Quad vs. Martin Logan?

I agree with linnlp12, and I'm going to add my two cents to that. First let me say that for me, "Martin Logan" means "CLS"! I think my CLSIIz system with just a single ML Depth crossed over at a mere 35Hz is the closest thing to audio nirvana I ever heard, and I've heard them all. There's at least a three-person sweet spot, all bass appears to come from the panels, the transient response is uniform from top to bottom. None of that "hybrid separation."

There is now another Martin Logan which I think could supplant the so-far-irreplacable CLS: it's the new Summit, which I heard at CES. If you are able to audition one, do! They do everything a SoundLab does in a quarter the size (and I think they'll be around $10K)

I have owned several electrostats, including Acoustat 2+2s and Audiostatic ES100+SW100s. I still own Quad ESL 57s as well as Sound Labs which I own and am a dealer for. I have listened to most of the other speakers mentioned and always find myself gravitating toward what I own, in part because they get the reverberant field more right than others. Because of the major differences in radiation geometry between ESL dipoles and cone woofers, in my opinion there are few hybrids that integrate well. I do not care for Martin Logans for several reasons mainly based upon personal preferences. There is much more to be said, some of which has been covered in this thread. Listening is the ultimate arbiter, although I'm happy to exchange emails and speak on the phone on my nickel to offer explanations and suggestions.

Brian Walsh
Essential Audio
Chicago area

I think both choices would be good. Quads may be easier to drive. And there is something to be said for not having a hybrid woofer.

I love my Martin Logan SL3s and have kept them in preference to many, many other speakers over the years but think they are difficult to match properly with electronics. Frankly most people with MLs have systems that I don't like even though I love the MLs. Many famous name amps are horrible for the MLs. They make them sound hard and screechy. I have even heard dealers who like them to sound that way. Or else they use tube amps that roll the top but can't control the bass and wimp out on the low impedance load. So I find that I am often wary of people who say they like ML because they often mean that they like MLs when driven poorly.

If you are willing to fuss with setup and find very good, high current, smooth sounding solid state electronics or very powerful and neutral tube amps to drive them, you can go to MLs. If you cheap out on the amps, you'll be making a big mistake.

It seems to me many of the people who have posted in this thread are bass averse to begin with - classical only, etc.- which I find unfortunate because colossal sound is one of those things symphonies do well, so I would take their comments about "poorly integrated" with a grain of salt. It seems more likely the bass is present rather than missing. No electrostatic panel can reach into that sub area in the way a firing cone can. ML was smart enough to realize this without going overboard. Not that I've heard them really cranked. As someone in another thread said though, they are so transparent it is hard to get a read from your ears on what the sound pressure really is. My experience of the ML's is of a well integrated speaker which is extremely nimble but not lacking in bass definition, although it does not have true slam. However, imo, slam usually equals loss of control and would interfere with the open sound, much the way warm bass effects neutrality overall. The ML sound is very rich and transparent - two things that usually do not go together in speakers. I agree with JVN above - I heard Pass powering the ML's and it was an ugly egregious listen. Primare worked fine. EAR works fine, as does Cary. I heard the ML Ascent's side by side with the Sonus Faber Cremona's and the ML's really totalled them. Cones can never be as natural as ribbons and 'stats, but there are still lots of reasons to use them. ANother company you might try are the Opera Piega's which use ribbon tweeters with cone bass drivers. Inner sounds are great 'stats but expensive. Quad's I hear are a pain, which is weird. It really isn't a fussy technology - but I run across people all the time who have to do something to get their sick Quads working again. I have never heard this about ML's, and their customer service is great - I have talked to them several times about various factoids of interest to me, not being an owner of them, and they always happily answer obscure technical questions. Again, not so with Quad. I hear very mixed things about Maggies, though never really heard them, and have noticed that many people are confused about the differences. Except owners. And the two camps always seem at odds - stats and maggies.

I find it interesting that Maggies,even the high end ones, are put in a sonic category with Quads, and other electrostatics. Look at the price difference!! Even the MG1.6 which you can buy for less than most box speakers, gives you much, if not all, of what an electrostatic panel can offer. It's said that "An Engineer can do for a dollar what any damn fool can do for ten". Maggies are a perfect example.