Why nobody likes Martin Logan?

fu_man · « **Reply #20 on:** 16 May 2006, 02:13 pm »

well i have ML CLS's and love them.
I dont believe they rock.. so i dont think they are suited to all music.

The CLS (with REL sub) is the only model to my liking ( i havent heard recent models)
I am relatively familiar with Quad 57's and to a lesser extent Accoustats, but not really Maggies. I run the stats with SS 100W class A (Plinius) I have heard them with 100 W tubes which I also liked. Now that my CAL tube CDP has gone to RIP, I do think i could do with some tubes in my system.

DTB300 · « **Reply #21 on:** 16 May 2006, 03:15 pm »

Quote from: woodsyi

BTW, I am going to Dan's to listen to his MLs in a couple of weeks. I've only heard MLs at Tweeter and they probably did ...

I have yet to hear a Tweeter shop that did ML speakers any justice.

From my experiences with ML's and peoples preferences, it is a love/hate relationship. Either you love them or hate them, never seems to be an in-between.

Woodsyi...I look forward to you and the other Mid-Atlantic Regional Circle folks coming over to listen this weekend.

Dan

Digi-G · « **Reply #22 on:** 18 May 2006, 03:55 pm »

I agree with what Randy said about the ML's being 'too' mainstream for these boards. I've got B&W's that I love, but they don't get very many good comments on the AC - I suspect for the same reason. It's alright though, I'M very happy with them.

Sure, read everyones comments and suggestions, but ultimately YOU are the one that will be listening to them. Go and listen to the ML's - listen to as many different speakers as you can. There's a reason there's so many different brands and models - because there's a lot of different 'tastes' out there. Find a speaker that suits your taste. Good luck.

Brian Walsh · « **Reply #23 on:** 18 May 2006, 05:29 pm »

Some valid points have been made. Magnepans are planar magnetics, not electrostatics. The former have stator wires glued to the membranes which are suspended in front of and, in the case of push-pull configurations, behind fixed magnets. Electrostatics operate by an entirely different principle, a significant benefit being that only the coated membrane moves and is therefore much lighter and more responsive.

As for Martin Logan and other brands, they all sound quite a bit different from each another. I have owned quite a few, have heard most, and sell what I am convinced are better by quite a margin...YMMV but the point is go listen for yourself... Tube or solid state is subjective and personal preference...

sleepysurf · « **Reply #24 on:** 19 May 2006, 01:43 am »

I, too, have ML's (specifically the Aerius i's), and am delighted with them. However, it's true they're somewhat difficult to drive (given their historical extreme impedance dips), and somewhat difficult to set up in a room (ideally 3-4 ft from rear wall).

Their newest models, the Vantage and Summit, incorporate Ice Power amps to drive the woofers, thus making them more feasible to drive with tube or lesser powered SS amps. Many owners of these new models consider them the BEST ML designs to date.

I have a friend who just got the Summits, and IMHO, they are INCREDIBLE. I have my eyes (and ears) set on eventually upgrading to either of those, but they retail for $5000 and $10,000 respectively!

Inscrutable · « **Reply #25 on:** 20 May 2006, 08:59 pm »

Quote

Electrostatics operate by an entirely different principle, a significant benefit being that only the coated membrane moves and is therefore much lighter and more responsive

I'll agree with this. I heard a pair of Innersounds at CES a couple years back, and for the narcissicist in me, they may have been the best speaker I've ever heard. Just effortless dynamics and amazing reolution and detail. Very very good integration of the panel and woofer. However, they were the poster child for the head-in-a-vise listening position. No exaggeration - move your head 2 inches and it went all to hell (well, at least it lost its magic). I've had similar if not as extreme (good nor bad) experience with ML.

sleepysurf · « **Reply #26 on:** 13 Aug 2006, 02:10 pm »

Well, with PROPER positioning, you can easily have a 3-6 ft wide sweet spot, probably even wider with the latest ML microperf stator design.

John Ashman · « **Reply #27 on:** 13 Aug 2006, 02:47 pm »

I think M-L just builds most of their speakers to be too bright. I have a hard time listening to them. Every time I hear them I wish they were Quads. Besides, most people on forums are looking for that bargain speaker and M-Ls are really bargain speakers. I thought the CLS was nice, but even then, I think I'd buy Quads.

sleepysurf · « **Reply #28 on:** 13 Aug 2006, 03:08 pm »

Yes, ML's are exquisitely revealing, and can certainly sound "bright". However, with proper positioning, and capable components, their transparency and detail is unbelievable. Using my Squeezebox2 and Benchmark DAC-1 direct to amp, I get full-range spine-tingling clarity with 90% of what I listen to. Only problem is that the remaining 10% of poorly recorded/mastered stuff sounds horrible! Hence, I'm now looking to add a Modwright SWL 9.0 Pre, to add some "tube warmth" to my system.

SundayNiagara · « **Reply #29 on:** 13 Aug 2006, 04:18 pm »

You can ask many hi-fi speaker manufacturer sales managers, off the record, including some that represent competing speaker designs, what their favorite speaker is and their answer will probably be, Quads. Nuff said!

