Panels and Ribbons, Like?

[miklorsmith]

On planars, maybe I'm a heretic but I haven't heard one that generates convincing instrumental tone.  I don't mean transient behavior which they obviously excel at and I don't mean image which they can do passably.  They can give a nice presentation of space if properly set up.

But as far as the life and breath of instruments, I haven't heard it yet.  Granted, my experience is limited to two occasions:  A big pair of Maggies in a room that was probably too small, and a pair of the current $10k Martin Logans run by big Mac stuff in a dedicated room.  Each session was 45 minutes or more with my music at "convincing" volume.

The Martin Logans had a very nice bottom end, as they used powered, dynamic bass systems.  But, it didn't blend with the panels very well.

With ribbons, I've had similar experiences, especially with VMPS.

Am I missing the experience?  Is it a matter of preference where tone isn't the main priority of these types?  So many folks like them that I must be missing something.  I guess none of my experiences have included FAT tubes pushing them.  Maybe that's part of it.

[bpape]

If you ever get a chance, listen to the Sound Labs.  I think you'll find them excellent at tonal reproduction.

I'll agree with your assessment of the ML's - not at all my cup of tea.  The bottom and top just don't integrate well and it's very distracting.

As for Maggies, the 20's are something special.  The do require a lot of juice and a lot of space.  They're also ruthless at revealing everything in the chain ahead of them.  

Bryan

[richidoo]

I thought the tone of Quad 2805 with Cayin KT88 integrated tube amp was very convincing and satisfying on solo piano. Better than 988, 989. Lows were acceptable and slam was decent, for a classical solo piano, that is.. I am a tone nut too, brass instruments are really hard to get right. Accurate tone plus dynamic ability and volume level all at once is hard, not heard it in a planar.

I didn't like ML Summit either. No balls in the mid. The factory demo tour came through here last year with software full of transient and tinkly music. The big band track was empty in the mids. No sizzle. Some guy put on a bad recording of a rock band and people started going back to the cheeze table.

I have not it yet but heard reports of the Quad 2905 being very special. I'm looking forward to hearing that.

[WEEZ]

I don't like Martin Logan's either. Unnatural sounding.

Anybody remember the 'early' Quad 57's?

WEEZ

[bpape]

Oh yeah.  Some of the best sound I ever heard.  Listening to 57's driven by Futterman OTL-1's with Harvey Gizmo Rosenberg

Bryan

[WEEZ]

Without sounding like a shameless shill for the designer of my speakers.... ...Bobby Palkovic @ Merlin told me he uses the 57's as his 'reference' for voicing the midrange for his speakers.

He will admit that he hasn't gotten there yet (close, though) but asserts that neither has anyone else.....

Yes, I've heard the Sound Labs. The only other audiophile in my town (that I know of) has a pair driven by an Audio Research pre and Bryston monoblocks. They are really something. Still, though, even if I could afford 'em, I'm not sure they would be for me. Just having the space they require would be prohibitive (he has a separate building for his music studio). The sound is almost bigger than life!

Bryan....after living with the SSR's for a while, what are your thoughts on the Fountek ribbon?

WEEZ

[opnly bafld]

Mike,
I think you owe me new speakers.
I have VMPS RM40s and was completely happy with them until I read your post, now they sound horrible.

Lin

[miklorsmith]

Hey, I know LOIS of folks love 'em, that's why I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing.

[bpape]

Hey WEEZ.  

Don't want to sidetrack the thread too much.  But, here are my impressions.

The Fountek is much nicer after being broken in a bit more.  It had a little edge to it in the lower registers until about a week ago.  Now they've loosened up quite a bit.  It's just tough to get that nice blend to a ribbon but the SSR's do it pretty well I will say.

The Fountek has the typical ribbon strengths - speed, extension, delicacy, excellent harmonic reproduction.  Overall, it's very nice and seems to mate with the SS woofer pretty nicely.  I'd love to try mating it with the 3" mid-woofer being used in the new V3 from Jim Salk.  I think that would get it up just enough more to get past the last little (very little) bit of forwardness.  Many people like that sound.  I like it a bit more laid back - but not too much so.

The SSR's take nicely to changes in associated equipment.  Putting the Odyssey Monos on them really made them stand up at attention.  That got the bottom end tight and right.  Changing the output caps in my preamp to VH OIMP's (something I was going to do anyway) also seemed to play into their hands and enhance the good while bringing the overall presentation back to the front 1/3 of the hall so to speak.

As I said before, it's very difficult to make a tweeter assessment after I'm so used to the Esotar tweeter.  

Bryan

[WEEZ]

As long as we're side-tracked ..

Thanks for the description, Bryan. It was useful, as I've only heard the G2's (as used in the Salk speakers).

Yup, the Esotar is tough to beat, that's for sure.

Back to the regularly scheduled program....

WEEZ

[bobrex]

With ribbons, I've had similar experiences, especially with VMPS.

Hmmm, I wonder if that's a function of the RM40s and the lower ribbon crossover to the 10 inchers.  I have RM30s and the tone is wonderful.  Course it may help that I'm running a small SET (2A3) to the ribbons and the BPS plate amp on the woofers.

[thechairguy]

Why don't more manufacturer's use ribbon treble transducers?...they seem, in almost every way, more natural and pleasant than domed units I've heard in 20 years.

Is it cost, or integration issues, or both...or something I am not even aware of  

[WEEZ]

My guess is, it's both.

[shep]

I have a soft spot for Maggies. At the time I owned them I was too inexperienced to hear any downsides and they were better than 90% of anything else going (I'm talking late 70's-to early 80's), or so it seemed to me then...I would love to hear their latest, yes the 20's or some heavily modded ones the likes of which were on offer on AC a while ago. I have zero experience with ribbons. I had those Esotars on a pair of British spkrs
(Ruark). Have yet to hear better.

[Carlman]

Why don't more manufacturer's use ribbon treble transducers?...they seem, in almost every way, more natural and pleasant than domed units I've heard in 20 years.

Is it cost, or integration issues, or both...or something I am not even aware of  

I think it's both also but I don't know... I never liked ribbons until I heard my current ones.  My experience was mainly with; (in exposure order) GR Research's monitors, VMPS 626r's, and Selah's line arrays....  The GR's were the worst... They sound good but they made my jaw hurt... like they were pinging my fillings or something... I was OK with the sound but the fatigue was killing me... truly an odd experience.  I was conflicted.  

Someone called the experience I was describing as 'ringing' and I felt that was a good way to describe it.  Those 3 sets of speakers turned me off of ribbons completely.  I just didn't like that sound.  Some people have the same reaction to beryllium copper ring tweeters... some with aluminum... but I think a dome tweeter is easier to control and certainly has wider dispersion characteristics, making it suitable to a wider set of tastes.

It seems to me a dome integrates with a cone better than a ribbon.... or it's easier to do... One reason I like my speakers is the ribbon tweeter is integrating with a ribbon mid... and the result is seamless.... the mid to bass integration is transparent to me also....

So, yeah both... that's probably it.