Speaker Preferences?

gentlemen:

i am amazed that the word "dull" would be used to describe the sound of martin logan speakers. i have never heard that term applied to a cls, which, has been charcterized as one of the most transparent speakers ever manufactured. what do you mean by dull ? can a speaker be bright and dull at the same time ?

i beilieve that a new martin logan full range electrostatic speaker, the clx, is to be introduced at ces 2008.

hopefully, they will be better balanced than the cls 2z.

i would be surprised if the clx would be described as "dull"

dealer's demonstrations are problematical. the best suggestion is to visit several dealers and listen to a spekaer on your short list. if you observe some consistent sonic patterns, maybe you can trust the demonstrations.

if the "sound" varies significantly, you may need to get a home trial. if this is not feasible, you are facing the risk of not liking the speaker when you buy it.

at the risk of being labelled an elitist, why is speaker selection so critical if recordings feature mainly amplified instruments ?

i can understand why someone would be concerned about speaker selection if most recordings contained acoustic instruments.

although i own recordings which feature electric keyboards, ppercussion and string instruments, i bass my evaluation of speakers using recordings in which i can evaluate timbre.

what is the reference for an electric guitar, unless you happen to own the electric guitar played on a recording ?

a badly set up electrostatic speaker is usually better than most cone designs, properly set up.

i heard a mg 20, poorly set up at the golden nugget in a small room. as bad as the acoustical environment was, what i heard was superior to any cone design i auditioned before and after hearing the magnepans.

most cone designs give an unsatisfying presentation of instrumental timbre. the best you can do with them is select classic tube gear to cover up the faults of these speakers.

panels rule, don't be a cone fool !