Martin- Logan or Quad ESL format? Pros and cons?

[Vinny]

Before the end beckons, panels must figure......... probably, possibly.........

OK, I almost never buy new, so we are starting as buying used, as mentioned up-thread, buy used and sell at much the same price if you do not like....................................that is my kind of deal

5K - where is nirvana at that point with panels?

I have huge Tannoys at the moment but they don't occupy a totally enormous amount of floor-space, but one thing that I am nervous about - sub's, so bear in mind please.

 

[camverton]

I’ve had four pairs of Quads and three pairs of Logan’s over the years, largest Logan was the Ascent i.

All great speakers but big differences between the Quads and Logan’s even though when set up ideally they have a similar sound.

Quads are much easier to place in a room and get decent sound. Logan’s can be very tricky and need much more precise position with particular attention to tilt back and toe in. In some rooms I couldn’t get them to sound good whereas in other rooms they sounded sublime. Quads on the aether hand can invariably sound pretty decent in most rooms including some which are theoretically too small.

At their best, when it can be achieved, I preferred the sound of Logan’s as they are more immediate less laid back. In the same room Logan's would keep me engaged with the music whereas with Quads my mind would be more inclined to wander. This changed somewhat with the newer Quads with the strut, 2805 and then 2812 which have more immediate sound to my ears then the older 63s.

The big problem with Logan’s is that they only really work for one listener in the sweet spot. Off axis and the image shifts left or right and the sound quality changes. Quads are more tolerant in this respect although if one has two or three listeners regularly than MBL or German Physiks omnis are a much better prospect.

Logans are much more fussy about amps and if played at a reasonable, as in not quiet, volume they require the best quality amps which double in power as the impedance halves. Quad 909 amps are not a good match with Logan’s although the newer electro motions aren’t so fussy. Mind you they don’t sound so good. Quads are much less fussy and they state that anything over 100 watts is wasted.

Quad panels are quite fragile and tend to fail after a while with buzzes and pops, Logan panels tend to decline steadily rather than fail, the high frequencies being affected first. Not cheap to repair so best to either buy new or if used with new panels. Either way they are expensive speakers to buy and, unless lucky, can be expensive to maintain. Why bother? Well, once heard and if you like the quality of sound and the way they bring music into your home it is very difficult to find box speakers that one can tolerate.

Of the Logan’s I preferred the Ascent i to the Aerius and electromotion. Of the Quads I still have a soft spot for the now very old 57s despite their limitations of size and sweet spot. I was less keen on the two pairs of 63s I had but find the 2812 is on balance the best of the lot.

Stats are speakers you can end up loving and hating in equal measure but they are worth putting up with for what, when ideally installed, can be sublime sound.

 

[S-Man]

I've heard but not owned M-Ls but have big Quads (2905). I like the idea of the bass boost for M-Ls which has, by all accounts now been sorted i.r.t. integration. The M-Ls put out a much more narrow 'beam' (30 degrees?) whereas the Quads are far wider and expansive but obv. bass-limited. The M-Ls are domestically much more acceptable because of their width (half as much as Quad?).

Are there any other aspects to compare and define these two formats? Is the ESL panel 'sound' similar or are there describable differences in presentation and possibly amplification (power, s/s and/or valved).

Can't think there'd be too many fishies who've had both big Quads AND biggish M-Ls but hopefully there are some good, experienced-based suggestions on this patch.

I believe you are running EAR509s?
The tonal balance of these works very well with Quads (less well with some other speakers). This might not be the case with MLs and I doubt if the 509s can double their power for halving impedance down to 2 Ohms.

 

[mark.king]

I auditioned quads and Martin Logan’s back in 2003. I found the quads were just too soft sounding and couldn’t convey the music I was playing with any impact. I then tried the ml clarities (back tweeter disabled, never sure why they added that) which for me were so much better. The music I played was mainly prog rock as well as Joan armatrading, Fleetwood Mac, Kate Bush, Tori Amos etc. They were also better with more modern material as well. I like to play loud and the quads just choked up. I think the quads I tried were the 2805,s. The quads were tried in York with a system they put together that should work well. I can’t remember what the other components were. The Logan’s I listened to at MAX with a Krell kav400xi amp and Copland cd player. It was a full system I was after and bought the ml system from MAX where I spent about half a day there. They were incredibly helpful

 

[ToTo Man]

Happy with tubes or trannys.

In general, we recommend an amplifier with 100 to 200 watts per channel for most applications. Probably less would be adequate for our smaller hybrids or when used in home theater where a subwoofer is employed. Our hybrid designs will perform well with either a tube or transistorized amplifier, and will reveal the sonic character of either type. However, it is important that the amplifier be stable operating into varying impedance loads: an ideally stable amplifier will typically be able to deliver nearly twice its rated 8 Ohm wattage into 4 Ohms and should again increase into 2 Ohms.​

How many tube power amps will almost double into 4Ω and then almost double again into 2Ω?!

