Martin Logan VS Wilson Watt/Puppy

[ckoffend]

Just looking for some feedback from possible owners of both Wilson and Martin Logan speakers. I presently run Wilson W/P 5.1 and am picking up a used pair of ML Quest Z speakers this weekend. Reportedly the speakers performance is excellent by the seller - meaning the panels, woofer and cross-over are performing properly. Though none have ever been replaced, the speakers were manufactured in July/Sept. of 1996. I will be driving them with Krell FPB 300-C amp and an Aesthetix Calypso preamp.

I have never listened to the Quest Z speakers, but did own a pair of Aerius speakers about 15 years ago when I lived in Guam.

Can anybody offer a personal comparison between their experiences with the ML in general and the Quest specifically vs. Wilson W/P speakers? I like my WP quite a bit and am prepared to find that I end up liking them more than the MLs. I figure can't hurt too much to give them a try and sell them if I am not satisfied. I can only bring them out into the room approxiately 4 feet (front of speaker to back wall).

Also, while the seller states the panels and woofers to be operating properly/perfectly, I am prepared to replace them. Would the general concensus be to replace them based on age alone? I am going to try to visit a ML dealer and listen to a pair of reportedly equivalent level to the Quest Zs (any suggestions on the equivalent current model speaker?) so I can get a feel for what they are supposed to sound like. Also, I have read a couple of threads on replacing woofers, but haven't been very successful in finding the most recommended replacement woofer for this particular model - any suggestions?

Thanks so much as I am brand new to this site and your feedback on my questions is greatly appreciated.

 

[David Matz]

Just looking for some feedback from possible owners of both Wilson and Martin Logan speakers. I presently run Wilson W/P 5.1 and am picking up a used pair of ML Quest Z speakers this weekend. Reportedly the speakers performance is excellent by the seller - meaning the panels, woofer and cross-over are performing properly. Though none have ever been replaced, the speakers were manufactured in July/Sept. of 1996. I will be driving them with Krell FPB 300-C amp and an Aesthetix Calypso preamp.

I have never listened to the Quest Z speakers, but did own a pair of Aerius speakers about 15 years ago when I lived in Guam.

Can anybody offer a personal comparison between their experiences with the ML in general and the Quest specifically vs. Wilson W/P speakers? I like my WP quite a bit and am prepared to find that I end up liking them more than the MLs. I figure can't hurt too much to give them a try and sell them if I am not satisfied. I can only bring them out into the room approxiately 4 feet (front of speaker to back wall).

Also, while the seller states the panels and woofers to be operating properly/perfectly, I am prepared to replace them. Would the general concensus be to replace them based on age alone? I am going to try to visit a ML dealer and listen to a pair of reportedly equivalent level to the Quest Zs (any suggestions on the equivalent current model speaker?) so I can get a feel for what they are supposed to sound like. Also, I have read a couple of threads on replacing woofers, but haven't been very successful in finding the most recommended replacement woofer for this particular model - any suggestions?

Thanks so much as I am brand new to this site and your feedback on my questions is greatly appreciated.

We had a thread on this just a few weeks ago. I think the ML will have the better midrange due to electrostatic magic, while the Watt Puppy will have better bass and coherence.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Just looking for some feedback from possible owners of both Wilson and Martin Logan speakers. I presently run Wilson W/P 5.1 and am picking up a used pair of ML Quest Z speakers this weekend. Reportedly the speakers performance is excellent by the seller - meaning the panels, woofer and cross-over are performing properly. Though none have ever been replaced, the speakers were manufactured in July/Sept. of 1996.

Would the general concensus be to replace them based on age alone?
Thanks so much as I am brand new to this site and your feedback on my questions is greatly appreciated.

First, welcome. As to replacing the panels and the woofers, I think that will depend significantly upon the environment in which they were kept. I believe that ML's degrade slowly over time, but how much time varies. Smoke and dust are the enemies to our speakers. I've had my own MLs (Aerius) since 1995 and I can detect no degradation is sound quality, though others have replaced panels after nine or ten years and heard significant improvement. Many here believe that a regular vacuuming of the panels will help the speaker to perform at its peak. Hope this was helpful, I'm sure others will offer advice.

 

[C.A.P]

Welcom fellow Michigander, Where are you located?

Ok, I have not had Wilson's in my system but have had Quest's! However I have heard many Wilson's . The first thing you will notice is the boomyness will not be present. If you like that then its a house sound from a Cone ! The ML will have a smooth midrange from your Krell. I run the same amp and had it hooked up to my Quests. Its a good thing you have a Krell as Quest's love current. They will need all 4 feet from the wall plus as much side room as possible. The stage will be huge and wide with good depth. The woofers are not easily damaged. The Emenence woofer that ML used was decent . It has a rubber surround that hardly ever roted. Pending you are not getting woofer slap I would not worry to much. Unless your going to go with a active x over which can be done but was easier with the Quest. The panels are known to go south after 10 years. Especially with this MI humidity. You can test them with a Rat Shack SPL meter and test tones. If one is up or down your probably done with them. New panels are $715, to your door. The bass can be quite good if you play with placement A LOT! Do not be afraid to play with the tilt too. When I re did mine and lowered the panels and opened up the woofer area it was a totally new sounding speaker.

