Manger v ESL

[rick57]

I have a basic understanding of the (extremely different) approaches.

Has any lucky person had the opportunity to compare the two, listening?

Cheers

[el`Ol]

Hello Rick!

I have listened to the following:
ML SequelII with a big swiss amp, size of a half refrigerator.
Seven Manger surround setup with Klipschorn woofers, minimalistic DIY amps with and without big micas in the PSU.
Not directly comparable.
I found the ESL less neutral than dynamic drivers in general (or was it the oversized amp?). The spacial image was close and big. The ESL played detailed, but too soft for my taste, quite a contrast to the manger, but only with the mica speed-up in the amp.
The disadvantage of the Manger: My friend got 5.2 even before it was available to the public, to overcome the low max. SPL of the Manger in his big listening room. Expensive, and not ideal for good imaging.
I ask myself how a modern ESL with good sensitivity and THD like Sonus Novason would have performed with the same amps, but maybe the output trannies would have limited the faster rise time.

Greets, Oliver

[rick57]

Hi Oliver

If you didn’t need a lot of dB (say max 97-100), with similar music etc, which would your prefer?

Would the Manger have a less critical sweet spot?

Cheers

[Calvin]

Hi,

ohh well that ol´chewing gummy wiggly waggly Manger again
Imho Manger´s ideas were brilliant, but his driver is rather a crude piece, since it doesn´t work as supposed to. I´ve yet to come across one of its numerous implementations that can cope with an good ESL panel -those do exactly what they are supposed to!

The sweet spot is critical with a Manger system. Just on axis it measures quite linear. Already on +-15° there is a serious HF-damping and interference above 7kHz.
A ESL panel can be less serious. Bandwidth and linearity can be higher too. Funny thing besides: A ESL-panel is imo even closer to Manger´s own theory than his driver itself!
Other important measurements as step-response acoustic phase et al are too better with ESL. Manger has only one advantage------smaller size than a serious ESL panel.

The reported sound of the SequelII estimates from 2 points
- rather thick membrane ->using 6µm or less instead of 12µm gives a recognizable better HF-response
- the crossover and the audio-trannies are a masterpiece of excellently engineered crappy stuff.
Apart from this the panels itself are really really good parts.

jauu
Calvin

[rick57]

What to belive?

serengetiplains said
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...ht=#post529351

"the Manger driver, which in some respects might be considered quasi-ESL, gives an intriguing sound qualitatively different from especially conventional drivers, and is more resolving, IME, than ribbons or ESLs ... I kid you not- '

[el`Ol]

Originally posted by rick57
Hi Oliver

If you didn’t need a lot of dB (say max 97-100), with similar music etc, which would your prefer?

Would the Manger have a less critical sweet spot?

Cheers

If max. SPL is not an important issue the manger is an excellent choice. Unfortunately I can`t say too much about the sweet spot in a stereo setup because I only listened to them 5.2. From my experience with the SequelII I won`t call myself an ESL lover, but this was my one and only experience, probably too early to generalize.
A cheaper alternative to the Manger would be the little Jordan, sensitivity and power handling have become really interesting and in the latest issue of a German hifi magazine they couldn`t find a clear winner in the comparison between the two, it was dependent on the taste of the tester.

[rick57]

I knew the Jordan was very good ~
referring to the JX92S?

> couldn`t find a clear winner

. . that good?

> it was dependent on the taste of the tester

can you summarise the pros & cons?
was there a scoring?

Cheers

[el`Ol]

The cons of the Jordan was said to be a "nasal" sound, I don`t know the English word, nosy? They liked the directness of the Jordan, but recommended it mainly to dedicated fullrange lovers because of that frequency response problem. The cons of the manger was said to be a lack of overview at high levels.
From my listening experience I know the Manger can be very direct with the right amp. I`m sure they only tested with mainstream amps. The German hifi establishment is known to be not very fond of exotic concepts, so the rating of both wasn`t too high.

I don`t have the magazine, just had a glance at the article in the store. I hope I was able to help you.

Greets, Oliver

[bear]

Imho, a well done ESL is superior to the Manger.

I have not heard the latest Mangers, if that makes a difference.

They are intriguing speakers though.
My experience with them is that for best results they require a large, wide baffle. So, if you use them in a smaller baffle you will not get a frequency response that looks like the published curve (done iirc on an IEC baffle...). And as was noted they do not have very wide HF dispersion. Nor do they go low.

The Mangers I heard definitely sounded "different" than any other dynamic driver I have ever heard.

Otoh, the ESL will be somewhat larger than the Manger for equivalent output. The ESL will require nominally a larger amplifier to produce the requisite voltage swing for full drive. An ESL can go lower than the Manger and have better horizontal dispersion.

Given the choice, I'd not trade my ESLs for a Manger system, or a Jordan based system... but that's me.

_-_-bear

[jirka]

When I was younger I heard ML Prodigy. It was excellent sound.
Now I am using Manger drivers for more than one year and I can yust say it is something special. It has some magic. I am also convinced that the ESL must be in principle better speaker and I am looking forward to hearing some ESL.

But there is one thing, which is superb on Mangers and I dont think the ESL can be better. This thing is imaging. Imaging of MSW is excellent and at the same time you dont know about the drivers, you are just listening to music. Maybe QUAD is very near to this. Point source is very important.