Why does Stereophile not recommend a single Martin Logan speaker?

User211 · Sep 27, 2008

Got given Stereophile October 2008 at the London Hi-Fi show. I paid £10 entrance and got a bag with at least that value of magazines in it. Brilliant. Anyway, can't help but notice that in the list of recommended speakers, there is not one single ML. Any regular readers know why? Anyone care to comment? I seem to remember the Ascent used to be in it.

Have they given any poor or average reviews to ML products in the last few years? Are the staff noted for not liking ESLs? Enlighten me, please. I remember Sam Telig quotes being used by Quad - but IMO I think MLs blow the Quads away [edit: well, I prefer them, though I don't know the 2905 THAT well, I have heard it more than once]. So what is the problem? Are they deaf

?

Also, have they reviewed the CLX yet? If so, what did they say?

Diamonds · Sep 27, 2008

I know a few years back the Ascent I speakers were rated in their Class "A". I do not remember seeing a review since. Perhaps Martin Logan does not do enough advertising to warrant a review. I will also say if they review it they are going to love it. When was the last time you read a review in Stereophile or Absolute Sound that was glowing?

tonepub · Sep 27, 2008

Reviewers tend to go with what they know, what they like or what they are given....

Mikey has wilson one of the other guys has wilson, art dudley likes quad.

Mfrs tend to send their products to reviewers that understand and are enthusiastic about their product.

I love my ML's, but if I didn't like panels, I could easily write a very negative review about them... You either write about a products strengths or its weaknesses.

Also because John Atkinson likes to be the amateur audio engineer and measure things, if he incorrectly measures a product (as he has done many times in the past) and then says something like "Unfortunately the Martin Logan Summit has a strange resonance at 29hz, I can't enthusiastically suggest this speaker...."

Next day ten of ML's dealers cancel their order..

This has happened in the past with other products.

While I can't speak for ML, this may have something to do with it.

I do know one of the reasons that we have such a good relationship
with them, is because I've owned quite a few ML products and love the
current product.

tonepub · Sep 27, 2008

The quads do one thing really well, (killer midrange) and if that's what you dig, you are going to enjoy that speaker.

If you play your favorite female vocal piece that doesn't have much range on a pair of tube amplifiers with quads, you will be impressed.

Just don't play zeppelin on em...

C.A.P · Sep 27, 2008

Because Stereo phile is just that A PHILE of sh!t !
Adds pay salaries and wages !

User211 · Sep 27, 2008

C.A.P said:
Because Stereo phile is just that A PHILE of sh!t !
Adds pay salaries and wages !

Never one to mince with your words, C.A.P.

!

Len44 · Sep 27, 2008

tonepub said:
Reviewers tend to go with what they know, what they like or what they are given....

Great post...and very honest.

I really don't consider Stereophile OR Absolute Sound much of an arbiter regarding quality sound -- in spite of what they purport to represent. Not to pander, but sources such as TonePub are FAR more straightforward, clear, and honest regarding their equipment reviews than most of the other, more established sources.

roberto · Sep 27, 2008

Len44 said:
Great post...and very honest.

I really don't consider Stereophile OR Absolute Sound much of an arbiter regarding quality sound -- in spite of what they purport to represent. Not to pander, but sources such as TonePub are FAR more straightforward, clear, and honest regarding their equipment reviews than most of the other, more established sources.

Hola chicos, agreed 100% and also, their point of view and listening test, are just a guide. I do trust my ears! and their findings sometimes are not the same with similar systems...everything has to count, room acoustics and the size of the place. Systems in different rooms do sound different and not necessary as nice or good from one room to the other. So, saying what we have to listen in a such way or their findings could be different than yours. What I do, is enjoy very much what I have! and I do listen what I like most of my system, than trying to seek what I do not. If there is a very evident problem that you don't like, then fix it!...and truly enjoy your beloved music through ML, one of the cleanest speakers on Earth!...happy listening,
Roberto.

C.A.P · Sep 27, 2008

User211 said:
Never one to mince with your words, C.A.P.!

This is true in this case ! Why suger coat it ! Hi Fi is twice the audio publication ! Its a bit fair at least, and there are some talented reviewers. Tonepub is a great source too!

