Magnepan or Martin Logan


so which one is better CLS-2z or MG 3.6R anyone?
jack
Both good. I think MLs are harder to match with amps. I've heard many ML setups which were too bright, or thin because of the amps not the speakers. Done properly they can't be beat for transparency and clarity with full bodied warmth. But the Maggies integrate a little better at the low end because most MLs have cone woofers.
Oops. I noticed that you were talking about CLS. No woofer. Ok, it really needs bass. But even more transparent.
Re; Dannylw's comment about Maggies being harsh in some voice ranges---I have Maggie 3.5's and have noticed what can best be described as sounding like a scratchy voice coil in a dynamic speaker, on massed male vpoices, and on some high volume massed violins. Almost as if the ribbons are breaking up. This is the same with both speakers, with two different amps (Krell and C-J), and two different CD players (Rotel and Wadia 830). Anyone else notice anything similar? It's about to drive me nuts! JimP
I own the Maggie 3.5r and am very pleased with the soundstage and open highend. The trade off is juggling the placement to maximize bass response. Watch the ML for impedance! They can draw down an amp to just a few ohms.
I disagree with above comments from a few weeks ago regarding the treble range reproduction of an esl panel when compared to a pure ribbon. No esl panel can hope to have the transient response of a pure ribbon. It is evident in the listening, as well as the measuring. An esl panel, by it's very nature, has a VERY strong force (through high voltage static electricity) that is applied to the panel to get it STARTED moving. But, to STOP it moving (or rather to "damp" it's motion), the panel is almost free to rattle around within it's small excursion limit (and weak surface rigitity/damping capability of surface resonances of the mylar). THIS TRANSLATES TO: the esl having a near perfect RISE time, BUT A VERY SLOW AND SMEARED DECAY TIME, about equal to that of a small/rigid/lightweight cone speaker with a very powerful motor. The result is that no esl has accurate high frequency performance AT MODERATE OR HIGH LISTENING LEVELS, at least I think so. NO DRIVER CAN FOLLOW A HIGH FREQUENCY WAVEFORM'S TRANSIENT BEHAVIOR BETTER THAN A PURE RIBBON. DYNAMIC behavior is ANOTHER story, though. I feel that the best soft dome tweeters actually reproduce the envelope of dynamic range in the treble BETTER than esl's, or ribbons (even with their larger emissive surface area). Anyway, you can never have it all in one package (you can fool yourself into thinking you do, but that's YOUR problem). THAT'S WHY I HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF SPEAKERS THAT I ENJOY. They all have a truth to tell. That said, a design which can utilize more than one of the best quality dome tweeters in parallel seems like the best compromise, except in the EXTREME nearfield.