Spires vs. ReQuest (Possibly buyers remorse?)

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.
I listen to very little two-channel. I did listen to some David Gilmour in two-channel the other night, but the DD 5.1 track sounds much better. As far CDs... very very little listening. Most of my music is in the form of concert DVDs.
 
Sonnie,

The majority of folks on this site (I believe) use ML's in a two channel mode. No slam on the HT guys, just to point out what I believe is a valid generalization.

Hence, most of our input is based on that premise which, IMHO, has little relevancy to your use (the major exception being JonFo) and explains your belief that the NAD or whatever provides you with, what is in your opinion, high quality performance.

As I trust you know, two channel and surround are (with the exception of audiophile labels recording classical music) entirely different worlds with the later being a total creation by some engineer without regard to trying to recreate unamplified music played in a real acoustic space.

Good luck.

GG

PS: I was looking at your first sentence in Post No. 99. Given the fact that the vast majority of surround music or DVD surround sound, except as noted above, is effectively an "electronically created sonic soundscape" with little or no resemblance to anything based on reality, what parameters do you use to determine that what you are hearing is "real", or that Product A sounds more "real" than Product B?
 
Last edited:
My primary comparison DVD's are David Gilmour in Concert and Eagles - Melbourne Tour. They are really a two-channel mix with rear channel information added for ambience and actually more life-likeness of being at a concert. Gilmour starts out with an acoustic solo on his guitar that is simply amazing... on into the show the choir is breath-taking to say the least. Of course I have quite a few DVD concerts, but those are two my favorites that I can listen to over and over and over. Here are three mini reviews I did on three excellent DVD concerts:

David Gilmour
Roger Waters
Sarah Brightman

The sound stage for movies is also huge for me as well. I like for the sound stage to fill the entire screen for a more realistic envolving experience with the movie. I NEVER had that with any other speaker until I tried ML's. So many people use to claim ML's were no good for HT, but I can vouch that they are indeed excellent for movies.
 
Sonnie,

Thanks for the info.

I have the RW SACD. Quite awesome although the "Amused to Death" CD, recorded in Q sound, beats it hands down within the context of the enveloping soundstage.

FWIW and IMHO, listening to a properly setup 2 channel system can clearly convey the emotion and beauty of many different genres of music. One can also "calibrate" one's hearing to reproduced sound by attending live, unamplified concerts and then comparing to one's home audio system.

To each his own but I would encourage you to explore optomizing your system using high quality 2 channel stereo CD's (Patricia Barber, ECM jazz recordings, Mercury Living Presence, Reference Recordings, Mapleshade Recordings, etc.) or to 5.1 CD's from labels such as Pentatone, Telarc, Water Lily Acoustics, etc. If you choose to listen to the above or its equivalent, I suspect you would quickly determine the deficiencies in your current electronics.

In addition, if you choose to open up your mind and repetoire, I am confident you will have a much better understanding of the advice (regarding suggested hardware upgrades) contained in the various posts on this thread.

In closing, I did find your statement in one of your previous posts to be quite presumptuous where you indicated that most folks on this site would be (and I'm paraphrasing) elated with your system regarding its audio capabilities. A little bit of humility goes along way.

I'm confident that many members on this site have systems that will totally blow yours out of the water when it comes to 2 channel stereo, and for that matter, that is also likely true (for example JonFo's system) for HT sound.

Respectfully,

GG
 
Last edited:
I have no complaints with my ReQuests in my combined HT / 2 channel system. I used to have ESL-63 Pro's but they could never perform in a HT environment. When I recently acquired my ReQuests, I was very pleased and pleasantly surprised with the punch for HT applications and I can drive them loud!
 
Sonnie,

Thanks for the info.
You are quite welcome.
I have the RW SACD. Quite awesome although the "Amused to Death" CD, recorded in Q sound, beats it hands down within the context of the enveloping soundstage.
Never heard the SACD or the CD, but I suspect the Stereo version on the DVD would be the same as the CD version.
FWIW and IMHO, listening to a properly setup 2 channel system can clearly convey the emotion and beauty of many different genres of music. One can also "calibrate" one's hearing to reproduced sound by attending live, unamplified concerts and then comparing to one's home audio system.

To each his own but I would encourage you to explore optomizing your system using high quality 2 channel stereo CD's (Patricia Barber, ECM jazz recordings, Mercury Living Presence, Reference Recordings, Mapleshade Recordings, etc.) or to 5.1 CD's from labels such as Pentatone, Telarc, Water Lily Acoustics, etc. If you choose to listen to the above or its equivalent, I suspect you would quickly determine the deficiencies in your current electronics.

