Quad vs. Martin Logan?

It seems to me many of the people who have posted in this thread are bass averse to begin with - classical only, etc.- which I find unfortunate because colossal sound is one of those things symphonies do well, so I would take their comments about "poorly integrated" with a grain of salt. It seems more likely the bass is present rather than missing. No electrostatic panel can reach into that sub area in the way a firing cone can. ML was smart enough to realize this without going overboard. Not that I've heard them really cranked. As someone in another thread said though, they are so transparent it is hard to get a read from your ears on what the sound pressure really is. My experience of the ML's is of a well integrated speaker which is extremely nimble but not lacking in bass definition, although it does not have true slam. However, imo, slam usually equals loss of control and would interfere with the open sound, much the way warm bass effects neutrality overall. The ML sound is very rich and transparent - two things that usually do not go together in speakers. I agree with JVN above - I heard Pass powering the ML's and it was an ugly egregious listen. Primare worked fine. EAR works fine, as does Cary. I heard the ML Ascent's side by side with the Sonus Faber Cremona's and the ML's really totalled them. Cones can never be as natural as ribbons and 'stats, but there are still lots of reasons to use them. ANother company you might try are the Opera Piega's which use ribbon tweeters with cone bass drivers. Inner sounds are great 'stats but expensive. Quad's I hear are a pain, which is weird. It really isn't a fussy technology - but I run across people all the time who have to do something to get their sick Quads working again. I have never heard this about ML's, and their customer service is great - I have talked to them several times about various factoids of interest to me, not being an owner of them, and they always happily answer obscure technical questions. Again, not so with Quad. I hear very mixed things about Maggies, though never really heard them, and have noticed that many people are confused about the differences. Except owners. And the two camps always seem at odds - stats and maggies.

I find it interesting that Maggies,even the high end ones, are put in a sonic category with Quads, and other electrostatics. Look at the price difference!! Even the MG1.6 which you can buy for less than most box speakers, gives you much, if not all, of what an electrostatic panel can offer. It's said that "An Engineer can do for a dollar what any damn fool can do for ten". Maggies are a perfect example.

I read somewhere years ago that electrostatic speaker technology was invented in the 1930s. I even remember seeing a reprint of an article from a trade journal from around 1935 showing and describing the system.

Martin Logan has improved the integration of the woofer over the years, the newer MLs defintely sound more coherent than the pre-'i' models (although still not as integrated as non-hybrids, I will agree.) A good installer can dial in a current high end ML setup for your room and make it sound excellent, and it has a better radiation pattern overall than some of the other 'stats I've heard.
If you are considering Quads, then you must have the space and budget, (and lack of WAF issues ;) ) and if so, they do sound very good in the right system / room.
All electrostats have serious setup issues, from the mating of amps to room placement and backwave issues, and getting the right tonal balance vis a vis sufficient bass for some of them. Consider your room and budget and which components you are willing to replace (amp being the primary target.) Pick the right speaker given the above considerations, I don't think there is a single speaker that will be better in every room / system / budget.

Electrostats really have that victorian look to them - plus the open voltage. It's ALliiive...