I recently got a pair of these electrostatic speakers and I also have a pair of Dunlavy SC-IV whose size happens to be similar to this ReQuest. The Dunlavy is surely more dynamic than this electrostatic pair, but the ML ReQuest is a bit better in midrange and vocals. Both require good power and upstream components. So far so good.

First, I can see why people like them. These speakers are like a pretty girl, but she has no brains - no personality - no passion, just pretty. Maybe they aren't tube friendly and I know room placement is key. Even with proper room placement, they image very well, but still no passion. They sound good with SS amps and require a lot of good power. Don't think your 200wpc Rotel with a low damping factor is going to move these and even when they do move don't expect the lethargic woofer to keep up. Overall It was disappointing and I couldn't wait to either get rid of them or use them as rear surrounds.

TONAL BALANCE
SOUNDSTAGE
SOUNDS GOOD ALSO WITH IMPERFECT RECORDINGS

DIFICULT TO PLACE
NEED A VERY LARGE A LONG ROOM
NEED BEST AMPLIFIVCATION (200 W)
NEED BEST SOURCE

MARTIN LOGAN REQUEST: THE BEST SPEAKERS (VALUE FOR MONEY) COMIN OUT FROM MARTIN LOGAN FACTORY UNTIL NOW!.
I THINK THAT THI IS THE CULMINATION OF MARTIN LOGAN SPEAKERS FOR GOOD SIZE ROOOM BUT I THINK ALSO THAT MARTIN LOGAN HIGH LIGHTS VALUE FOR MONEY HAS BEEN: ALSO AERIUS i AND SL3 SUITABLE FOR LITTLE SIZE ROOM. AFTER THIS BEAUTIFUL LINE UP MARTIN LOGAN HAS NEVER BE THE SAME: ASCENT, ODISSEY, PRODIGY LINE UP IN TONAL BALANCE WAS TOO MUCH BASS ORIENTED AND THE NEWS SUMMIT , VANTAGE ECC .... .. WITH AMPLIFIER SUB NO, NO I DON'T 'LIKE .( AND THIS NEW SERIES STOP ALSO THE MAGIC MARTIN LOGAN ORIGINAL STYLE.
SO MARTIN LOGAN REQUEST ARE THE DEFINITIVE SPEAKER IN MY SYSTEM AND I THINK NENER CHANGE IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE I MUST SPEND , MUCH A LOT OF MONEY TO UP GRADE THE SOUND AND I THINK IS VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND A SPEAKERS LIKE THIS.
MARTIN LOGAN REQUEST HAVE: A BEAUTIFUL TONAL BALANCE . DEEP SOUNDSTAGE AND OTHER HI FI BLA, BLA ,BLA BUT WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT IS THAT WITH THIS SPEAKERS YOU LISTEN THE MUSIC AND NOT THE HIFI AND THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THINK!

BUT IS NOT EASY REACH THIS STATUS IN SOUND BECAUSE:
1)difficult to place in room ( DON' BUY THIS SPEAKERS IF YOUR ROOM IS SMALL ( MINIMUM IS ABOUT 20 FEET LONG AND 15 LARGE, ANT WITH A RIGHT REVERBERATION BECAUSE THIS SPEAKERS ARE DEAD IF YOU HAVE A ROOM WITH A LOT OF ABSORBATION)
2) difficult with other components cd player, preamp and amplifier (you need 200w amplifie withr good quality)
3) difficult to find a very good cable: prepare to spen a lot of money in cable

I take 3 years for fine tuning but now I don' need to change nothing in my two channel system

Similar Products Used:

AERIUSI, SL3, ASCENT ECC.

* Lush, tubelike, palpable midrange * Very powerful, extended, tight bass * Value in terms of what you get per dollar invested (in used market)

* Not quite as detailed as the lastest ML designs (but the difference is not huge) * Not quite as dynamic as the newer ML Odyssey, but again not a huge difference.

The Request is a fabulous speaker. I can provide an interesting contrast between the Request and newer Odysseys that I owned for a year prior to getting the Requests: Odysseys are better than Requests with: * Low level detail (5% better) * Transparency (5% better) * Bass detail and balance (10% better) * Macro and micro dynamics (10% better) * Treble balance (the Request's treble is slightly lower in level (5% better) Requests and Odysseys are equal with soundstaging and imaging (excellent) Requests are better than Odysseys with: * Midrange: This is a big difference! The Requests have one of the most palpable, 3D midranges I've ever heard from any loudspeaker (and I've listed to a lot of different models at length over the years). I would recommend the Request to anyone on this basis alone. *Bass power and dynamics: The Requests deliver a combination of bass power, extension, and tightness that I normally only hear from very large, expensive speakers at trade shows. * Lushness: Requests offer a very smooth, tubelike sound that makes them very easy to listen to for extended periods. Conclusion: If you asked me to choose between the Odyssey or Request I would say; If your goal is accuracy or evaluating upstream components, get the Odyssey. If your goal is the enjoyment of music, get the Request, especially given the price difference between the two models.

