Planar Speaker Asylum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.

Return to Planar Speaker Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Quad vs Martin Logan

86.154.211.88
Posted on February 9, 2017 at 17:30:06
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2383
Joined: September 27, 2004
 Martin Logan recently introduced their Masterpiece range of speakers and I'm tempted by the Expression 13A model - list price $15K or maybe the Impression 11A - $10K. After listening to Summit and Summit X recently, I like the sound of these speakers.

I have Avantgarde Uno horns at present but they don't like my room much. Also they are 15 years old and technology has marched on. However I love the feeling of being in the presence of musicians with these speakers and I want to maintain that effect. I suspect electrostatics may be the way to go. My room incidentally is semi-circular, about 975 sq ft and with a low ceiling. The speakers are placed in the middle of the room, so get no support from the wall behind them, as it's over 15 ft away and is floor-to-ceiling glass!

An alternative to ML may be Quad 2912 speakers in a similar price range, but I've not heard these.

If anyone who has listened to both ML and Quad and can offer constructive comparative comments, this would be most helpful. My guess is that MLs will offer far better bass and possibly better all round sound.

Thanks

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 9, 2017 at 19:34:12
BruceS
Audiophile

Posts: 119
Location: Australia
Joined: March 18, 2004
 I am an electrostatic owner who has listened carefully to both Quads, MLs as well as others.
Of the two I liked the Quads best but let me suggest some alternatives.
How about the Sanders?
They are hybrids like the MLs so you should get plenty of bass if that is important.
I had a two or three hour demonstration of the Sanders and was massively impressed, by the way I did not notice the narrow sweet spot complaint that some people make about them.
I had correspondence with Roger Sanders and he is great to deal with.
How about another alternative?
What about the JansZen zA2.1?
This also is a hybrid like the MLs and the Sanders.
David Janszen is an absolute pleasure to deal with, they have some sort of arrangement whereby you can listen to them in your own home with no obligation to buy.
Great range of finish options are also available.
Can I also suggest something else that you may like.
SoundLab have two new 'shorter', speakers, they are both about 56 inches high.
They are full range like the Quads.
There is, the Ultimate U-4iA (fantastic recent review on Dagogo) and the Majestic 545.
Roger West is also great to deal with.
You know, I think that you are spoilt for choice!!
Whatever you do don't rush in.
Look at the websites, read the reviews, have a listen, then go for it!

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 01:17:57
Dave Billinge
Audiophile

Posts: 1008
Location: Hampshire
Joined: June 7, 2005
 I am in UK and I compared Quad 2905s with MLs about 5 years ago, just before the 2912 came out actually. The 09 and the 12 series are little different according to Quad themselves. At that time I felt that the Quads had the slight edge on realism whilst, being hybrids, the MLs had the edge on bass. What swung me in the end was that I can get my Quads to the factory if need be (2 to 3 hours driving, 140 miles, but they will come to me if I ask nicely), whilst the MLs posed a whole other problem should there be a need for service.

Having now lived with Quads since then I suspect that the difference comes down to two things: 1) the ML will have less dynamic limits if your music demands it; if you are into heavy metal for example, Quads are likely to run up against their auto-shut down circuit; and 2) the Quads are a full range ESL, not many of these out there, and the bass they have (circa 28Hz) is so tight and clean as to make it very real. Classical music really sings.

Maybe there is a third thing - I assume you are in the USA - either speaker is expensive and you just might care about the ease of gaining manufacturer help to make your investment last many years.

Dave

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 04:51:04
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2383
Joined: September 27, 2004
 Thanks Dave - most helpful.

I'm also in UK so all the other planar speakers mentioned by other replies are not represented here. I think, if I want panars with some degree of availability and after-sales service, I'm limited to Quad and ML, the latter being handled by Absolute Sounds who I've not dealt with up to now, but presume they offer a good services as otherwise they wouldn't still have the confidence of so many top brands from around the world.

From what you've said, I'll certainly arrange an audition with the big Quad. Overpowering bass is not good - I'm not keen and I doubt my neighbours are either, but I do want to hear the bass at the level it was recorded at. I appreciate the Quad may be a bit bass light, but I need to try them out before discounting them. I'm not into heavy metal, etc and I now listen to much less classical than I used to. I seem to gravitate towards non-spiky jazz, blues, female vocal, etc.

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 04:58:14
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2383
Joined: September 27, 2004
 Sorry Bruce but I've never heard of any of your suggested alternatives.

