| MartinLogan Purity Floor-standing Electrostatic Hybrid Speakers |
| Written by John E. Johnson, Jr. | |||||
| Thursday, 14 February 2008 16:00 | |||||
Introduction MartinLogan (ML) is a name that all audiophiles know, but the average consumer does not. There are two reasons for this. One is that ML is a high-end speaker brand, and so will not likely be found in most hifi supermarkets (maybe an occasional Best Buy). Secondly, their speakers are all electrostatic (ESL) in design, and ESLs are a specialty product, only sought after by a certain type of user. The odd thing is that ESLs have been around as long as cone speakers, but they didn't "take off", because they had to be very big in order to produce sound at all frequencies. ESLs use a thin membrane suspended between perforated plates, and the membrane cannot move very far, so it has to be big in order to move enough air for the bass. Cones on the other hand, could be much smaller and still reproduce the bass. So, cones it was, for many decades. In the 1950's, ELS did begin to "take off" on their own, and in the early 1960's, the KLH Model 9 was introduced. It was a full range ESL, about the size of a door. I was in high school at the time, and my father and I went down to Seattle Stereo to get some speakers. I remember seeing the Model 9s being driven by McIntosh power amplifiers. The sound was to die for, as far as I was concerned, and I would have loved to see them in my home. They still needed to be big, and in fact, the setup included a pair on each side. I think they were something like $1,500/pair. My father was not an audiophile (although I was one, I wasn't even aware of that word), so he opted for some Jensen monitor speakers instead, at $150/pair. Fast forward to 1980 or so. I was living in Baltimore, Maryland, and drove over to a high end store near my home. There, on the showroom floor, were a pair of MartinLogan ESLs. They were larger than the KLH Model 9s. Can't remember what they wanted for them, but I will never forget the sound. Classical guitar was right in my lap. The detail, the transparency, and plenty of bass. Even though I still could not afford them, I decided right then and there that, someday, I would own ESLs. When I looked at hifi magazines, I always dwelled on the advertising pages for MartinLogan. Specifications
Now, two more decades have passed, and I am editor of a hifi magazine myself. I have three listening rooms, and I have ESLs in one, planar-magnetic speakers in the second, and ribbon speakers in the third. All three of these types of speakers are "planar", meaning that the drivers are flat, and so are the speakers themselves. ELSs use electrostatic fields to move the driver (a thin plastic membrane), while the other two use permanent magnets to move a membrane through which the power amplifier current is passed. All three have similar characteristics, namely fantastic detail and transparency. The reason for the detail is that the "driver", being very, very light, responds quickly to the amplifier. The reason for the transparency is that there is no enclosure. The membrane or ribbon is suspended in open air, front to back. And, this front to back open placement results in the speaker being a dipole. This means the sound comes out the front as much as it does the rear. When the sound is moving out of the front, it is moving into the rear, and visa versa. Since sound is coming out the rear, placement is crucial. Also, you have to put them near an AC outlet, since ESLs have a power supply to produce the electrostatic charge on the plastic membrane. The irony is that none of the planar speakers I own are MartinLogans. No particular reason for that, I just ended up with other brands that came my way in the review process. But finally, MLs have arrived for me to try out, to listen to, to test, and to enjoy. This model is called Purity. The Design The Purity is a new type of design for ML. While they have marketed hybrid models (ESL panel plus cone woofer) in the past, this one has a 200 watt Class D (switching - ICEPowerASC200) power amplifier that drives the ESL panel and the woofers. You can connect the power amplifier outputs of your receiver to the speaker binding posts, or the line-level outputs of your SSP or TV to the RCA inputs. As I mentioned, full range ESLs have to be big, but a lot of people don't want large speakers in their living rooms. So, in order to reach that market, ESLs were designed that had smaller panels, but a cone woofer to handle the low frequencies. The Purity is only a little more than four feet high. The panel is just 10" wide, and there is a woofer enclosure at the base. So, the active area of the ESL panel is small. However, regardless of the size, you still get the detail and transparency. The tradeoff is that the woofer has to handle everything below 450 Hz, which includes part of the range of the human voice. Well, OK, it is not a full range ESL, but it also is not the size of a door. That is its market: the person who wants the incredible ESL sound, but doesn't have the room for the big one or just does not want a big one. The base of the Purity is adjustable by rotating it so that the speaker will point either straight out at the conventional seated listening position, or slightly upward, if your seats are on raised platforms as in some home theaters.
