martin logan vs magnepan sound

as a quad 63 owner and magnepan 1.6 owner, i find the magnepans somewhat peaky in the upper mids/lower treble. while they are highly resolving, they are more inaccurate than the martin logans in the same frequency region. the quad esl is closer to timbral correctness than the newer quads. there has been a degredation in sound in the quads, starting with the 63s, 988/989 and 2805/2905, in comparison to the original quad.

the older martin logans--the cls 2 z, the sequel, the sequel 2, the quest and request, are less flawed in the middle of the midrange on up than the quads and magnepans. the problem with the hybrids is integration.

the apogee duetta signatures should also be considered in this discussion even though not technically a subject of this thread. it is possible that the hew clx will be superior to the quads and magnepans.

I heard a pair of Martin Logans at a show once. I forget which model but they were driven by YBA amps. I was quite impressed. After a bit, I felt a little bit uncomfortable about the integration between the panel and the bass driver however. Whenever I hear electrostatics, I marvel at the quickness and timbral accuracy,...the lack of a boxiness to the sound. Unfortunately, I need a bit of bass. The Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin of my youth won't go away. If someone can invent a truly seamless panel/bass combo, and one which doesn't have to be placed too far out from the wall, there will be many happy audiophiles. I've only ever hear Maggies casually in the background at some stores. I've never paid too much attention to them because I get the impression from others that they need too much space for me to accommodate. They do have quite an enthusiastic cult following though, don't they.

The new Martin Logans sound superb, top to bottom. Integration on these is not a problem, as it was on previous models to some extent. The sound is pure, dynamic, extended and the imaging is spot on. They paint a very clear and pristine picture of the soundscape.

The Maggies, though maybe not as pristine or perfect sounding as the new Logans, exhibit a more realistic and electrifying experience imho. The stage is large, dynamic (they need their power of course) and bloomy. One really gets the "you are there" feeling. The pattern and reflections from their dipole design probably help in this respect. There is an excitement about listening to them that is addictive and, often missing in box speakers - regardless of cost.

Different yes, but I can't imagine not being happy with either assuming you have the room to set these up properly. They need their space to work their best. I would choose either over just about any speaker out there. If you have a limited budget the Maggie is probably your only choice. And, its a darn good one.

hi nealhood:

which martin logans are you referring to ?

the current production hybrids do a terrible job of blending cone with panel, especially since the woofer is crossed over above 200 hz in some models.

the clx is the new full range speaker. hopefully, it will be out soon.

I feel that the current Summit do a very good job of integrating the bass with the panel. I have heard the Maggie 3.6 along with everything (but Alexandria) from Wilson, Vivid, BW, Linn, Sonus Faber (except Elipsa/Strads), Quad 2805 and I feel they run up there with the best of them. Of course, some speakers do some things better, but overall, I feel the current ML Summit offers quite a lot for the money. I, for one, was not impressed by the Quad 2805 in the setup I heard with Naim gear.

The bass just needs to be well calibrated for the room, the 25 and 50hz eq has to be optimized for each setting.

As for the Maggie, they are very good speakers, but I feel like there's a definite discontinuity between with the ribbon tweeter involved.