Martin Logan speakers

Wow.   Great comments.      For those of you who have had bad Martin Logan experiences, I extend my condolences, and my special thanks.   It's always harder to talk about experiences that have not gone as well as they should have.      I admit that I am reconsidering my Martin Logan experiment...

So i have the Summit X. They are not allrounder and sound best on Classic and on music with natural sounding and not amplified instruments. Problem is, Summit/Montis Monolith.... show every detail on the recording. Sometimes to much. On Metal and Funky music stuff you don´t want to hear detail but more the pure groove and punch imo.

A Powerful amplification is essential to the ML Panel. The Bass cabinett ist active on the summit but the Panel´s Resistive resistance need best strong power.
I have a GRUENSCH CSE II  power amplifier which is said one of the best to do the job. I also use a Lyngdorf TDAI Digital amp using for room correction specially for older ML, i had the Request ML for years.
The Gruensch fix the "moving instrument" problem others and smaller amp´s cant solve even if they sound good on first impression.

I currently own Montis powered by Pass Labs INT-150  I agree with the comments that they do sound best with classical/jazz/acoustic.  However in my listening room they are more than adequate for rock at any reasonable volume.  If you are an extreme bass freak, they probably won't cut it for you.  As far as bass to panel integration, in my opinion the models with powered woofer with DSP are where ML finally got it right.  Maybe not absolute perfection, but very, very close.  Anyway on to your specific question about Vistas.  These were the entry level with the narrower 9" panel and 8" bass reflex.  Similar to the Theos when I was looking.  I found the bass to be not adequate at all on that model.  For me at least a subwoofer would have been a must have.

Thought I’d chime in here.

Yes, you’ll find Martin Logan speakers - at least their higher end stuff - to be well regarded.

I’ve wanted a pair of ML’s since hearing the CLS in the 1980’s and didn’t get around to it until about two summers ago when I bought a pre-owned system consisting of the reQuest (gen2), Bryston 4ST and then traded from my old Mac C28 to a Krell KRC3 preamp. Even as a used system with near-vintage equipment, the performance is hard to beat until you get to the 'next level' of strata in high-end systems.

As noted above, the characteristics of ANY type of ESL will be quite different than a voice coil design, though some speakers (like the Dahlquist DQ10s that they replaced) simulate it fairly well. However, simulate isn’t duplicate. The response rate of a low mass mylar surface comes through in surprising ways. Yes, they can have a tiny sweet spot if not in the right room or placed incorrectly. However, when run in tandem with a good subwoofer, I don’t necessarily agree with them not being suitable for rock, though not at higher listening levels. If you’re running a mosh pit, you might want a cone driver for its... uh... ’durability’ for that purpose. ;-)

I’m not familiar with that AR amp, but if you have a chance, why not give them a try? Since you don’t define what ’outrageously expensive’ means, why not ’roll the dice’ and grab a pre-owned 4BST for under $900-ish.

Hope this helps!

Quad Esl and 63s ushered me into high end audio (I owned the 63s and later added Gradient subs) so I have a soft spot for stats.

I’ve heard and auditioned many ML stats since the 90s.

I find the ML sound to have a generally pleasant “golden upper midrange” to my ears that I like, though MLs, especially older models could veer into being a bit bright and slightly fatiguing. Never the case with Quads for me.

I was recently chilling listening to my friend’s set up with the ML Ethos, a standard ML hybrid and came away with the same feeling I’ve had every single time I hear ML. It’s a place I love to visit - I will always eagerly sit down on front of a pair to experience that special stat transparency, openness and (with some sources) realism.

But I very quickly also realize why I could never live with them as a main speaker. I find the discontinuaty between the low frequencies (cone) and midrange up (stat) impossible to ignore. When there is some bass in the track that portion of the sound will have some presence, but everything rendered by the stat has a ghostly, skeletal, flatter “I can hear it but it’s not really there moving air” quality. It’s especially painful for rock/pop where the drive of the sub/cone can fool you that air is being excited in the room but it’s easy to notice instruments in the midrange - eg electric guitars, synths, lack any punch.

Plus I’ve never found the quality of bass in any ML hybrid to be that good - I hear more of a plodding quality “yep the sub has kicked in” vs tight, tonally integrated bass.

I’ve heard since the 90s onward “ML has better cone/stat integration now” but I’ve never once found it to be the case, including various newer statement products at shows.

Whatever route ML has stayed on in its hybrid designs, I don’t think it will ever yield truly excellent integration, if it hasn’t by now.

i remember getting more convincing integration many years ago with the dipole Gradient subs made for my Quad 63s.

I’d love to hear the Janszen hybrids which many report as a truly successful integration design.

Anyway, although it sounds like I’m coming down hard on the MLs I still love listening to them. It’s just whenever I spend time with a ML by the end I come home wanting to hug my cone speakers, as they  provide both an amazing sense of boxless transparency and a sense of density and punch through the whole range that I find more satisfying and realistic.