Martin Logan Versus Magnepan

How many people have compared the SL3 to the 3.6 or the 1.6 to the Aerius i? Which is the better panel speaker, and if Maggies don't have the curved panel, then how is the dispersion, and also they are much less sensitive then the logans, so how much power is enough for 3.6s?
Bigcigarman. At last, you've exposed yourself again. Please call me; you know the number. Pleeeeeeze.
I had the 1.6 and Aerius i to compare for about 4 days, I whent with the Aerius, but I also had speakers from that dealer that I could trade up and get credit from. If not for that advantage the maggies might have won.It really was a harder decision then I thought it would be considering the Logans where about a grand more.The maggies are astounding for the money. The dispersion was a little better with the Martin Logans, but both speakers really sound best in that one sweet spot.As far as driving them I was using a Sonagraph sa250 at the time (125) per side and neither seemed that difficult to drive. Currently have proceed so I am considering going over to the 3.6, or maybe mg20 if I can fit them in my room. The only other thing I can say is the Martin Logans look as good as the day i bought them, no cloth to sag or get pricked. IE. they are cat proof.
having tried all three my first choice would be the SL3but by a very small margin over the 1.6 if price were a consideration the 1.6 would win easily the aerius has no bass to speak of I thought and id also more expensive than the 1.6
I have owned the Magnaplanar 1.6 and currently own the 3.6R. I listened to the Aerius and SL3 last weekend at a local dealer. I believe the Magnepans provide a more coherent, seemless sound from highs to lows (perhaps the Martin Logan dynamic cone woofers don't blend very well with the electrostatic panels). I preferred the tight, well focused bass of the Magnepans, especially from the 3.6R's. I can't think of any aspect of the Martin Logan speakers I preferred to the Magnepans. The Magnepans sounded MUCH more like real live music when reproducing female vocals. I think you get much more for your money with Magnepans. I am driving the 3.6R's with an 80 watt per channel (into 8 ohms, 160 watts into 4 ohms) Linn Klout amp. It drives the 3.6R's to very loud levels in my 17 x 28 room. The 3.6R (and 1.6) do have a small sweet spot, but I listen alone, or with one other listener, most of the time, and it isn't a problem for me. The Martin Logans didn't provide as precise an image (again on female vocals) as the 3.6 or 1.6 did. The 3.6R ribbon tweeter is in a class by itself, and no other speaker, including Martin Logans, can reproduce high frequencies more muscially than the Magnaplanar ribbon. The ribbon has an effect on the initial transients of most instruments, even those one associates with the mid range, so the ribbon has a profound effect on music reproduced on the 3.6R. For the coherency of the sound and the extremely musical ribbon "driver" I recommend the Magneplanar 3.6R. The 1.6 is an incredible bargain, as well. Happy listening!
check out the newform research r645 or nhb645. see the comments on audioreview. i'm currently saving my $$$ for a pair... doug
For less than the price of either of these speakers new -- both evry nice speakers -- you can get mint condition used CLS2's or CLSz's and experience a full on electrostatic. Far better than either in terms of transparency and ability to resolve detail. Matched with a really fast sub woofer, like the Vandersteen, near perfect.
I havedone comparisons also and the 1.6's easily beat out the ML Aerius and possibly the ML SL3 also. The Maggies are more coherent and full bodied. I have also compared the Maggie 3.5R to the ML CLS2z and the ML Request still no match, the MLCLS2z needs a lot of power and the Requests donot have that top to bottom coherency you get with the Maggies.I bought the 3.5R Maggies and am very satisfied.
The Mags are more seemless than the ML's you speak of here but the ML CLZ's will convince you that ML is doing it better - the price is more but the pleasure is great and do not let anyone tell you they do not have bass they do and isit is clean not boomy or blaring. The real winner though are the Quads which can be gotten for the range of prices here.
i almost sprang for the m-l cls-llz's, but even m-l sez that 93db is the *max* spl ewe can get outta these - ok for some of the music i listen to, but not all. m-l sez this won't improve w/the addition of subs (which i *do* use). perhaps not as much of a concern in a smaller room, but my room is 25x38. i understand the quads have similar dynamic limitations. i am going to buy the either the nhb645's, the r645's, or i'm gonna experiment w/my own set-up of dynamic drivers on the bottom (accuton ceramic drivers) in lieu of newform's standard scan-speak mid-woofers. john meyer of newform is very helpful, i'm yust not sure which way to go, yet.
I'll make one observation, in response to the last part of your question. A friend of mine has the Maggie 3.5s, which he drives with a Classe 200. He was in love with everything about the speaker, except that it didn't have quite enough punch on kick drum and drum kits for his tastes, which run primarily to rock. I listened to his setup and could see what he was talking about, although it didn't bother me with classical music. In talking with another friend whose opinions I trust, he felt that you really need a lot of power and current to make these speakers sing. I've heard 3.6s with Bryston and Sonogy amps which sound very good, but you're talking well over 200 watts and a good deal of current. I'm curious if other people who own them have had this experience?
Geeez Dug, ewe are everywhere! The issue of limited db on the ML's is like the difference bewteen your Pantera and your GTV6. I admit that the CLS's won't pay as loud as some speakers or go as deep (but the bass is there -- just not as apparent as some speakers because it is so CLEAN and TIGHT)-- but that's not why you buy these speakers. Wanna rock? Get a set of the big NHT's for a second system ;) Short of elctrostatics costing several times more, either CLSII will deliver "the performer is in the room with you experience" better than any speaker at a similar price level. (But imho the non-z's do it better and are more demanding, as well.) That is, if they are properly set up and have the right amplification and other upstream components. Getting to this point isn't everybody's cup of tea. Kind of like Eye-talian cars. By the way, all three Alfa's are running great. I'm still slowly trying to find the right Pantera. Best, Jim (from Alfa Digest,obviously)
hey, mistalava, my gtwe6 will *eat* my pantera for lunch, in *all* areas, except mebbe a straight-line. 'course, the beast is virtually bone-stock, while the gtwe is *far* from stock. oops, better cut this out - i was flamed big-time for telling some guys on a car-stereo-thread to turn their damn radios off & yust *drive*! ;~) oh yeah - speakers - i have a pair of larger vmps subs, crossed over at 60hz - bass isn't a problem in my system. but, sometimes i like it *loud* - the cls' 93db max won't do it for me. check out the mewform research www, & the audioreview comments about 'em - it mite pique yer interest - really. now - get back to the a/d!!! :>) doug
does anybody know how the mg 20 sounds? enough bass? how big of an amp do you need?
Doug, my point exactly. I can live without the torque, if I have everything else. And, the CLS's and my GTV6 have that quality -- in spades. No more car references, (no matter how appropriate), before we have to put on our Nomex suits. I will check out the Newforms, as your advice has never been off the mark. Just what I need -- something else I'll want to spend money on.
I have a pair of Newforms - they are now in a music classroom where it does not matter what is coming out. They are not seemless at all and boomy bass galore. Save your time and energy not to mention money.
I prefer the 3.6´s over any of the Logans I´ve owned. (Sequel II, SL-3, reQuest)