Not a M.L. fan. My initial thought would be to move the direction of the Quads.
16 responses Add your response
Franking, after auditioning the Quad 2812, I was quite taken by the speakers. I was ready to go with Quads. But reviews for ML masterpiece series are really positive. Decided to wait.
I do worry about QC issues with the newer Quads. I have read user reviews regarding the stability of the panels. I live in a part of the world where humidity is a real issue. I have been warned off electrostatics by friends. However, from what I have read, both brands recognize and acknowledge the humidity problem. And apparently both panels are less susceptible to humidity degradations. Still I have read problems....
I have no experience with the Quads. I do own a pair of the ML 11A’s and love them. They are fast transparent and airy. They deliver awesome highs without being fatiguing. The mids are full and warm and do not get cluttered. The bass is fast and rich.
There is a big difference between the masterpiece series and the rest of the Martin Logan line up. I suggest taking a listen to the 11A’s and see for your self.
I would consider room geometry and how much fiddling you want to contend with to set them up properly. I have heard, but not owned, Quads. I currently have M-L Summit X's, having owned the M-L Odyssey's and Magneplanars in the past.
I'm well satisfied with the bass especially on the newer M-L's that include DSP. With my "older" Summit X's without DSP, the bass integrates well with 95% of the material I play. With Quads, you might end up adding subwoofers to augment the last octave.
The ESL 11a's are very similar in sound to the Summit X's to my ears. I've found with M-L designs that the lower midrange and midbass tends to get richer and fuller as the panels get wider (i.e. ESL 13, 15, and CLX). Of course, the price also goes up.
I think the main thing to consider is that the ML's behave as a line source due to the geometry of the stators. With M-L's, at least in "normal" sized rooms, you will need extensive diffusion treatment on the rear wall behind the speakers to mitigate comb filtering effects that can cause VERY annoying peaks in response in the upper midrange / lower highs. They also like to be a fair distance from the side walls, as well. Upper frequency response is fairly sensitive to toe-in (mine are pointed straight ahead) and rake angle (adjustable with the supplied footers). They require time and patience to optimize.
I auditioned the ML 11a yesterday. The speakers were not optimized in their placement and the source was a smart phone streaming through Tidal, although with Anthem electronics. Given less than optimal conditions, and no more than 40 minutes of listening, I came away impressed. Listened to Heifetz's rendition of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto, Miles' Kind of Blue, and Krall + Bennett.
To My ears @josh358 , they were anything but bright although compared to the Quad 2812 I heard a month back, they were on the cool side. The sound was very coherent, bass and upper ranges were coming from one place. The soundstage was not as wide as I had expected, as well something weird with imaging. I kind of put those down as not properly set up. The sense of ease with which the music flowed was very nice. I am leaning towards the ML.
With the post by @hthaller pointing out the issue of room size/configuration, it would be prudent to consider the fit of the two speakers with my room. I have a 3.2 x 9 M room. With the Quads at almost 70 cm wide, I'll be left with 1.8 M between the inner edges of the speakers if they were to be pushed to the edge of the room. While distance between the rear wall is more critical, I wonder if the Quads might not be squeezed, hence poor soundstaging. With the smaller foot print of the ML's, perhaps it's a better fit. And after reading @hthaller 's post, I wonder if maybe ML 9a, the smaller brother of 11a, might not be an even better fit? Cheaper, too.
I would arrange another Quad audition before a final decision. May have more question for @hthaller if I were to go the ML route. But thank you for all your suggestions.
this is just my opinion. the one thing to remember is with the 9a the base speakers are passive meaning they will not be driven by their own amps. this translates to what amp are you using and will it have enough bottom end. I also have a small listening space and the 11a's fit well as can be expected. the speakers sit 4' from the side walls and the rear of the speakers are about 1.5' from the rear wall. The speakers were set up by the personnel that have been setting up sound systems from the store I bought them from. they took about 3 hours to get them placed.
Ledoux we sell neither of these loudspeakers
Used to own Quad ESL 63 so the newer versions are still very similar.
The Quads all suffer from rolled off extreme top end and the bass response isn't that clean, a bit wooly.
The ML are the better overall design, the curved panel helps create a more focused soundstage and the bass response is far better.
You may also want to check out the Mura SP1 at $15k these are the best panel hybrid speakes we have ever heard.
Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ
@pvmike, Thanks for sharing you speaker placement info. I would have thought that 4' and 1.5' from side and rear walls respectively were too close, not enough space to breathe. But if professionals set up the speakers in your room with those final placement dimensions, then maybe my room size is possible to accommodate the 11a's. I do expect a fair amount of work getting the speakers to sound good as @hthaller mentioned, even with the final ARC adjustments.
@audiotroy, thanks for your comments, I kind of understand your thoughts on the Quads. The rolled off highs and bass response were noticeable, although I wouln't call the bass 'wooly'.
It would seem that there are more nods to ML than Quads. I am definitely doing a second Quad audition just to make sure I agree.
Thanks so far to all your comments!
ML’s for me, I have the latest panel Monolith’s, and a friend has the Summits, they just do everything well, even hard rock.
They have a bigger sweet spot thanks to the curved panel.
More air around them the better, for sound staging, nothing in between them for as far back as you can get, this increases depth perception.
This setup is critical.:
From the central seated position in a darkened room, shine a torch from the top of your head at the panel, the reflection back should be half way up the esl panel and 1/3rd from the inner edge, for both speakers. Then prepare to be amazed, imaging even outside the speakers like you never thought possible.
@ mijostyn, I had done some research on Sound Lab. Given my situation with lower power tube amps, unavailibily of dealer support, and frankly, pricing that is out of my range, there is close to zero possibility of my owning a pair of Sound Lab speakers. I must confess a sense of envy when a recommendation for a pair of speaker would include, '.. You do not have to audition them..". They must be amazing! Alas, not for me.
Hi George, Thanks for the straight up recommendation. Monolith is one of the very early ML to come out. And it seems that are many loyal fans of the speakers with active crossover and the possibility of bi-amping.
One of my concerns is the maintenance of the Mylar panels. But it seems that committed users treat it precisely as a maintenance issue to be dealt with rather than a nuisance.