I'm in UK where none are represented so, even if I managed to buy them, I couldn't expect an after-sales service. Also, let's be direct, are they mainstream manufacturers that will still be around in 10 years time? Will a 10 year old model be sellable when I need to replace them? I suspect the answers may be No so I'm inclined to rule out all those suggestions. However I will read about them with added interest! Do you own any of your suggested speakers?

I asked about the comparative merits of 2 specific systems - Quad and ML. If you can offer any insight, this would be greatly appreciated.

Peter

 

I'll echo the comments of others, posted on February 10, 2017 at 06:15:38
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I've been an electrostatic speaker enthusiast for forty years. What I find most compelling about full range stats is their coherence and ability to truly disappear. I am not a fan of hybrids where a cone woofer handles the bass up through the lower midrange.

Your profile suggests that you're not a hard rock "head banger" so I think you could be quite satisfied with a full range design like the Quad. Or...

FWIW, Sound Lab (what I've owned since 2005) is represented in the UK. Click here for their web page with dealer information. The UK distributor is 15 Audio located in East Sussex.

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 07:03:38
Dave Billinge
Audiophile

Posts: 1008
Location: Hampshire
Joined: June 7, 2005
 Contact me and we'll see if we live close enough for you to visit. You're welcome to a demo.

Dave

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 07:31:20
Mendel
Audiophile

Posts: 1207
Location: GTA
Joined: January 17, 2009
 Save yourself about $10K and try to find a pair of Acoustat Spectra22 or Spectra33 speakers. The Quads are nice, but I would put the two Spectras (with renovated interfaces) against the Martin Logans anytime there is something special about full range stats (not a big fan of the hybrids).

 

RE: I'll echo the comments of others, posted on February 10, 2017 at 08:04:32
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2383
Joined: September 27, 2004
 Thanks E-Stat but Sound Lab stuff is not for me. The only speaker in their entire range that is anywhere near a sensible price is the smallest one M-3PX - at $15K.

Despite their list of distributors that includes 15 Audio, this company does not even show Sound Lab in their Brands page - see http://www.15audio.co.uk/. They do represent (either as distributor or dealer) Brodmann and Quadral - both highly regarded German brands, but not Sound Lab. Peter

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 08:10:14
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2383
Joined: September 27, 2004
 > Save yourself about $10K and try to find a pair of Acoustat Spectra22 or Spectra33 speakers.

Bankrupt and out of business. Imagine the distress that owners have when they want to service or sell these speakers. Value virtually nil! That's why I'm not interested in cottage industry companies making electrostatics. Far less of a problem if a conventional cone speaker manufacturer goes bust, but electrostatics??

If you can offer an informed insight into Quad vs Martin Logan, I'd be delighted. Thanks.

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 08:35:43
Sondek
Audiophile

Posts: 9632
Location: Fort Worth
Joined: May 17, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Acoustats are virtually bullet-proof. That's whey they are still around nearly 30 years after the company went out of business. Given what they can be had for in today's used market you could probably afford to put them in the bin should you ever have a problem and only be out pocket change. The main draw back in your situation would be finding someone in the UK to do the initial rebuild of the transformer interfaces, but given that it's not exactly rocket science to update caps and resistors, I suspect any reasonably competent tech could perform the work. Point being that once old components are replaced you could easily expect 20 years or more of faithful, trouble free service from them.

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 08:58:37
Mendel
Audiophile

Posts: 1207
Location: GTA
Joined: January 17, 2009
 Sir you are sadly misinformed.
Acoustat panels are the most durable electrostatic panels ever built. Thousands are operating perfectly today 35 years later. Interfaces are simple and easy to repair. Very few owners are in distress (and I assure you that none of them think the value of their speakers is virtually nil LOL).
Quad and Martin Logan panels have a lifetime of about 15 years and then have to be replaced or rebuilt at considerable cost.
In its prime Acoustat was one of the largest producers of electrostatic speakers in the world. It was no more a "cottage industry company" than Quad and Martin Logan are today.
If you are not interested in Acoustat that is perfectly fine, but no reason to be rude and spread misinformation.

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 09:34:24
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2383
Joined: September 27, 2004
 Thanks Sondek and Mendel

These was no intention to be rude about these speakers or to "spread misinformation". If you read my words, you will see that this isn't the case.

However, the truth is that buying speakers from a company that went out of business 30 years ago would be a very unwise (for most of us) choice. Yes, I'm sure you can pick them up cheaply in working order, but they are old and built with the technology of the day. Despite the fact that original Quad electrostatics are still highly sought after and can still be repaired and improved - and Quad is still a thriving company - I'd not buy these either because frankly, the technology of the day is far short of today's standards.

