advertisement


Musical Fidelity MC2 speakers

maccavelli

maccavelli

pfm Member
eBay is a wonderful thing, it allows you to re-discover all those gems you once past up in favour of another such component.
I'm quite a fan of digging back just to see what all those things I passed up at the time were really like.
A case in point, I've just collected a mint pair of Musical Fidelity MC-2 standmount speakers, they are the MkI variety so they are superior
to the MkII's. I've yet to wire them up to listen. Does anyone have an opinion of experience as to their sonic abilities?
I remember the reviews at the time, accolades all round, and part designed by a Mr Martin Colloms, a guy who's opinion I respect.
Just a shame they are so butt ugly.
 
I once had a dem of these with a Cyrus 2 amp and LP12/Ekos/Oc9 it was not a happy match' the Cyrus was the culprit being hard and bright, with an MF amp now its a totally different ball game much smoother and more civilized 'so i would say partner with care.
 
Yep, those blue graphics are naff. Did they come with the foam grilles? Pretty good speaker, you might like to experiment with reducing the amount of fill inside.
 
RustyB said:
Yep, those blue graphics are naff. Did they come with the foam grilles? Pretty good speaker, you might like to experiment with reducing the amount of fill inside.
Click to expand...
Hi, they have cloth grills, yes the blue graphics are shite, they come with the foam bungs in the rear ports. The bass isn't too extended at the moment.
 
Yes, designed by Martin Colloms, hence the 'MC' moniker. Also reviewed in the mags by MC.:rolleyes:

Back then, we bought in a pair to show and a pair to go and we struggled to sell them on. For a start, the finish was appalling with the cheap vinyl wrap peeling off all over the place and crunched cabinet corners showing the low grade chipboard cabs. Strange, because the reviews stated how high quality the cabinets were ??? We also had cross-threaded terminals and a wire loose inside.

Apart from that, the sound wasn't all that and we had plenty of other speakers, less expensive and which sounded a whole lot better with far nicer cabs
 
Yes, designed by Martin Colloms, hence the 'MC' moniker. Also reviewed in the mags by MC.:rolleyes:

Really? Do you know which issue?

The tweeter quality was fine, an Elac unit similar to the one in the MC4.

Whereas the MC4 used a cast-chassis Audax TPX midbass, the cheaper MC2 used a pressed steel chassis driver, probably also Elac.
 
I still have these speakers in the basement of my house with an MFA1 amp. They are ugly things, but don't sound too bad at all. Fairly transparent but can be a bit bright so need to be matched carefully. They time nicely but the base isn't that extended. Very easy to drive. Hope you have some fun with them.
 
RustyB said:
Yes, designed by Martin Colloms, hence the 'MC' moniker. Also reviewed in the mags by MC.:rolleyes:

Really? Do you know which issue?

The tweeter quality was fine, an Elac unit similar to the one in the MC4.

Whereas the MC4 used a cast-chassis Audax TPX midbass, the cheaper MC2 used a pressed steel chassis driver, probably also Elac.
Click to expand...

The MC2 was reviewed in the 66 issue and MC4 in the 59 issue of HiFi Choice.
 
I bought a pair of MC2 speakers after the review and sold my Sony AMP22ES, I have regretted that since. I still have the MC2s in the garage.
 
I've had Mk1 bi-wired MC2's for years (since they came out) and been very delighted with them, however they need the most careful placement to get the best (and bass) out of them. They are rear ported and their position relative to the wall(s) is very critical. Move them about to get the effect you want and see the difference. I have mine mounted on a pair of sand-filled Target stands. It is essential that the base of the stands do not just sit on carpet otherwise the bass evaporates. If you have a solid floor and can get spikes down to the concrete it make a surprising difference. The stereo imagery is exceptional. Happy listening.
 
A friend had some in student days, c.1987. He'd worked all summer on his Dad's farm to sub them along with a MF CDP, power amp and passive pre. It sounded good but I remember thinking at the time that I'd spent a summer's income on Wharfey Diamonds, Pioneer A22 amp and a trip to go climbing in the Austrian Alps and on the whole that was a better deal. :-D
 
I bought a pair in the late eighties without audition on the back of strong reviews. I agree with HiFi Dave completely. No loss when they went.
 
are there any reliable specifications available for the drivers? (I was told they had been specified as TDL drivers, where ever those folks got them...I don't know). The quality of the boxes themselves isn't bad. Perhaps I should just match the tweeters to a decent (available) mid-bass, and build an improved enclosure (in terms of quality) for whatever drivers I end up with.

