Moving from - de facto Reference gear - Quad to Martin Logan?

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
R

Redux

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2014
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Location
Norway
I don’t want to provoke anyone, but I want to ask a question regarding moving to Martin Logan. Perhaps I am not the only one having the following dilemma:

I have for some time considered to move from Quad to ML. Currently I have the Quad ESL 63 with sub woofer, and although they sound great – I would like to have some loudspeakers with higher WAF in our living room. I also would like more bass/punch in the midrange – but keep in mind that dynamic speakers are out of the question. I could never and ever have trade off the soundstage, Sound Quality and resolution of an ESL speaker.

I did hear a pair of Montis. I liked the sound at lot, but I am afraid that I am downgrading my HI-FI experience. After all Quad is the de facto reference for ESL according to magazines and experts etc. Due to this hesitation, I am considering to perhaps purchasing new Quads with improved bass, but then again, the WAF is even worse!

Do any of you have the same experience/dilemma? What is your opinion regarding this. Is WAF the only reason to move from Quad, Sound Lab and other full range speakers? Or do the hybrid ML models provide some extra level of sound? What is the main difference in your opinion? For your information – I am considering either Theos, Ethos or Montis. Currently, I don’t know enough about the models to choose the right one.

:eek:
 
I don't have an answer to you but if you have Quad ESL-63 with Gradient SW-63 then you have one of the finest ESL sound I have experienced.
 
All I can say is listen to the Montis. There is a very good reason why many reviewers are saying they are the very best loudspeakers they have ever reviewed - irrespective of price.
 
Last edited:
edwinr said:
All I can say is listen to the Montis. There is a very good reason why many reviewers are saying they are the very best loudspeakers they have ever reviewed - irrespective of price.
Click to expand...

I agree with Ed……………the best speaker(s) at or below 10k in my book…….Montis & Maggie 3.7. Both of which compete well beyond their respective price points.
 
Hi I am neither a Quad nor a Maggie fan. Maggie's lack too much in the bass, so I even find their midrange thin. I love the Logans much more, and the Analysis Audio planars from Greece, and the Audio Exklusiv full range stats from Germany (since you are in Norway) are actually full range and available at 8k euros new. Logans look good, excellent used market and resale value, and sound brilliant - some think with hybrids you will hear the separate woofer - that you can decide after a demo. For those who like hybrids that's not a problem, in fact I think it gives an added advantage in dynamics as compared to a full range. The best thing with Logans is you can jump in blind into the used market with a Montis, with 99% probability you will be delighted with the experience, and if you don't you can exit with minimal or no loss.


Redux said:
I don’t want to provoke anyone, but I want to ask a question regarding moving to Martin Logan. Perhaps I am not the only one having the following dilemma:

I have for some time considered to move from Quad to ML. Currently I have the Quad ESL 63 with sub woofer, and although they sound great – I would like to have some loudspeakers with higher WAF in our living room. I also would like more bass/punch in the midrange – but keep in mind that dynamic speakers are out of the question. I could never and ever have trade off the soundstage, Sound Quality and resolution of an ESL speaker.

I did hear a pair of Montis. I liked the sound at lot, but I am afraid that I am downgrading my HI-FI experience. After all Quad is the de facto reference for ESL according to magazines and experts etc. Due to this hesitation, I am considering to perhaps purchasing new Quads with improved bass, but then again, the WAF is even worse!

Do any of you have the same experience/dilemma? What is your opinion regarding this. Is WAF the only reason to move from Quad, Sound Lab and other full range speakers? Or do the hybrid ML models provide some extra level of sound? What is the main difference in your opinion? For your information – I am considering either Theos, Ethos or Montis. Currently, I don’t know enough about the models to choose the right one.

:eek:
Click to expand...
 
Not to offend anyone, maybe Quad was the ESL standard back in the 60's, but today the gold standard for ESL is SoundLab. Auditioning a well set up pair of Ultimates will make any audiophile lust for them. Those have bass without needing a dynamic driver.

That said, a pair of Montis + a sub or two is an extremely livable setup with astounding performance for the cost.
 
I love listening to Maggies, but I wonder if owning them is as easy as owning Martin Logans. It would seem Maggies need lots of tweaking and powerful amplification to get the best out of them. Regarding sound quality, I always thought earlier Maggies were a little 'grainy'. But not having listened to Maggies recently I'm told this has been resolved on the newer models.

