Why does Stereophile not recommend a single Martin Logan speaker?

[Bernard]

Remember a lot of people have different frequency response curves for their own ears too!

This is very true, but is something we tend to forget.

 

[aliveatfive]

This identical thread has run its course at least 3 times in the past year. The reason Stereophile has not reviewed ML prducts (to quote several previous posts of mine): Several years ago, S'phile ran a review of a lower range ML loudspeaker. They gave it a "so-so" review. ML's response was quite critical of the review procedure. Since then, ML will not provide S'phile with any speakers for review. I suppose, in retaliation, S'phile will not seek out any ML product that they have to procure in any other way.

 

[tonepub]

I can really see John Atkinsons perspective though.

I always look at the MartinLogan vs. Magnepan thing as a BMW vs. Lexus thing in the sense that if you listen to both speakers, you will probably respond more strongly to one than the other.

I had to sit and listen to Wendell from Magnepan give a lecture about their new speakers and have him tell the audience that "their speaker did a much better job with bass than something like a MartinLogan Summit, which had terrible bass integration..."

The funny thing was he had no idea who I was and I could see about six of our readers with a smile on their faces. After the "lecture" was over, he asked me what I thought of the demo and what kind of speakers I owned.

I said "I've got a pair of those ****** MartinLogan Summits you just spent the last hour bagging on..." And the room got pretty tense.

But in all seriousness, I have owned and listened to a lot of Magnepans and they do some things very well. Our reviewer in Seattle has 3.6s and his system sounds great, but it still does not engage me in the way that the ML's do.

So, if JA is a Magnepan fan, he's probably never going to give ML a glowing review. I'm sure it's the same reason Magnepan won't give us their speakers for review....

(Though I'd give em to Randy in Seattle, because he's got the experience there.)

Again, best to stick with what you love.

 

[Tj Bassi]

They do cover a lot of affordable stuff too, ya know! But you know, someone has to cover the exotic stuff. I get really board reading about yet another $599 receiver, or "we name the best $299 CD player". Let the other mags cover that crap for their readers. Even though I could never afford it, I like reading about multi-kilo-buck state of the art gear.

We might as well criticise car mags for reviewing 200+MPH super cars instead of sticking to Honda Civics and Ford Focuses!

You missed my point. As a long-time reader of TAS I've yet to read a review of a megabuck item which garnered a less than stellar review....the more expensive it is, the more RH uncontrollably drools on the printed page.

I'm all for reading about 200+MPH super cars, but only as long as the reviewer bases his conclusion on something besides ultimate price alone.

T-

 

[RichTeer]

You missed my point. As a long-time reader of TAS I've yet to read a review of a megabuck item which garnered a less than stellar review....the more expensive it is, the more RH uncontrollably drools on the printed page.

Ah, I see what you mean now--thanks for the clarification.

I agree that there is a bit of what you say in the pages of TAS, but IIRC that was addressed by RH in a response to letter (or something). I think the gist was that they didn't want to use up valuable pages for negative reviews and that readers are more interested in products that sound good.

I agree with that to some extent, but I also agree with you from the point of view that sometimes it is nice to see a negative review. Yes I want to know what sounds good, but I also want to know what sounds bad (so that I can avoid it!).

 

[FISH_MAN]

who cares

these reviewers opinions meen nothing. I would rather are speakers live in the land obscurity.

 

[User211]

This identical thread has run its course at least 3 times in the past year. The reason Stereophile has not reviewed ML prducts (to quote several previous posts of mine): Several years ago, S'phile ran a review of a lower range ML loudspeaker. They gave it a "so-so" review. ML's response was quite critical of the review procedure. Since then, ML will not provide S'phile with any speakers for review. I suppose, in retaliation, S'phile will not seek out any ML product that they have to procure in any other way.

Opps... missed them all - sorry to start it off again, though it is obviously a bit of a sore point, hence the response so far! So what I hinted at, but didn't quite say, has happened between ML and Sterophile, then? What is your source i.e. how are you sure it is true?

Repetition in forums is always a problem - it probably a reason long time member's get bored, I expect. "Seen it all before" type of thing.

