How does the Sequel II compare?

[quickk9]

I am considering buying a used pair of Sequel II's as I am considering downsizing my system. Currently I have a reQuests and CLSs that I would be selling. I am wondering if someone has experience with the Sequel IIs and either the CLS or the reQuests and how they compare.
I have not heard the Sequel IIs, but I thought that I would ask for some opinions before I consider going this route.
Thank you in advance.

 

[TomDac]

I owned Sequels for 17 years and now own a pair of reQuests.

HUGE difference in sound. Tighter integration between panel and woofer in the reQuests, much larger soundstage as well. This would definitely be a huge step BACKWARDS.

If I were you, I'd go for the Ascent (or the "i") which is in the same lineage as the Sequel, Sequel II and SL3 but has much better integration of the woofer and panel, easier to drive, etc.

Good Luck!

 

[MiTT]

I didn't have the Sequel II's - so my reply may be moot, but my Martin Logan journey began with the original Sequels which were my dream for many years. Until I heard the ReQuest that is. I'm a tube guy, and a Jazz and Classical fan (well, everything really), but these forms of music live in the mid-range and to my ears at least, once I'd heard the midrange on the ReQuests I had to have them and have never looked back. Even now I believe that the mid-range on the ReQuests is about the best that Martin Logan has ever done, along with the CLS.

I don't know your situation obviously, or what your motivation is to downsize, but for me personally it would be a very bittersweet thing to have to go from a CLS or ReQuest based system to a Sequel II based one. That being said - I'd take Sequel II's over just about any box speaker in the price range to be sure.

Good Luck!

 

[Jeff Zaret]

I would have to agree here. I have Sequel II's and CLSiiZ's. The CLSiiZ is by far a wider soundstage and in my tired opinion, a better speaker. Having said that, the Sequel II may give you a bit more bass but it is not as smooth in regards to panel and woofer integration as the later models.

Now having confused you, the Sequel II I believe as so do others, is still way better than your average box speaker.

I might consider another new model ML with a smaller foot print but I think giving up the CLS is not a good thing but just my opinion from an old fart.

Jeff

 

[Beat_Dominator]

I like my Sequel IIs

I would agree that there is an integration issue on them, sounds to me like a gap in response in the low mid-range.... right near the 250hz x-over point. Unless my old panels are the issue and I'm way off

 

[quickk9]

Perhaps, I should have been more clear when I said "downsizing". I meant financially as opposed to physically. I see Sequel II's selling for less than $1000, and I thought it may be worthwhile to sell the reQuests as well as the CLS's that I have been planning on selling. Based on what has been posted, however, it sounds like I will notice not only a sonic degradation compared to the reQuests, but also compared to the CLS's.
I did find the reQuests to be an improvement over my CLS's as far as midrange clarity and deeper bass. I do not find the planar/dynamic interface to be very noticeable. I did find the CLS to be somewhat lacking on bass in some recordings, but it was a speaker that I could listen to for hours on end. It sounds like the Sequel II would show some characteristics that I would find troublesome. I was hoping not to change to a speaker that I would be disappointed in.
I appreciate your inputs and because of them I may have to rethink my strategy. Thank you for your help.

 

[aliveatfive]

I'd have to agree with all that was stated. I've owned Sequel IIs, Ascent is and Summits. The Sequels, while good, don't compare to the others.