Just purchased Maggie 3.6 about one month ago, still breaking them in. Both are about as good as you can get at this price range and both can be difficult to drive. I have listened to most of the Martin Logans near this price range and I don't get the same seamless sound stage and smoothness that I hear from the Maggies. Though absolute clarity might go to the ML and probably lower, tighter bass as well. Again, the integration is different. Doubt you would go wrong with either. P.S. my maggies took six weeks to back order and it takes six weeks to break in. You may not want to wait that long. Thanks, Rich M. email@example.com
I use martin-logan for 5year... Magnepan makes sound clear and soft. but I.M.O it doesn't make sound clear as martin. If you have a large room .martin-logan is best choise
I suggest you listen to Audiostatic. It's a dutch brand that has been making superb electrostatic speakers since 25 years. My personal experience is that for the money you can't find a better electrostatic speaker, really much better than Martin Logan, or magnetostatic speakers. The DCI 2 and DCI 4 are recommended! From the Netherlands: Dirk
Hello, I was trying to get any information anyone would have on the Maggie 1.4. How do these compare to the new 1.6 QR? Any historial information would also be appreciated. Thanks,
As is the case with most speaker descisions I think it is one of trade offs...I think the martin logans are definitely more transparent/airy but I think the maggies are more better integrated in terms of their bass midrange and high frequency sections ...I also think the magnapans create a larger sound stage ...as others have said ...can't go wrong with either...Kimbo
HI, I have a good amount of experience with maggies smgb's and 3.3r's, I will tell you this: you must have a powerful amp with excellent current capability, and they pretty much have to be at least 8ft off the back walls to throw thier best sound stage, so there is a serious wife factor involved. Now if you can meet those two goals, the maggies are mind blowing speakers.
I used to own the Magnepan SMGa. I sold them to try something new. In a way I still regret this. Nothing sounds quite as magical as they did: clear, beautiful midrange, quite a decent bass, beguiling. Great for voice, jazz, and chamber music.
I owned Maggie 2.5Rs, then moved to ML QuestZs (now up for sale at $2,000), now Maggie MG20s. Having lived with both brands, Maggies are more musical by far (and throw a bigger sound stage). MLs were more efficient and dynamic, more detailed, and very forward (should be superior eh?!). I first loved the MLs focusing on the detail, but in time, Maggies are livable, loveable, and musical. Maggies are by far a much more beatiful speaker. A bitch to set up though.
The other responses I read are interesting. I own both Martin Logan CLS2Z's and Magneplanar Tympani's. I switch them from time to time. The ML are definitely more "you are in the performance". The Maggies are more integrated, the bass is awesome. The ML bass needs to be augmented. I use a Genesis sub. The Maggies Have a region in the voice range where they can be harsh. The ML don't have this problem, and above about 70-80 hz they are more integrated. Both benefit from being set up with attention to distance from the listener. The closer they are to being the exact same distance from the listener the more they will reward you. If you like your Music loud the Maggies are it. The Maggies need a lot of breathing room, more than the ML's. However, both need at least 3-4 ft from back wall or side wall or you won't want to listen to them. The maggies also have a more head in the vise effect than do the ML's. The ML's imaging is more realistic than the Maggies and deeper. The maggies required less power than did the ML's. The conclusion try both in your room. I like both. The CLS's do not sound like Sequels. They are far more integrated and weaker in the percieved bass. They are very different but most of their virtues and strengths are similar but they sound different.
Congratulations, Jack, you are barking up the right tree. You might want to add Quad USA Monitors and Sound Labs to your list - they offer different, legitimate sets of tradeoffs and outstanding sound. If I was buying used, I'd be careful about buying Martins. Think about the forces acting on that curved diaphragm at it's moving. It gets stretched as it moves out, and compressed as it moves in. Too much loud music, for too long, and you need a new diaphragm. Martin diaphragms are easy to replace because there's a need for it. Sound Labs use a segmented curve that gives wider dispersion than the Martins, and (among other things) allows the use of a much thinner, lighter diaphragm. Maggies are very well executed and voiced, but IMHO ribbons don't have the resolving potential full range electrostatics do. That large, low-pressure radiating area gives a "through an open window" effect ribbons can't really emulate (nor anything else, for that matter). Martins, Sound Labs and Quads use various techniques to get better high frequency dispersion than traditional flat panel electrostats, and so are the best of the breed.
