[Peter]

I wonder if anyone might have had an opportunity to audibly compare the new
full-range Martin-Logan CLX ESLs vs. the Quad 2905 ESLs?

Both of these are the top-of-the-line speakers for their respective
companies.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:25:14 -0800, Peter wrote
(in article ):

I wonder if anyone might have had an opportunity to audibly compare the new
full-range Martin-Logan CLX ESLs vs. the Quad 2905 ESLs?

Both of these are the top-of-the-line speakers for their respective
companies.

Comparing them directly is difficult - you'd have to find a dealer that sold
both and had them set up in the same room. Not likely to happen.

OTOH, I have heard both speakers - albeit under different circumstances.
There's not much common ground there. The Quads have more bass than the M-L
CLX but aren't nearly as transparent or as extended sounding on top. Other
than that, it's hard to make any hard and fast conclusions but I suspect that
with the addition of suitable subwoofers that the CLX would be the better
speakers. Both need subs to really cover the frequency spectrum adequately.
The difference here is whether that sub starts taking over in the mid-fifties
(CLX), or the low forties (Quad). The Quads probably would have more "wife
appeal" and are definitely smaller than the CLXs, but the CLXs are sooooo
seductive. Were I in the market for a pair of $25,000+ speakers, I know where
I'd spend my money!

[[email protected]]

On Feb 18, 3:34*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:25:14 -0800, Peter wrote
(in article ):


OTOH, I have heard both speakers - albeit under different circumstances.
There's not much common ground there. The Quads have more bass than the M-L
CLX but aren't nearly as transparent or as extended sounding on top. Other
than that, it's hard to make any hard and fast conclusions but I suspect that
with the addition of suitable subwoofers that the CLX would be the better
speakers. Both need subs to really cover the frequency spectrum adequately.
The difference here is whether that sub starts taking over in the mid-fifties
(CLX), or the low forties (Quad). The Quads probably would have more "wife
appeal" and are definitely smaller than the CLXs, but the CLXs are sooooo
seductive. Were I in the market for a pair of $25,000+ speakers, I know where
I'd spend my money!



Two Points:
1. As a general observation, the various iterations/(versions?) of the
Quads have seen off many a speaker system that was supposed to be much
better in some respect or other over the years from esl57, 63... 2905.
2. My own sense is that an immutable law of that
"transparency"/"suductivity" that so appeals to you is the further a
speaker reaches down into the bass region and keeps the level even
with the mid frequencies, the more of that transparency is lost. This
applies if the speaker in question is full range or uses subwoofers,
bi-amplification or whatever. BTW the use of subwoofers always in the
opinion of some myself included, creates as many problems as it
solves.

Bottom line. The name of the game remains with which compromises you
are prepared to live.

ESTG/

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:00:49 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 18, 3:34*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:25:14 -0800, Peter wrote
(in article ):


OTOH, I have heard both speakers - albeit under different circumstances.
There's not much common ground there. The Quads have more bass than the M-L
CLX but aren't nearly as transparent or as extended sounding on top. Other
than that, it's hard to make any hard and fast conclusions but I suspect
that
with the addition of suitable subwoofers that the CLX would be the better
speakers. Both need subs to really cover the frequency spectrum adequately.
The difference here is whether that sub starts taking over in the
mid-fifties
(CLX), or the low forties (Quad). The Quads probably would have more "wife
appeal" and are definitely smaller than the CLXs, but the CLXs are sooooo
seductive. Were I in the market for a pair of $25,000+ speakers, I know
where
I'd spend my money!



Two Points:
1. As a general observation, the various iterations/(versions?) of the
Quads have seen off many a speaker system that was supposed to be much
better in some respect or other over the years from esl57, 63... 2905.
2. My own sense is that an immutable law of that
"transparency"/"suductivity" that so appeals to you is the further a
speaker reaches down into the bass region and keeps the level even
with the mid frequencies, the more of that transparency is lost. This
applies if the speaker in question is full range or uses subwoofers,
bi-amplification or whatever. BTW the use of subwoofers always in the
opinion of some myself included, creates as many problems as it
solves.

Bottom line. The name of the game remains with which compromises you
are prepared to live.

ESTG/

First of all, The lack of deep bottom end on the CLXs is not really a problem
on these speakers, and secondly, I don't see how extending the low-end with
sub woofers would, in any way compromise their other attributes. The CLXs
sound better than the Quads. In fact they sound better than any speaker I've
ever heard. End of story

[Peter]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:00:49 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

First of all, The lack of deep bottom end on the CLXs is not really a
problem
on these speakers, and secondly, I don't see how extending the low-end
with
sub woofers would, in any way compromise their other attributes. The CLXs
sound better than the Quads. In fact they sound better than any speaker
I've
ever heard. End of story

Could you possibly tell us with which electronics you listened to both of
these speakers, i.e. the Martin-Logan CLX svs. the Quad 2905s?

Thanks a lot

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 05:04:41 -0800, Peter wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:00:49 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

First of all, The lack of deep bottom end on the CLXs is not really a
problem
on these speakers, and secondly, I don't see how extending the low-end
with
sub woofers would, in any way compromise their other attributes. The CLXs
sound better than the Quads. In fact they sound better than any speaker
I've
ever heard. End of story

Could you possibly tell us with which electronics you listened to both of
these speakers, i.e. the Martin-Logan CLX svs. the Quad 2905s?

Thanks a lot


Since I heard them at dealers, I really can't be too specific. The CLXs were
powered by a Mark Levinson solid-state power amplifier (don't know which
model) and that was fed by a Mark Levinson pre-amp. I believe that the SACD
player was the high-dollar Marantz unit. Seems to me that the Quads were
being fed by Classe amp/preamp combo, and I don't remember what the CD
player was. But it doesn't really matter which electronics were used since
the differences in sound between amps, preamps and CD players is trivial to
almost non-existent, anyway.