Quad Esl and 63s ushered me into high end audio (I owned the 63s and later added Gradient subs) so I have a soft spot for stats.
I’ve heard and auditioned many ML stats since the 90s.
I find the ML sound to have a generally pleasant “golden upper midrange” to my ears that I like, though MLs, especially older models could veer into being a bit bright and slightly fatiguing. Never the case with Quads for me.
I was recently chilling listening to my friend’s set up with the ML Ethos, a standard ML hybrid and came away with the same feeling I’ve had every single time I hear ML. It’s a place I love to visit - I will always eagerly sit down on front of a pair to experience that special stat transparency, openness and (with some sources) realism.
But I very quickly also realize why I could never live with them as a main speaker. I find the discontinuaty between the low frequencies (cone) and midrange up (stat) impossible to ignore. When there is some bass in the track that portion of the sound will have some presence, but everything rendered by the stat has a ghostly, skeletal, flatter “I can hear it but it’s not really there moving air” quality. It’s especially painful for rock/pop where the drive of the sub/cone can fool you that air is being excited in the room but it’s easy to notice instruments in the midrange - eg electric guitars, synths, lack any punch.
Plus I’ve never found the quality of bass in any ML hybrid to be that good - I hear more of a plodding quality “yep the sub has kicked in” vs tight, tonally integrated bass.
I’ve heard since the 90s onward “ML has better cone/stat integration now” but I’ve never once found it to be the case, including various newer statement products at shows.
Whatever route ML has stayed on in its hybrid designs, I don’t think it will ever yield truly excellent integration, if it hasn’t by now.
i remember getting more convincing integration many years ago with the dipole Gradient subs made for my Quad 63s.
I’d love to hear the Janszen hybrids which many report as a truly successful integration design.
Anyway, although it sounds like I’m coming down hard on the MLs I still love listening to them. It’s just whenever I spend time with a ML by the end I come home wanting to hug my cone speakers, as they provide both an amazing sense of boxless transparency and a sense of density and punch through the whole range that I find more satisfying and realistic.
I’ve heard and auditioned many ML stats since the 90s.
I find the ML sound to have a generally pleasant “golden upper midrange” to my ears that I like, though MLs, especially older models could veer into being a bit bright and slightly fatiguing. Never the case with Quads for me.
I was recently chilling listening to my friend’s set up with the ML Ethos, a standard ML hybrid and came away with the same feeling I’ve had every single time I hear ML. It’s a place I love to visit - I will always eagerly sit down on front of a pair to experience that special stat transparency, openness and (with some sources) realism.
But I very quickly also realize why I could never live with them as a main speaker. I find the discontinuaty between the low frequencies (cone) and midrange up (stat) impossible to ignore. When there is some bass in the track that portion of the sound will have some presence, but everything rendered by the stat has a ghostly, skeletal, flatter “I can hear it but it’s not really there moving air” quality. It’s especially painful for rock/pop where the drive of the sub/cone can fool you that air is being excited in the room but it’s easy to notice instruments in the midrange - eg electric guitars, synths, lack any punch.
Plus I’ve never found the quality of bass in any ML hybrid to be that good - I hear more of a plodding quality “yep the sub has kicked in” vs tight, tonally integrated bass.
I’ve heard since the 90s onward “ML has better cone/stat integration now” but I’ve never once found it to be the case, including various newer statement products at shows.
Whatever route ML has stayed on in its hybrid designs, I don’t think it will ever yield truly excellent integration, if it hasn’t by now.
i remember getting more convincing integration many years ago with the dipole Gradient subs made for my Quad 63s.
I’d love to hear the Janszen hybrids which many report as a truly successful integration design.
Anyway, although it sounds like I’m coming down hard on the MLs I still love listening to them. It’s just whenever I spend time with a ML by the end I come home wanting to hug my cone speakers, as they provide both an amazing sense of boxless transparency and a sense of density and punch through the whole range that I find more satisfying and realistic.