Jack. I look at this site often and I find it amazing when people ask "which is better". It's like asking "Which is better Hanes or Fruit of the Loom". Its all a matter of fit and your ear.Have you ever walked into a Hi Fi store and someone is listening to a set of speakers that they just think are the best thing since sliced bread but that you would only play in your garage. I have listened to almost the whole line in the speaker that you are asking about. My advise is to find a GOOD dealer,one that will hopefully let you take them home and try them. Speakers always sound different at home. A/B the 2 brands and then decide by what you like. You might want to get advise from a good dealer as far as associated equipment! Good Luck!
Both good. I think MLs are harder to match with amps. I've heard many ML setups which were too bright, or thin because of the amps not the speakers. Done properly they can't be beat for transparency and clarity with full bodied warmth. But the Maggies integrate a little better at the low end because most MLs have cone woofers.
Oops. I noticed that you were talking about CLS. No woofer. Ok, it really needs bass. But even more transparent.
Re; Dannylw's comment about Maggies being harsh in some voice ranges---I have Maggie 3.5's and have noticed what can best be described as sounding like a scratchy voice coil in a dynamic speaker, on massed male vpoices, and on some high volume massed violins. Almost as if the ribbons are breaking up. This is the same with both speakers, with two different amps (Krell and C-J), and two different CD players (Rotel and Wadia 830). Anyone else notice anything similar? It's about to drive me nuts! JimP
I own the Maggie 3.5r and am very pleased with the soundstage and open highend. The trade off is juggling the placement to maximize bass response. Watch the ML for impedance! They can draw down an amp to just a few ohms.
I disagree with above comments from a few weeks ago regarding the treble range reproduction of an esl panel when compared to a pure ribbon. No esl panel can hope to have the transient response of a pure ribbon. It is evident in the listening, as well as the measuring. An esl panel, by it's very nature, has a VERY strong force (through high voltage static electricity) that is applied to the panel to get it STARTED moving. But, to STOP it moving (or rather to "damp" it's motion), the panel is almost free to rattle around within it's small excursion limit (and weak surface rigitity/damping capability of surface resonances of the mylar). THIS TRANSLATES TO: the esl having a near perfect RISE time, BUT A VERY SLOW AND SMEARED DECAY TIME, about equal to that of a small/rigid/lightweight cone speaker with a very powerful motor. The result is that no esl has accurate high frequency performance AT MODERATE OR HIGH LISTENING LEVELS, at least I think so. NO DRIVER CAN FOLLOW A HIGH FREQUENCY WAVEFORM'S TRANSIENT BEHAVIOR BETTER THAN A PURE RIBBON. DYNAMIC behavior is ANOTHER story, though. I feel that the best soft dome tweeters actually reproduce the envelope of dynamic range in the treble BETTER than esl's, or ribbons (even with their larger emissive surface area). Anyway, you can never have it all in one package (you can fool yourself into thinking you do, but that's YOUR problem). THAT'S WHY I HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF SPEAKERS THAT I ENJOY. They all have a truth to tell. That said, a design which can utilize more than one of the best quality dome tweeters in parallel seems like the best compromise, except in the EXTREME nearfield.
I noticed the same apparent 'smudging' in a narrow band of the midrange on my 3.5s and later, a pair 20Rs, and with both Bryston and Krell amps. This phenomonon disapeared entirely when I went to a Pass X350. Possibly the best amp for this type of loudspeaker.
I had the big maggies, and switched to the ML Monoliths. They are a little bright depending on the choice of cables and or amp. Overall I prefer the soundstage and imaging on the ML's compared to the maggies. I do agree with the comments above. They are both great sounding speakers, it's just personal preference.
I own the ML ReQuest's and if you like crystal clear vocals, transparency and enough punch to serve as home theater speakers, they are,in my opinion, among the best speakers regardless of price. I compared them to the CLS-2's and the Monolith's and found them to be much more powerful than the cls-2's and more coherent than the (more expensive) monolith's. The maggie's are certainly good speakers, but don't have the alround capabilites of the Ml's (listen to some organ music and you'll know what I mean).
Unless, of course, you augment with a stellar subwoofer. I do enjoy organ music, especially RR "Pomp and Pipes".
This one is for Carl. In your responce you mentioned a stellar subwoofer to mate with the Maggies. I have Maggie 1.6's and I been reading good things about the REL Strata 3's. Any thoughts? Hey by the way. Sorry to hear about your post in the Home Theater section. WOW !!!