Tell me about Martin Logan…

[Greyandy]

I’m thinking of scratching an itch with electrostatic speakers and a quick trawl the the ‘bay show a few different Martin Logan’s for under a grand. However finding about the different old model hierarchy is proving a bit more tricky so are there any Martin Logan experts out there who could help me put their different models into some sort of pecking order please?

Thanks in advance!

Andy

 

[hifinutt]

NO ... not sure i would buy a ML for under a grand !!! there is plenty for a bit more like these marvellous electromotion for 1795

https://www.centralaudio.co.uk/index.php?page=products&id=9799

they sound extremely good for the money . well worth scratching that itch. my summit x lasted 4 years and had a HUGE soundstage with MASSIVE bass but they cost me about 7k i recall

 

[uncl_nigel]

I've heard a couple of Martin Logans and have always been bothered by what I perceive as a discrepancy between the panels and the bass boxes. The ones I've heard did not quite integrate the two elements.

 

[hifinutt]

yes i have heard that about older ones . certainly the electromotion and summit x dont have that problem

 

[Lurch]

I have the Summit (non X) and these were the first in MLs range to really deal with the speed differential between the panel and bass bin. Definitely no sense of two different speaker types in the mix, they integrate beautifully, speed, detail, definition with great imaging and a deep + wide soundstage. My Summits replaced a pair of Quad 989s, NEVER Again, they spent nearly as much time back at OTA as they did in my music room, sounded great when they worked but too bloody fragile.

 

[Yank]

I've heard a couple of Martin Logans and have always been bothered by what I perceive as a discrepancy between the panels and the bass boxes. The ones I've heard did not quite integrate the two elements.

Also the crossover between the two ranges can be quite high, like 400-500Hz.

 

[Tony L]

They are really odd things IMO. Very impressive in some ways, e.g. maybe the largest and most 3d soundstage I’ve heard was from a Krell-driven pair of MLs. The problem is the timing and distance between the two drivers, the bass struggles to keep up and always sits on the floor where the driver is to my ears. I guess that is part of the ‘scale’ thing in that the put the HF far above the bass, as do NBLs (which don’t integrate at all to my ears). I have very much liked MLs at times, but I’d not personally choose them. They are one of those speakers like Shahinians, MBLs and a few others that do their own thing and however impressive it may be you have to actively want it. They are outliers but interesting. Also be aware that the electrostatic driver is far more exposed to the elements than a Quad and does tend to have a shorter lifespan as far as I can tell. Smokers can kill them pretty fast. Probably unwise to expect a 20 year old pair to work to spec without an expensive service (i.e. new panels).

 

[camverton]

I’ve had three pairs of Logans and very good they were, and one pair still is. I wouldn’t contemplate an old pair unless the panels have been replaced or the price of replacement is taken into account. The old chestnut about discrepancy between bass and panel is a bit of a myth in my experience, and once one hears that it can be a problem one goes looking for it. On a reflective floor they can be a problem but on carpet they are fine. Like so many speaker designs they rely on the fact that we have relatively poor vertical positioning skill due to our ears being on the side of our head, rather than top and bottom.

As for sound, once a panel has been tried it is difficult going back to a conventional box. The conventional box might be best for monitoring but to my way of listening, panels and omnis give a much better realistic illusion of the original performance. I think this is down to the way they react with the room. This, of course, can be a major disadvantage in that if they are not positioned right in the room they will disappoint. Logan’s are much fussier about positioning than Quads and I found Logans only really suitable for a solo listener. Off axis they can be quite disappointing.

Logans have much more robust panel diaphragms than Quads but are more exposed. Expect somewhere between ten and twenty years but so much depends on use and whether there is any atmospheric pollution. Quads can be a bit of a lottery but buy new and treat with great care and they can last a decent time. In terms of sound quality a new pair of Quads can better other speakers three times the price, so a bit of a bargain if something that expensive can be called that!

I think the sound quality and illusion of having real musicians playing in front of you makes them very much worth the effort to get them right, but they aren’t a bung ‘em in and listen option. One last thing; they are a type of speaker that needs to trialed in your room and with enough time to try out various positioning.

