Martin Logan in the house!

[Sonnie]

Thanks Randy!

My room is very small and I don't know if I'm missing anything or not really... they sound great, which is what counts. I suppose it's possible they might sound better if my room was bigger, but it's definitely not a requirement or a necessity.

In looking through the ML owners thread over at the ML forum, I viewed bunches of setups in very small rooms like mine, so it must be okay.

[jerome]

As I have seen, having a large room can help but I think that it's better to have a relatively small dedicated room (where you can freely control speaker placement and room acoustics) than a large living room (with large reflective areas for instance).

Electrostatic speakers are very sensitive to small changes like floor position, angle, etc. Probably more sensitive than any other speakers I have tried. I have never heard them sounding very good in the shops I have visited. I had to wait to visit a proud owner to understand what they can really deliver ...

Sonnie wrote:

My room is very small and I don't know if I'm missing anything or not really... they sound great, which is what counts. I suppose it's possible they might sound better if my room was bigger, but it's definitely not a requirement or a necessity.

We all wish we had bigger, better, dedicated rooms, this or that etc. etc. Instead get the best you can out of your room with placement and treatments. I also have my ML's in a small room - a partial basement (I call it my Audio Bunker) and have achieved some very good sound in it. BTW, what is your room size?

In looking through the ML owners thread over at the ML forum, I viewed bunches of setups in very small rooms like mine, so it must be okay.

Rear wall distance is more of a concern than side wall distances. With the curved panel you will still get some side wall reflections, and this is a great point for treatment. 2" of something there will help improve your sound (Auralex, Fiberglass, Rockwool, etc.). Did I seen treatments behind the speakers next to the screen??? Room treatments is one of the best things I have ever done for my setup in performance vs price. If you can find something you like (looks wise) it is well worth the efforts.

Try out different toe-in and toe-out of the speakers, play with the panel tilt by adjusting the back and/or front feet up or down, play with moving them forward and backwards a few inches, and find the way you like it best along with what works best in your room.

[Sonnie]

Room size is 11.5' wide x 19.5' long x 8' high... and yes, there is some treatment on the front wall on each side of the screen and the side walls at the first two reflection points, but it's all only 1" stuff that I installed many moons ago. I really need to get some corner traps to go in those front two corners and thicker panels for the sides, including moving the higher up.

I've been experimenting the placement, etc., and found the best for now. Once I get my pair of PC-Ultra subs in the house... I will have more placement/movement options given the extra room, albeit only a little bit, but it might make a difference.

Sonnie wrote:

Room size is 11.5' wide x 19.5' long x 8' high... and yes, there is some treatment on the front wall on each side of the screen and the side walls at the first two reflection points, but it's all only 1" stuff that I installed many moons ago. I really need to get some corner traps to go in those front two corners and thicker panels for the sides, including moving the higher up.

Size is similar to mine, so you should have luck with them. You are moving in the right directions with the treatments. Corners, floor to ceiling if you can do it, and first reflections are great starts. Behind seating position is usually the next recommend place.

I've been experimenting the placement, etc., and found the best for now. Once I get my pair of PC-Ultra subs in the house... I will have more placement/movement options given the extra room, albeit only a little bit, but it might make a difference.

I thought I had read where you were moving them around to find the best place. Is the room primarily for HT Movies? Just curious what made you decide on the SVS subs? Prior owner?

[Sonnie]

Yeah... I have been moving them around quite a bit, but have found the best for now. I may experiment more when I get the new SVS PC-Ultras in since they take up less room. It will allow me to get a few more inches distance between me and the speakers.

Mostly HT, but I watch quite a few concert DVDs.

SVSound are solid subs and yes I currently own a pair... just upgrading for their better subs plus to have a smaller footprint with cylinders. I also have the Behemoth DIY dual RL-p15 in the rear of the room. I'm not hurting for bass at all.

Sonnie wrote:

SVSound are solid subs and yes I currently own a pair... just upgrading for their better subs plus to have a smaller footprint with cylinders. I also have the Behemoth DIY dual RL-p15 in the rear of the room. I'm not hurting for bass at all.

Glad to hear you like the SVS subs - the bottom line with any audio equipment!!! And with your DIY's - awesome HT bass!!!!

Remember to try out the forward and back tilt of your ML's. If you have never done this, you can tailor the sound even more to your liking.

As noted by others, the ML's will be ruthless in regards to the upstream components and their abilities. How are you liking the Anthem's?

