|
Re: Martin Logan Grotto
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044 |
Well, I'm glad you found something you liked. Thanks for letting us know about the M-L! In general, I think that the sealed enclosures are more elegant, design-wise, but I just haven't heard enough subs to really say which I prefer. How large is the M-L in relation to the driver? My understanding (could be wrong, certainly have been before) is that sealed speakers require larger inner volume (or amplification) than ported subs to produce the same SPL.
I am the Doctor, and THIS... is my SPOON!
|
|
|
Re: Martin Logan Grotto
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 19
frequent flier
|
OP
frequent flier
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 19 |
Actually, in terms of size, the Grotto was SMALLER than the STF-2, even though both have a 10" woofer.
Hmm..interesting..the Grotto SHOULD have been bigger..but it wasn't.
|
|
|
Re: Martin Logan Grotto
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044 |
Unless I'm wrong (gotta say that a lot) that would be why the Martin Logan didn't have the punch you were looking for. My Cambridge Soundworks sub has a rather large enclosure compared to a lot of 12" subs (other than the SVS monsters), since it's sealed. 'Course, it's got a wimpy amp, so I haven't a clue how to works as well as it seems to to me.
I am the Doctor, and THIS... is my SPOON!
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,984
Posts442,691
Members15,643
|
Most Online2,699 Aug 8th, 2024
|
|
0 members (),
595
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
|