ML and any open baffle/dipole/planar speaker are a different animal. Not better or worse, just different. Some people love them, others don’t. It’s your ears, don’t let other’s opinions influence yours, particularly if they are biased against open baffle/dipole/planar speakers.
Martin Logan vs. Everything
I have a pair of Martin Logan 13a. to me they sound incredible. The thing is I also like to spend time at hi-fi shops , whether they be brick and mortar or or online and it seems like those dealers think the Martin Logan are the weak Link in my system…
I’ve listened to Speakers twice and even three times the price and they don’t sound any better to me but I do have my room treated and everything is tuned just in my liking. my personal opinion is that Martin Logan has spent years perfecting what they do with the electrostatic speaker, and that it’s just not financially feasible for some of these smaller companies to try and do the same so they have traditional box speakers, which are great, but to me not as great as the Martin Logan .
so how wrong am I ? Fight me.
- ...
- 67 posts total
I own a pair of ML Prodigy. They sounded good until I heard what appeared to be a middle C disconnect between ESL panel and cone driver (which @ghdprentice alludes to). Then I tried the Quad 2905 - much improved. Best of all, the Quad ESL’s can be hot-rodded way up with a better power supply (you may laugh, but it’s demonstrable) and better high voltage caps, and better step up transformers. I’ve done the experiments and every upgrade is significant, not at all subtle. To me. YMMV |
You're absolutely not wrong so don't let a salesman's goal to sell you different speakers influence you. Also, don't let some self-important person who knows nothing about you influence you with talk about a "weak link" in your system. They only look at price which isn't even close to the only factor. e,g. Schiit. |
- 67 posts total