Someone here suggested "...do not buy an amp rated at 125 watt into 8 ohms, they won't cut it..." for your ML's. A very broad statement. Depends on the quality of the power, not the numbers. They should come listen to my "measly" 125 watt amp (name withheld) driving my CLSIIz's . I also have a 250 watt amp (again name withheld) and the 125w is superior in sound quality. (edit) Let me add that there are times where more power is needed, just do not confuse power with quality until you are able to listen and confirm it.

Bottom line, each should listen in regards to their preferences and budget before purchasing any components. Numbers really tell you nothing other than what marketing people want to tell you.

Sorry to digress...let us know how things go with the ML's and your setup!!! I may be interested in contacting you on the DIY sub!!! I have two in my room, one for music and I engage the other for movies. For the "movie" sub, I may want to replace with a nice DIY 15"

[Sonnie]

I tell ya... I just don't think it gets any better than this. I am absolutely tickled at how good it all sounds. The Anthem setup with the ML's = A W E S O M E !!!

I'll still experiment with tilting the ML's... the spikes allow this pretty easily.

[jerome]

Sonnie wrote:

I'll still experiment with tilting the ML's... the spikes allow this pretty easily.

Did you get spikes with your MLs or did you have to buy them separately ?

I saw in the Vista's manual that I could use spikes to tilt the speakers but I have checked and I did not get them when I bought the speakers. So I currently use CD covers to do the job. It does the job but it's not very nice

[SteveCallas]

Significantly better than the Bostons eh? I've just made a mental note to audition some MLs.

[Sonnie]

jerome wrote:

Did you get spikes with your MLs or did you have to buy them separately ?

These came with factory spikes... very nice adjustable spikes.

SteveCallas wrote:

Significantly better than the Bostons eh? I've just made a mental note to audition some MLs.

I wish Rodny could have heard the MLs with the Denon receiver. He had already heard the Bostons and agreed they were too bright. The MLs were noticeably different with the Denon... definitely not bright. The sound improved at louder volumes when I swapped the Denon for the Anthem gear. I have been chasing this sound for years... excellent! The Denon is no slouch at lower volumes, but the Anthem does allow me to really crank it up

Sonnie wrote:

The sound improved at louder volumes when I swapped the Denon for the Anthem gear. I have been chasing this sound for years... excellent! The Denon is no slouch at lower volumes, but the Anthem does allow me to really crank it up

Each component has its own sound signature, and with audio being a personal thing, with each individual liking a certain sound, it is hard to generalize and say a change from one component to another would/should be better.

For myself, my ears, tastes, etc., I would have bet the bank on the Anthem outperforming the Denon - a no-brainer, especially with the ML's. IMO, receivers are a great place to get started in audio, but with the ability to buy some really nice used equipment (Audiogon) at a great price, makes it even easier to get a true taste of better sound.

[SteveCallas]

Sonnie, are you going about any of these electronics changes systematically or just plug and play while changing speakers at the same time (SVS to Boston to ML)? You've noted hearing changes between Yamaha, Denon, and Anthem, but in controlled blind testing, myself and others found zero differences between a "high end" pre pro and a very cheap receiver.

[Sonnie]

Nothing technical... but I do know I noticed differences, some I liked and some I didn't throughout all the changes. It may simply be a combination of changes in frequency responses...

Before the Yamaha I had the Denon 3806 with the Earthquake Cinenova, then sold the Cinenova. I believe I ran the 3806 for a short while by itself on the SBS-01's. I don't remember much about it, but I also don't remember complaining. I remember the McIntosh/Snell setup I had was pretty good... somewhat laid back, which I've always liked. But after that, the Sunfire, Rotel, Earthquake and Denon various combos with the PSB Image, VMPS, JBL speakers... all seemed pretty much the same. The JBL's did seem a little on the bright side initially, but I firmly believe they changed in sound and were no longer as bright after 40-50 hours of play. The minute I noticed it, I told Wayne about it. I didn't keep them long because I was experimenting/playing around with inexpensive speakers after being whipped really bad with the VMPS speakers. I was talked out of ML's to buy those VMPS RM30's and someone should have spanked me for doing it. Anyway... after the JBL's I moved the SBS setup from my great room to the HT room and ran them off the Earthquake and thought they sounded about the best I'd had out there. It was surprising to me.

Then I got the Yamaha V1700 and I clearly remember it sounding more laid back and smooth with the SVS SBS setup. I liked the sound and could probably go back to it and live with it. It wasn't long after I got the Yamaha that I sold it because of the feature quirks. That's when I got the Denon 2807... which I do know was not as laid back as the Yamaha, but it was acceptable. I didn't do that much listening at that time anyway since I was waiting on the Bostons to get in.