On the other hand, for that full sized ESL, you need a big amplifier because ESLs are difficult to drive (impedance) and are not very sensitive. MartinLogan has addressed that in the Purity by adding a built-in 200 watt RMS power amplifier that drives both the ESL panel and the woofers. So, you give away something due to the small size, but you get something back in having the powered drivers. That's the Purity. On the rear panel (photo shown above), you can see the single set of binding posts, an RCA line-level input for the amplifier that powers the entire speaker, and a bass level toggle. Normally, you just connect your power amplifier output to the binding posts, and the signal is routed to the built-in amplifier. Otherwise, you can, if you want, connect a line-level output from your processor or receiver to the RCA line-level input, which then drives the amplifier directly. The toggle lets you adjust the bass output depending on how close the speaker is to a wall (walls and corners produce bass loading).
In Use I tested the Purity's with a McIntosh MCD201 SACD player, Lamm L2 Reference preamplifier, and McIntosh MC1201 monoblock power amplifiers. Cables were Legenburg and Nordost. I also listened to the setup with the preamplifier outputs connected to the RCA inputs on the Purity's, rather than using the McIntosh power amplifiers. Using the RCA inputs, the setup had increased sensitivity. I was very excited to fire the Purity's up. and they did not disappoint me.
I was also excited to play this Telarc SACD of Hiromi, as she is one of my favorite artists. The combination of SACD and the Purity's was magic. Her music is partly electronic, and there is an amazing amount of transient detail that has to be delivered in order to fully appreciate what her jazz group can do. I suspect that I did not miss any of it with the combination of great electronics and these fine speakers. They won't play quite as loud as my full range ESLs, but then, they are the size of doors. The bass was, on the other hand, just as tight as my full range ESLs, which surprised me.
Classical piano is an excellent test for the timbre of speakers, and the MartinLogan ESLs came through just like I expected with this Telarc Schubert SACD. Very natural, full bodied, crisp leading edge transients.
The female voice is probably the best test for boominess in speakers, so I put on this Telarc SACD of Tierney Sutton. I felt the Purity's had just a little too much bass, but it wasn't boomy. So, I simply flipped the toggle on the rear that let's you decrease the bass by 3 dB.
Popular guitar is personified in the US by several musicians, and the Los Angeles Guitar Quartet (LAGQ) is a good example. Here, in this Telarc SACD, I listened for the leading edge transients, and heard them all. It is this detail capability that sets ESLs apart from conventional tweeters. I toed the speakers in so they were pointing directly at me in my sitting position, and I used the base adjustment so that they were pointing straight out rather than upward. They do fall off when moving off axis, but not as much as ESLs that are flat rather than curved like the Purity's. Between 1 and 10 watts played the speakers at good listening volume.
On the Bench THD+N measurements were within an 80 kHz bandwidth. I set the SPL to 97 dB instead of 100 dB that I use for conventional speakers because half the sound is coming out of the rear in an ESL. I used the RCA line-level input for the measurements, rather than a power amplifier into the speaker binding posts. I did not measure the impedance/phase because the speaker binding posts are connected to the built-in power amplifier. At 1 kHz, THD+N was 1.36%. At 10 kHz, distortion was lower, at 0.24%. THD+N vs. Frequency showed that the Purity's have more distortion at the lower frequencies, like all speakers. The crossover is at 450 Hz, and there is a spike just above that, probably due to the crossover network. At 1 kHz and above, distortion stays generally at or below 0.5%. Undoubtedly you are surprised at the amount of distortion in the bass frequencies. We are the first consumer A/V magazine to publish graphs of THD+N vs. Frequency for speakers across the entire audible spectrum, and I believe we are going to find, as we measure more speakers, that there is more distortion than we thought there would be. I suspect also that we may be less sensitive to distortion in speakers than we imagine. We might be more sensitive to distortion in amplifiers because the negative feedback that is often used tends to increase the amount of upper harmonics, whereas in speakers, the upper harmonics tend to have a relatively low value. Upper harmonics are very irritating to the ears. The measured Frequency Response shows why I felt there was a little too much bass. You can see a bass hump regardless of whether the microphone was at 1 foot or 1 meter (I took the measurement with the bass toggle at the zero position). In general, the FR was pretty flat out to 20 kHz. If you use these with an SSP or receiver, I would suggest setting a low frequency crossover to a nice subwoofer at around 60 Hz. In any case, a subwoofer will help with the lowest octave. Conclusions At a price of less than $3K/pair for the MartinLogan Purity hybrid ESL/Cone speakers, you can have the kind of detail you won't usually find with conventional midrange drivers and tweeters. ESLs are not for everyone, but even if you are not the adventurous type, you should at least hear them for yourself and then make up your mind. While you're at it, listen to the full range models too.
