Thoughts on ML-1C speakers?

R

rolltide

Super Member
I've been toying with the idea of buying a pair of ML-1C's from a local seller. They've been refoamed and seem to be in great condition. Obviously I'd listen for myself and form my own judgement before making a decision, but I'm curious as to what people's impressions of them are. I know there are plenty of vintage speakers like various Klipsch offerings that are near and dear to many people, but I also hear stories of say, JBL L100's where the polite consensus seems to be that far better speakers are available these days.

I'm also thinking of Roger Russell's write up on them from his website where he states they were meant to be paired with the MQ101 and they might not sound right without them.

Thoughts and opinions? :music:
 
Register to hide this ad
Used a set with an MAC1900 back in the day and thought they worked well together on classical and class jazz and female vocals. Can't comment on the MQ101, as have never used one. But, they are not to difficult to come by and can always sell for about what you paid for one should you find it is no advantage.
 
You MUST HAVE the MQ 101 for the speakers to play correctly. Otherwise, flat response not doable. And they are best in larger rooms. And sing best with McIntosh gear.
 
Mac ML speakers have a sound signature that most listeners DO NOT care for...I am not saying they sound bad, just that to most listeners the mids and high frequencies are too laid back so many consider them "dull" sounding.

I have posted in the Mac Tech sticky a copy of McIntosh's speaker white paper which will clarify why and when you might need a MC102 or MQ101 eq.

There is obviously nothing wrong with liking them...I have just restored a set of ML2s with a MQ101 for a client who has owned them as a second system for 30 years.
 
I've listened to ML2s and ML4s but never the ML1s. The larger versions have a smooth laid back sound like C dk describes. I assume the ML1s are the same, just smaller. Roger Russell used to have a kit to update the crossover and tweeter for a brighter sound.
 
I own a minty pair i inherited off my father inlaw and polite sounding is how i would describe these, if in good sonic condition and hooked to good quality source they can sound very good, i never had the optional EQ for mine but they still have amazing bass these were reputed to be able to go to 20hz and i would not be surprised if they can, don't buy into all the dull sound hype audition them and decide for yourself i have owned speakers that are dull sounding and that's not how i would describe these, by Roger Russells account these were tuned to be a more neutral life like sounding speaker and that better describes their sound.
 
Last edited:
According to RR, the MQ-101 must be used with the ML-1 for flat response as Kent noted but unfortunately only 1/3 of ML-1 buyers actually purchased one. It struck me as peculiar that a company like Mc would knowingly unleash a product in the marketplace without the requisite gear needed for proper performance: The 101 should have either been included with the ML-1 and factored into the price or been offered at a discount to ML-1 customers at the very least.

The MQ-101 continued to be necessary for a number subsequent models IIRC.
 
When McIntosh developed and introduced the AA2 analyzer and MQ104 back in the late 70s they gave us a powerful new tool to actually measure the speakers performance and correct bad interactions with the room.

When we actually went into customer's homes to measure their systems performance it gave us insight into what they disliked and liked with their systems and allowed us to begin to quantify those subjective descriptions.

I was given the privilege to voice over 300 systems (did one this past Thursday with a restored MQ104) and somewhere in my 30 years of paperwork there is a notebook full of voicing/room curves. Of those 20 or so pairs were from the ML series.

Read the white paper...I can not remember any installation where the correct setting for the installation was ever above 4, then only for one speaker in space compared to it's companion which was in or near the corner.

I hope to post Thursday's results in the post I started about the XR6 install soon.
 
Really great responses folks, I appreciate the feedback.

Were I to get these I'd be running them off a 2505. I could see myself adding an MQ101 at some point down the road as they seem fairly common and affordable on the used market.

The dull/laid back does give me pause as I am a fan of crisp highs and midrange. This sound as described is consistent with what I've heard with speakers from that era. Then again, I am in the market for new full-range speakers and I'm not sure what would be had for a comparable price (~$500) that would be better.

I'm thinking I'll probably pass, but its hard as they're gorgeous speakers in perfect shape. Oh, the perils of McIntosh lust. :)
 
I obviously had many clients that adored their sound and expected me to help them get the most out of them.

Put them on a strong stand/table to get the 8 inch driver at least 18 inches off the floor.

They will couple strongly with side walls so get them away from them if at all possible.

A MQ101 will allow mid and treble boost but a MQ104 or MQ107 would be best.

The recent MQ101 I repaired for the XR6 installation also needed a complete recap to restore the S/N back to spec.
 
The ML-!C has a critically damped woofer. Meaning it is very accurate, with low distortion, accurate rise times and fall, and doesn't need an amplifier with high dampening factor & great big wire to get accurate bass. But there is a compromise. The bass rolls off prematurely compared to underdamped speakers. So to get a flat response you need a minimum of the MQ-102 to restore the bass, unless you plan on putting them in a corner on the floor, which is great for bass, but poor for everything else in the spectrum. I haven't installed 300 Mac pairs with EQ, but have done a number with the MQ_107, with Ivie spectrum analyzer and Crown TEF 20+ analyzer.

The only issues I had with the ML series was the super tweeters and tweeters, and crossovers could not handle high power in their frequency spectrum. Roger Russell has an update that will allow the ML-1C to handle well over 100 watts full spectrum. The ML-1c is a basically flat from 20 to 12,000 with just a bit of roll-off, off axis. If you want sound un-naturally bright, you better look else where. TWI
 
I have 4 of the ML1 cabinets getting in my way around here..if I get the time I hope to find a solution that makes sense and does not cost the kind of money Roger proposes for his Morel mods.
 
I had a pair of ML2Cs which I used with a MQ104 equalizer. You need the equalizer to get adequate bass out of the ML1,2,4 speakers. I still have the MQ104 and all the original box of capacitors that came with it if you are interested.
 
You should use it with your LS350s...

As for having to have a bass boosting eq...when measured in actual rooms with speakers near the rear wall the most common setting is 2 ....a whole 3 dB of boost at 20 Hz.
 
Last edited:
A pair of Ml1c with Rogers mod will effectively have the capability of out performing a ML-2. ML2 tweeters will only handle 3o watts the super tweeter 10. The ML1 mod over 100, thats 10 db on the super tweeters and over 6db on the tweeter, That's a big difference. You don't have a clue how many ML-1Cs I had blow up with exploding caps burnt circuit boards and cooked drivers. But it was over 40 pair, being driven by 2100's, 2105's, 2200's, 2205 and multiple pairs with 2300's. The salesman at work gave up and started selling B&O 5700 and 5702 which were 3 to 4 db more efficient. My average setting on a ML1 set at ear height near a wall was 3 or about 6db.
 
Even the Holiday Inn where we stayed in Binghamton did not use Mac speakers in their disco...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom