I somehow find a bit weird that ML is accused of abandoning high end when some of their latest products are their most high end subs ever.
Yes, ML has devoted more attention to trickling down tech into lower cost speakers with Electromotion and the Motion series as good examples. But why is that not good? In my oppinion, looking down the nose at such initiatives is the worst high end snobbery.
The Summit X is better than the Summit it replaced, the Montis is better than the Spire it replaced, the Electrmotion is the best entry-level stat ever made, and the new subs look very impressive and innovative. Exactly where is the argument tyo support the negative statements of ML?
I'll take a stab at this, since I have been one of their biggest critics in recent years. I wouldn't say that they have abandoned the high end, just that they have focused less on improving their high end lineup and focused more on diversifying toward the low end. If you look at the vast majority of new products they have put out in the past few years, they are overwhelmingly at the lower end of the spectrum (home theater speakers, in-walls, lower-end subs and headphones/earbuds). While they make some nicer lower end products, and this diversification has been great for their bottom line, I am sure . . . focusing so much of their resources on these things inevitably leads to less focus being put on improving their top-of-the-line. ML seems to be slowly headed the direction of Klipsch and so many others, and their merger with Paradigm and Anthem is just one indication of that.
Is that opinion "high end snobbery"? Perhaps. But the simple fact is that ML's reputation among true audiophiles is not what it was ten or fifteen years ago. They have made compromises in their high end esl's to make them more WAF friendly (read smaller and lighter form factor). They have made small upgrades to those products over the past few years, and hiked the prices substantially. The CLX was a groundbreaking product, but is nothing at the level of the Statements from years ago. The Summit X is slightly better than the Summit. Not mind-blowingly better. It has a little more seamless crossover from woofer to panel. But it costs half again as much as the Summit! Do you really think it is $5000 better than the Summit? I certainly wouldn't upgrade my Summits to X's for that kind of cash. As for the new subs, they do look nice. But the BF 212 costs $500 more than the Descent i, and has the exact same output specs. Is it an improvement? Or just a more modern design providing the same performance for more money?
As a comparison, look at someone like Soundlab. They do basically one thing and do it very well. They make high quality incredible sounding full range stats. They eschew the weaker hybrid design over the purity of a full range stat. Their stats go down to 28 or 30 hz., without a woofer and crossovers! Even their basic M-3 speaker, about the cost of a Montis, is a full range stat that goes down to 30 hz., which is 26 hz. lower than the CLX! Thus their lower level cheaper stat outperforms ML's most expensive (and only full range) stat at the low end! Their panels also have 60 to 90 degrees horizontal dispersion (compared to 30 degrees for ML's). The M-3 weighs in at 176 lbs., compared to 75 lbs. for the Summit X! (And yes, weight does make a difference in els speakers, where panel stability is critical for accuracy.) More importantly, the M-3 has a panel radiating area of 1300 square inches, compared to a mere 497 square inches on the Summit X (and remember the M-3 costs almost half as much as the Summit X). The A-1, which retails for $7,000 less than the CLX, has 2200 sq. inches of radiating surface vs. the 490 sq. in. of the CLX.
Soundlab isn't the only company like this. You could compare others, such as Quad, Magnepan, and many others. But I personally like the comparison with Soundlab, because they seem to me to be the most like what ML once was, but they are still doing it and refining their high end products. The bottom line is they are focusing on putting out the best high end speakers, rather than leveraging their brand name to sell a bunch of cheap speakers.
Simply put, with a company like Soundlab, you get a laser like focus on delivering the finest high end speakers, which results in a lot more quality for a more reasonable cost. They have a small product line, all high end products made in the U.S., with outstanding customer service. With a company like Paralogananthem, you get cost cutting, offshore production, firing of experienced professionals (as in customer service professionals), price gouging, focus on lower end products to grow the bottom line, a whole lot of focus on marketing, and, apparently, a revolving door for management.
Whether any of this is good or bad really depends on your perspective. I don't think ML makes awful speakers or has totally abandoned the high end. I am just afraid they are headed in that direction and haven't seen much in the past few years to disabuse myself of the notion. Slippery slope and all that. I do believe their overall quality has gone down in certain respects, while their prices have skyrocketed. I see the effects of cost cutting, design for WAF friendliness overtaking design for sound quality, and a stagnation in innovation. Just my opinion.