Anyway, Ken Kessler of Hi-FI News in the UK gave the Summit a great review, and, very unusually, kept mentioning them in subsequent issues, and recommended them in the reader's questions etc...

In general, MLs are well received over here, even at the price premium we must pay... a testiment to how good they are, I think. But then so are the Quads. No disputes going on hear, as far as I am aware. KK evidently loves both.

Let me state that in my opinion, the 2905 doesn't even get close to the CLX in perceived performance terms. But then it is much cheaper. And again, I'd take the Summit over 2905s, simply because it can rock, and is much higher in perceived resolution. This goes back to the fact that the Quad talks to it's audience via two obstructions (dust AND speakers front cloths)... and I can hear that is blatantly so. The SME owner, now deceased, used to strip the grills off Quads and mount them in heavy duty frames. Amazing, apparently. I can well believe it.

 

[Bernard]

The SME owner, now deceased, used to strip the grills off Quads and mount them in heavy duty frames. Amazing, apparently. I can well believe it.

Isn't the 2905's frame structure based upon a modification Alastair Robertson-Aikman made to a previous Quad?

 

[aliveatfive]

Opps... missed them all - sorry to start it off again, though it is obviously a bit of a sore point, hence the response so far! So what I hinted at, but didn't quite say, has happened between ML and Sterophile, then? What is your source i.e. how are you sure it is true?

Repetition in forums is always a problem - it probably a reason long time member's get bored, I expect. "Seen it all before" type of thing.

Anyway, Ken Kessler of Hi-FI News in the UK gave the Summit a great review, and, very unusually, kept mentioning them in subsequent issues, and recommended them in the reader's questions etc...

In general, MLs are well received over here, even at the price premium we must pay... a testiment to how good they are, I think. But then so are the Quads. No disputes going on hear, as far as I am aware. KK evidently loves both.

Let me state that in my opinion, the 2905 doesn't even get close to the CLX in perceived performance terms. But then it is much cheaper. And again, I'd take the Summit over 2905s, simply because it can rock, and is much higher in perceived resolution. This goes back to the fact that the Quad talks to it's audience via two obstructions (dust AND speakers front cloths)... and I can hear that is blatantly so. The SME owner, now deceased, used to strip the grills off Quads and mount them in heavy duty frames. Amazing, apparently. I can well believe it.

Saw a short paragraph in S'phile a while back which stated they could not obtain ML product for review.

 

[sleepysurf]

This would be a great question to ask Devin Zell (or one of the other top ML sales/marketing folks), though I doubt they'd give us a straight answer! I also vaguely recall they weren't happy with an old S'phile ML review. I suspect it boils down to the same reason they don't participate in high-end audio shows... they don't need to, and/or they feel the risk outweighs the potential benefit. I just hope they can continue manufacturing most of their ESL line domestically, without having to outsource everything to Asia. Current economic conditions are certainly not favorable.

 

[wings]

Summit vs Quad

My take on both since I've owned the Summits and Quad's new 2805 speakers.
My new Summits were delivered with a mdf defect in the wood on the bass unit, it took a month to get another pair out to me. I let them break in while I was at work and listened at times during this period. There was one time where that notorious ML glare came around, but luckily it soon went away and I never heard it again. The new pair showed up and they took the original pair away.
I sold the new pair locally unopened, I just could not get involved in the music with the Summits.
I purchased the 2805 Quads, but I could not get them to work on the same wall where I had all my other speakers
and to make matters worse, they didn't like my system preamp or amp! They sounded much better with a passive pre and tube amps ( I was using a tube pre and SS amp).
I remember one time when the 2805's were breaking in, I was coming downstairs and heard what sounded like live music, I walked into the living room and listened...I was involved this time.
But...I end up selling the Quads too! Why you ask...the wife! I had to put the 2805's on the long side of the wall
and they were out ~3 feet or so and I was sitting near field.
My wife was giving my a hard time on the setup, I tried sliding the speakers back against the wall when I wasn't listening, but that gets to be a real pain fast and now I had double amps and preamps. When I sold the Quads the quy brought over his own little amp...wow, the bass was great!
The 2805's don't go down deep, but it's Tight, fast, no overhang. After hearing his amp I was really sorry to sell them, but I had commited already.
Now I have Adagios and the room is back to normal with a tube preamp and SS amp, sold the Tube amps and passive preamp. The system is very good at times, but I never get the feeling I hear live music as I use to...
Oh, by the way...the answer to your question (in the back of your mind)...it's was cheaper to sell the Quads vs a divorce!

