Paul Wooferwitz
Member
My qualification for this forum -- my "anchor baby" -- is a Dynamo subwoofer. Beyond that, my system consists of 6 DefTech ProMonitor 800s, an Onkyo 606 receiver and an Oppo BDP-83.
I've been following the thread on ML moving its manufacturing, and I share the fear that one commenter expressed so aptly in discussing the new Motions, that ML might become the new Bose. My own first whiff of that fear came in reading the copy for the Dynamo 500. Where the old Dynamo's copy said, "Although ports are a convenient and cost-effective way of increasing low-frequency output, they rely on resonant energy in a way that impairs bass quality," the Dynamo 500's just says, "Ports are a convenient and cost-effective way of increasing low-frequency output." Uh-oh. I note that the Dynamo 700 and 1000 are still sealed systems, but still...
All that said, I'm strongly interested in the Motion 400. It's within my budget, and if it gets a couple of good golden-ear reviews I just might go for it.
I've been following the thread on ML moving its manufacturing, and I share the fear that one commenter expressed so aptly in discussing the new Motions, that ML might become the new Bose. My own first whiff of that fear came in reading the copy for the Dynamo 500. Where the old Dynamo's copy said, "Although ports are a convenient and cost-effective way of increasing low-frequency output, they rely on resonant energy in a way that impairs bass quality," the Dynamo 500's just says, "Ports are a convenient and cost-effective way of increasing low-frequency output." Uh-oh. I note that the Dynamo 700 and 1000 are still sealed systems, but still...
All that said, I'm strongly interested in the Motion 400. It's within my budget, and if it gets a couple of good golden-ear reviews I just might go for it.