B&W vs Martin Logan

The only thing I can tell you is that I have B&W CN4's with a yamaha RX-v3000 intergrated amp. I had heard alot of good things about Krell amps and went to audition them... the 250, 300, and 500 Krell amps were hooked up to 2500/pr Martin logans and another pair of Martin Logans which were a much more expensive (don't remember the price but I remember the electrostatic panels)...2 channel through a switchboard. The krell 500watts/channel was $5000.00 It blew me away when I realized (or felt) that my system sounded alot better... I let it slip to the salesman, not realizing I was talking to myself out loud... but it didn't matter, I had bought my system there anyway. My system was $2500.00... the price of any one component. I'm sure there is a price range where the Martin Logans will start to sound better but there are higher priced B&W's also.

I would say that music preference would factor in alot. If you like rock or pop...you may enjoy the punch that cones can provide. I have heard Logans in every imaginable set-up with subs and w/o...and they never had that punch I wanted while listening to bands like Tool, Pearl Jam, Supersuckers, etc. However, when I threw my classical and vocal collection at them, they were mind blowing.

I just compared the 802s and the ML Ascents head-to-head today. Troutki's comments here are right on. I preferred the ML myself for two-channel listening, especially for female vocals. Really mind-blowing presence and soundstage. An "oh wow" experience. Mediocre bass, however.

The N802 sounds very good too, like a really good speaker, warm, natural, a little too rich in the bass for my taste. Would certainly be better for home theatre and for rock music.

Tough choice...

Why not add the Martin Logan Descent sub to your system for extra body?

B&W CM4's above..sorry