 

[NickofWimbledon]

I’ve had three pairs of Logans and very good they were, and one pair still is. I wouldn’t contemplate an old pair unless the panels have been replaced or the price of replacement is taken into account. The old chestnut about discrepancy between bass and panel is a bit of a myth in my experience, and once one hears that it can be a problem one goes looking for it. On a reflective floor they can be a problem but on carpet they are fine. Like so many speaker designs they rely on the fact that we have relatively poor vertical positioning skill due to our ears being on the side of our head, rather than top and bottom.

As for sound, once a panel has been tried it is difficult going back to a conventional box. The conventional box might be best for monitoring but to my way of listening, panels and omnis give a much better realistic illusion of the original performance. I think this is down to the way they react with the room. This, of course, can be a major disadvantage in that if they are not positioned right in the room they will disappoint. Logan’s are much fussier about positioning than Quads and I found Logans only really suitable for a solo listener. Off axis they can be quite disappointing.

Logans have much more robust panel diaphragms than Quads but are more exposed. Expect somewhere between ten and twenty years but so much depends on use and whether there is any atmospheric pollution. Quads can be a bit of a lottery but buy new and treat with great care and they can last a decent time. In terms of sound quality a new pair of Quads can better other speakers three times the price, so a bit of a bargain if something that expensive can be called that!

I think the sound quality and illusion of having real musicians playing in front of you makes them very much worth the effort to get them right, but they aren’t a bung ‘em in and listen option. One last thing; they are a type of speaker that needs to trialed in your room and with enough time to try out various positioning.

Great description - thanks.

I always thought that Quads had a magic head position - get it right and the holographic realism and air makes you forgive any shortcoming, but sit on overly tall chair or slouch too much o sit a bit too far to the left on the sofa and it is gone. Do you reckon that modern MLs are even more extreme than Quads?

 

[booja30]

Great description - thanks.

I always thought that Quads had a magic head position - get it right and the holographic realism and air makes you forgive any shortcoming, but sit on overly tall chair or slouch too much o sit a bit too far to the left on the sofa and it is gone. Do you reckon that modern MLs are even more extreme than Quads?

My guess would be MLs are more forgiving for horizontal listener position because the panels are curved like a strip of a vertical cylinder. Aren’t Quads (at least the old ones) curved like a horizontal cylinder, with a narrower dispersion?

 

[camverton]

Great description - thanks.

I always thought that Quads had a magic head position - get it right and the holographic realism and air makes you forgive any shortcoming, but sit on overly tall chair or slouch too much o sit a bit too far to the left on the sofa and it is gone. Do you reckon that modern MLs are even more extreme than Quads?

Certainly true of the Quad 57s but much less so for the 63s and later. I found that holographic realism more convincing with Martin Logans than Quad 63s but I had to be in just the right position.

I’ve since moved on to MBL and German Physiks omnis and find that holographic imaging more convincing by virtue of the performer sounding more three dimensional. My Quad 2812s sound slightly two dimensional in comparison. Moral of the story is don’t listen to MBLs as they will make you intolerant of dipole panels and don’t listen to dipole panels as they will make you intolerant of boxes and particularly cardioid speakers, excellent as they can be for monitoring the recording. At least that’s what happened to me to the extent that I now have both Quad and Logans banished to a corner and being very quiet!

 

[camverton]

My guess would be MLs are more forgiving for horizontal listener position because the panels are curved like a strip of a vertical cylinder. Aren’t Quads (at least the old ones) curved like a horizontal cylinder, with a narrower dispersion?

The Quad 63s are designed to replicate a point source so are much more forgiving of horizontal position than the older Quad 57. The curved panel of Logans never seemed to help with widening the listening position to my ears. As the objectivist types will doubtless tell you, Martin Logan’s frequency response is all over the place off axis which clearly matters to a theorist but not to a solo listener who becomes entranced by the music that pours forth.

 

[hifinutt]

Yes my impulse taus (rfc) were every bit as holographic as the martin logan summit x but they didnt make your chest shake like the logans . Oh my when my son was young he turned up those knobs on the back and shook the room big time ....

 

[marshanp]

My Duevel Venus omnis give a very satisfying/convincing window at the far side of the room into the recorded acoustic at half the price of German Physik or MBL speakers (which I ought to hear, but dare not!). The "window" is somehow bigger than the room allows - but I wouldn't characterise it as "holographic", which is a presentation I don't get on with.