95bcwh · « **Reply #30 on:** 13 Aug 2006, 04:23 pm »

Quote from: SundayNiagara on 13 Aug 2006, 04:18 pm

You can ask many hi-fi speaker manufacturer sales managers, off the record, including some that represent competing speaker designs, what their favorite speaker is and their answer will probably be, Quads. Nuff said!

I think you guys are referring to Quad Electrostatic speakers only right? BTW, if Quad is that good, why hardly anybody in this forum owns them?

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #31 on:** 13 Aug 2006, 04:42 pm »

There are a few Quad owner's here Barry.....

J Harris.....and...creilly333......

And I believe Mike Crespo (NYAR) did have a pair as well.

Their shortcoming is strong bass....but mid's and high's were very nice !!

Frihed91 · « **Reply #32 on:** 13 Aug 2006, 04:57 pm »

Quad electrostats accurately reproduce realistic bass from musical instruments. You will never hear a better lower octave from a piano. What Quad electrostats were never designed to do (maybe they are now) is to produce the thumps of toneless precussion "instruments" such as those that accompany rap music. In that regard, they are un-American.

SundayNiagara · « **Reply #33 on:** 13 Aug 2006, 05:37 pm »

Quote from: 95bcwh on 13 Aug 2006, 04:23 pm

Quote from: SundayNiagara on 13 Aug 2006, 04:18 pm
You can ask many hi-fi speaker manufacturer sales managers, off the record, including some that represent competing speaker designs, what their favorite speaker is and their answer will probably be, Quads. Nuff said!

I think you guys are referring to Quad Electrostatic speakers only right? BTW, if Quad is that good, why hardly anybody in this forum owns them?

The Quad ESL-63/988 and the newest version, which I saw reviewed in Stereophile recently has been considered a world-wide reference since the '63's introduction in 1981. Question: How many times over the years in speaker reviews, have you seen these words, "Quad-like midrange?" Don't those words make you wonder?

drphoto · « **Reply #34 on:** 13 Aug 2006, 08:29 pm »

I'm suprised no one mentioned what I thought was the most common knock on ML. That you can clearly hear the hand off from the cone woofer to the E-static panel. The used to have a very small sweet spot, though someone mentioned they've improved that.

fredgarvin · « **Reply #35 on:** 15 Aug 2006, 02:40 am »

Dr.Photo has it right. Those are the weaknesses along with compressed dynamic range. The y sound great with acoustic music and vocals, light jazz but have poor woofer integration and do not handle complex music well. I really wanted to like them because they look cool! Even with Quads its all about the mids.

Brian Walsh · « **Reply #36 on:** 15 Aug 2006, 03:01 am »

Quote from: fredgarvin on 15 Aug 2006, 02:40 am

Dr.Photo has it right. Those are the weaknesses along with compressed dynamic range. The y sound great with acoustic music and vocals, light jazz but have poor woofer integration and do not handle complex music well. I really wanted to like them because they look cool! Even with Quads its all about the mids.

True enough for most electrostats. Bass performance tends to be the Achilles heel of many due to dipole cancellation. Larger panels, by virtue of their size, tend to have less cancellation, but to get true deep bass other design techniques must be used.

Due to drastically different sound radiation characteristics of electrostatic panels and cone woofers, I've yet to hear a hybrid design that approaches the performance and coherency of a full range 'stat, especially at various volume levels. Dynamics also can be an issue, with some sounding bright, glary and constricted.

woodsyi · « **Reply #37 on:** 15 Aug 2006, 03:11 am »

I had completely forgotten about this thread after listening to Dan's Martin Logans. Dan really has done a good job setting his system up with the limited space that he has. His Plinius running hot in class a produced very real sound that didn't bring attention to the speakers but let the music through. They are not as dynamic as some I have heard but are very enjoyable. They are different form my ribbon/woofer combo and even different from another stats I have--Soundlabs--but I liked the clear and precise presentation. Dan's were not set up "hot" at all.

transam · « **Reply #38 on:** 16 Aug 2006, 06:12 am »

Quote from: John Ashman on 13 Aug 2006, 02:47 pm

I think M-L just builds most of their speakers to be too bright. I have a hard time listening to them. Every time I hear them I wish they were Quads. Besides, most people on forums are looking for that bargain speaker and M-Ls are really bargain speakers. I thought the CLS was nice, but even then, I think I'd buy Quads.

Well after hearing this i'm selling my ml ascents. :roll:I've been selling hifi for a long time at tweeter and other retailers. I've heard alot of speakers over the years, no matter the price under 8k ml's always sounded the most natural to me. I think ml ascents were stereophile class a in 2004 not that stereophile is the holly grale. Tweeter has no idea how to set up those speakers.

JLM · « **Reply #39 on:** 16 Aug 2006, 03:38 pm »

Horns and planners typically have a hard time integrating with slower cone subwoofers.

Planners and vertical arrays can't image vertically.

Planners can't image left/right very well either.

Planners and open baffles need lots of room behind and distance to the listener to avoid image smearing.

A/C is full of vendors that use the internet and so can offer high value products via to direct sales. Brick and mortar stores rarely provide proper set-ups or competent staff and so offer the brands they offer are at a competative disadvantage.