Similar Products Used:

Pretty much all ML models in the past 10 years excluding the Monolith or Statement

Huge soundstage. Airy, open and very revealing.

none.

After owning Martin Logan Sequels for 15 years, I sold them and bought a pristine pair of 2000 model year reQuests. They sound AMAZING. All electrostatic speakers require high quality upstream components as they will reveal weaknesses in the rest of your system. Also they require very accurate placement - must be a few feet away from the rear wall and away from the side walls. Drive them with a good clean amp with lots of power that can handle a very difficult impedance load and you will be very happy with them.

Similar Products Used:

Martin Logan Sequels.

Great imaging and clarity... it really sounds like someone is singing right there in my living room!

A chore to find the right speaker placement.

I've had these speakers for several years and would recommend them to anyone looking for a great set of speakers in this price range. In reading some of the other reviews, I really cannot understand how some others perceive these speakers as being "muddy" in any way. Perhaps they got a bad pair or are using them with components that don't match up well. If anything, I've experienced the opposite problem, that on certain recordings the sound is actually a little too bright and detailed when using a solid state Krell KSA-150 amp. I've found that the Sonic Frontiers Power 3 tube amp does a nice job of softening the sound a bit (at the expense of some high end detail) for female vocals and such and can provide enough juice to drive them. There is no doubt that these speakers are very finicky when it comes to placement. It is truly amazing how much the sound changes with just minor adjustments in speaker angle and distance from the walls. It really takes a great deal of patience and effort to maximize your listening experience, but well worth the effort.

Non-fatiguing to listen to. Very good transparency and reproduction of voice, strings, and musical overtones. Fantastic detail and staging.

Setup is critical and they are power hungry. Large dedicated rooms are almost essential. I have a dedicated room for music and it pays to experiment with placement to get that great stat soundstage.

I think that you are going to hard pressed to find a better overall value in audio speakers. They have many excellent high end attributes at a real world price. The midrange is very lifelike and is probably it''s primary selling point. Like many, if I upgrade at some future point in all likelihood it will be for a "bigger" Martin Logan.

Similar Products Used:

Infinity Reference Standards with ribbon EMIM/EMIT drivers.

Imaging, mid range, coherence between woofer and panel. Look. Quality/price ratio.

Needs very much watts (not a weakness). Difficult to place correctly (not a weakness). Materials of woofer cabinet.

Do not buy them if: 1) you have not good electronics. And at least 150 W (better if 200W). The upper highs works on 1-1,2 ohm impedence... 2) Room too small (muddy bass, or bass attenuated, in my opinion "artificial") or too long and large (weak mid-highs). I think 5,5-7 mt. x 4,5-5,5 is the correct size for these girls. 3) You have no time to waltz with them (to find correct position in the room). In my room, 1 mt. from the front wall and 1,20 mt. from the side walls. Poor imaging if too near to the walls. 4) you like aggressive, coloured highs. 5) you like only rock and/or pop music. But these are "difficult" but very sweet girls. A great, detailed and transparent mid-range, robust bass. Highest high may sound a little ethereal, but a good bi-amp... Not perfect, but a very good quality/price ratio. Excellent for chamber music, jazz, voices and generally acoustic music. Good for orchestras, i think a lot too "soft" for some kinds of rock music. No problem for me.

Similar Products Used:

Yamaha ns-1000. I''ve heard Klipsh, B&W, Sonus Faber etc.

See above !

Cabinetry a little weak.....I''ve owned B&W with far better woods(woods being the key word)

Short and sweet.10k sound for $2500-$3000! Detail: Spectacular! Bass : Good Mid Rg: Incredible! Build : Good Sndstg: Very best feature!!! CustSrv: First Class!! Re Sale: Excellent!!

Similar Products Used:

M&K, B&W,

Transparency, mid-range clarity

Can sometimes sound "thin"

Overall an impressive speaker. Has more clarity throughout the range than most and is unbeatable in the middle. Some reviewers have complained about bass booming, but I've stepped down the bass by 3db (switch on the back of the unit does this easily) and have no issues. I've not heard a more transparent speaker, period! Given ML's rounded panel, the sweet spot is larger than maggies (but smaller than many cone drivers). Placement is critical given the dipolar radiating pattern. I'm driving them with the Sunfire two channel, which seems a very good match. As to the looks, its either love or hate 'cause these buggers are too big to ignore! I think they work well with a wide variety of music...including very dynamic source materials. In fact, these speakers seem to excell when cranked up: loud but clear and unstrained. Few better units exist - at least according to my ears.

My System: ML ReQuests, Sunfire Two channel, Sonic Frontiers Line One, Rotel RCD 971 (cheap interconnects, next on the upgrade path)

Similar Products Used:

Dahlquist DQ20, Magnepan 3.6, B&W 801