Martin Logan vs. Thiel


I have a pair of Martin Logan Ascents and I'm in the mood for something different. I'm missing that tweeter sparkle you hear on cymbols etc and was thinking of making the move to a Thiel 2.3. I've heard that they image and offer as much detail as the Martin Logans. Do you guys agree? I know people say they may sound bright in some systems but I'm running Goldmund and Classe so I don't think that will be a problem, but will the Thiels image and soundstage like the Logans?
totalmlb
I think 125wpc might not do with ML Ascents? I auditioned them with CJ's equaly powered amp of 120wpc, and indeed i missed something too. Overall picture was satisfiying, but i felt more power would do ML justice. Try 200wpc minimum, before going to whole new speakers.
I was Director of Sales for THIEL Audio, but have owned both speakers.
The Martin Logans have a completely different sound, as well as sound stage than the THIEL speaker.
The Logan has what seems to be less high frequency energy which could be attributed to less phase shift,(it really does roll off in the highest frequencies when measured in a real room, too) since the panel is obviously time/phase correct insofar as the panel is moving as a unit body, creating the fundamental of a higher frequency and the harmonics with one mechanical pulse. A mid/tweeter, regardless of the crossover in the THIEL (even the 2.3 which is basically a whizzer cone) being a first order, and presumably phase correct, still can't be perfectly phase correct, with lead lag... (With the Logan you get time smear and room boundary effects from the rear too, which can sound like a phasey smear....wow, this is getting a little wordy, email me directly, and I will walk you through how to get the Logan to sound better. I agree with the one writer about the giant dust magnet, but it would take a lot of dust, (possible) to create a truly dull sound. With Goldmund and Classe, you don't have what anyone would call tubes, but they are also smooth sounding gear by solid state standards. I need to know about room placement,size, cables, etc. So if you like email me at lrsky@bell.net and we can go over this, and I am glad to help.
I have held some siminars about these differences and they need more scrutiny than this space allows for.
Thanks,
Larry R. Staples
Wow its amazing how many people have offered great advice thanks! looks like a lot of Martin Logan lovers out there, actually they hadn't been vaccumed in over a year since I got them, I did just that last week after unplugging over night, and they sound like a different animal, however their still not quite dynamic speakers. I rememeber one of the reason I liked the Logans were because they were easy to place. There is less sidewall reflection to deal with because of the minimun dispersion but mainly because the bass was easily to setup, everything else including the 803 and Sonus sounded boomy in my room no matter where I placed it. In my currently setup in my 19x14 room I have them on the long side 30 inches out and about 6 ft from each sidewall and they sound great. I think one of the reasons I've been inquiring in is because the Ascent still has good resale value from $2500-3000 and Thiel 2.3s are going used for $1500 and I was thinking my system might sound better if I sold it got the Thiels and put the money into better electronics.
FYI
I had to sell mt Theil 3.6's because they were so hot that I felt there was a laser burning a hole in my brain, and so revealing that I could not hear the music, only what was wrong with my recordings. After several recablings, a new amp etc I got ML SL3's and lived happily ever after.
Frank