 

[Darren]

In general, we recommend an amplifier with 100 to 200 watts per channel for most applications. Probably less would be adequate for our smaller hybrids or when used in home theater where a subwoofer is employed. Our hybrid designs will perform well with either a tube or transistorized amplifier, and will reveal the sonic character of either type. However, it is important that the amplifier be stable operating into varying impedance loads: an ideally stable amplifier will typically be able to deliver nearly twice its rated 8 Ohm wattage into 4 Ohms and should again increase into 2 Ohms.​

While no expert.... This is a little overexcited in my view. My Logans were always driven by solid state but I never noticed any struggle with anything decent. Neither was huge wattage required. Maybe its different for the top of line models. (comment not aimed at you Guss)

 

[Mike Reed]

I’ve had four pairs of Quads and three pairs of Logan’s over the years, largest Logan was the Ascent i.

That's a very useful resume and there are some interesting observations. However, even though you found the 2805 (now a previous model) better than forerunners, the bigger Quads like mine and, I guess, the bigger M-Ls, would add to your experiences.

Your notes on the degradation of panels between the two are worth noting; a speaker which gradually loses its frequency would be more of a worry that one which goes 'phut'. I wasn't aware of the different impedance demands either. Just a tip here; plurals never have apostrophes-ever ! Thanks for confirming that narrow dispersion angle effect of M-Ls vis a vis the Quads. As I suspected and have read but somewhat disputed up-thread.

I believe you are running EAR509s?

Appreciate that comparison, and the neutral (for valves) presentation of the EARs does indeed complement to 2905s, or any Quads, I guess. Actually, T. de P. used Quad 63s when he designed either the 509s or later amps (so he told me, anyway).

I think the quads I tried were the 2805s

In 2003? Maybe. I think my 2905s came out in '05 and I guess the 2805s would have too. Could be wrong, although maybe they were 63s? (different kettle of fish i.m.o.). Using bigger Quads could have swayed you in the first dem. ?

How many tube power amps will almost double into 4Ω and then almost double again into 2Ω?!

Suggested before and sth worth noting when comparing amplification for these two different ESL formats

 

[ToTo Man]

I hate these threads about panels, they start that itch going again.

The fact that they are always constructive and congenial is no help whatsoever. How is that panels attract that? I do recall debate but not any bitching or rancor on panel threads.

I should never even open one...................................

If it makes you feel any better, my two experiences with panel speakers have been less than favourable. I had Quad ESL63 in a 4.2m x 3.8m x 3.25m room and Fonica Flag M in a 7m x 4.7m x 3.25m room and in both setups the deal-breaker for me was significant cancellation at low frequencies. Both speaker systems sounded lovely, rich and full when I had my ear a matter of inches from the panel but as I stepped back away from it the low end disappeared into a black hole never to return. This remained the case regardless of how I changed speaker and listening position. A major disappointment as I REALLY wanted to like panel speakers!

 

[Amber Audio]

While no expert.... This is a little overexcited in my view. My Logans were always driven by solid state but I never noticed any struggle with anything decent. Neither was huge wattage required. Maybe its different for the top of line models. (comment not aimed at you Guss)

I always read it as a bit of a CYA statement. I’ve driven Logans with pretty common/budget power amps with excellent results, nothing stupid low watts or real crap but certainly not exotica - Yammy, Denon, Quad, Naim type lower end.

 

[Darren]

If it makes you feel any better, my two experiences with panel speakers have been less than favourable. I had Quad ESL63 in a 4.2m x 3.8m x 3.25m room and Fonica Flag M in a 7m x 4.7m x 3.25m room and in both setups the deal-breaker for me was significant cancellation at low frequencies. Both speaker systems sounded lovely, rich and full when I had my ear a matter of inches from the panel but as I stepped back away from it the low end disappeared into a black hole never to return. This remained the case regardless of how I changed speaker and listening position. A major disappointment as I REALLY wanted to like panel speakers!

I've never experienced this. How odd. We're the speakers close to walls?

 

[chartz]

I hate these threads about panels, they start that itch going again.

The fact that they are always constructive and congenial is no help whatsoever. How is that panels attract that? I do recall debate but not any bitching or rancor on panel threads.

I should never even open one...................................

Come to us. Classic ESL57’s here, plus many other impossibly coloured boxes (all of them, even the best).

 

[ToTo Man]

I've never experienced this. How odd. We're the speakers close to walls?

I started with the speakers against the front wall and pulled them forward 6 inches at a time until they were 1/3rd into the room. The only thing that brought the missing bass back was wearing the speakers like a giant pair of headphones by sitting as close to them as I could possibly get, but even that didn't get the frequency balance sounding as good as when my ear was less than a foot from the panel. I'll dig out some in-room measurements later if I can find them.

