Using tube amp with electrostatic speakers.


Moons ago I started similar discussions and thought I had been given enough good advice not to approach the subject again. Here goes anyway. I've used Martin Logan electrostats for well over 30 years with quite a few different amps but have recently switched to a tube amp and dynamic speakers with which I am very satisfied.  It consists of the Cary Rocket 88R amp and Serie Reference 3 speakers. 

My brother was visiting last week and was so impressed with the sound that he decided that he might want to try a tube amp also (probably the same one as mine).  However, he is using a pair of SL3's that I gave him years ago and I'm concerned primarily about the current requirements of the Martin Logans as well as other concerns that I'm not thinking of.  I don't want him spending money on something that may not bring him improved sound so would appreciate more advice to pass on to him.  He currently uses a Rogue Audio SS amp with his SL3 speakers and, to me, it sounds very good. 
jimbreit
But in my experience, a good dose of juice gives electrostatic loudspeakers (to stay on topic) a more effortless quality better kick in the lower registers....
I've yet to hear a solid state amp play bass properly on an ESL, in particular Sound Labs and Quads. On transistors can make thump but have no definition (output impedance is too low). If you don't understand that last statement then you probably listen to a transistor amp. Transistors fail to make bass power on many ESLs (the ML and Sanders being exceptions as their overall impedance is set really low) simply because of the 10:1 impedance curve. Its simple physics- on many ESLs they simply run out of voltage (which is why the bass power is limited). At the same time the speaker is overdamped in the bass so the combination is weak bass without definition. Some people like it, but in the real world there is no such thing as 'tight' (thump but no body) bass. That's an audiophile thing; but if you listen to real, live music you won't be hearing 'tight' bass.
Atmaphere wrote
"Some people like it, but in the real world there is no such thing as ’tight’ (thump but no body) bass. That’s an audiophile thing; but if you listen to real, live music you won’t be hearing ’tight’ bass."

+1 Tight bass sounds unnatural to my ears . Drum , bass guitar ... ect . I have never thought while listening to these instruments "man that is tight" complete opposite actually . "man that bass lingers" is what i hear .
Tight bass can be found with electronic music . And can be judged when listening to it .
We are devolving into semantics.

The alternative to "tight" in my mind is "flabby" or "boomy" which is what usually happens when your speakers go low enough in frequency to exacerbate room modes. +-20 dB peaks and valleys are quite real and detrimental to musical enjoyment.

However, a system that lacks those peaks and valleys, and is flat to 16Hz in the room is a marvelous thing indeed. :)

Best,


Erik
Dear Stewart, You wrote, "There's no analogizing......and I know they're different (that's why they're not both called electrostatic)"  Wrong!  Your magneplanars and even ribbon tweeters are electromagnetic, not electrostatic. In your speakers, the diaphragm is "wired"; the signal is conducted through wires glued to the diaphragm, which causes it to move back and forth in a magnetic field, much like any other traditional type dynamic speaker. In an ESL, a the diaphragm carries a very high voltage on its surface, and the signal is applied to the stators, stationary wires front and rear of the diaphragm, causing the diaphragm to move due to electrostatic forces. Therein lies the way in which ESLs are totally different.  Furthermore, ESLs, being electrostatic, do not produce a back EMF, as do electromagnetic speakers, so the whole idea of "damping factor", the reason some say that only SS amplifiers can provide "clean" ("tight") bass, goes out the window.  

LewM,

What part of "I know they're different" did you not catch?  At least you didn't write that I'm full of Baloney again.......Having said that, your explanation of the differences (the differences I acknowledged).....are spot on.

You and others seem to have taken my opinion and tweaked it to say that I say a SS amp is best with Electrostatic, or Magnetic planar for that matter.....It's not really SS versus Tube it's current...  Would a world class 150W tube amplifier sound better than it's identical but smaller stablemate say at 50W.......I guess some would say YES.....I say in most cases, the 150W would sound better.......When you get beyond that....solid state of course becomes prevalent.....I love tubes on electrostatics, and most of the electrostatics I've had, save for the Martin Logans were driven by tubes....but I never had the headroom or effortlessness I reference here.......In the case of the Magnepans I have now.......it's quite different......they simply WILL NOT SING without a couple of hundred watts......they'll make music, but they won't sing....
but when I feed them nearly 2KW into 4OHMS like I have on tap with the Brystons.....everything takes on an effortlessness that's hard to describe......