Don't hate tha playa, hate tha game, Spaniard.

I also thought the planar mafia was down on the latest generation of Martin Logans as generally crappy?

Ohh, they are a vastly overpriced piece of crap using very outdated technology that are designed by people more interested in style then sound. When other manufacturers are trying to do something innovative (well Sanders, Sound Lab and Audiostatic) ML has been pushing crap like "Clearspar" or what ever they called it which were basically transparent spacers.

Don't hate tha playa, hate tha game, Spaniard.

Hahahaha, I can't go to the playa, I am allergic to sunlight

Spritzer, having listened to several ML speakers after knowing what planars like Quads and Apogees can do, one wonders how they were able to fuck it up that much. Even Maggies are more enjoyable

Hahahaha, I can't go to the playa, I am allergic to sunlight

Spritzer, having listened to several ML speakers after knowing what planars like Quads and Apogees can do, one wonders how they were able to fuck it up that much. Even Maggies are more enjoyable

And yet even these allegedly-crappy planar designs were universally and consistently preferred over just about every "conventional" dynamic speaker in the test. I'd say that makes the result more, rather than less, striking.

An audiophile friend of the family keeps telling me to check out Audiostatic as he's had a pair for 20 years. I should go over to his place to have a listen.

And yet even these allegedly-crappy planar designs were universally and consistently preferred over just about every "conventional" dynamic speaker in the test. I'd say that makes the result more, rather than less, striking.

Not really if you take into account that among the best selling speakers are B&W, Bose and Dynaudio, and most people is well served with the stock iBuds.

I see what he's getting at. Even bad electrostats beat dynamics, albeit probably bad dynamics.

No argument from me.

Spritzer, having listened to several ML speakers after knowing what planars like Quads and Apogees can do, one wonders how they were able to fuck it up that much. Even Maggies are more enjoyable

It's simply a pop version of electrostatics made for the look alone. Curved panels are a terrible idea so much so that even the inventor of the design wants nothing to do with it. Another make which is said to sound awful are King Audio.

An audiophile friend of the family keeps telling me to check out Audiostatic as he's had a pair for 20 years. I should go over to his place to have a listen.

It's an interesting design for sure with wire stators and goes for maximum excursion on the thin but tall panel. The new models are active with Class D amplification.

The ESL57 panels are curved. Although the other way.

I didn't meant to start a flame war by posting this. And like Torpedo I wouldn't take too much away from this given the limited music used (no jazz? ).

It would be nice had they been able to get a pair of 20.1s in the test to compete with the vantage and the like.

They still have more $10000+ speakers to test don't they? I'd like to see how the 20.1 does as well.

It's official, planars rule the world. Not that we didn't know it here with more electrostatics and isodynamics then anywhere else.

Yup, gotta love those good old Apogees. The Scintilla will still murder almost anything made today, it just needs a good amp that can handle a 1 Ohm load. The original full range is said to be even better, but damned if I can find anyone who has one.

The ESL57 panels are curved. Although the other way.

They are slightly curved but it's small compared to the ML's.

Yup, gotta love those good old Apogees. The Scintilla will still murder almost anything made today, it just needs a good amp that can handle a 1 Ohm load. The original full range is said to be even better, but damned if I can find anyone who has one.

They are the definition of crazy when it comes to speaker design. There seems to be a new kid on the block, has anybody heard these yet?

...are designed by people more interested in style then sound...

Oh, so now you're a mindreader as well?

Oh, so now you're a mindreader as well?

Nope but their product placements in TV shows is a clear indication of who they want to reach. I was watching Chuck earlies and behold, what is in the AV room but a set of ML's. Why would they make the panels smaller and smaller and concentrate so much on the look of the speakers if they were after SQ and not looks. They've also made the panel overlap the bass unit for years now which simply makes no sense except for aesthetics. Why would anybody give the backwave a nice sturdy surface to bounce back from? They've also spent more time on making the panels look better then spending R&D time to make real improvements.

Chandler and Joey had a set in their apartment and I think that House has them in his office.

Chandler and Joey had a set in their apartment and I think that House has them in his office.

There was indeed a set in Friends but those were Audiostatic's in the House pilot. To bad they replaced them...

There was indeed a set in Friends but there were Audiostatic's in the House pilot. I froze when I saw those. To bad they replaced them...

That's what makes House the man

Also..it's not lupus

Man that Cantus company's speaker looks awesome. Not cheap though.

It looks like an Apogee Duetta with a shiny wood facing, about the same size too.

Nope but their product placements in TV shows is a clear indication of who they want to reach. I was watching Chuck earlies and behold, what is in the AV room but a set of ML's. Why would they make the panels smaller and smaller and concentrate so much on the look of the speakers if they were after SQ and not looks. They've also made the panel overlap the bass unit for years now which simply makes no sense except for aesthetics. Why would anybody give the backwave a nice sturdy surface to bounce back from? They've also spent more time on making the panels look better then spending R&D time to make real improvements.

I think you're wrong. So they're aggressive about advertising, so what? Wouldn't you be, if you were in that business in this day and age? I'm not going to blame them for treating a business like a business, even if it is a labor of love -- the two are not mutually exclusive.

That said, from what I read in the interview a year or so back (Absolute Sound, I think), they do concern themselves with sound quality. They couldn't handle the number of returns on the original CLX, so they discontinued the speaker entirely. How's that for quality control. And they figured out how to make it profitable again, so they reintroduced it -- what were you saying about smaller panels? I think I hear a famous spritzer backpedal coming...

And sure, they care about looks -- with all the comments I've read about "at that price, I expect it to look good as well as sound good", I would too. Again, the two are not mutually exclusive. Just because they actually show some initiative about one, does not mean that it's to the exclusion of the other.

I think you're just holding a grudge. What'd they do to you -- did a friend of yours buy a CLX that didn't work?

Those Magnepan MGM's look really interesting and they're pretty affordable IMO. Are they supposed to be used with a sub or not? Never had ribbon speakers so I'm not informed well.

Personally I think subwoofers are best left in home theater surround setups, but that's just the opinion of a 2.0 purist

I don't like surround setups at all, they sound strange to my ears. I didn't try anything beyond 2000$ though so maybe there's something that i would like but can't afford right now. These MGM's have frequency response 50 - 24 kHz

Personally I think subwoofers are best left in home theater surround setups, but that's just the opinion of a 2.0 purist

I've got no problem with a 2.1 setup -- it's just another crossover.