Help me understand a mullet or how to avoid one.
Posted by: Brubacca on 04 January 2018
I am trying to understand the concept of a Mullet system. My understanding is that a Mullet has put significantly more resources into the speakers than electronics. I am not asking about the specific equipment I mention, but merely the idea of the different levels.
For arguments sake my Source was about $2,300, my integrated amp was another $2,200. I am looking for speakers so it would make sense to be at abou $2,300 for a balanced system.
Now to the question. Is balance about the $$ spent or the "level" of the gear. Using Monitor Audio as the example.. That dollar amount gets me a larger floor standing speaker that would go much lower in the bass region. Its puts me in their silver range of speakers. That same money gets me a Gold Bookshelf. Is that Gold Bookshelf getting me into mullet territory? It meets the $$ requirment, but Floorstanding is my preference. If I move up to the Gold Floorstander I'm now at $4,500. I think most would agree that $4,500 speakers with a $2,200 amp is a bit of a mismatch. I do love the ribbon tweeter of the gold. My room is large and is open to another room so it can accomodate a floorstander.
So what say you?
Please don't focus on the specific gear. I could make a similar argument using Totem speakers.
If MULLET was a fish, it be a longnose butterfly fish.
There are two types of mullet, red and grey. The the grey is estuarine / coastal, sleek in appearance and sometimes tastes awful, red is marine rises more vertically in appearance and is good to eat, lightly cooked with just butter or a delicate sauce.
And here's the OTHER mullet (enough said!)
Innocent Bystander posted:Huge posted:It's more about relative length.
So if that person’s relatives all have shorter hair on top, or longer hair at the rear, his is not a mullet...
Oh brother! 
Innocent Bystander posted:Huge posted:Innocent Bystander posted:Huge posted:It's more about relative length.
So if that person’s relatives all have shorter hair on top, or longer hair at the rear, his is not a mullet...
Oh brother!
Franciscan monk hairstyle?
Or
A baboon is a type of monkey, but not a fish!
Hang on a monkfish is the opposite: This is getting confusing.
Yes, I can understand the confusion over the analogies. The original analogy for a system which had an emphasis on the rear end (speakers and possibly power amp) was a mullet i.e. the hairstyle much loved by football players and....err...most of us (not me of course) who were yoofs in the 70s and 80s. Relatively short on the sides and top and longer at the back.
Here is a classic example of the mullet sported by Mel Gibson from the period to which I refer:
The analogies were then taken further to describe a system with the opposite characteristics i.e. an emphasis at the front end (source and possibly pre amp). We switched however from hairstyles to fish for this analogy with no explanation....and the monkfish was born. A big mouth but relatively small tail to reflect the system in question.
When developing the HiFi system analogies more recently in a 'Blimey' thread we seemed to stick with fish analogies. Not sure why, but occasionally things make little sense on here. Good fun though.
The Mullet was invented by Ziggy Stardust. A style popular on mars.
with the low pressure on this planet - hunormas speakers were needed to create any sound at reasonable levels
TOBYJUG posted:
The Mullet was invented by Ziggy Stardust. A style popular on mars.
with the low pressure on this planet - hunormas speakers were needed to create any sound at reasonable levels
Yes, this is a great example of the red mullet.