spritzer Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I think you're wrong. So they're aggressive about advertising, so what? Wouldn't you be, if you were in that business in this day and age? I'm not going to blame them for treating a business like a business, even if it is a labor of love -- the two are not mutually exclusive. That said, from what I read in the interview a year or so back (Absolute Sound, I think), they do concern themselves with sound quality. They couldn't handle the number of returns on the original CLX, so they discontinued the speaker entirely. How's that for quality control. And they figured out how to make it profitable again, so they reintroduced it -- what were you saying about smaller panels? I think I hear a famous spritzer backpedal coming... And sure, they care about looks -- with all the comments I've read about "at that price, I expect it to look good as well as sound good", I would too. Again, the two are not mutually exclusive. Just because they actually show some initiative about one, does not mean that it's to the exclusion of the other. I think you're just holding a grudge. What'd they do to you -- did a friend of yours buy a CLX that didn't work? No grudge here except the usual of selling crap at high prices to people that don't know any better. A friend did buy a CLS Mk1 one and it works just fine and is a great speaker. The CLS was a labor of love and respect for electrostatics but those days are long gone for ML. They've been bought out and are not now only making money. They claiming that the care about sound doesn't make it true in any way. That's akin to Ray's claim of the B-52 being the end all preamp and some are buying that crap. If simple cathode followers and flimsy, outdated ESL's strapped to bass units that can't work together are your thing then more power to you. I don't see how discontinuing the CLX makes them care about QC other then that they want to sell products that work (i.e. produce some sound) so they don't have handle repairs all the time (like Quad). ML could have made a lot of money on the CLX if they had simply copied the CLS with a stiffer panel with a thinner diaphragm, more bias and in a braced aluminum frame. It's simple and works well. Another tweak they could charge a fortune for would be the stands to minimize room reflections. ML are a bit like Quad though as they started out doing something new but were bought out and are now rehashing the same old crap but the Quads are quite good when working right. To put all of this into context lets look at Sound Lab. The CLX was 25k$ so well into S-L territory. Sound Lab have been hard at work making speakers that last and are on the cutting edge with the ProStat and it's domestic variant the Majestic. They've reached new heights in producing stiff frames from wood and the 12kV bias is groundbreaking. They use teflon coated diaphragms to make the insane bias possible without the fear of arcing. They've also worked on the backplates making the speakers more efficient with better components in the signal path.
Dusty Chalk Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 They've been bought out and are not now only making money. They claiming that the care about sound doesn't make it true in any way.I can't believe you put these two sentences so close together. Just because you say the first sentence, doesn't make it true in any way either. Are you that in love with your own opinion that you think of it as fact? Jesus. I was synopsizing the article, they didn't just claim to care about sound, they discussed it in great detail. You obviously didn't read the article, otherwise you wouldn't be spouting off this uninformed nonsense.
spritzer Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I haven't read the article as there is only one audio publication that is worth paying any attention to, the rest is crap IMO. I'm drawing my conclusions from having lived with a few ML's (back in my speaker days) and having quite a few friends that do own Logans and are happy with them. I've also worked on them, replacing panels and the like. I'd love to be able to tolerate the Logan's as they are cheap and look good but they simply aren't good and the design sucks, even in comparison to granddad, the ESL57. It's my opinion and it is based on my knowledge of ES technology and studying how their speakers are built. If you like them, that's fine but never claim that they are well designed or built as that is a load of BS.
luvdunhill Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I've got no problem with a 2.1 setup -- it's just another crossover. in an ideal world, it would be 2 crossovers. and since it never is, then this is my issue. Plus, the crossovers are too simple and cannot do things like impedance flattening, which is very important in the low end region.
