Justin Ayers
Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2020
- Messages
- 60
- Likes
- 47
The main benefit of spending $4,000 on the ML ESL X (rather than the less expensive ESL) is better bass response from the dual subwoofer (ESL just has one). However, it seems to me that it might be more cost-effective to get a bigger subwoofer and get an ESL (although it has a smaller panel also). I have even been considering the DIY subwoofer route as I like the idea of a sealed design with a very large box. I have plenty of space in my listening room for a big box. So, I have been thinking about a 15–18" subwoofer to complement whatever speaker set I get. (I may get/make a second sub later as well, as I have read many comments that say having two is much more optimal.) Only very expensive speakers seem to have enough bass to let one do without a subwoofer to get full-range response and I can't really afford $4,000 speakers — let alone the $8,000 it costs to get speakers with strong accurate low bass.
I have some reservations about the MLs, though.
1) Dust. If they have big problems with dust then I should probably look elsewhere. My cat puts out a lot of dander and I live near farms and people who use burn piles heavily. If putting a cover over them when not in use is all that needs to be done then that's not so bad. Does anyone make Velcro covers with a dust-proof fabric?
2) Short lifespan. I have read comments elsewhere that suggest that Martin Logan doesn't support its older speakers very well, while Magnepan does. Additionally, I have read that electrostatic panels degrade rather quickly — like 8–12 years. That won't work for me because I can't afford good speakers in the first place. I definitely can't afford to replace them or rebuild them in a decade or less.
3) "Head in a vise". This is only a concern for me if the optimal listening area is really small and there is a very noticeable difference in quality.
4) The small size of the subwoofers. I understand that the goal is to have more rapid response, to not lag behind the panels as much. But, what about low bass?
5) The price. The Magnepan 1.7i is quite a lot less expensive than the ESL X but around the price of the ESL. The next step up in the Magnepan line, the 3.7i, is $2000 more than the ESL X and well out of reach for me.
As far as the Magnepans go, I also have some reservations.
1) Is the 1.7i good enough to cancel-out the drawbacks of the LRS that have been shown here, especially when paired with a sub? Or, is it necessary to get one of their higher-end true ribbon models?
2) Am I going to need to spend a lot on amplification to drive these?
As far as the regular ESL (not X) goes... Martin Logan says this about the X: The ElectroMotion ESL X features a new larger XStat™ electrostatic transducer, with a radiating area over 50in2 larger than the EM-ESL model.
So, the extra $1500 gets you a bigger panel and another 8" sub. $4,000, though, is probably beyond my price range.
ESL X: Panel Dimensions: 40" x 8.6" (102 x 22cm) » Radiating Area: 344 in² (2,244 cm² )
ESL: Panel Dimensions: 34" x 8.6" (86 x 22cm) » Radiating Area: 292 in² (1,892 cm² )
I realize that the only planars that have been reviewed here so far are the Magnepan LRS, which seem to be a case of price target ruining the value of the technology (low price tag, lower value).
How big does an electrostatic (and "quasi-ribbon" magnetic planar) speaker have to be in terms of panel size to produce excellent mids and treble (leaving the subwoofer to handle most of the bass)? From what I've seen, with any brand-new speaker (not used), you can either have an affordable price or you can have low bass. That's without adding a subwoofer (or two) yourself. So, I am basically expecting to have to add a sub. So, what I need is a speaker with good mids and treble, and probably high bass.
I have tried to read a lot about these speakers over the years but I am wondering if anyone has more hard data to tell me if I should skip the idea of budget planars or if one of these would be a suitable choice. As far as music, I listen to 80% classical (especially piano) and 20% other. I'm picky about sound quality. For instance, I dislike listening to symphonic music that was recorded in analog, versus a digital recording.
Is it true that the "quasi-ribbon" Magnepan design has slower mids and treble than an electrostatic panel? And/or is there more distortion? Is it true that modern Magnepan panels are likely to outlast an electrostatic panel by many years (lower-maintenance design)?
Thanks for any input you can provide. I have erased the LRS from my consideration due to the review here. Comments indicate that the 1.7i is quite a bit better and the ML ELS is around the same price.
I have some reservations about the MLs, though.
1) Dust. If they have big problems with dust then I should probably look elsewhere. My cat puts out a lot of dander and I live near farms and people who use burn piles heavily. If putting a cover over them when not in use is all that needs to be done then that's not so bad. Does anyone make Velcro covers with a dust-proof fabric?
2) Short lifespan. I have read comments elsewhere that suggest that Martin Logan doesn't support its older speakers very well, while Magnepan does. Additionally, I have read that electrostatic panels degrade rather quickly — like 8–12 years. That won't work for me because I can't afford good speakers in the first place. I definitely can't afford to replace them or rebuild them in a decade or less.
3) "Head in a vise". This is only a concern for me if the optimal listening area is really small and there is a very noticeable difference in quality.
4) The small size of the subwoofers. I understand that the goal is to have more rapid response, to not lag behind the panels as much. But, what about low bass?
5) The price. The Magnepan 1.7i is quite a lot less expensive than the ESL X but around the price of the ESL. The next step up in the Magnepan line, the 3.7i, is $2000 more than the ESL X and well out of reach for me.
As far as the Magnepans go, I also have some reservations.
1) Is the 1.7i good enough to cancel-out the drawbacks of the LRS that have been shown here, especially when paired with a sub? Or, is it necessary to get one of their higher-end true ribbon models?
2) Am I going to need to spend a lot on amplification to drive these?
As far as the regular ESL (not X) goes... Martin Logan says this about the X: The ElectroMotion ESL X features a new larger XStat™ electrostatic transducer, with a radiating area over 50in2 larger than the EM-ESL model.
So, the extra $1500 gets you a bigger panel and another 8" sub. $4,000, though, is probably beyond my price range.
ESL X: Panel Dimensions: 40" x 8.6" (102 x 22cm) » Radiating Area: 344 in² (2,244 cm² )
ESL: Panel Dimensions: 34" x 8.6" (86 x 22cm) » Radiating Area: 292 in² (1,892 cm² )
I realize that the only planars that have been reviewed here so far are the Magnepan LRS, which seem to be a case of price target ruining the value of the technology (low price tag, lower value).
How big does an electrostatic (and "quasi-ribbon" magnetic planar) speaker have to be in terms of panel size to produce excellent mids and treble (leaving the subwoofer to handle most of the bass)? From what I've seen, with any brand-new speaker (not used), you can either have an affordable price or you can have low bass. That's without adding a subwoofer (or two) yourself. So, I am basically expecting to have to add a sub. So, what I need is a speaker with good mids and treble, and probably high bass.
I have tried to read a lot about these speakers over the years but I am wondering if anyone has more hard data to tell me if I should skip the idea of budget planars or if one of these would be a suitable choice. As far as music, I listen to 80% classical (especially piano) and 20% other. I'm picky about sound quality. For instance, I dislike listening to symphonic music that was recorded in analog, versus a digital recording.
Is it true that the "quasi-ribbon" Magnepan design has slower mids and treble than an electrostatic panel? And/or is there more distortion? Is it true that modern Magnepan panels are likely to outlast an electrostatic panel by many years (lower-maintenance design)?
Thanks for any input you can provide. I have erased the LRS from my consideration due to the review here. Comments indicate that the 1.7i is quite a bit better and the ML ELS is around the same price.
Last edited: