Thiel CS 1.5 vs Small Martin Logan?

I've never tried ML speakers and I'm curious about the smaller models, like Aerius-i. My listening room isn't big and unfortunately I cannot move the speakers more than 3-feet from the back wall or 1.5-feet from the left wall. I like my Thiel CS 1.5's that I've owned for 7 years and they are a good match for my 70w/ch tube amp.

1) In general how do the smaller ML speakers sound compared to the small Thiel CS 1.5's? I ask this question with the assumption that both speakers are being driven by a hefty solid-state amp and not starved for power. How's the ML bass since the panel is integrated with a powered sub-woofer, right? Is ML room placement super critical?

2) I know that my Thiel CS 1.5's sound surprisingly good with my modest 70w/ch tube amp. Thiels are supposedly current hungry speakers but the small 1.5's aren't that difficult. The bass is decent but not huge. Will the smaller ML's sound decent with a modest amount of tube power?
Abe, I also answered your post about digital IC's, and I think we might have some similar system preferences - I run my Thiel 2.2's with a c-j MV-55, and I believe you use a Premier 11a, if I rememeber correctly from your past postings. I have heard the Aerius and did not think it superior overall, though I do like panels. Room placement is far more critical with a dipole radiator, and in general, I'm not sure that "small" panels are really a good idea, since dipoles work best in larger rooms where they can be placed away from reflective walls. I'm basically happy with my 2.2's, and they do offer more bass and a better tweeter within a 3-way design than do the 2-way 1.5's. In my apartment-size room I've had no problem driving this larger Thiel with my smaller c-j amp, so you might give these a try if you like the Thiel sound. M-L has introduced a new replacement for the Aerius recently, which I haven't heard. If and when I find myself in a bigger space, I may well try a large panel speaker, as I love the image that can be reproduced, but for now, a quality conventional box speaker is easier to live with and get good sound from.
Hello Zaikesman, we do have similar preferences and I appreciate your input. If I'm not mistaken, the Thiel 2 2's were the model up from the 1.5's before they came out with the 2.3's. I've also read that the 2 2's have a more robust sound but the 1.5's may have more detail. I love that detail but I'm looking for something that fills the room a little louder w/o sounding strained. The 1.5's play somewhat loud but they never really envelop the room unless I crank it up some. I never thought of trying a larger set of Thiel speakers thinking that the 1.5's would be the largest in the Thiel line that can be driven adequately by modest tube power. Maybe I should give the 2 2's a try someday. I know they're outstanding speakers and available used at a reasonable price.
If you like the Thiel speakers, you probably won't like Martin Logan speakers. They are about as far apart as Krell amps are to VACs.
Hi Abe, I've never been able to compare the Thiel's to the ML, but I own both the SL3's and the CLS. I think that you will find that the ML are rather placement sensitive. small changes can make large performance differances. I find 4 feet out from the back wall to work well in my room. although I have not tried tube amps with them, I understand they love tube amps. most of the newer ML models are fairly efficient and should do well with modest tube power. keep in mind that most ML speakers are 4 ohms and at times go down to 2 ohms. many amps, both tube and SS aren't happy doing so. another note is that ML have what I would consider to be seperate woofers not sub-woofers. their smaller models are reasonably flat down to about 35Hz. hope this helps. Paul