Once the Bostons got in... I procrastinated for quite a long time... maybe 2-3 months or so. Seems like it was a long time anyway. I watched movies, but never did any listening to my concert DVDs where I seem to be able to notice more of a difference in things. Music tells me more, especially the ones I've listened to 40-50 times already. When I finally did listen to the Bostons... I was somewhat surprised at how bright they were. I was disappointed. Rodny agreed they were indeed bright and sounded different than the SBS-01 setup. There was just no doubt about it. But to be completely fair... what we listened to that we noticed such a difference in was between the Yamaha/SBS combo vs. the Denon/Boston combo.

Rodny has (or did have) the same Yamaha/Boston setup. He agreed his setup was not as bright. However, the listening environment is very different too. There is not any apple to apple comparisons or blind listening test going on here... just what he and/or I can remember most about the sound. This is all listening at fairly high listening levels... cranking it on up. IIRC... seems like someone mentioned the Denon may have been clipping, distorting the signal, etc. I don't know... I just know the sound was different and I didn't like it nearly as well.

Then came the ML's. The Denon 2807 seemed to hold it's own at lower volumes and sounded good with the ML's for the most part. Totally different type of speaker, so that obviously if contributing to a difference. The sheer size of the drivers/electrostatic panels probably account for a good bit of the difference. At louder volumes (not sho-nuff cranked up though)... the Denon was still okay and these ML's presented a pretty good load. I never heard the brightness that I heard with the Bostons. I was actually pretty well pleased... happy for a change. To tell ya the truth, I really wasn't expecting a dramatic change from the Denon to the Anthem equipment. I had already made up my mind not to expect anything significant if anything at all... other than maybe the ability to play the ML's a little louder and not fear cranking it up as I was reserved about doing with the Denon.

Once I got the Anthem gear all connected and setup properly, not just the processor, but the amp as well, I immediately started listening at higher volumes, the differences started to be noticeable. The more I turned up the volume, the more I liked it. I've just not heard imaging like this before. It was literally like the sound opened up... became broader and more powerful. (I'm terrible at describing things.) Smooth, crystal clear.... airy... enveloping? It's almost like being "in" the music and movies. The concerts and movies I have watched seem big and able to fill up the whole screen and there seems to be more detail floating around. The clarity is remarkable.

You just gotta hear it to understand what I'm trying to explain. I have not heard anything like this in a long time, if ever. The only thing I can credit is the change in all the equipment, especially the ML speakers.

It could have very well been that I had a bad Denon receiver... way off on the response, but I can assure you... you would have noticed a difference at higher volumes.

I can't wait for Rodny to hear this and give me his thoughts. Hopefully after the first of the year things will slow down for both of us and we'll have some time to visit.

SteveCallas wrote:

Sonnie, are you going about any of these electronics changes systematically or just plug and play while changing speakers at the same time (SVS to Boston to ML)? You've noted hearing changes between Yamaha, Denon, and Anthem, but in controlled blind testing, myself and others found zero differences between a "high end" pre pro and a very cheap receiver.

Not to take this thread of Sonnie's new ML's off track, but I had a Yamaha RX-V1400 used for movies and SACD MCH pass-through (I have dedicated amps for all channels and HT Loop on my Pre Amp, so everything ran through the pre-outs). I auditioned an Arcam AVP-700 (among MANY other processors) looking primarily at the pass-through for improved (hopefully) SACD playback, with movie playback and movie sound a far second. 2 Ch is ran through my Pre Amp and not a processor or receiver.

To make a long story short, as my review of these two units is posted on other forums, the Yamaha was brighter sounding compared to the Arcam. And as an added bonus, the movie sound and surround playback was also better on the Arcam. I was surprised that even pass-through could affect the sound that much.

Did I do blind testing for myself, no, but like Sonnie stated in his comments, the change was there and quite evident. The only "blind like" testing was I had one unit hooked up and had my daughter listen (she is my audio buddy) and then changed units and had her come back down. She heard the same changes I did - but she did not know which unit was playing.

Dan

[thxgoon]

SteveCallas wrote:

Sonnie, are you going about any of these electronics changes systematically or just plug and play while changing speakers at the same time (SVS to Boston to ML)? You've noted hearing changes between Yamaha, Denon, and Anthem, but in controlled blind testing, myself and others found zero differences between a "high end" pre pro and a very cheap receiver.