RichTeer · Sep 27, 2008

Diamonds said:
I know a few years back the Ascent I speakers were rated in their Class "A". I do not remember seeing a review since. Perhaps Martin Logan does not do enough advertising to warrant a review. I will also say if they review it they are going to love it. When was the last time you read a review in Stereophile or Absolute Sound that was glowing?

TAS recently reviewed the $2K ML Source; they were very glowing about it. One of their reviewers (Jon Valin) currently has the CLX in-house for review. He likes it a lot. Check out his comments in the CLX thread on avguide.com.

FISH_MAN · Sep 27, 2008

I personally hate speaker reviews

anybody that buys a speaker based on what paid reviewers have to say get what they deserve! if you cancel your order for a summit just because some reviewer thinks he found a resonance then you do not deserve to own such a fine instrument be it a store or private individual.

David Matz · Sep 27, 2008

tonepub said:
Reviewers tend to go with what they know, what they like or what they are given....

Mikey has wilson one of the other guys has wilson, art dudley likes quad.

Mfrs tend to send their products to reviewers that understand and are enthusiastic about their product.

I love my ML's, but if I didn't like panels, I could easily write a very negative review about them... You either write about a products strengths or its weaknesses.

Also because John Atkinson likes to be the amateur audio engineer and measure things, if he incorrectly measures a product (as he has done many times in the past) and then says something like "Unfortunately the Martin Logan Summit has a strange resonance at 29hz, I can't enthusiastically suggest this speaker...."

Next day ten of ML's dealers cancel their order..

This has happened in the past with other products.

While I can't speak for ML, this may have something to do with it.

I do know one of the reasons that we have such a good relationship
with them, is because I've owned quite a few ML products and love the
current product.

tonepub · Sep 27, 2008

I don't know if it's any big conspiracy or not, but people like what they like.

In the end, you do have to trust your ears, because that's all that matters.
Remember a lot of people have different frequency response curves for their own ears too!

What we hopefully can do for you is just point you in a direction. It still has to excite you to the point that you want to write a check.

User211 · Sep 27, 2008

One aspect I am thinking of is that we don't really know what is going on behind the scenes. It is possible that the press and some manufacturers will "fall out" with each other. For instance, a phone call might be all that it takes for that to happen. You gave my poduct "X" a mediocre review etc etc.

A while back, I remember someone saying that Stereophile never gives anything a bad review... and you can imagine conversations along the lines of "you can have a pair of our "Xs" for review, but if you don't like it, we don't want to see it being published, and if you do, we'll stop advertising".

I guess there is such a thing as hi-fi politics within the US audio scene. Though I'd expect people like Jeff to be able to confirm whether he thinks that is true - I am just guessing...

Anyway, Jeff, they are being very nice about your publication. But are you not subject to similar constraints? For instance, you are surely dependant on advertising revenue, and in all honesty, does that aspect influence you in anyway? Tough one to answer, maybe, but worth posing the question

Tj Bassi · Sep 27, 2008

Hopefully the CLX's will earn a respectable review in TAS. I like that mag, but unfortunately they seem to be biased towards the ultra-exotic or just plain eclectic.

Tj

SundayNiagara · Sep 27, 2008

tonepub said:
The quads do one thing really well, (killer midrange) and if that's what you dig, you are going to enjoy that speaker.

If you play your favorite female vocal piece that doesn't have much range on a pair of tube amplifiers with quads, you will be impressed.

Just don't play zeppelin on em...

Quads aren't made for 'Zep music!

RichTeer · Sep 27, 2008

User211 said:
One aspect I am thinking of is that we don't really know what is going on behind the scenes. It is possible that the press and some manufacturers will "fall out" with each other. For instance, a phone call might be all that it takes for that to happen. You gave my poduct "X" a mediocre review etc etc.

A while back, I remember someone saying that Stereophile never gives anything a bad review... and you can imagine conversations along the lines of "you can have a pair of our "Xs" for review, but if you don't like it, we don't want to see it being published, and if you do, we'll stop advertising".

TAS is as reliant on advertising as the rest of the mags, but I have seen the occasional bad review in there (bad in the "panning the product" sense!). I remember HP's response to a letter from an advertiser who was outraged at the negative review his product got. HP's response was basically "good riddance, we don't need your advertising money".

