player while you were at it, to make sure what you heard was all due to the speakers? They were using a Levinson amp and a Classe preamp when I got there. After about an hour, they replaced the Classe with a Levinson preamp. As soon as they turned on the Levinson and music began to play, the store "guy" sighed and said, "That's better". There was no difference that I could detect. The source was a Wadia combo SACD/CD player. What I heard was the speakers. No electronics could make any speakers that were less than stellar sound THAT magnificent. It is quite possible you were "expecting" no difference and the salesman was "expecting" a difference. Actually, I wasn't expecting anything, but certainly the sales guy was, otherwise he wouldn't have swapped-out the Levinson for the Classe. I'd still be interested in what they sound like pushed, say, by an older Bryston, a Dynaco 416, or some other amp often claimed to sound "no different". So would I. I suspect that the difference would be how well the older amps tolerate an impedance of 0.7 ohms at 20 KHz. Would the speakers tolerate any appreciable signal @ 20 KHz ? If they did, maybe newborns might capable of hearing it. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
Sonnova wrote:
Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either. They simply disappear. Everything sounds absolutely real. Played the Zampf "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach 'Goldberg Variations' (this is where a computer program "listens" to Gould's original 1955 master tape and "extracts" a midi file from it that can be played back on a Yamaha DisKlavier system) and the piano is right there in the room. Listening to Professor K.O. Johnson's recent recording of the Rachmaninoff 'Symphonic Dances' was like hearing it for the first time. Such a soundstage, unbelievable imaging i know the zampf disc is SACD (both 2 channel and "surround" although the writeup included provides no detail (!) about what they did for mikes for the surround) with also a pretty decent 2nd layer (standard redbook CD) is the K.O. Johnson 'Symphonic Dances' also a SACD disc? anyway, nice to know that Johnson is still kickin'  as i havethe CD, dated 1990, titled "Eileen Farrell Sings Torch Songs" (RR-34CD) where he was the recording engineer (he already looked pretty old in the picture on the CD back cover (that happened to show him during the recording) if you didn't ID the preamp in one of your other responses(?) do you remember what is was? if not, was it a 2 channel pre, or a 5+ channel pre/pro? snip The usual disclaimer: I have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, Martin Logan other than I own a pair of their (more modest) speakers. I am simply enthusiastic about what I heard and wanted to pass it along to the rest of you on this forum. given what you've posted, even at $20k/pair (and current hard times), demand should be high for awhile bill |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
In article ,
willbill wrote: anyway, nice to know that Johnson is still kickin' He sure is, and Reference is back with a vengeance. Notable recent releases include two stunning disks conducted by the great Jerry Judkin: one of wind band classics including Walton: Crown Imperial, and the other is music by one of the best contemporary classical composers around, David Maslanka, including perhaps his most popular work, A Child's Garden of Dreams. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:37:09 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 17:39:42 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:52:03 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either. They simply disappear. Everything sounds absolutely real. Played the Zampf "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach 'Goldberg Variations' (this is where a computer program "listens" to Gould's original 1955 master tape and "extracts" a midi file from it that can be played back on a Yamaha DisKlavier system) and the piano is right there in the room. Listening to Professor K.O. Johnson's recent recording of the Rachmaninoff 'Symphonic Dances' was like hearing it for the first time. Such a soundstage, unbelievable imaging and unlike many ES speakers a "sweet spot" that extends more than 60 degrees from the center position. For the first time in my life, I have heard a stereo system that sounds like real, live music being played in real space. The only place where the speakers fall down a bit is in bottom-end extension. In most rooms they are good down to perhaps 40 Hz (and they are spec'd only to 56 Hz +/- 3dB in an anechoic chamber), but as the M-L rep said, "Bass is cheap" and indeed, after spending that much money for a pair of speakers, what's another 2K or so for a pair of subs? The bass that is there is the fastest, tightest, most articulate bottom I've ever experienced. The drum solo of Dave Brubeck's 'Take Five' has never revealed such detail, such realism. At the same time, these speakers mercilessly expose the Brubeck disc for the three-channel mono affair that it is. These speakers require a large room. Not only are they physically imposing at more than 2 ft wide and almost 6-ft tall but they can easily overload smaller rooms as I heard last night. Thanks for the review. One question; what was the associated equipment driving these speakers? Since you say they are highly revealing and accurate, did you have a chance to hear them with a $295 receiver and $100 CD player while you were at it, to make sure what you heard was all due to the speakers? They were using a Levinson amp and a Classe preamp when I got there. After about an hour, they replaced the Classe with a Levinson preamp. As soon as they turned on the Levinson and music began to play, the store "guy" sighed and said, "That's better". There was no difference that I could detect. The source was a Wadia combo SACD/CD player. What I heard was the speakers. No electronics could make any speakers that were less than stellar sound THAT magnificent. It is quite possible you were "expecting" no difference and the salesman was "expecting" a difference. Actually, I wasn't expecting anything, but certainly the sales guy was, otherwise he wouldn't have swapped-out the Levinson for the Classe. I'd still be interested in what they sound like pushed, say, by an older Bryston, a Dynaco 416, or some other amp often claimed to sound "no different". So would I. I suspect that the difference would be how well the older amps tolerate an impedance of 0.7 ohms at 20 KHz. Would the speakers tolerate any appreciable signal @ 20 KHz ? If they did, maybe newborns might capable of hearing it. I'm sure that 20KHz signal is present in the passband of most CDs. Whether it is at any significant level, or whether or not You or I could hear it is pretty irrelevant to the point that the speaker's impedance is less than one ohm at that frequency. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:28:31 -0700, willbill wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either. They simply disappear. Everything sounds absolutely real. Played the Zampf "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach 'Goldberg Variations' (this is where a computer program "listens" to Gould's original 1955 master tape and "extracts" a midi file from it that can be played back on a Yamaha DisKlavier system) and the piano is right there in the room. Listening to Professor K.O. Johnson's recent recording of the Rachmaninoff 'Symphonic Dances' was like hearing it for the first time. Such a soundstage, unbelievable imaging i know the zampf disc is SACD (both 2 channel and "surround" although the writeup included provides no detail (!) about what they did for mikes for the surround) with also a pretty decent 2nd layer (standard redbook CD) is the K.O. Johnson 'Symphonic Dances' also a SACD disc? No. it's HDCD, which is to say, on most modern players, its RedBook (Windows Media Player contains HDCD decoding (MS bought the company that developed it -Pacific Micro), but few CD players do today.). anyway, nice to know that Johnson is still kickin' as i havethe CD, dated 1990, titled "Eileen Farrell Sings Torch Songs" (RR-34CD) where he was the recording engineer (he already looked pretty old in the picture on the CD back cover (that happened to show him during the recording) if you didn't ID the preamp in one of your other responses(?) do you remember what is was? if not, was it a 2 channel pre, or a 5+ channel pre/pro? When I got there, they were using a Classe preamp. While I was there, they swapped it out for a Levinson. Don't know the model numbers, but I assume both were 2-channel only. snip The usual disclaimer: I have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, Martin Logan other than I own a pair of their (more modest) speakers. I am simply enthusiastic about what I heard and wanted to pass it along to the rest of you on this forum. given what you've posted, even at $20k/pair (and current hard times), demand should be high for awhile bill |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:37:09 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 17:39:42 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:52:03 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either. They simply disappear. Everything sounds absolutely real. Played the Zampf "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach 'Goldberg Variations' (this is where a computer program "listens" to Gould's original 1955 master tape and "extracts" a midi file from it that can be played back on a Yamaha DisKlavier system) and the piano is right there in the room. Listening to Professor K.O. Johnson's recent recording of the Rachmaninoff 'Symphonic Dances' was like hearing it for the first time. Such a soundstage, unbelievable imaging and unlike many ES speakers a "sweet spot" that extends more than 60 degrees from the center position. For the first time in my life, I have heard a stereo system that sounds like real, live music being played in real space. The only place where the speakers fall down a bit is in bottom-end extension. In most rooms they are good down to perhaps 40 Hz (and they are spec'd only to 56 Hz +/- 3dB in an anechoic chamber), but as the M-L rep said, "Bass is cheap" and indeed, after spending that much money for a pair of speakers, what's another 2K or so for a pair of subs? The bass that is there is the fastest, tightest, most articulate bottom I've ever experienced. The drum solo of Dave Brubeck's 'Take Five' has never revealed such detail, such realism. At the same time, these speakers mercilessly expose the Brubeck disc for the three-channel mono affair that it is. These speakers require a large room. Not only are they physically imposing at more than 2 ft wide and almost 6-ft tall but they can easily overload smaller rooms as I heard last night. Thanks for the review. One question; what was the associated equipment driving these speakers? Since you say they are highly revealing and accurate, did you have a chance to hear them with a $295 receiver and $100 CD player while you were at it, to make sure what you heard was all due to the speakers? They were using a Levinson amp and a Classe preamp when I got there. After about an hour, they replaced the Classe with a Levinson preamp. As soon as they turned on the Levinson and music began to play, the store "guy" sighed and said, "That's better". There was no difference that I could detect. The source was a Wadia combo SACD/CD player. What I heard was the speakers. No