 

[Mike Reed]

Come to us. Classic ESL57’s here

It was my local purchase of 57s which awakened my acoustic appreciation. This was after my bake-off friends (at my bake-off) had more or less said' great kit, great room but pity about the speakers; try ESLs'. I thought my ProAc Response Fours were beyond reproach but there y'go !

The 57s were simply far too small-scale for me (I've always had big/biggish floor-standers) so opted for my current (and broken) 2905s when a pair came up shortly after. I don't go for the 'nothing beats the 57s' attitude but I do admit they're a hell of a lot more robust than later models.

 

[Jowcol]

The 57s were simply far too small-scale for me ............... I don't go for the 'nothing beats the 57s' attitude but I do admit they're a hell of a lot more robust than later models.

You should have tried a stacked pair.

 

[camverton]

That's a very useful resume and there are some interesting observations. However, even though you found the 2805 (now a previous model) better than forerunners, the bigger Quads like mine and, I guess, the bigger M-Ls, would add to your experiences.

Your notes on the degradation of panels between the two are worth noting; a speaker which gradually loses its frequency would be more of a worry that one which goes 'phut'. I wasn't aware of the different impedance demands either. Just a tip here; plurals never have apostrophes-ever ! Thanks for confirming that narrow dispersion angle effect of M-Ls vis a vis the Quads. As I suspected and have read but somewhat disputed up-thread.


Appreciate that comparison, and the neutral (for valves) presentation of the EARs does indeed complement to 2905s, or any Quads, I guess. Actually, T. de P. used Quad 63s when he designed either the 509s or later amps (so he told me, anyway).

In 2003? Maybe. I think my 2905s came out in '05 and I guess the 2805s would have too. Could be wrong, although maybe they were 63s? (different kettle of fish i.m.o.). Using bigger Quads could have swayed you in the first dem. ?

Suggested before and sth worth noting when comparing amplification for these two different ESL formats

I don’t need lessons on grammar thank you. I was typing in bed and not bothering too much about auto correct wrong correcting as my aim was to try and make a helpful contribution to the discussion. If an errant apostrophe prevented you understanding my post that is your problem!

I have heard the larger Quads on a number of occasions and have never been convinced by them in so far as for my ears and the music I listen to they have taken away more than they have given. To my ears they sounded less cohesive, less taut and my preference would be to use a sub. Those listening to rock or drum and bass at high volume might reasonably come to a different conclusion. Again with Logan‘s () I have heard the later Summits on a number of occasions but whilst very good I didn’t think they added anything more than the Ascent i was giving so wasn’t tempted to try at home. The large Quads are also very visually intrusive so I was glad that I didn’t hear an improvement in sound to tempt me to tolerate the look of them. I haven’t heard the latest range of large Logans so can’t speculate what they sound like.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Every time I’ve heard ESLs, thought they sounded great.

I’ve heard the same pair of MLs. The first time, they just didn’t sound right, as though the bass and treble units were completely different speakers. The 2nd time, they sounded ace. The key difference being that they were being driven by a much better pair of monoblocks

 

[camverton]

I always read it as a bit of a CYA statement. I’ve driven Logans with pretty common/budget power amps with excellent results, nothing stupid low watts or real crap but certainly not exotica - Yammy, Denon, Quad, Naim type lower end.

My experience with the Logan Ascents was that they needed good quality rather than high powered amps as evidenced by a glance at their impedance curve, but that might be due to the fact that my favourite genres include violins played vigorously. It was then that the Quad 909 and 606s sounded quite edgy. I would have been quite happy with the Quad amps for my jazz and rock albums. Martin Logan iirc claimed that the newer electromotion (replacement for the Aerius) were less fussy when it came to amps. It would be interesting to know if that is true of the latest larger models. Of course, much depends on not only what one listens to but how loudly which I suppose is related to the size of room.

 

[Joe P]

Mind your p's and q's.

Joe

 

[Mike Reed]

You should have tried a stacked pair.

I'm fully conversant with a stacked pair; my friend has them. Wouldn't say they have the scale of my 2905s and they also take up a lot more room and are fugly to boot.

I don’t need lessons on grammar thank you. I was typing in bed and not bothering too much about auto correct wrong correcting as my aim was to try and make a helpful contribution to the discussion. If an errant apostrophe prevented you understanding my post that is your problem!

Apologies but nothing to do with grammar and it appears that only the Logans were errant and as aforesaid, your comments were indeed helpful, as I was trying to be.

 

[Fitnessed]

Stacked 57s are something special if up to spec, no sub needed and also like the grip of a big amp,Carefull on the accelerator knob....
Know someone who has been repairing them a longtime also has stacked.

Have recently moved them a lot further into the room,what a difference....
,still have backing on rear.Have wheeled stands to return them to a resting position when not in use,dont need window blinds........