Comments (31)
![]()
Distortion Measurements etc.
written by EMA , February 15, 2008 I commend actual data measurements(distortion) on the speakers as of late. It would seem a double edge I was wondering if you could comment on the difference in presentation between the Usher Be-718 and the Martin Logan. Seems like the Martin Logan had higher distortion in the 500Hz to 1k region. Was this audible as smearing? Also the Margin Logan response had some anamolies between 200 to 500Hz (a big 20db dip). Was this audible? In other words, is there a correlation to the measurements?
it sounds good?
written by Henry Grossbard , February 15, 2008 Without comparisons to other specific speakers, the review is just a Stereo Review type "it sounds good". A review without a reference point has very little value.
...
written by JEJ , February 15, 2008 What kind of a reference point do you want? The hundreds of other speakers I have listened to? It sounds good like many of those other speakers sounded good, not as good as some, and better than others. This is all subjective of course. That is why I do the bench tests, which are objective. These speakers gave me pleasure. That statement is also subjective. What sounds "good" to me does not necessarily sound "good" to any other particular person.
...
written by JEJ , February 15, 2008 The Usher Be-718s are also very excellent speakers, but the sound was quite different. The Ushers are more focused, because the sound is coming from a smaller area and they are monopoles, not dipoles (the sound is only coming out of the front). I didn't hear any unusual sound that I could attribute to the peak above the crossover point. If I played single sine waves at, say, 700 Hz with the two speakers, I might hear a difference, might not. Like I mentioned, I think our ears are more forgiving of speaker distortion than we have imagined.
...
written by JEJ , February 15, 2008 It is difficult to say what the anomaly at 280 Hz is, because that is a frequency handled by the woofers. It could be some cancellation between the sound coming out of the front and the sound coming out of the port on the rear. It may also simply be a room mode. Even though I have treated my lab heavily with absorption panels, it certainly is not perfect.
Great comeback
written by No Strings , February 16, 2008 I loved JEJ's answer to Henry. Now that's the no-nonsense approach we like about Secret's. Of course ones impressions are subjective; so many actually do not understand this. I love the presentation Martin Logan's make; but I also love many other designs. Testing is the only accurate way to find out what's going on with a loudspeaker. Keep up the terrific work.
...
written by JEJ , February 16, 2008 Yes, I think we all enjoy many different types of "sounds" that various products have. Velodyne at one time marketed their servo feedback woofers for cars. They had compensating circuits for the motion of the car. The product failed because most consumers appear to like all the distortion that big car subs have, and the Velodyne car subwoofers had so little distortion, they could not hear the music some of the time. That boom, boom sound that you can hear from a car down at the other end of the street. Probably at least 20% THD. That distortion sounds "good" to those consumers. That is why we can only really just basically say we either like the product or not. For me, the bench tests are absolutely critical, because they are totally objective and are reproducible in other labs, which is one of the foundations of the scientific process.
...
written by HG , February 16, 2008 Previous efforts by M-L at this design have always had a problem of intregrating the ESL panel with the cone cone mid/woofers. No mention that I can see in the article mentions the quality of this crossover. For those of us who are ESL fans this crossover problem has been a real weakness of this design. What is your subjective opinion?