 

[Jungle Jack]

This identical thread has run its course at least 3 times in the past year. The reason Stereophile has not reviewed ML prducts (to quote several previous posts of mine): Several years ago, S'phile ran a review of a lower range ML loudspeaker. They gave it a "so-so" review. ML's response was quite critical of the review procedure. Since then, ML will not provide S'phile with any speakers for review. I suppose, in retaliation, S'phile will not seek out any ML product that they have to procure in any other way.

Hello,
Exactly. I believe it was the Montage which they reviewed. http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/505ml/ Indeed, Martin Logan used be reviewed quite often in Stereophile. Hell, Sam Telig's gushing over the Aerius encouraged me to seek them out. And as alluded above, the Ascent was met with great acclaim.

I did not renew my subscription about two years ago. I still like the magazine. That being said, as Jeff pointed out, if their testing procedures are not as rigorous as they should be, they must be discounted. Seeing a terrible set of measurements can have a huge effect. I really like Robert Baird though.
Cheers,
ML

 

[tonepub]

these reviewers opinions meen nothing. I would rather are speakers live in the land obscurity.

So please explain what gives you such a unique perspective on high end audio?

 

[User211]

Isn't the 2905's frame structure based upon a modification Alastair Robertson-Aikman made to a previous Quad?

Nope - they copied C.A.P.s CLSs. More seriously, Alastair did try using 16 '63s at once. Hmmm

I wish I could find a photo of Alastair's set up on-line, but I couldn't. I can still see the old Hi-Fi News pic of it in my mind, so it's a bit frustrating not to be able to share it. If anyone finds a pic, please post it.

Just been reading a review of the Spire in Hi-Fi Choice's "The Collection" by Alvin Gold. He seems confused - he thinks it is a Summit replacement, but that kind of cancels out the Summit X, doesn't it? Anyway, they get a stonking review.

 

[attyonline]

So please explain what gives you such a unique perspective on high end audio?

Not to mention a unique way of expressing an opinion

 

[RichTeer]

Isn't the 2905's frame structure based upon a modification Alastair Robertson-Aikman made to a previous Quad?

Yep, although I'd say "inspired by" might be more accurate. The 2805 and 2905 frames were inspired ARA's modified ESL 63s.

 

[tonepub]

Nope - they copied C.A.P.s CLSs. More seriously, Alastair did try using 16 '63s at once. Hmmm

I wish I could find a photo of Alastair's set up on-line, but I couldn't. I can still see the old Hi-Fi News pic of it in my mind, so it's a bit frustrating not to be able to share it. If anyone finds a pic, please post it.

Just been reading a review of the Spire in Hi-Fi Choice's "The Collection" by Alvin Gold. He seems confused - he thinks it is a Summit replacement, but that kind of cancels out the Summit X, doesn't it? Anyway, they get a stonking review.

Is stonking good or bad? You guys have the best words over there!!!

 

[User211]

Is stonking good or bad? You guys have the best words over there!!!

Sorry - it means "really good".

 

[User211]

Yep, although I'd say "inspired by" might be more accurate. The 2805 and 2905 frames were inspired ARA's modified ESL 63s.

I think that is correct - in fact, "nothing like" may be closer to the truth. The aim was simply to make the frames a bit more rigid. Alastair's implementation was much more extreme and certainly not commercially viable.

 

[tonepub]

I like that one!

Because we work with so many British companies, my vocabulary is expanding. I particularly love the expression "going pear-shaped".

Which can be confusing living in the Pacific Northwest, where a lot of the women are actually pear-shaped!