Quad vs. Martin Logan?

Newbee, I'm right there with you. Those and the Maggie 20.1's are what I covet for my "ultimate" media room. I plan on adding one to my house in 2yrs under the guise of a "Gameroom". Don't tell my spouse!!

Same experienced I had as posters above for the Martin Logans. I was a fanatic (from Aerius, to Aeon, and then Ascents)until set up (TT, cart, preamp, amp) got better. The woofers inability to blend with the panel sticks like a sore thumb especially in Classical music genre. Maybe it is better than the maggies (disclaimer: I now have a 1.6Qr and happier)in some ways (although I cannot think of what at the moment) but the maggies will step all over it in terms of cohesiveness!

I never heard the Soundlabs nor the Quads so I have nothing to share for them.

Had Martin Logans. Now Innersound. No comparison. Innersound by far.
I do agree with Duke's fine presentation. Regarding the rankings mentioned, I believe the Innersounds are only bested by Sound labs.
A point worth consideration is the effect of climate on electrostat panels. My Martin Logans suffered in high humidity.
Innersounds "Ultra stat panel" is said to be immune to dust, humidity etc.
So far I have found the claim to be 100% true.
I am not sure about this issue with the other speakers mentioned.
Also, Innersounds do play loud and usually come with an external crossover/bass amp.
This feature gives some control of room conditions and allows for very good bass integration. The added bonus is the ability to bi-amp. As Robert Harley states in his book,this may be the best of both worlds . Solid state for bass and tubes for upper freq. (not an exact quote but close)
I have found this to be the case.
Down side- A smallish sweet spot. A fair trade off for me.

I'll add my 2 cents to this debate. I currently own and listen to Quad 63, Quad 57, Martin Logan CLS IIz, Martin Logan Ascent, Martin Logan Aerius speakers. First, I love my Logans. I find the Aerius and Ascent to be well intergrated. Electronics matching is the key. I find my CLS IIZ to be my favorite of the bunch so I cant argue against that full range electrostatics speakers are better than the hybrids. Each has their pro's and cons. I like them all. The CLS IIz CAN AND DO play loud and they DO have bass with the right electronics which I of course have. The Quads have a magic to them also, but they tend to be rolled off compared to the Logans. But they are easier to drive. I have not heard Soundlab and at $15,000 to $30,000 for these, I figure they will never find their way into my basement. I did recently hear the new Innersound system here in Chicago and I was impressed. But at $20,000 for the system, no way could I ever afford that. My recommendation is to look at your budget and if you want stats, I think you can find happiness with Martin Logan or Quads within their strengths and limitations.

I agree with linnlp12, and I'm going to add my two cents to that. First let me say that for me, "Martin Logan" means "CLS"! I think my CLSIIz system with just a single ML Depth crossed over at a mere 35Hz is the closest thing to audio nirvana I ever heard, and I've heard them all. There's at least a three-person sweet spot, all bass appears to come from the panels, the transient response is uniform from top to bottom. None of that "hybrid separation."

There is now another Martin Logan which I think could supplant the so-far-irreplacable CLS: it's the new Summit, which I heard at CES. If you are able to audition one, do! They do everything a SoundLab does in a quarter the size (and I think they'll be around $10K)