electronics could make any speakers that were less than stellar sound THAT magnificent. It is quite possible you were "expecting" no difference and the salesman was "expecting" a difference. Actually, I wasn't expecting anything, but certainly the sales guy was, otherwise he wouldn't have swapped-out the Levinson for the Classe. I'd still be interested in what they sound like pushed, say, by an older Bryston, a Dynaco 416, or some other amp often claimed to sound "no different". So would I. I suspect that the difference would be how well the older amps tolerate an impedance of 0.7 ohms at 20 KHz. Would the speakers tolerate any appreciable signal @ 20 KHz ? If they did, maybe newborns might capable of hearing it. I'm sure that 20KHz signal is present in the passband of most CDs. Whether it is at any significant level, or whether or not You or I could hear it is pretty irrelevant to the point that the speaker's impedance is less than one ohm at that frequency. The point is that I would wish to protect my speaker and electronics by not allowing for its reproduction. Since probably only local bats hear it, I'd prefer to kill it before it kills my equipment. I'll take it for fact that you yourself record sound of that frequency every day in your work, that doesn't mean I'd like my equipment playing it for the pleasure of animals other than humans. Is it correct that a speaker impedance of less than one ohm (at any frequency) presents a severe stress to an amplifier? |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message
... "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:37:09 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 17:39:42 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:52:03 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either. They simply disappear. Everything sounds absolutely real. Played the Zampf "re-performance" of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach 'Goldberg Variations' (this is where a computer program "listens" to Gould's original 1955 master tape and "extracts" a midi file from it that can be played back on a Yamaha DisKlavier system) and the piano is right there in the room. Listening to Professor K.O. Johnson's recent recording of the Rachmaninoff 'Symphonic Dances' was like hearing it for the first time. Such a soundstage, unbelievable imaging and unlike many ES speakers a "sweet spot" that extends more than 60 degrees from the center position. For the first time in my life, I have heard a stereo system that sounds like real, live music being played in real space. The only place where the speakers fall down a bit is in bottom-end extension. In most rooms they are good down to perhaps 40 Hz (and they are spec'd only to 56 Hz +/- 3dB in an anechoic chamber), but as the M-L rep said, "Bass is cheap" and indeed, after spending that much money for a pair of speakers, what's another 2K or so for a pair of subs? The bass that is there is the fastest, tightest, most articulate bottom I've ever experienced. The drum solo of Dave Brubeck's 'Take Five' has never revealed such detail, such realism. At the same time, these speakers mercilessly expose the Brubeck disc for the three-channel mono affair that it is. These speakers require a large room. Not only are they physically imposing at more than 2 ft wide and almost 6-ft tall but they can easily overload smaller rooms as I heard last night. Thanks for the review. One question; what was the associated equipment driving these speakers? Since you say they are highly revealing and accurate, did you have a chance to hear them with a $295 receiver and $100 CD player while you were at it, to make sure what you heard was all due to the speakers? They were using a Levinson amp and a Classe preamp when I got there. After about an hour, they replaced the Classe with a Levinson preamp. As soon as they turned on the Levinson and music began to play, the store "guy" sighed and said, "That's better". There was no difference that I could detect. The source was a Wadia combo SACD/CD player. What I heard was the speakers. No electronics could make any speakers that were less than stellar sound THAT magnificent. It is quite possible you were "expecting" no difference and the salesman was "expecting" a difference. Actually, I wasn't expecting anything, but certainly the sales guy was, otherwise he wouldn't have swapped-out the Levinson for the Classe. I'd still be interested in what they sound like pushed, say, by an older Bryston, a Dynaco 416, or some other amp often claimed to sound "no different". So would I. I suspect that the difference would be how well the older amps tolerate an impedance of 0.7 ohms at 20 KHz. Would the speakers tolerate any appreciable signal @ 20 KHz ? If they did, maybe newborns might capable of hearing it. I'm sure that 20KHz signal is present in the passband of most CDs. Whether it is at any significant level, or whether or not You or I could hear it is pretty irrelevant to the point that the speaker's impedance is less than one ohm at that frequency. The point is that I would wish to protect my speaker and electronics by not allowing for its reproduction. Since probably only local bats hear it, I'd prefer to kill it before it kills my equipment. I'll take it for fact that you yourself record sound of that frequency every day in your work, that doesn't mean I'd like my equipment playing it for the pleasure of animals other than humans. Is it correct that a speaker impedance of less than one ohm (at any frequency) presents a severe stress to an amplifier? No, it's only a stress if there's any appreciable energy at that frequency, and the amplifier isn't designed to cope. A Krell will be quite happy, even with appreciable amounts of energy at 20kHz or any other frequency with a 1 ohm load, lesser amps won't be. The problem with a load that drops to 1 ohm at 20 kHz is not what happens at 20k, where there isn't a lot of energy about, but what happens at, say, 10kHz where there is a lot more. Even if the impedance is 2 or 3 ohms at 10kHz, that could still stress lesser amps. The answer with a 'speaker like this is to use an amp capable of driving 1 ohm happily, which needn't be a Krell, a fair few pro audio amps can manage it quite well at a lot less money, or use a matching transformer, which, however, will be expensive, so a better amp could be cheaper. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
