Martin Logan Quest Z Bass - can it be fixed ?

The Thiels are out. I really wanted a non-box speaker next anyways, but I know the guy, and the price is right I think. Still I want non-box. Not sure re the 1+1's. I don't know re the 3 series, I'm somewhat a newbie re non-box speakers, but I figure, the amount they sell for is proportional to what they;ll sound like. The same guy who has the 1+1's has 3.6R's too, but too much $ for me right now.

HI,
I'm going to quibble with your terminology. I have never found the Quest's bass to be "muddy" if I understand the term. I also have not found it to be weak. Less than a subwoofed system, yes. But about average for most floor standing systems.

But I do have problems with the bass. It has to do with the fact that the crossover frequency is 250 Hz. The panels work well down to this frequency and the woofer will easily go up to that frequency. So, in that sense 250 Hz is a good compromize. Rather, it is a speed problem where the two speakers are mismatched. This causes the crossover region to be audible. It drives me nuts. It would keep me from buying the Quest's.

BTW, I have CLS 2A's which are paired with the Kinergetics SW800 dual subwoofers. I do not have this problem. I love Martin Logan speakers but the hybreds continue to be flawed in the crossover region.

I do not believe the problem can be fixed without a complete redesign which is beyond the hobbyest. Subwoofers are definitely not the answer.

Sparky

Unsound, that's cute. If you read my post correctly rather than with the obvious intent of making a false smear against mine, you'd have read the items I promoted are in fact NOT for sale. My comments merely shined a positive light of possibilities for some unbiased person who came upon an otherwise negative thread.

And if it's an issue of credibility you which to raise, perhaps one might reflect a mirror on the credibility of one who suggests their holy grail to be found in a "one size fits all circumstances", for simple logic suggests since no two rooms are alike what type of credible logic would suggest to find their bliss in a system component or components that fits "everyone." How credible is that?

Mikey44, for my money I'd scratch the idea of investing money into a pair of Quest Z's, and instead go with a pair of Vista's, which one can find in the area of $2k, if it's an issue of attempting to meet a budget concern. Even Vantages which have recently sold at $2500 are a great buy. Unless the Quest Z has had a panel replacement, not likely, you're eventually looking at investing over $1200 for a new set of panels eventually. It makes better sense to me simply to invest the money and make it work for you by gaining access to the ML's newer stat technology thereby perhaps eliminating woofer/panel issues or concerns.

I found the clear spar panels of the newer logans to be a cut above the former generation speakers. Also the woofer and panels of the newer generation speakers blend much better than those of the previous designs. Having owned ML's for many years I found the newer designs actually sound much better, but I'm still content with the CLS' for they're the best of the lot, imho.

Coltrane, Well look who's calling the kettle black, perhaps you might remember your previous post here and before:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1291996908&openusid&zzColtrane1&4&5#Coltrane1
I offered a question, an answer to which might provide clarification, as one might have construed that one should act fast before you actually pull your ad.
Perhaps you should re-read my post too. I made no hard and fast recommendations, but your advice seemed to suggest that your recommendation, due to your experience was superior, despite your claims that you seem to prefer to listen at less than realistic levels and despite what appeared to be a technical compromise. It was you that started to step on other opinions in order to promote your own.
Perhaps we can start over in a more polite manner?