Martin Logan's Prodigy

Like you, I read the recent Stereophile review that praised the Prodigy's for their bass. That review was in complete disagreement with the conclusion I drew on their low-end when I auditioned them at my local dealer's showroom. I heard them in a dedicated listening room with, as I recall, an all Krell system. I'm pretty sure the amps were the FPB 200 monos--amps known for quality bass. A friend of mine owns ML's CLS IIz's, and I own ML's Logos center channel speaker. True to form, the Prodigy's mid's and high's were everything I've come to expect from ML--very transparent and detailed. But my impression of the bass mirrors yours; I thought it was boomy and very lacking in detail. It stood in stark contrast to the crisp mid's and high's provided by the electrostatic panels. To be very honest, I was surprised that such an expensive speaker could have such a poor low-end. I pointed it out to the salesman, and he actually agreed with me. So I was just as surprised to read the Stereophile review praising the Prodigy's bass. In fairness to the speakers, I have no idea how much break-in time the pair I heard had. They appeared to be set up properly, but maybe they weren't tweaked to perfection. But they never struck me as being in need of break-in. My conclusion was that ML has a thing or two to learn about woofers.

By the way, my friend with the CLS IIz's combines them with a Genesis subwoofer. THAT is the route I would recommend you go. The CLS IIz's are just as attractive as the Prodigy's, and the Genesis provides bass that, in my experience, was far tighter and more detailed than what the Prodigy's provided. Any high quality subwoofer should be a good mate. Just my $.02.