Speaker Preferences?

Mrtennis,

I dont know what was wrong with that setup but the ML's sounded 'dull' compared to the Zingali's - and the Zingali's werent overbright. They sounded frightningly 'real'.

The ML system used Audio Research equipment with a Clearaudio Master Reference Table and some Clearaudio MC cartridge. Everybody who auditioned the system agreed that it sounded "dull" - but the speakers definitly dissapeared in the soundstage.

DV

logans are great, getting them in the right position isnt easy or fun, sometimes seams impossible. I moved from ascent to ascent i's, to legacy focus 20/20's and overall, I like the focus 20/20's the best. They sound better with all types of music(and bad recordings), and are still right there close with the logans on the best vocal/acoustic recordings(loose a little air,etc).With the logans a subwoofer was critical or it sounded lifeless. Maybe this is what the reviewer above meant by dull. It just didnt have the dynamic feel because there was absolutely no bottom end in my room(s). Had them in 3 different houses by the way,bass was always the same.

i beilieve that a new martin logan full range electrostatic speaker, the clx, is to be introduced at ces 2008.

hopefully, they will be better balanced than the cls 2z.

i would be surprised if the clx would be described as "dull"

I cant wait to hear it(clx). Maybe it will be a fiture purchase :)

Yeah, I tell you what I'd like to see from at least Wilson and Revel, is some "ACTIVE" speaker offerings! Dynamics for such clear, detailed, and uncolored sounding speakers would/should be off the charts for ANY source material.
I still feel this is where most fall short. I think we have, even mentioned above, entirely too many similar sounding, clear, refined, detailed, and otherwise well balanced sounding high end speakers to chose from, with even a little initiative and some cash. Higher end active, more efficient audiophile choices would be more pleasing to someone into "heavier(?) sound", personally