Here is a link to what I did to my Quests to get the best sound out of them.

http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5697&highlight=a+quest+to+be+different

 

[ckoffend]

David Matz - you reference a recent post with a similar topic, not sure if you are referencing the replacement of panels or the comparison to the Wilson or which portion of my post you have indicated there was similar thread. I have looked many places, on and off site for comparisons between the ML and Wilson lines, no luck.

C.A.P., I am in Kalamazoo/Portage.

Do most people bi-wire the Quests (Zs) or just run single wire? With my Wilsons they are single wired, common for Wilson to take advantage of their excellent cross overs. I will have to see what bi-wire cables I have at home at the moment.

What is a good/fair price for a pair of Quest Zs?

 

[C.A.P]

What is a good/fair price for a pair of Quest Zs?

Depends on the age of the speaker and the panels! If they are original and they sound great, they may sound great for another 5 years or sound great for another 5 minutes after you get them home ! There is no telling when a panel is going to go. Once it starts there is no stopping it. The good thing about new panels is the new vapor deposited film lasts longer and the spars are better placed for better dispersion !
That being said $1200 to $1500 is about the going rate ! If the panels are know to be down then pay $500 to $700 as its a $715 deal for new ones!

Your dew West of me ! about 1.5 hrs

 

[User211]

I always notice one panel go before another. If you have a channel output imbalance, a panel is going. At this stage, I always replace both. Also, I have never had a panel which acted "normally" for more than seven years. I live in England, a coldish climate, I guess. In my environment, your Quests would have been knackered many years ago.

I have heard Wilson System 5s at a London Hi-FI show. A good, dynamic, punchy sound. But what a price for the performance! I personally prefer MLs by a fair margin, and think that they offer brilliant value when compared to System 5s.

Not sure what the equivalent ML would be - MLs have suffered a continuing downsize of the panel in recent years - primarily due to domestic acceptability and hence sales rather than performance. You may find that with some new panels, the Quests destroy the newer, smaller offerings.

Remember, we are talking a piece of mylar inbetween two metal plates, and there is only so far that the technology can be improved. But with the low diaphragm mass and large radiating area, to my mind they will always beat cone based speakers...

Even Quad ESL 57s beat 95% of todays offerings to my ears... at least when repaired to original spec.

Actually, 95% IS DEFINATELY pushing it, and today's renovations probably exceed the original spec, but a fantastic speaker nonetheless, all thiings considered.

 

[ckoffend]

211, thanks for the feedback. While the seller of these speakers claims them to be in perfect working condition, I am of th opinion that the panels will likely need to be replaced in the near future. I am planning to visit a ML dealer to take a listen to the Vantage and the Spire to get a feel for what the Quest should sound like. This may help me determine if the units are actually working properly. If they are and I don't like the speakers, I will sell them. If they are working properly and I do like the speakers, I will buy a pair of panels and replace when needed or when I have the time. I pick up the speakers on Saturday, so perhaps in the next week I will have a better idea.

With regard to comparing the Wilsons to the ML, I appreciate your input. I know there are those that love panels and those that criticize them (especially hybrids) for their inability to mate the box/cone with the panel. I will see for myself. Since I already own the Wilson's the difference in price is not a relevant factor as it would be if I were buying new or selecting between the two.

Thanks again for your input.

 

[User211]

ckoffend, no problem.

Please let me/us know what conclusions you come too. I think a re-panelled Quest should beat a Vantage massively on scale of image/soundstage. However, you might find the Vantage has better bass/panel integration and is more detailed.

The Summit is an amazing speaker - but again the Quest will probably still beat and lose to it in the same way as the Vantage detailed above.

I say this giving the Vantage some credit, because the pair I heard at my dealer's Summit/Vantage demo were simply rubbish! He later claimed they were faulty. I hope they were. The Summits were great, however.

Then again you may feel the Quest beats them both. As I say, please let us all know what you think....

Enjoy.

Justin

 

[ckoffend]

I'll do my best to compare the sound of the Quest Z's to the Spire and Vantage (assuming I have time to listen at the dealers) and also in comparison to the Wilson's. This of course assumes the Quests are in good working condition. I honestly would really like to see them beat out the Wilsons, but am not so confident that they will and don't want to rush to a judgement. I assume they will take some playing around with to get the space/positioning right. While my room is not very large, it is fairly well set up.

One of the things I want to try is to see how they work as a two channel HT, without center or surrounds. I use a Rel Storm III and would run this for HT purposes and maybe even try the sub with music (which I don't presently do). I would love to be able to simplify my system and get rid of some components and have yet to even try a 2 or 2.1 channel HT set-up (I am not too into HT, but the room is my families dedicated "media" room so I have been given a lot of free reign on the set-up and treatments).

 

[User211]

My Ascent|Descent combo worked very well in my old house, when it was partnered with a television... I can't see the Quest|Rel combo failling, really.

However, what you won't get is the explosive dynamics the Wilson's would give you, when portraying, erm, well, EXPLOSIONS!

 

[Statman]

My Ascent|Descent combo worked very well in my old house, when it was partnered with a television... I can't see the Quest|Rel combo failling, really.

However, what you won't get is the explosive dynamics the Wilson's would give you, when portraying, erm, well, EXPLOSIONS!

Or a kickdrum!

There was another thread on this.

http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6509



I've owned both ML and Wilson, currently using Wilson. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. You'll get a slightly taller soundstage with the Quest and warmer mids. Either way is your rooom treated with acoustic panels or traps? They can help in a lot of rooms. The REL Storm will help. I also used one when I had Sequel II's.