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!
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?