I've been looking for suitable replacements for the mid-bass drivers for years. I agree with everyone here regarding the fit and finish of the boxes, and the blue graphics. Right now I use them as a stand for my printer. The tweeters can be a little brutal (from what I remember), and are sensitive to upstream equipment and wiring. When they were working, I thought the sound was quite good when paired to the Audiolab 8000A. Bass was what I might call "taunt". And using the foam bungs really helped the bass become very well controlled. Because I live in Canada (where the average sized living room is about 250-300 ft² with 8' ceiling as a minimum), the placement issues that others may have had simply did not exist for me. Good interconnects and loudspeaker cables (Audioquest) were used throughout the system at that time.

If any have the capability to measure Thiele-Small parameters and have these speakers on-hand, is it possible to get some parameter measurements? Even something in the basic neighbourhood of proper measurements would be helpful.

Merry Christmas to all.

stew
 
Im pretty sure that the tweeter was that used by TDL in their Studio range and that it was designed and built in collaboration with ELAC. No idea where the bass driver originated.
Martin Colloms designed them for MF so perhaps pop over the Hi-Fi Critic and ask him.
 
Robert,

Thanks for the reply. Merry Christmas (or Hanukkah or whatever winter celebration you partake in).

I was thinking trying to contact Mr. Colloms might at least get me in the direction. If anyone should know, I would think it would be him. As I stated I necver really had an issue with them, just that both woofers ere damaged by my pets. I would like to get them working again.

I appreciate the idea.

stew
 
I emailed him about the driver. I had a set of MK2 or late MK1 with a Celestion driver. Mr. Colloms, didn't recall the original driver and said he left all materials with MF after his project ended.

there is a review in Stereophile, no surprise there, and it is positive, again no surprise. In the article it states that the tweeter is TDL or Elac and the mid driver is Audax. I replaced both the tweeters in mine with a set from MC4s and changed out the celestion drivers with AUDAX, which were the original mid drivers. It greatly improved the sound. I have a MF B200 which worked better than other amps.
 
I was always under the impression that the drivers were all TDL. I did phone Musical Fidelity some time ago. Someplace I have the measured parameters of one of the original drivers. What shocks me is that I haven't found mid-woofs in the 7"-8" range that can be made to work. I can find 6" or less. I could reconfigure then as aperiodic boxes, which would open up other possibilities.

Thank you for the reply today.

Regarding the review in Stereophile, is it online (I'll do a search)?
 
I found a Gramophone review online and the bass mid driver is a 150mm steel framed Audax Bass/midrange drive and a 25 mm Elac tweeter.

I know the mid/bass driver s/b 200mm, not 150mm.
 
Dear Stew,

I've just seen your thread on the Musical Fidelity M4 loudspeakers. The original was designed by Martin Colloms, the replacement one, with the two bass/mid units were designed by Musical Fidelity.

The Martin Colloms MC4 used an advanced TPX plastic clear cone which had a fine clear midrange but a plummy upper bass similar to 8" polypropelene units. The unit was physically transparent to sound which is why the cabinet is stuffed with sound absorbent. Take out the stuffing and the internal echos can be heard coming through the cone. The TDL tweeter was the best of its kind in that day, but it was rather thin sounding and bright. The cabinet was thick and rigid in order for some measure of bass clarity but it resonated in the midrange, which gave the midrange a creamy smoothed over sound at the expense of detail.

The tweeter required a valve amp but then the bass was soft. The bass/mid unit required a strong transistor amp but then the tweeter was thin and bright. The speaker had good points but the marriage of a hard sounding tweeter to a soft sounding bass/mid unit was not a happy one. It is reputed to be better than the Mk2 M4.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Parsons. UK.
 
I use to sell them in the 80s; they were brought in by the same man importing Spendor. I don't remember the 2s very well but remember that I really liked the 4s. I would switch them in and out with the SP-1s and they were not embarrassed by the comparison. I was thinking they used an Audax tweeter but it has been a long time and I am not sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top