I haven't heard Quad's for years. I agree with JonFo; I'm not sure that Quad is currently at the forefront of ESL technology. You would have to look at Martin Logan or SoundLab.
 
Similar story- I had a pair of Quad ESL 63s for nearly 30 years.Used them with various subs over the years. Prior to that I had the Quad 57's, so I've had lots of experience with the ESL sound. Each Quad 63 speaker was repaired 2 or 3 times with numerous panel replacements. A month ago 1 speaker failed (sounds like frying bacon) and I was just not in the mood to pay the high shipping and repair costs again. So I just purchased a pair of ML Theos. I was thinking of going to the Ethos but ultimately decided the added cost was not worth it since I have a ML sw and a 300 wt/ch McIntosh amp. The new speakers have just arrived so I can't give you a full report as yet- they need to break in and I need to do some tinkering with room positioning and with the sub set up . The WAF was not a big deal though my wife appreciates the change. Of course I was unable to hear the MLs side by side with a working pair of Quads, but I doubt in my smallish room I'd hear a big difference. I'm looking forward to rehearing my music collection again.
Alan
 
JonFo said:
Not to offend anyone, maybe Quad was the ESL standard back in the 60's, but today the gold standard for ESL is SoundLab. Auditioning a well set up pair of Ultimates will make any audiophile lust for them. Those have bass without needing a dynamic driver.

That said, a pair of Montis + a sub or two is an extremely livable setup with astounding performance for the cost.
Click to expand...

I had no intention to start a ****ing contest. I know SoundLab is one of the very finest loudspeakers on the planet, and in several ways they are very probably better than Quads and other loudspeakers (and on another planet budget wise) - especially if you want to fill large rooms with the very best sound and have proper bass. Still, I would claim that Quad ESL 57 and 63 have a pureness and sound quality that is yet to be replicated in new loudspeakers. But, this is in my humble opinion, and there are a lot of opinions regarding hi-fi gear out there :) That said, I would almost dear to suggest that anyone that have heard a proper ESL 57 setup would agree with me.
 
docalan said:
Similar story- I had a pair of Quad ESL 63s for nearly 30 years.Used them with various subs over the years. Prior to that I had the Quad 57's, so I've had lots of experience with the ESL sound. Each Quad 63 speaker was repaired 2 or 3 times with numerous panel replacements. A month ago 1 speaker failed (sounds like frying bacon) and I was just not in the mood to pay the high shipping and repair costs again. So I just purchased a pair of ML Theos. I was thinking of going to the Ethos but ultimately decided the added cost was not worth it since I have a ML sw and a 300 wt/ch McIntosh amp. The new speakers have just arrived so I can't give you a full report as yet- they need to break in and I need to do some tinkering with room positioning and with the sub set up . The WAF was not a big deal though my wife appreciates the change. Of course I was unable to hear the MLs side by side with a working pair of Quads, but I doubt in my smallish room I'd hear a big difference. I'm looking forward to rehearing my music collection again.
Alan
Click to expand...

I would appreciate to know your first impressions regarding the Theos. I am afraid that the panels are not large enough and the bass is to "boomy". I am also skeptical regarding the Ethos. It is always better to have one amplifier to run the whole show vs. having divided sound stages. I also have a powerful amplifier - 200w Mcintosh, 7900 and hence is considering the Theos.

I liked the Montis, but they have a larger dynamic box - and supposed to be better in the low range.
 
Redux said:
Still, I would claim that Quad ESL 57 and 63 have a pureness and sound quality that is yet to be replicated in new loudspeakers. But, this is in my humble opinion, and there are a lot of opinions regarding hi-fi gear out there :) That said, I would almost dear to suggest that anyone that have heard a proper ESL 57 setup would agree with me.
Click to expand...

These speakers have many fans who would agree with you. But they, like all speakers, have their limitations depending on one's musical and volume preferences.

Seems to me your looking for validation to support your personal bias.

This hobby is way too subjective to reach consensus on anything, especially loudspeakers.

Why don't you just keep your current set up and be done with it.

Just a thought.

GG
 
Gordon Gray said:
These speakers have many fans who would agree with you. But they, like all speakers, have their limitations depending on one's musical and volume preferences.

Seems to me your looking for validation to support your personal bias.

This hobby is way too subjective to reach consensus on anything, especially loudspeakers.

Why don't you just keep your current set up and be done with it.

Just a thought.

GG
Click to expand...

As I said - I don't want to provoke anyone. I have certainly not not joined a Martin Logan forum to support my personal bias regarding Quads. Please don´t speak on my behalf. I do apology if you have interpreted this differently. It was not my intention.