Rather than ending up with yet another endless and tedious theoretical
thread about the wheres and whyfores of listening comparisons, AB tests, listener biases etc etc, I really do hope that someone will take up Sonnova's suggestion and actually listen to a pair of CKXs and report back on their impressions. I'm unlikely to ever be in a position to be able to justify spending that kind of money on a pair of speakers - but it's interesting to hear about what true high-end speakers can aspire to, from "real" high-end audio enthusiasts rather than salesmen and magazine reviewers. Yes, of course the impressions will be heavily subjective and inherently biased for all sorts of reasons, but let's hear them I say! Then it would be nice to know opinions on what would be considered pretty good second bests in more realistic budget ranges. For example, one of the more interesting recent postings brought the AudioEngine 2 to my attention, a speaker that, having read the various reports and opinions, sounds like something worth auditioning (though it is, of course, built to fulfill a very particular role). So...anyone else heard the CLX's yet? On 9 Aug 2008 16:54:30 GMT, "C. Leeds" wrote: Sonnova wrote: Just spent several hours auditioning a pair of the new Martin Logan CLX full range electrostatics. At around $20K, they are a revelation. I have never heard as accurate a pair of speakers in my life * and not by a small margin, either... Perhaps this is true. Perhaps your observations are the result of expectation bias. Objectivists are quick to point out that there are real differences between some types of components - such as speakers and microphones - so blind testing to establish differences is less useful. Indeed, blind testing of speaker systems is especially tricky. Still, expectation bias is just as likely to intrude when evaluating a speaker system as it is with an amplifier, for example. And, given the imposing nature of some speaker systems, it's possible that expectation bias is especially likely to be a factor. This is why many subjectivist audiophiles prefer to evaluate components using long term listening. Over time, the genuine qualities of a component tend to emerge. --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com Don't miss this year's Out of the Slipstream Conference Thursday 3rd July, Bletchley Park http://www.outoftheslipstream.com |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
Sonnova - could you tell us where you heard them, and describe the room size
and speaker positioning? And treatment around the speakers? Good site to see what these speakers look like is http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/129...n-clx-speakers or perhaps you have some photos of what you were listening to? Gary Eickmeier |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:15:49 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ): Sonnova - could you tell us where you heard them, and describe the room size and speaker positioning? And treatment around the speakers? I heard them at Future Sound in Burlingame CA. The room was smallish (too small, in my estimation for the speakers; I'd say it was 14 foot square). The speakers were about 8 foot apart on center and set square to the listening position which was about 4 ft from the back of the room. There was maybe 5 ft behind each speaker to the back wall. The walls had corner traps in the corners in front of the speakers and largish wall traps on the wall behind them (I'd say 4 X 4 ft). They had just been set-up that afternoon by Martin-Logan's International sales manager, Peter Soderberg and he admitted that the room wasn't ideal nor were the speaker positions optimized. It didn't matter. Even with the speakers occasionally overloading the room, they sounded so much more like real, unamplified music playing in real space, that all else was soon forgotten. The electronics (as if they would make any great difference) were a Mark Levinson power amp and initially a Classe pre-amp which was changed-out while I was there to a Levinson pre-amp. The source was a Wadia SACD/CD player (IIRC). I don't know the model numbers of any of the components. Good site to see what these speakers look like is http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/129...n-clx-speakers or perhaps you have some photos of what you were listening to? Sorry, I took no pictures - just listened. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
Rob Tweed writes:
Rather than ending up with yet another endless and tedious theoretical thread about the wheres and whyfores of listening comparisons, AB tests, listener biases etc etc, I really do hope that someone will take up Sonnova's suggestion and actually listen to a pair of CKXs and report back on their impressions. [...] There's also another bitter argument to be had with speakers: time & phase accuracy. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:45:45 -0700, Robert Sink wrote