Great review....
written by Tom , February 17, 2008 I enjoyed this... Tom D'Acquisto MartinLogan Club www.martinloganowners.com
...
written by JEJ , February 17, 2008 One other possibility for the 280 Hz dip is cancellation due to that frequency arriving from the two woofers to the calibrated microphone at slightly different angles. As to the integration of the ESL panel with the woofers, it is very, very difficult to do because of the dipole nature of the panel vs. the monopole nature of the woofers. It's a totally different kind of sound coming from one vs. the other.
...
written by Jesse S , February 19, 2008 The dip at 280 is a room mode. If the speaker was deficient, the curve would be the same at 1 foot and 1 meter (which it isn't). This just illustrates how significant the room is on sound and how important acoustic treatments are.
McIntosh MC 2600
written by JFP , February 24, 2008 I new to ESL speakers. Any idea how this speaker would work with a McIntosh MC 2600 power amp pushing 600 WPC?
...
written by JEJ , February 25, 2008 McIntosh power amplifiers are ideal for ESLs because (1) they have so much power, and (2) they have output transformer taps for low impedance speakers. If you get a full range ESL, these factors will become more important.
competitors
written by Mark , February 27, 2008 I love your reviews, mainly because of the raw data in the benchmarks, not just a bunch of music reviews and thats it. Please keep it up! How would these compare to those Onix Strata Minis you reviewed a year ago? They seem comparable in price after you allocate the extra $1000 or so towards an amp for the Strata. The ML uses electrostatic technology while the Strata uses planar-magnetic.
Great Review. A word about hearing & testing.
written by CWNYC , February 29, 2008 Great review as always. Your reviews always provide a good balance between objective data and personal subjective impressions. Too many "audiophile" equipment reviews out there tend to indulge in poetic yet capricious descriptions of equipment performance, such as "the tweeter sounds like butter..." What does that even mean??? Or even more ridiculous, many reviewers claim to have super human hearing ability, such as reporting that they can detect increased distortion levels at 20khz... I know one such person, who owns many expensive pieces of high end audio gear, visited an audiologist as a request from his ENT physician due to a sinus condition, only to find out that he cannot even hear anything above 12khz... Besides, how sound is produced interacts a lot with the listening environment before the pressure wave reach one's ears, and then there is the element of psychoacoustic, and finally, acoustic memory. Subjective descriptions may ellicit poetic imagination in the readers, but that is just it, imagination and not real word objective performance... I do have one suggestion for your reviews. I see that you informed another reader in another review that you do not perform these measurement tests under anechoic conditions, and with good reasons unless one is well funded by a research lab... However, it would be helpful to see more closed mike response measurements taken off axis from the tweeter, both horizontally and vertically. Furthermore, the response measurements taken 1 meter from the speaker would be more meaningful if there are test graphs showing the room mode/modal pressure variations and speaker boundry interferences. Better yet, if the testing room is constant (hopefully it is), all response graphs taken 1 meter away from the speakers can be adjusted with the known notches and bumps present in the testing environment (which I suspect you may already have done as I do not seen to see any floor relction notch)... The above mentioned additional information would be appreciated, as the extra pieces of objective findings can further help your readers to come to a closer prediction of a tested speaker's actual sound signature. In any case, great reviews!
Strata Mini Comparison
written by Chris , March 01, 2008 I too would love to hear a comparison to the Strata Mini. The Mini, and the Martin Logan Source (Purity is out of my price range I think) are the two speakers I'd love to listen to and pick up now, and I heard the Mini once at an AV123 GTG last summer, but would like to hear how the two brands compare from someone that has listened to both extensively.
...
written by JEJ , March 01, 2008 My test lab is not constant, unfortunately, because there is a continuous flow of new equipment coming in and going out. There are various components sitting in different spots on any one occasion. Although I do put the speakers in the same spot when measuring, they are of different height and some of the tweeters are at a slanted angle. So, I could not trust a standard room filter. I wish I could. I will probably add a 2 meter measurement to go with the 1 foot and 1 meter graphs in future reviews though.
...
written by JEJ , March 01, 2008 The Strata Mini's have a slightly brighter high end, and deeper bass because of the large powered woofer.
ESL DIY'er
written by Roy , April 08, 2008 I've been a big fan of and builder of esl's for many years... For me, the ML-Purity's are a blessing and way overdue. I hope to see more "evolutions" to esl speakers...