I am strongly considering to buy ML - and I am looking for feedback, and I am looking for other persons´ opinions that have made the same transition.

I have some concerns regarding the ML, but after listening to the Montis I must admit that they are better all around performers than the different Quads models. That said, I hope I don´t trade off the midrange of a full range ESL with larger panels.
 
Last edited:
The Montis is a very different speaker and it frankly doesn't matter what anyone thinks. What matters is what you think.

We all hear differently and we all have our personal biases.

Good luck.

GG
 
Gordon Gray said:
The Montis is a very different speaker and it frankly doesn't matter what anyone thinks. What matters is what you think.

We all hear differently and we all have our personal biases.

Good luck.

GG
Click to expand...

For me, it helps both to listen to the equipment at the dealer and to get inputs on internet forums like this one. Some feedback have been very helpful before. So, all help and feedback is appreciated a lot! :)
 
Redux,

Best of luck. The Montis really is a very special speaker and a "giant killer" for the money. I can't imagine you being unhappy with the purchase. Be patient. It will take awhile for you to "dial it in".

It does many "critical" things very well assuming it's set up properly with the appropriate equipment.

GG
 
Just to add, the Montis are very easy speakers to live with. They don't have any funny quirks; they fit nicely in all sorts of rooms; the panel-sub integration is outstanding.

As Gordon says, they're a "giant killer". I was fortunate to get an ex-demo pair from the main ML dealer in London.

Matt
 
Hi there ... Sorry to be slow to notice this thread but off on holiday in the Hebrides (Scotland). I had Quads 57 then 63s for twenty years and loved them. Latterly I had the addition of a REL studio subwoofer. I changed to ML because of their beautiful appearance and the considerably greater transparency over the Quads which never quite recover from their dust covers and grille cloths. Overall I am happy with the move after ML SL3s, Ascent, Vantage and now Spire (very similar sonically to Montis, though Montis has even better integration with stat panel due to DSP). I love the transparency dynamics better power handling and realism of the Spires (and will eventually upgrade to Summit X or their replacement, for even better bass performance. I am waiting to Jan 2015 to see what is happening on the replacement for The Summit X).
Do I miss the Quads ever? At this level of benign communal insanity (!) there will almost always be some downside because the Quads are fine speakers. I do miss at times the top to bottom uniformity of the Quads and the newer Quad models ally that to much greater and more dynamic bass performance. But 99.9% of the time I simply love the sound of the Spires and their advantages over the Quads as described above.
 
Hi Redux,

As has been said by others, the only way you'll know for sure is to try them out. I don't think you'll be taking a big risk. The Ethos and Montis are excellent speakers and you can get excellent sound out of them with a little effort. The Quad/sub combo may just sound a little better to you or the MLs may blow them away, to your ears. Nobody can say which will be the case. The MLs are great speakers though.

If you can buy a used or demo pair you can resell them with little or no loss. If you're going to buy new, the dealer should let you try them at home or bring your Quads in for comparison.

Good Luck! Let us know what you decide and what you think of the MLs, whether you go with them or not.
 
If it helps I have had a pair of Quad 63 with Rel subs and then with Wilson Benesch Torus subs, Quad 988 and Quad 989, also had ML SL3, Quests and CLXs. I have used these with valves and solid state. You will not replace the mid range beauty of a Quad 63 but to me I concluded the best balance was always a Martin Logan panel and woofer in the same build unit. I would recommend any of the ML like the Montis, Summit, Summit X etc.
 
Impressive amount of experience :bowdown:

BTW only subwoofer I have heard to seamlessly blend with ESL-63 is the SW-63. ESL-63 has it's (serious) limitations but what it does, it does well.
Martin Logans are much more full range but to get to more or less same level as old Quads you need to look at the top of the range selection IMHO.
Matching system components is critical as always..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
New member from The Netherlands
Replies
8
Views
829
Jabba
J
C
Martin Logan maintenance questions
Replies
12
Views
2K
Brandon Hartwick
Brandon Hartwick
D
Another member appreciating Martin Logan parts support who thinks pricing is realistic. Read why.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Davioj
D
C
For Sale For sale Martin Logan Expression ESL 13A - $12,000 (Madison)
Replies
0
Views
339
christopherf
C
C
Channel Imbalance on Martin Logan sl3s
Replies
7
Views
830
Brandon Hartwick
Brandon Hartwick

Latest posts

Back
Top