(in article ): Rob Tweed writes: Rather than ending up with yet another endless and tedious theoretical thread about the wheres and whyfores of listening comparisons, AB tests, listener biases etc etc, I really do hope that someone will take up Sonnova's suggestion and actually listen to a pair of CKXs and report back on their impressions. [...] There's also another bitter argument to be had with speakers: time & phase accuracy. A problem from which I doubt seriously that full range electrostatic speakers would suffer. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
"Sonnova" wrote in message
snip Even with the speakers occasionally overloading the room, they sounded so much more like real, unamplified music playing in real space, that all else was soon forgotten. There have been two such "experiences" in my listening career. I still remember the buzz! Dave |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
"Robert Sink" wrote in message
... There's also another bitter argument to be had with speakers: time & phase accuracy. No, that is not a problem at all. We are not doing "accuracy" with loudspeaker reproduction. It is NOT a process of passing a signal or signals to your ears from the speakers. You are operating on a wrong theory of reproduction, on a very fundamental level. I have written a lot about this subject, which I would be glad to share with you. You probably wouldn't agree with any of it, but it is there for the asking. Gary Eickmeier |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:09:00 -0700, DC wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message snip Even with the speakers occasionally overloading the room, they sounded so much more like real, unamplified music playing in real space, that all else was soon forgotten. There have been two such "experiences" in my listening career. I still remember the buzz! Dave Yeah. In this case, we had to be careful to keep the SPL below the room overload threshold (which could easily be heard) and the problem didn't bother us. The transparency and sense of reality imparted by the speakers was clearly there regardless of volume level. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Robert Sink" wrote in message ... There's also another bitter argument to be had with speakers: time & phase accuracy. No, that is not a problem at all. We are not doing "accuracy" with loudspeaker reproduction. It is NOT a process of passing a signal or signals to your ears from the speakers. You are operating on a wrong theory of reproduction, on a very fundamental level. I have written a lot about this subject, which I would be glad to share with you. You probably wouldn't agree with any of it, but it is there for the asking. What theory of sound reproduction do you ascribe to? -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
New Speakers raise the bar
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Gary Eickmeier wrote: "Robert Sink" wrote in message ... There's also another bitter argument to be had with speakers: time & phase accuracy. No, that is not a problem at all. We are not doing "accuracy" with loudspeaker reproduction. It is NOT a process of passing a signal or signals to your ears from the speakers. You are operating on a wrong theory of reproduction, on a very fundamental level. I have written a lot about this subject, which I would be glad to share with you. You probably wouldn't agree with any of it, but it is there for the asking. What theory of sound reproduction do you ascribe to? I believe that we are reconstructing a model of the real thing in our listening rooms. The original performance has been recorded and the information reduced to two channels of sound. That performance was a complex pattern of direct and reflected and reverberant sound that had a certain size, shape, dynamics, frequency balance, and of course no distortions such as noise or harmonic distortions, which are well controlled with todays electronics and media. But unless it is a binaural system of recording and reproduction, the function of reproduction is NOT to simply transfer those two channels of sound to your ears directly, but to reconstruct that complex pattern of original sound as best we can, in both size and shape. The spatial qualities of the original will be replaced by the spatial qualities of the speakers in reproduction. If we mistakenly take the huge, spacious pattern of original sounds and change it to a small pattern of direct sound coming from just two points in space in front of you, we have changed it to something that sounds decidedly different, and not quite "right." No amount of fiddling with frequency response, distortion controls, or tubes vs transistors will help to make it sound right. It is not a process in whch there is insufficient "accuracy" of the transmission channels. To reduce the argument to its fundamentals, the most "accurate" reproduction would be two direct speakers in an anechoic chamber. But we know that if we do that, we would run screaming from the room. So we do a number of things to reproduce the size and shape of the original sound field a little better. We play our recordings in real rooms, we use speakers that have omni, bipolar, dipolar, or purpose-designed portions of direct and reflected sound patterns. We generate or record surround sound to mimic the reverberant field of the original. We use a larger room, making the model more of the size of the real thing. And we let the frequency response taper off toward the high frequencies as it does in the concert hall. All of these things that we can do to increase "realism" might be considered by someone who is operating under a wrong theory of reproduction to decrease the "accuracy" of the process. It is, therefore, not a process of sound channel to ear "accuracy" in which time and phase accuracy of the recorded channels is important. Gary Eickmeier |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
