Quad 989 vs Martin Logan CLS IIz?

Barkwood, what exactly is your point? Not trying to be a smart-ass, but you aren't clear. WHAT blows away the 99's?

Larryh - I used to own Quad 63's, then 57's, and listened extensively to many Martin Logans (of which the CLS was my favorite). I ended up with Sound Lab electrostats - and I loved them so much I became a dealer. Check out Sound Labs at www.soundlab-speakers.com; my site is www.audiokinesis.com. I liked the 57's better than the 63's, and the 63's better than the Martins, and the Sound Labs best - though they are a bit more expensive. The Quads are a fairly easy speaker to drive; the CLS's are difficult and won't play much louder than 93 dB no matter how much power you put into them; the Sound Labs are a difficult load but will play loud given sufficient power.

I own the 989's and have owned the 63's and the 57's. The 57's definitely have the best midrange I have ever heard as far as realism but where was the bass without a sub. The 63's greatly improved on the bass with an increase in volume level but again where was the bass? and the loss in midrange detail was noticeable. The 989's have quite a realistic level of bass, a soundstage wider than the placement of the speakers, much better imaging than my 63's ever had and an improved midrange although not to the level of the 57's. All told the results have been very gratifying.

Never owned the 989 but I did for a short period have USA 63's. The CLS 2Z blows them away and doesn't have to be vacuumed and is infinitely more reliable. The CLS does need a sub.

I also had to respond to audiokinesis. I put a sound meter on the CLS2Z and I have to wonder what distance he referes too. I can get 95db out of them at 40 feet. I use a Radio shack sound meter. What is he using?