In addition, if you choose to open up your mind and repetoire, I am confident you will have a much better understanding of the advice (regarding suggested hardware upgrades) contained in the various posts on this thread.
So I am close minded because I do not listen to a certain style of music? My genre is very broad, but it doesn't include any of the above. No reason for me to tune my system to a genre or style of music that I do not listen to.
In closing, I did find your statement in one of your previous posts to be quite presumptuous where you indicated that most folks on this site would be (and I'm paraphrasing) elated with your system regarding its audio capabilities. A little bit of humility goes along way.

I'm confident that many members on this site have systems that will totally blow yours out of the water when it comes to 2 channel stereo, and for that matter, that is also likely true (for example JonFo's system) for HT sound.

Respectfully,

GG
I am disrespectful because I have confidence in my home theater system and believe most here would be very happy with its performance?

Being very happy (elated) with something does not insinuate it is better than the next.

Yet you are "confident" that my system is inferior to most others here on the site and you have not even heard it?

Gee Gordon... it puzzles me how you could have possibly signed that post "Respectfully".

Talk about a "pot shot".

I think I am done here...

I appreciate those who genuinely tried to help. I will be posting my updated solution... just not here. I refuse to continue to absorb the condescending remarks and total lack of courtesy by some members here. You will not find this at the Shack... and it is sad it exist here among some very fine members. I have referred quite a number of people here and it is unfortunate I will not be able to continue to do so in fear that they will be treated disrespectfully by the same members.

You can have the last word... I won't be reading it... thread unsubscribed!
 
that's weak sonnie so you are going to pack up your toys and go home because a couple of people rubbed you the wrong way I would have expected much more from such a veteran of this type of forum.in the future it may be best to avoid those whose viewpoints or approaches differers from yours but instead it seams you prefer to throw fuel on the fire and then cry when you get burned.

I often think people come across unintentionally the wrong way on these forums.
 
Last edited:
I refuse to continue to absorb the condescending remarks and total lack of courtesy by some members here. You will not find this at the Shack...
Doesn't happen at the Shack?!?!?! - sure it does - time to take off the rose colored glasses. Innuendos, slings, jaded opinions are all there. Happens in all forums and it is part of the give and take of posting on forums. It is opinions and that is all. If you are that thinned skinned then do not visit, post, or try to run a forum.
You can have the last word... I won't be reading it... thread unsubscribed!
Sure you will be reading, just not replying.
 
So I am close minded because I do not listen to a certain style of music? My genre is very broad, but it doesn't include any of the above. No reason for me to tune my system to a genre or style of music that I do not listen to.

Gordon wasn't really encouraging you to listen to a certain "style" of music. Rather, he was encouraging you to use discs that are mastered to a higher level of resolution. Mastering does make a difference and Martin Logans are capable of revealing those differences. Just like you wouldn't use highly compressed trash from, say, Britney Spears, to tune your system, the better the sound quality of the discs you are using, the better you will be able to fine tune the response of your system. Gordon was encouraging you to discover discs that are exquisitely mastered in order to help you hear and understand the sonic differences between components that by your own admission you don't seem to hear. Nothing wrong with that advice.

He wasn't calling you close-minded per se; he was simply trying to open up the possibility in your mind that there is more to sound quality on Martin Logans than you realize currently. By your attitude, though, it doesn't sound like you will ever get that one. You seem to think your home theater background has given you everything you need to know about audio. Now that, I would call close minded. Just like your insistence on keeping those big corner-loaded subs pumping while you are trying to dial in your Martin Logans. That is the mark of a complete novice in audio setup. But you would rather complain about the condescending remarks than to listen to the advice of experienced Martin Logan aficionados.

What is sad -- and I see this fairly often on this forum -- is that you immediately start blaming the speaker for your inexperience and inability to properly set them up. Martin Logans are very picky about setup, room acoustics, and associated equipment. And it never seems to fail that when someone is completely unhappy with the sound of their new ML's, that the person has them setup entirely wrong or has very poorly-matched equipment driving them. Then they inevitably get angry at forum members for pointing out that they have inferior equipment or that they don't know what they are doing with speaker placement and setup. As Gordon said, a little humility goes a long way when asking for advice from those more experienced.

I am disrespectful because I have confidence in my home theater system and believe most here would be very happy with its performance?

Again, you are putting words in Gordon's mouth. He didn't say you were disrespectful; he said you were presumptuous. Big difference. Oh, and he was right, by the way. Most folks on this forum have incredible systems and an ear for quality, and could easily pick out the deficiencies in your room, equipment, and setup.

You will not find this at the Shack... and it is sad it exist here among some very fine members.

I thought you said earlier this wasn't about the "Shack?" :rolleyes:

You can have the last word... I won't be reading it... thread unsubscribed!

Whatever. Next time you ask for advice on an audio forum, you might want to make clear from the beginning that you listen to 95% home theater and don't really care that much about audiophile-quality sound.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top