Also what we now consider as "attractive" items of furniture and things such as speakers has changed over the decades. I'd certainly not want to give room space to any Acoustat speakers I've seen on Google - nor first-generation Quads for that matter!

Those who own and love last century speakers thoroughly enjoy them and are likely to praise their performance, perhaps overly so. My KEF 107-2 Reference speakers were state-of-the-art when built and I loved their sound in the 1990s when they were already about 10 years old. Would I want them now and would I recommend them now? No but only because they were designed 35 years ago and times have changed enormously. You may not agree that it's to the better, but there's no denying that speaker development didn't stop in the 1980s and that modern speakers are streets ahead of these lovely antiques.

As I say, I appreciate your praise for these speakers but they are not for me. The question was "Quad vs Martin Logan" and I'd like to hear from anyone who can provide informed advice or observations on these current models. Also I'm sure that both these companies would strongly counter your unsupported claim that they last for 15 years only! Peter

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 09:37:32
kentaja
Manufacturer

Posts: 4614
Joined: March 26, 2001
 While the Acoustat panels hold up well over time I do get quite a few inquiries about panel rebuilds for Acoustats. They do fail. And as they continue to get older there will be more failures. Given their value on the used market the cost of rebuilding panels does not make financial sense. I advise owners to simple find another inexpensive donor pair for the working panels. The electrical interface is different. Easy and inexpensive to get them running to spec. I have done many over the years.

That does not mean the Acoustat is a bad or unreliable speaker. They are not. They are however getting very old, all of them have degraded to some extent, and time will only continue to take its toll. Nothing lasts forever. Since they can be found for little money on the used market these are not huge issues.

OTOH I have seen plenty of Quad speakers that are 35+ years old going strong.

Acoustat had a good run but to compare them to Quad or Martin Logan is a stretch. Quad and Martin Logan have built far more speakers than Acoustat ever did. There are well over 100,000 Quads in the field and they have been at it now for 7 decades. Acoustat did not get remotely close to those production numbers let alone longevity as a company in the market.

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 10:15:45
Sondek
Audiophile

Posts: 9632
Location: Fort Worth
Joined: May 17, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Mendels point was Acoustat was no more a cottage industry in its day than Quad or ML, not that Acoustat produced more speakers. BTW, I took no offense at the OP's comments. After all, there are different spokes for different wheels. The Acoustat advice was simply offered as an EXTREMELY cost efficient means of achieving the same goal as spending many, many times that on Quads or ML's. You rebuild Quads for a living, I would not expect you to speak ill of them.

 

RE: I'll echo the comments of others, posted on February 10, 2017 at 11:21:39
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 The only speaker in their entire range that is anywhere near a sensible price is the smallest one M-3PX - at $15K.

Which falls into your stated budget and would outperform your other two choices, IMHO.

Just sayin'.

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 12:19:39
kentaja
Manufacturer

Posts: 4614
Joined: March 26, 2001
 I rebuild Quads and other stats for a living. And yes I will speak ill of all of them! Catch me on the wrong day and you would never buy a stat!!!!

Acoustat was never the size company of Quad not even close. By the 1970's and well into the 80's Quad was the largest maker of audio equipment in the UK with a staff of over 450 people. Millions of pieces of Quad electronics were produced the stats were just a vanity product a drop in their production bucket. And M-L may have started out as a small one man operation but grew into a giant probably the most successful builder of electrostats. By comparison to either company Acoustat was a small operation.

This is no dig on Acoustat they do some things quite well and are a bargain on the used market. But lets not make them into something they never were. They had a good 15 year or so run and then folded.

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 20:06:43
Mike in NJ
Audiophile

Posts: 596
Location: Paramus, NJ
Joined: September 5, 2002
 I'm seriously considering the Martin Logan impression 11A myself.
Heard a relatively large quad speaker at an audio show and loved the sound.
I like to crank em up a bit, so the hybrid Martin Logan is where I think I lean.
Love the huge sound stage and imaging - real solid center image that's real easy to follow with size and density. Just saving up a bit more before I pull the trigger.
Had magnepans before too - liked them a lot too, but set up was a bit tricky and they are so large that they "visually" got in the way of the sound stage (always looking at those large panels) the Martin Logan's are more visually transparent so they aren't as imposing to look at ( to me anyways) good luck!
Mike

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 21:44:10
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
 I would suggest you run them through their paces and decide if either line of stats will do it for you. The other stats you can likely get your hands on in the UK are the Hong Kong(?) based King Sound full range electrostats. They are a Schroeder favorite and actually have a real separate tweeter section so do not have the usual dispersion related problems in the treble.

