2. speakers
  3. 1097718613

Martin-Logan as alternative to Magnepan 1.6's

I was in a dealer's showroom today and explained to him what I was trying to do: build a new system that is 90% as good as it gets for placement in a little bit of an ackward room. I had pretty much settled on the Magneplanar 1.6's with an amp "with enough power to run an arc welder". My dealer suggested I consider the Martin-Logan Mosaic or Clarity speakers. Used, I would even consider the Aeon's.

The advantages of the Martin-Logans are a) easier to set up, b) they could be adequately powered by a good hybrid integrated amp ($1500 to $2000 range), and c) their good sound could be appreciated at low volumes better, i.e. if one was hosting a dinner party.

The Martin-Logan Clarity's are about $2600 vs $1750 for the Maggies (plus Mye stands, etc.). How much different are these two speakers? If one of my goals is to produce the feeling of a large open space in which an orchestra or jazz quartet is playing, (with excellent tube electronics and adequate interconnects/speaker cables) will I be able to accomplish this with the M-L Clarity's? Will I be at least 90% there, as compared to what I could do with box speakers (Theil 2.6's would come to mind)?

I expect there are committed fans of each speaker
delsfan

Showing 2 responses by rooze

rooze's avatar
rooze
580 posts
 
Delsfan, having heard Aeon's, SL3's, Prodigy's, and the Aerius, I would suggest sticking with the Magnepans. I've never heard an ML where the woofer integrates seamlessly with the electrostatic panels. I've only ever heard them in a dealer environment, with less than perfect setup, and I know from what other people say that they can sound really good, but I just don't think you'll have the same issues with the 1.6. What is the problem with your room?....remember that planers radiate in a figure 8 pattern so sidewall influences are less than with a typical box speaker. The only real issue I would see is if the wall behind the speaker is uneven, or opens into another room or whatever. You need that wall to be even and parallel with the speaker to reflect evenly back into the room. If you sit fairly 'nearfield' you can eliminate many room influences, with the exception of the wall behind the speaker.
I'd stick with the 1.6 over ML's.
rooze's avatar
rooze
580 posts
 
Delsfan, there are a couple of subtle but important points to clear up here. First, you referred to my comment about having a solid and parallel wall behind the speaker, and then commented on the wall behind your listening seat as being open into another room. We are talking about two different walls here. It is less of an issue that the wall behind your chair is uneven, or opens into another room, in fact that might prove a positive benefit. I was referring to the wall behind the speaker, usually referred to as the 'front wall'. Since Maggie's shoot as much sound out to the rear as the front, it helps to have that wall behind the speaker flat. I also mentioned that it should be parallel and Doug picked up on this saying that he prefers some toe-in. Well the wall being parallel does NOT mean that you should not use toe-in. It means that if you measure from the outside edge of the left speaker to the wall behind the speaker, that same distance should be applied to the right speaker.....so the wall is parallel with the plane of the speaker and not running at a tangent to the plane of the speaker. Then, you can adjust the toe-in angle to suit your preference. Adjusting toe-in with Maggie's tends to change the tonal balance and helps compensate for bright/dark sounding equipment. Setting them up without toe-in tends to pull the sound a little towards the leaner side, and adding toe-in makes them a little warmer and more full sounding....so you can mess around with that as you need to.

If that doesn't make sense, email me privately with your phone number and I'll explain better what I mean over the phone.

Rooze
More to discover