Listen to the Duke! I have listened to most of the ML line and own 1.6 maggies. Only the ML CLS (version 1 or 2z) was really coherent. IMHO, the innersound eros and full range soundlab electrostatics sound better but at a price... As with all dipoles, if you don't properly place them and match appropriate electronics they can sound bad. However, if placed and matched properly they can be magic.
- ...
- 20 posts total
I have MGIIIA's & CLS IIZ'S. The CLS are more open and airy. The MG IIA's have better bass & dynamics they are also smoother. E-mail me with any questions. mvallely0812@wideopenwest.com My web site>> http://home.wideopenwest.com/~mvallely0812/ |
I have owned Martin Logan SL3's and several pairs of Maggies. Although they share a boxless sound, they are really completely different animals. The ML woofers are reasonably fast and better integrated than most, but still cant keep up with the panels. This is clearly audible and probably why the ML's sound less "coherent" than the Maggies. But it also gives the MLs a thump that Maggies cant match without loads of power, proper placement etc. Coupled with the fact that they are easier to drive, you could make the case that ML's are easier to live with, and also better suited to pop, rock, or other contemporary music. Low level resolution of the ML panels is much better than the Maggies, which also makes them much better for casual listening at lower volumes. I would disagree with the observations that the ML's are a one person speaker. For the reasons mentioned above, I found the MLs easier to live with while walking around the room, than Magneplanars. Maggies also need your head to be in a vice if you really want to achieve ultimate, Magneplanar nirvana. Perhaps Magneplanars are more like Ferraris than BMWs or even Porsches. They dont do everything well, but they can have extraordinarily high performance - provided you are willing to work with them, tweak them, and spare no expense on associated equipment. Then, on the appropriate race track under the appropriate test conditions, they may leave the competition in the dust but in any event will deliver a very special experience. With the right amps, the right room, the right placement, the right source, the right cables, and the right listening chair the Maggies will give you a you are there! magical presence, warmth and coherence that will leave the ML's sounding analytical, sterile, and artificial by comparison. Now the CLS is another matter altogether. It require much more work and high end associated gear -- like the Maggies - to work properly. They have more coherence than the hybrid ML's, and a greater ability to resolve detail at lower volumes than the Maggies. If you want to sit around late at night listening to chamber and acoustic music or really get goosebumps from Joni Mitchell Blue or something with single ended triode tube amps, the CLS might be a thrilling speaker for you. But if Dark Side of the Moon, more run of the mill solid state and digital equipment and/or all day every day casual listening is more your cup of tea, dont even think about the CLS. Hope this helps? |
My first set of Magnepan's were the MG-1s in 1977 which I kept until they were replaced by 2.5Rs in 1990 which I replaced in 2003 for 3.6Rs. In almost 30 years of ownership I never had problem. They are extremely reliable and forgiving, if not efficient to drive. Many of the negative aspects of the speakers have been improved over the years. They perform better with electronics and sources far more expensive than their cost would suggest. Although lots of clean power is best, they can still be enjoyed at lower volumes with lesser electronics. All of which makes them an enduring paradox of high end audio. MLs have always intrigued me, and despite clear advantages in detail and resolution compared to Magnepans, they never seemed as satsifying. Duke's explanation is the best and most logical I've ever come across because I always believed the MLs should have sounded better than what I heard during demos. |
- 20 posts total