Search results

Thanks Big Dog, excellent account had forgotten the the details about the way they works and also that they couldn't play all that loud - another reason I ended with ML

As i recal the way the quad is working is sort of cone principle meaning the panel is build not like a cohérent film but with a slight delay between sectors. I'm sure you can educate me here. But from what i heard Quad "colapsef" at that time (and my HiFi pusher discontinued carrying them - at...

Great post Big Dog and sounds right - when I heard them ages back when the summits had arrived on the scene. The CLS were the direct comparison - too expensive for me although in my end of the world the Quad and the ML are closer in price. In any case I ended with the Aion i over the smaller...

The main difference between Quads and ML 13A is that the ML are hybrids meaning there are tradeoffs. The ML will generally play deeper and louder, but aren't as coherent though. Both brands sounds excellent but what you will prefer is up to your ears as said. It's long time ago I heard the...

How do thes compare to the ML traditional LS? From various reviews of ML vs ML I note there are at least some preferring the traditionals

Bi-wiring is in reality just to put the binding post closer to the amp. The magic happens at the cross-over in both cases. You of couse need a cable twice a big. Bi amning seems to make some sense to me for ELS as the low impedance is at the higher frequencies. At least for the ELS 9 and below.

The woofer will cause 1th reflections. But if it's a pb is another matter. You could try with a mattress and see or rather hear what it does.

Absolutely

My view is more concerning or say realistic. But if you only can hear the difference unless inban A/B test does it matter - meaning possible not? I.e., unless you don't enjoy what to hear. I find the discussion about how much cable A is beter than cable B ( costing 10 fold), yet not realising...

A matrass below wil do the trick.

No I'm just saying i find many plays music at an exaggerated bass level in stereo. At times I must admit that I do change to multi channel which isn't that bad at all. Mood dependent 😀 Edit. The multi channel is maybe an Arcam feature or customised version.

I trust the movies because the LFE giving a significant bass bost for special effects (think 10 times more). And for music I find many add way to much bass to the sound so the philharmonic ends sounding like disco music so to speak. But surely bass is complicated to master amd has always been.

Only LFE. Sounds like amp dependent? Or room dependent? Or maybe ear dependent? Would love to try the BF, but I have a Grotto (one woofer only) and didn't detect a real difference in the sound quality compared to the Dynamo. The Grotto is excelent with music but movies somewhat lacks the punch...

Indeed. But my experience is to get the right sub meaning not too big. For music my ML 1100 gives a better result than the 1600, which by contrast is better for films. I even have it set 3db lower for music than films - originally to avoid any turntable hiccups but actually gives a better...

I always wonder with the comparison after a while mentioned. If you wount be able to say there is a difference then whats is the value by upgrading? But i doubt you wouldn't be able to hear a difference.

If 11A or higher that's already the case. Well, you still need to feed them but it must draw very little effect, so would there be need to use a seperate amp.?

That's it, sorry i misunderstood, but we agree.

No - distortion is distortion, but surely the way it is persived is listner dependend and dependend on everyone's ability.

Well appart not much wattage at those frequencies

Then you need to define distorsion - I guess there will always be a bit not least from the loudspeakers. My take would be when you hear it. A bit like dynamic range.