Dusty Chalk Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I haven't read the article as there is only one audio publication that is worth paying any attention to, the rest is crap IMO. I'm drawing my conclusions from having lived with a few ML's (back in my speaker days) and having quite a few friends that do own Logans and are happy with them. I've also worked on them, replacing panels and the like. I'd love to be able to tolerate the Logan's as they are cheap and look good but they simply aren't good and the design sucks, even in comparison to granddad, the ESL57. It's my opinion and it is based on my knowledge of ES technology and studying how their speakers are built. If you like them, that's fine but never claim that they are well designed or built as that is a load of BS.You're changing the subject -- weren't we talking primarily about sound? I mean, I agree, build quality should be an issue (especially at those prices, just like sound and looks), but my main argument is sound, as the original study seemed to point out that many people agree that they make great sound. So I've got >50% of a study that says you're wrong, at least about that. Also, you said yourself that your experiences are in the past, not in the recent, and yet one of your issues seems to be that they were bought out. Was any of your experience post buy-out? So why would that be an issue, I would think that you would think that that would be an improvement? Still sounds like you have a bone to pick, and if I sound like I have a bone to pick, it's because I despise people who spout off nonsense. Much of the time you have useful information to contribute, but every once in a while, you forget yourself and just get diarrhea of the brain. That's the only reason I spoke up -- I was just "calling you on it".
clarke68 Posted December 29, 2008 Report Posted December 29, 2008 They shove 8 people into the "sweet spot"...is it any wonder that a majority prefer the planars?
Sherwood Posted December 29, 2008 Report Posted December 29, 2008 The "planars have a huge sweet spot" argument never held water to me. My maggies were extremely sensitive to where I sat, to the point where I had to have my head within a few inches for optimal sound. Of course, I had mine standing straight up, and they can get rather "beamy" that way.
Smeggy Posted January 2, 2009 Report Posted January 2, 2009 Interesting read indeedy, It has to be said, I always liked maggies, apogees, logans, quads etc. So it's nice seeing the planars getting good blind results.
Fitz Posted January 5, 2009 Report Posted January 5, 2009 A set of MMGs is now vying for the biggest hole in my burning pocket. You're not the only one. \
spritzer Posted January 5, 2009 Report Posted January 5, 2009 You're not the only one. \ Ditto. Group buy?
n_maher Posted January 5, 2009 Report Posted January 5, 2009 Twitching on that DSP Pro on HF... DSP Pro? The Sennheiser unit? Or some other similarly named product.
Duggeh Posted January 5, 2009 Report Posted January 5, 2009 Yeah the Sennheiser remote control looking thing. It'd be my missing half of the Surrounder Pro setup.
n_maher Posted January 5, 2009 Report Posted January 5, 2009 Yeah the Sennheiser remote control looking thing. It'd be my missing half of the Surrounder Pro setup. I've got one that I'm sure we could work a deal on, I haven't used it in years. I think I've even got the original (although somewhat beat up) box when it was sold with the HD580s.
guzziguy Posted January 5, 2009 Report Posted January 5, 2009 Twitching on that DSP Pro on HF... I've got one that I'm sure we could work a deal on, I haven't used it in years. I think I've even got the original (although somewhat beat up) box when it was sold with the HD580s. I'll bet Duggeh is now twitching so much he can barely walk.
spritzer Posted January 5, 2009 Report Posted January 5, 2009 I'll bet Duggeh is now twitching so much he can barely walk. I bet that's just the gin...
dvse Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 Should've picked up a pair when I had a chance. Now stuck with somewhat underwhelming Adam monitors.
Duggeh Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 drunk and indifferent? Who are you calling an indifferent!?
Fitz Posted January 10, 2009 Report Posted January 10, 2009 Now I'm considering a pair of 1.6QRs instead of the MMGs.
Fitz Posted January 11, 2009 Report Posted January 11, 2009 There's a guy in my local area with a pair of 1.6QRs for $950 that come with the Sound Anchor stands ($340 new), second owner who bought them locally (never shipped). As far as I can tell this is a pretty good deal, right?
Salt Peanuts Posted January 11, 2009 Report Posted January 11, 2009 Is that $950 with the stands? Looking quickly through the A'gon, that seems like a really good deal - I didn't see any 1.6 below $1000 and that didn't include aftermarket stands. I have Sound Anchors stands for my speakers and they're no-nonsense solidly build stands.
Fitz Posted January 11, 2009 Report Posted January 11, 2009 Yeah, that's the price with the stands. I thought it was a pretty good deal based on what I was seeing on the 'gon, but it's always good to have a sanity check from someone else.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now