This may or may not be what you are after, depending on your taste in music. For mine (mainly classical) it just works, and is the only way of getting a reasonable facsimile of an orchestra into a living room. If you share my objective, once heard there is no way back from omnis.

 

[Paul_Riordan]

I used to have a pair of SL3s which I think were a great pair of speakers. I never had an issue with integration between the panel and the woofer. I used Chord SPM800 and Theta Dreadnought amps and they worked very well with both. When I installed the speakers the dealer was horrified when he saw the room and didn't think they would work but they did (different surfaces behind each speaker). ML speakers are on my list of speakers to have a listen to again at some point.... For the time being I am sticking with the Active ATCs....

 

[TimF]

I tended to like the original ML CLS better than most of their speakers since. They just seemed more coherent across the frequency band. Of course the bass end suffered a bit, but what was there was quite good. When the CLS varieties were eventually replaced with the CLX, it became an all together other beast, much more expensive, and quite frankly I was very underwhelmed with them on a few listens. Of course it could have been the giant stack of Mc-in-toss gear providing the pre-power, not sure.

While I have always enjoyed panel speakers, the ones I owned were Maggies and not electrostats, I have been very much into the omni scene now far too long to go back to panels or boxes. I can enjoy them all to some extent, but omnis just do it for me these days.

 

[camverton]

My Duevel Venus omnis give a very satisfying/convincing window at the far side of the room into the recorded acoustic at half the price of German Physik or MBL speakers (which I ought to hear, but dare not!). The "window" is somehow bigger than the room allows - but I wouldn't characterise it as "holographic", which is a presentation I don't get on with.

This may or may not be what you are after, depending on your taste in music. For mine (mainly classical) it just works, and is the only way of getting a reasonable facsimile of an orchestra into a living room. If you share my objective, once heard there is no way back from omnis.

The Duevels were the speaker I should have heard before I bought German Physiks, but middle of covid and a chance to hear German Physiks at home sealed the deal.
I wonder if we are thinking of different things when we use the word holographic? I tend to think of a 3D illusion of a performer rather than a hyper focussed imaging which may be more a hifi aim than a represent the original performance sort of thing.

 

[TimF]

Nothing at all wrong with German Physiks, if my budget had been greater at the time, I would have surely given them a checkout. I like the DDD concept, as I have been a huge fan of the original Ohm Walsh A and F speakers. The Walsh driver was quite a feat, especially considering when that concept was brought to market. The DDD furthers the bending wave technology.

I am quite happy with my Duevel Venus, although the Bella Luna tempts me. Well, back to ML’s, don’t mean to sidetrack the thread here.

 

[marshanp]

...I wonder if we are thinking of different things when we use the word holographic? I tend to think of a 3D illusion of a performer rather than a hyper focussed imaging which may be more a hifi aim than a represent the original performance sort of thing.

"Holographic" to me describes a visual image which depends upon precise positioning and sharp edges. Live acoustic music, heard from a concert hall distance with closed eyes, does not have either of those characteristics. Where domestic sound reproduction is concerned, 3D illusion, maybe... etched aural image, no thanks...

 

[camverton]

"Holographic" to me describes a visual image which depends upon precise positioning and sharp edges. Live acoustic music, heard from a concert hall distance with closed eyes, does not have either of those characteristics. Where domestic sound reproduction is concerned, 3D illusion, maybe... etched aural image, no thanks...

Thanks, I thought we were at cross purposes. Whilst I like to hear where each of the members of, say a string quartet, are sitting I don’t want an etched, artificial sharpening of the aural image. I did experiment with this a month or so back by having dirac back in the system. It “sharpened’ up the image and whilst it made the positioning of instrumentalists clearer, and was admittedly impressive, it was only a couple of weeks before that paled and I returned to the more natural presentation without dirac. This may be down to the type of music I listen to which is acoustic music of the sort which would normally be played in a concert hall or large room. For my occasional forays into the world of Yello and the like, on the other hand, that hyper hifi imagery strikes me as just the ticket. As ever horses for courses but I get the feeling we are in agreement about the sound if not the way to describe it!