I don't think there's anything wrong with ads in mags per se, provided the ad revenue doesn't influence the reviewers' judgement.

RichTeer · Sep 27, 2008

Tj Bassi said:
Hopefully the CLX's will earn a respectable review in TAS. I like that mag, but unfortunately they seem to be biased towards the ultra-exotic or just plain eclectic.

Tj

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!

Steelhead · Sep 27, 2008

Stereophile reviews

My take on the reviewing of Martin-Logan is it seems hit or miss. I get the impression that because ML's are the most popular and sold electrostatic that they get the Rodney Dangerfield "no respect." Everyone appears sold on Quad and that's fine I suppose if that is your favorite, although, no reviewer other than Anthony Cordesman that I know of has compared Quad to ML.

Greenhill gave a very good review on the Prodigy, OK, how about a followup with the Summit for his take on it, good, bad, or indifferent? Let John Atkinson measure it and confirm the bass bump or his take on it. It's not going to happen now because it is discontinued. I am more upset that Anthony Cordesman didn't do the Summit review for the Absolute Sound. Here is a guy who had KLH 9's, reviewed Logans in Audio, reviewed the Prodigy in the Absolute Sound, and then when they get the Summit, another reviewer does a nice little few page puff piece on it. I would have much preferred AHC delving into it.

In the end you have to make your own decision but I do like to read the reviews simply from the fact of ALL of the different gear that reviewers use and most that I could never afford. I still really enjoy my ReQuests even with their warts that I could imagine where some folks might not like them at all. I am contemplating moving up to Summits and will have to let myself decide if it is worth the price difference, just the way it should be.

risabet · Sep 27, 2008

David Matz said:
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CDAVIDM%7E1%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> I’m with Jeff. They don’t like it. One of the guys, Greenhill, gave good reviews to the Prodigies, but nothing since then. Greenhill seems to like the "transparent" sounding speakers and also likes the Quads.

<o></o>In a recent review of the Esoteric Mg-20 speaker, J Atkinson dumps on the CLX:
<o></o>
“The MG-20s' ability to probe deeply into a recorded soundstage was unaccompanied by any spotlighting of the treble region. This was always something I had felt to be the Achilles' heel of the otherwise superbly transparent MartinLogan CLS electrostatic. In my November 1986 review of the CLS, I had described its reproduction of fine detail as being akin to "reading a book with fine print by the light of a 500W bulb. You are made aware of every detail, including the intricacies of the typeface and the texture of the paper, but you become a little fatigued. You become so aware of the 'how' that you lose interest in the 'why.'" My choice of words did not sit well with the speaker's designer, Gayle Sanders, but I never felt that succeeding iterations of the CLS managed to solve the problem they describe.
<o></o>
By contrast, the MG-20 seemed to achieve its transparency not by thrusting detail at the listener but by suppressing its own spuriae, which would otherwise obscure and confuse recorded information. Years ago, while listening to J. Gordon Holt's big Sound-Lab electrostatics, I understood why he loved the speakers, but always felt that the speaker was "noisy"—that the chaotic motion of its diaphragms reduced the dynamic range of music. The MG-20 was the opposite: there was a "quietness" to its presentation that let me hear more deeply than usual into the soundstage.”
<o></o>
Can a speaker be too transparent? Yes, if you got a ****** system and room, JA.<o></o>

I am regularly amazed by how personally members here take any perceived slight to the beloved ML brand, spout conspiracy theories left and right and generally act as sycophants for the boys from Kansas. I too love my MLs and would love to have a better pair, but to ascribe what JA wrote about the first iteration of the CLS's as a "dump on" is somewhat extreme IMO. The early CLS was by most accounts hyper-detailed and fatiguing. We sold Quads at that time and compared them directly to the CLS which was extremely detailed and somewhat fatiguing, a condition ameliorated by attaching them to some big CJ amps which of that vintage were anything but detailed and extended. The fact that Gayle didn't like it is of zero consequence and has nothting to do with the reasonable tone of JA's remarks.

The fact that Stereophile doesn't recommend any MLs does nothing to diminish my enjoyment of them and desire to own a "better" pair, nor does it indict Stereophile as a major conspirator in league with the advertisers IMO. One man's meat is another man's poison.

Why does Stereophile not recommend a single Martin Logan speaker?

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads