Martin Logan vs. Thiel


I have a pair of Martin Logan Ascents and I'm in the mood for something different. I'm missing that tweeter sparkle you hear on cymbols etc and was thinking of making the move to a Thiel 2.3. I've heard that they image and offer as much detail as the Martin Logans. Do you guys agree? I know people say they may sound bright in some systems but I'm running Goldmund and Classe so I don't think that will be a problem, but will the Thiels image and soundstage like the Logans?
totalmlb

Showing 2 responses by lrsky

I was Director of Sales for THIEL Audio, but have owned both speakers.
The Martin Logans have a completely different sound, as well as sound stage than the THIEL speaker.
The Logan has what seems to be less high frequency energy which could be attributed to less phase shift,(it really does roll off in the highest frequencies when measured in a real room, too) since the panel is obviously time/phase correct insofar as the panel is moving as a unit body, creating the fundamental of a higher frequency and the harmonics with one mechanical pulse. A mid/tweeter, regardless of the crossover in the THIEL (even the 2.3 which is basically a whizzer cone) being a first order, and presumably phase correct, still can't be perfectly phase correct, with lead lag... (With the Logan you get time smear and room boundary effects from the rear too, which can sound like a phasey smear....wow, this is getting a little wordy, email me directly, and I will walk you through how to get the Logan to sound better. I agree with the one writer about the giant dust magnet, but it would take a lot of dust, (possible) to create a truly dull sound. With Goldmund and Classe, you don't have what anyone would call tubes, but they are also smooth sounding gear by solid state standards. I need to know about room placement,size, cables, etc. So if you like email me at lrsky@bell.net and we can go over this, and I am glad to help.
I have held some siminars about these differences and they need more scrutiny than this space allows for.
Thanks,
Larry R. Staples