Contrary to the statements made about technology, there was nothing new in ESL land for the 20 years since Acoustat was shut down by its European buyer and 2010 when the first new generation ESLs came out with new coatings that withstand higher voltages and so you now have ESLs in the low 90s sensitivity and even 94 db for the top Martin Logans and the Sanders (IIRC).

If you were in the US then Acoustats would be my choice for value and I would happily send them off for a pro rebuild with no consideration of their resale value because the initial investment and upgrades and possibly needed future repairs are bubkes relative to their performance, at least the 3 and 4 panel ones and up. While I would be concerned with resale value on a $15k speaker I would not be with a $1k investment in speaker and upgrades.

This is where I would suggest that rather than look at current quads, you should look at the myriad mod shops in the UK who rebuild them into larger panels with stiffer frames that actually have a chance to fill your needs with the kind of dynamic snap that sold you the Avante Garde horns. not just the detail and delicacy. Quads are all over the UK and some semi-pro DIYers view their panels as legos from which to build high performance speakers.

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 10, 2017 at 22:39:42
BruceS
Audiophile

Posts: 119
Location: Australia
Joined: March 18, 2004
 Hi Peter
I understand your concerns, after sales service and so on, because, in Australia I am even further away from the factories than you!
I have 25 year old acoustat spectra 22 electrostats (which I run with two ML subs) and I am convinced that I can get a significant improvement with new speakers.
So I have gone through the process of the websites, reading the reviews, looking at the forums, contacting the companies and so on.
I think that I am pretty much at the end of my journey!
Yes, the journey is fun.
And so will be getting the new speakers!
I am down to either of two.
You will find that each of the companies mentioned are different and each have unique products with their own special individual features.
You will enjoy the process of finding them out for yourself!
The ones mentioned in my post are among the 'best' but there are plenty of other good electrostats as well as these.
When I go to the HiFi shows I listen to the speakers, and, in my opinion nothing can compare with the electrostats.
I went to a show last year with my acapella neo doo wop CD and was shocked at how terrible a high profile expensive UK (cone) speaker manufacturer sounded. The guy running the room was visibly embarrassed when he returned my CD!
Yes, I love my electrostats.
Yes, I think Quads are great, & I have ML subs and a Quad amp.
As you research your electrostatic project make sure you consider things such as reliability as well as the sound.
But, remember that just because I like the Quad over the ML does not mean that you will!
Just because I am seriously considering JansZen or SoundLabs does not mean that you will!
That's the thing about being an audiophile electrostatic lover!!
Comparing the Quads and the MLs.
I felt the MLs had a fantastic mid range, so good and so clear.
I felt the Quads were fantastic in everything!
Enjoy the journey.
Bruce

 

"Schroeder favorite", posted on February 11, 2017 at 11:18:19
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I enjoyed his read on the new baby U4 vs. the Kingsound. :)

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 11, 2017 at 14:43:02
Utley1
Audiophile

Posts: 1609
Location: NYC
Joined: July 30, 2010
 2+2"s were one of the best speakers I have ever heard and in addition has dynamics that the original clx ML (1987) or Quad never had. Not even close.Quad had one advantage it did not require idiotically expensive electronicd. But have fussed with Cosmostatics, an omnidirectional hybrid for 22 Years (Keeping the monsters afloat) you will live with rebuilt Acoustats never knowing , weekend to weekend whether they will work.
I have never heard the Sound Labs

 

RE: "Schroeder favorite", posted on February 11, 2017 at 18:47:05
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
 That was definitely an interesting read and what appears to be a really attractive speaker.
Unfortunately the relative pricing in the UK is very different than it is here. I just wish SoundLabs could build the larger speaker to this price point so that it fit more budgets and more folks could pick up speakers from the used market.

The description of the bass performance comparing the SoundLab to the Kingsound is very interesting and I can't say I understand how they manage to obtain so much more powerful and dynamic bass performance from a smaller speaker with 1/3 less radiating area.. Maybe Josh can figure it out. I know it is not via EQ since I have had my fill of sparking ESLs and dying amps when such EQ is applied to compensate for lack of bass extension or dynamics (compression)..

 

RE: "Schroeder favorite", posted on February 12, 2017 at 02:52:20
kentaja
Manufacturer

Posts: 4614
Joined: March 26, 2001
 "I just wish SoundLabs could build the larger speaker to this price point so that it fit more budgets and more folks could pick up speakers from the used market. "

Uhhh? How does that make sense? The larger ones are more expensive because they are more expensive to make. It would be like wishing Ferrari could build a car to Honda price points so more people could afford a Ferrari.