Steve - Where did you perform these test and did you posts the results anywhere we can read? I find this quite surprising. I've heard differences between receivers and high end gear, as well as between different brands at the same price point. My subjective opinions between Denon, Yamaha and some high end gear I've heard (Krell, Sunfire, Parasound) are along the same line as Sonnies. From an EE standpoint all louspeaker/cable/amp systems are a function of RLC and none are designed exactly the same way. Of course there will be differences.

Sonnie - I'm glad to hear that you are getting such exciting results out of your ML's. Sounds like you have found sonic nirvana!

[Sonnie]

thxgoon wrote:

SSounds like you have found sonic nirvana!

I really believe I have. I am continually amazed at the sound. Now I think I know why ML owners are so loyal.

[jerome]

As I have seen, there are only two ways to upgrade from ML speakers:
1) Upgrade to other brand of electrostatic speakers (at higher price)
2) Upgrade to horn-type of speakers (Avangarde Uno/Duo for instance)

I agree with you Sonnie: once you hear ML then you're sold. When you get them you never want to let them go, never !!!!

I'm so happy too that I own one pair of those

[fibreKid]

Oh man, I listened to some ML speakers about 2-3 years back. They souned really nice but a pair of MLs would have taken up my entire 5.1 budget. Hence I know the sound but I can't have it

I'm happy for you Sonnie Enjoy the sound, kind of like good popcorn. Crisp and buttery at the same time. Yum!

First off - congrats on the ML Asents (i) This is actullt my first post, so be kind. We have something in common, as I have the Asents-i main fronts. I am a huge ML fan, and have listened to many speakers. There are alot of misconceptions IMO on ML electrostaics, and the same can be said for similar planner-maggies and the such. I have the Asents up front, Theater-i C/C, and rear Aerius (not the (i) version) surrounds. I have the Asents with the maple rails, and I changed the Aerius to maple to match, I use Axiom QS-8s as my 7.1 side surrounds. They are a wonderful surround speaker that match (as closely as a non electro-ML can match) very well. I would not use any receiver with a larger ML. if you want them to sound what they are really capable of. The ML's ohm dips will absolutly tear up receivers, and as detailed as ML's are, they will pronounce or expose that same detail in adverse ways with a "receiver". Thats not to sound "seperates uppiddy" it's just not the right application for the ML design. If you "had" to run a receiver Denon and H/K would be best, but not suggested. They really need some room behind them to be ideal, maybe you can - maybe not? a little helps alot. Just be patient, they are paticular, but when you get it right - it will be really right!
I run the 2 channel signature carver/sunfire, and a 5 channel carver/sunfire combo (for 7.1) and the TG-4 processor. I have looked at the new TG-5 but can't justify the additional money vs. upgrade. The TG-3 and TG-4 are awesome processors. There are many fine choices for amps and processors for the ML Asents, I like the performance/price point of the sunfires. You can get some older one (5-7 yrs old) that are reasonble, and they are rock solid. My sunfires don't even break a sweat when really cranking in either 2 channel or H/T. My room is 19Dx14Wx8H but we are building a new home where the new room will be 24Dx16Wx12H and it's wide open (not dedicated) I have just sould my (2) 20-39 PC plus SVS subs - for (2) new PB 13 Ultra's. The Ultras will be built in to the front stage wall - as they are front firing and front ported. The ML Asents sound is IMO FAST, very fast, open - airy- detailed - crisp - spacious - accurate - very accurate - all right - I am gonna shut-up now. Very wise choice IMO, Jon

[yourgrandma]

Welcom to the party, Jon. I bet I'm not the only one who would love to see some pics of your setup, it sounds like you have a sweet system.

I dod not realize that sonnie was no longer running the Denon receiver. Read the earlier posts. As he has stated these "type" of speakers do need some clean grunt to run them accordingly. I have a few older pics, just looking forward to moving this equipment to our new home. We have never built a new home, it's real fun laying it out the way you want, other than then wife would not OK a dedicated H/T room. And the budget had something to do with that.

[Sonnie]

Hello Jon and welcome to the Shack!

Nice setup...

[phogandive]

Hi,
I also run ML's in my system. CLS's right and left (with active crossover and 12" DIY woofers), and a Theater-i for a center. Also an 18" Velodyne sub along with a Buttkicker setup. I use a Panasonic projector with a 120" screen, an Outlaw Audio 990 pre/pro, and several assorted amps (Classe, Carvers, and a Behringer for the rears).

You can get more ML info/suggestions etc. at another forum, the Martin Logan Club, here: http://www.martinloganowners.com/~tdacquis/forum/

Enjoy your new speakers,
Peter

[Sonnie]

Yep... I think all of us ML owners are members over at the ML forum. Great place for ML info.