quad vs ml

[Nikos]

could someone compare the quad 2805 and 2905 with ML models?
which ml is closer to 2805 and which is closer to 2905 in terms of soundstage, midrange,bass, and clarity?
thanks a lot and sorry if this is not a proper question.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Nikos,

To a certain degree, you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

The only ML model that compares to the Quad that is a full range panel (non hybrid) is the CLS.

Regarding performance specifics, way too many variables to make any objective comparison.

GG

 

[roberto]

could someone compare the quad 2805 and 2905 with ML models?
which ml is closer to 2805 and which is closer to 2905 in terms of soundstage, midrange,bass, and clarity?
thanks a lot and sorry if this is not a proper question.

Hola Nikos...at the before CES in Vegas I had the time to audition the 2905 for some time. I did play all kind of music, and believe me, the sound was very nice at the mids, and sometimes I did like very much what I was getting from them. With ML, it is more dynamic, more detail at the highs, and has better lows too. The air between instruments and the position them at the stage are more life-like, but with the Quads there are a warmth in the mids that it is impossible to forget. Over all, I do like more ML and the reliable issue, ML is a clear winner. Also with the new panel of ML, the diaphragm weights less than the air that it moves, making this one of the fastest speaker on earth. No inertia is the clue here. The applied signal will move as fast as the signal is, and will stop moving when there is no signal. Why is this so important? The sound is a change of pressure in the air, right? If we will keep moving when there is no signal due to the mass of the driver, then we will produce sound that does not belong to the music, or to any particular instrument(s), vocal(s), that we are listening to...all is a matter of liking, trust your ears and choose the one that you liked most...happy listening,
Roberto.

 

[Nikos]

roberto thanks a lot for your description
I have ML Purity and I am happy with ML sound.
In this forum I have learn many thinks about ML.
I would like to hear opinions like yours about the quads, as they get great reviews from tas and stereophile.
with current currency quads are a bit closer to me than ML....
thanks again,

 

[Nikos]

are quads capable of reproducing big orchestras playing symphonic music?

 

[daveneumann]

Nikos,

Roberto pretty much nailed the differences that I hear. I owned the 2805 for two years. In that time, I used many different amps (all tube) and had them in three different rooms. If I would not have had significant reliability and repair issues with the Quads, I would still own them today! But after several trips for needed repairs (4 hour round trip each time) to the dealer, I decided to trade them in on a pair of ML Spires. I was always careful to NEVER over-drive them and I never tripped the protection circuit that I was aware of (which is the primary cause of failures in Quads).

While there is a certain warm, compelling quality to the Quad midrange that the Spires just can't match, the Spires do many many things better than the Quads as Roberto points out. Some of these things are:

- Go much lower, with better bass impact
- More extended treble
- Much more dynamic; they can play much louder without strain
- Bigger, taller soundstage
- More detailed, even in the midrange
- More transparent
- Nicer to look at

Where the Quads seem to excel over the Spires are:

- Midrange warmth, fullness, and solidity of images
- Reveals subtle layering in vocals and instrumentation
- More depth to soundstage

If someone would guarantee that I would get years of trouble free service from Quads, I would get another pair without hesitation. When they work, they are like no other speaker I have heard. However their construction quality is appalling for the price. An example is that on one of my speakers the service technician found 3 or 4 cold solders. And they only come with a one year warranty with only two "certified" repair facilities in the US.

Bottom line, I like both speakers. If I could get the qualities of the Quad midrange with the Spires, they would be the perfect speaker!

Dave

 

[tonepub]

From my experience with the quads, I'd agree with Dave on almost all of his list...

Got a pair coming in for review, so we'll let you know!

 

[slowGEEZR]

Also with the new panel of ML, the diaphragm weights less than the air that it moves, making this one of the fastest speaker on earth. No inertia is the clue here. The applied signal will move as fast as the signal is, and will stop moving when there is no signal. Why is this so important? The sound is a change of pressure in the air, right? If we will keep moving when there is no signal due to the mass of the driver, then we will produce sound that does not belong to the music, or to any particular instrument(s), vocal(s), that we are listening to...all is a matter of liking, trust your ears and choose the one that you liked most...happy listening,
Roberto.

Roberto, is this really true? I thought it was just the coating on the diaphragm that was lighter than the air that is moves, not the diaphragm itself.

 

[RUR]

Roberto, is this really true? I thought it was just the coating on the diaphragm that was lighter than the air that is moves, not the diaphragm itself.

Straight from the ML website:

The diaphragm of a MartinLogan electrostat is actually lighter than the air it moves

http://www.us.martinlogan.com/technology/electrostatic_theory.html

 

[slowGEEZR]

Wow, that's light because a cubic foot of air weighs approximately 8 hundredths of a lb. I wonder how much air ML uses as the figure the diaphragm moves. Must be quite a few cubic feet!

 

[roberto]

Wow, that's light because a cubic foot of air weighs approximately 8 hundredths of a lb. I wonder how much air ML uses as the figure the diaphragm moves. Must be quite a few cubic feet!

Hola SlowGEEZR, another thing of why we stick with our beloved sound from ML. It is truly fast!...and no distortion...Less than 0.03% and with the vacuum bonding we get full uniform surface drive with totally phase correct. Quads are super too, but I stay with ML sound. My liking and heart are with ML. The see through and the contact with the air with not clothing is another issue of transparency. With all respect with the designer of Innersound, with not having a curved electrostatic element, I think that this feature is another bless from ML. The dispersion and the time that we receive the music waves at our seat, is another issue too. There are too many variants with ML products, and they are for good. I do like and I am very pleased with the sound that I get in my system thanks to ML. I do know that out there might be better products perhaps, but for what we pay and the quality that we get, ML is unmatched. Service is the most important link in the sales chain. The product must get the attention and service at once!, no matter the cost of it. And from ML, we have one of the most friendly supported service and also fast! Long time ago I had the HQD system from Mark Levinson, and still have the quads around in my workshop with bad tweeters. I had wrote hundred of letters to Quad when Mr Walker was alive, and once at the CES show he said to me, I am not interested in your market, try to get the service from where you bought the goods...sometimes very difficult from here...happy listening,
Roberto.