 

"I have never heard the Sound Labs", posted on February 12, 2017 at 06:17:03
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I lived with 2+2s for over twenty years and have a modified pair of 1+1s today.

Imagine 2+2 image height and bass power with better top to bottom resolution, a more neutral tonal character and...elimination of the head-in-a-vice sweet spot. :)

 

RE: "I have never heard the Sound Labs", posted on February 12, 2017 at 06:34:27
Utley1
Audiophile

Posts: 1609
Location: NYC
Joined: July 30, 2010
 I can imagine it:THAT TO MY MIND WOULD MAKE THEM THE BEST SPEAKER IN THE WORLD. Thanks....

 

RE: "Schroeder favorite", posted on February 12, 2017 at 06:48:52
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2383
Joined: September 27, 2004
 > Uhhh? How does that make sense? The larger ones are more expensive because they are more expensive to make. It would be like wishing Ferrari could build a car to Honda price points so more people could afford a Ferrari

Interesting your comparison with cars. These speakers are offered at a comparable price to many cars, though not usually Ferrari-priced ones maybe. How can this possibly be justified? Imagine the number of parts that have to be designed and made, then assembled, painted, after-sales costs, etc in the manufacture of a car - then compare with a pair of speakers, however exotic. Granted, most car makers have the volume advantage and can use robots to help with assembly, but it's patently obvious that high-end manufacturers are taking advantage of our demands for the very best sound possible.

I accept that many manufacturers go bust, but that's not because their material or labour costs per item are crippling. It's surely because they don't sell as many as they planned - there are too few customers willing to pay car-prices for a pair of speakers.

I recently watched a "How it's Made" programme that featured Martin Logan speakers. They're relatively low cost thing to manufacture in material terms. As with cars, accuracy and tolerances are important, but when you start to think about it, there's not much to speaker building when compared with cars!

Peter

The commentary on this clip is drearily dull compared with the guy who voices over for the UK version!

 

RE: "Schroeder favorite", posted on February 12, 2017 at 10:55:58
kentaja
Manufacturer

Posts: 4614
Joined: March 26, 2001
 Economics of scale, etc., between the auto industry and the speciality audio industry is beside the point.

The larger Sound Labs are more expensive than the smaller Sound Labs because the larger ones are more expensive to make. Its that simple.

How and why we get to that pricing is another discussion.

 

RE: "Schroeder favorite", posted on February 12, 2017 at 12:40:27
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
 One can wish. But your point is real. Just how can you get the cost down so that the full height 7 ft speaker (bigger ones don't fit some rooms with acoustic drop ceilings, like my own).

 

RE: "Schroeder favorite", posted on February 12, 2017 at 12:53:45
cawson@onetel.com
Audiophile

Posts: 2383
Joined: September 27, 2004
 > How and why we get to that pricing is another discussion.

Just to remind you, the question was actually "Quad vs Martin Logan" and nothing to do with Sound Labs or any other make!

 

The answer to this question..., posted on February 13, 2017 at 13:57:11
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I can't say I understand how they manage to obtain so much more powerful and dynamic bass performance from a smaller speaker with 1/3 less radiating area.

may well lie in their distributed resonance approach.

It is claimed to constructively channel bass output as opposed to resistively damping it.

 

RE: The answer to this question..., posted on February 13, 2017 at 20:12:18
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
 Yes, I thought it would have something to do with it, but the dimensions of their "boxes" are too small for the resonances to be bass frequencies unless there is far less tension on the membrane, it is that much heavier and the boxes are big enough, I figured that only lower tension is realistic but that implies that it is very loose compared to other ESLs. Which causes its own set of problems - a in really old acoustat panels lose their tension and need to be tightened with thermal treatment with a hot air blower [note that maggie mylar expands and loosens with heat, so don't ever do that to a maggie].

 

RE: Quad vs Martin Logan, posted on February 19, 2017 at 16:42:43
sqlsavior
Audiophile

Posts: 55
Location: New Mexico
Joined: June 25, 2013
 Cannot speak to current models. But, back when I enjoyed Magneplanar MMGs, a friend got some cheaper MLs (about $4-5K/pair, maybe 10 years ago).

Highs were definitely nicer on the MLs. The MMGs totally whupped the MLs bass, however.

I don't doubt that ML has done better than that model since then.

 

Page processed in 0.032 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]