Were the speakers broken in?
written by Xavierwalls , April 17, 2008 According to ML those Purity's have to be broken in for 72hours. Would this impact or change your benchmark results?
...
written by JEJ , April 17, 2008 The Purity's were already broken in when I got them, but I always let speakers play for a few days with white noise at about 80 dB before I do the critical listening and bench tests.
ESL and Size
written by IP , May 02, 2008 "because they had to be very big in order to produce sound at all frequencies." True to some extent. How would you compare the general performance of Quad's ESL to ML while the size is significantly different? With small size it still covers more frequencies. Cheers
puritys internal amps
written by Tastech , May 11, 2008 HI Maybe i missed it but did you comment on the how the internal amps sounded on the ML purity's. I recently heard a demo of the puritys powered by 200w Class A xindacs, they certainly sounded special. But i was being told that the internal amps were up to it.
Purity vs Source
written by Bob F , September 27, 2008 Thanks for the review and comments. I understand the internal power and woofer differences between the Source and Purity, can you help me with the difference in sound. I intend on using in a 5.1 set up with a sub woofer and the Matinee center. Possibly Definitive Technology surrounds. Are the Purities worth the extra $? If I choose the Purity can I save on the amp/pre amp set up?
...
written by JEJ , September 27, 2008 The bigger the ESL panel, the louder it will be able to play. Hybrids have cone woofers and the larger ESLs will have larger woofers. Transparency and detail are the same regardless of the ESL size, but smaller ESls cannot play as loud. The membrane only can move a small distance. If you have ESLs in the front, using cone-type speakers in the rear will produce a change in tonality between the front and rear. Better to use ESLs all the way around. Put larger ones in the front and smaller ones in the rear.
source
written by alberto , November 08, 2008 i'm still not sure i understand the advantage of having a built in amplifier...does that mean that i can hook it up directly to my yamaha receiver and not worry about driving the speakers? thanks
Purity vs. Source
written by Andrew K .P , January 13, 2009 Hi, I'd like to second Bob's request, have you done any auditing on ML Source? How is Source compares to Purity. I went to my local home theater store to listen both Source and Purity. For some reason, Source sounds much crisp compare to Purity. And Purity seems to have a stronger bass performance. I listened to the same CD for both speakers. Thanks for any inputs.
line level (rca)connection
written by james neil hutson , February 24, 2009 I dont understand useing the line level connection from pre-amp to the speaker,what type cable did you use in your review or recommeded.I have wrote to martin logan ltd all they would say they dont any specific brand recommendation,also i wrote hi-fi world when they reviewed in september 2008 in the review the phrase the used was signal cable ? i would need 2x2metre lenghts. thanks neil hutson
...
written by JEJ , February 24, 2009 I used a standard RCA cable for the line-level connection. The speakers have a built-in power amplifier.
ML Purity vs B&W CM7
written by Rafael , August 03, 2009 Newbie here, so take it easy please.... I am considering buying a set of ML Purity or B&W CM7 (or even a CM9). The price difference is not significant or important from my standpoint. I will be using the system for home theater primarily (let's disregard the rest of the system for now). To me, the ML Purity system sounds much better but I keep reading B&W is superior. For my intended use, would the MLs be better?
...
written by JEJ , August 05, 2009 To Rafael: If you have listened to both, and your impression is that the ML Purity system sounds better, then what the pundits say about B&W being superior is irrelevant. It's what YOU like that counts. Magazine reviews and opinions are just for guides to checking out equipment you are considering. It's sort of like a restaurant guide. It tells you what restaurants are in your area, what a dinner costs, and whether they liked the food or not. One caveat with all electrostatics: They are not capable of playing really loud, because the membrane moves such a small distance. The hybrid design of the Purity's helps, because the low frequencies are handled by a cone woofer. Nevertheless, SPL is a limitation of electrostatic designs. On the humorous side, even though I use a 50 Hz crossover for my full range electrostatics, when the subwoofers really get going, the membrane vibrates from the low frequencies coming from the subs so much, I can hear it. Write comment
|



















