Summit X revisited

[bwraudio]

LL21 (1), it takes a large room (my room is 29'L x 20'W x 11'H) with great acoustics.
(2) Many ASC bass and midrange traps around entire perimeter of room.
(3) I have the speakers across the long wall, with seating distance 12' away.
(4) A huge amount of space behind the speakers and sidewalls.
(5) Tympani IV bass panels are braced and bolted together and the floor.
(6) The bass panels are driven by a Audio Research D400MK II power amp
and levels are controlled by a Mark Levinson 380s preamp (.1 db increments)
(7) Velodyne SMS-1 Bass management, adjustable xover and slopes.
(8) Rotary woofer Controller and fan speed controller to adjust for total
volume of room
(9) Large opening in floor (4' x 4') and I utilize my very large basement for
venting the rotary woofer.

I have had this arrangement for 6 years and is very coherent and integrates very well.
Great imaging, huge sound-stage with enormous depth, bass transients are awesome.
No worries about overdriving (superb head-room)
Low level detail and transparency are superb.
No need to upgrade the loudspeakers, Electrostatic mated with Tympani's and rotary
sub are a match that, in my opinion, can not be improved upon!

 

[LL21]

LL21 (1), it takes a large room (my room is 29'L x 20'W x 11'H) with great acoustics.
(2) Many ASC bass and midrange traps around entire perimeter of room.
(3) I have the speakers across the long wall, with seating distance 12' away.
(4) A huge amount of space behind the speakers and sidewalls.
(5) Tympani IV bass panels are braced and bolted together and the floor.
(6) The bass panels are driven by a Audio Research D400MK II power amp
and levels are controlled by a Mark Levinson 380s preamp (.1 db increments)
(7) Velodyne SMS-1 Bass management, adjustable xover and slopes.
(8) Rotary woofer Controller and fan speed controller to adjust for total
volume of room
(9) Large opening in floor (4' x 4') and I utilize my very large basement for
venting the rotary woofer.

I have had this arrangement for 6 years and is very coherent and integrates very well.
Great imaging, huge sound-stage with enormous depth, bass transients are awesome.
No worries about overdriving (superb head-room)
Low level detail and transparency are superb.
No need to upgrade the loudspeakers, Electrostatic mated with Tympani's and rotary
sub are a match that, in my opinion, can not be improved upon!

Thanks for that! I could believe it. It sounds like you have custom-built your own ultra-version of the IRS Infinitys...panels, big panels, and really BIG cones/subs!!!

 

[cannata]

I have no issues with the bass of the q3, tight, punchy and digs to below 30hz from a relatively small cabinet and a sealed one at that. And while, the Summit may have more apparent bass weight, it cannot match the speed, articulation and tautness of the q3's bass response. Regarding the tension rods, unless I know the exact tightening torque, I don't think I'd like to fiddle with these. I'm also confused with Magico's claim that the S5 was voiced to have more bass slam than the q3. In two settings that I've heard the S5 (not in my place), my Q3 exhibited more bass depth and extension.

Just spent a couple of hours over at friend house, listening to the Q3. Amazing speakers (I am now wondering how my S5 will compare…). If you never tighten these rods, you are not hearing what these speakers can do (apparently, the entire damping mechanism does not engage if these are not tight). The clarity in the midrange was improved dramatically, once it was done. You don’t need a torque wrench, he showed me how it is done, simply take a Allen wrench and normally tight the bolts that hold the rods in the back. Took a minute to do so! But if you must buy a new speaker, which is fine too

 

[FrantzM]

I am sorry to break out the news. The Q7 and the S5 do, not the Q3 and Q5

How can you tell?

From this link it looks like the mid are in their own enclosure or at least sealed from the woofers ... It would not make too much of sense to have the woofers output impeding the midrange drivers with their back pressure, I could be wrong though.

I have heard several speakers the past year or so. This gem the Q3 remains one of the best I have heard regardless of price , the Q3 and the butt-ugly Giya (can't remember model#) are very special speakers for the music lover who value accuracy. IMHO subwoofers required (for the vast majority of speakers this side of the NOLA reference , Genesis , VR11, etc)

 

[ack]

How can you tell?

From this link it looks like the mid are in their own enclosure or at least sealed from the woofers ... It would not make too much of sense to have the woofers output impeding the midrange drivers with their back pressure, I could be wrong though.

Yes that's sort of a box (see also this re: the Q5) and it probably has a sealing effect, but it's not the new fully-encompassing curved enclosure they started advertising in the May/June 2014 TAS, and which can be found in the S5 et al. Overall, the Q3 remains my top choice, but I will wait for a revision, and needless to say I just can't part with my Logans...

 

[JackD201]

It appears that Jack likes to listen at realistic levels like I do.

Guilty as charged Mark

 

[mep]

Yes that's sort of a box (see also this re: the Q5) and it probably has a sealing effect, but it's not the new fully-encompassing curved enclosure they started advertising in the May/June 2014 TAS, and which can be found in the S5 et al. Overall, the Q3 remains my top choice, but I will wait for a revision, and needless to say I just can't part with my Logans...

Why was I thinking you sold your MLs after you bought some Magico speakers?

 

[dafos]

Just spent a couple of hours over at friend house, listening to the Q3. Amazing speakers (I am now wondering how my S5 will compare…). If you never tighten these rods, you are not hearing what these speakers can do (apparently, the entire damping mechanism does not engage if these are not tight). The clarity in the midrange was improved dramatically, once it was done. You don’t need a torque wrench, he showed me how it is done, simply take a Allen wrench and normally tight the bolts that hold the rods in the back. Took a minute to do so! But if you must buy a new speaker, which is fine too

So I surmise that if there's a bit of slack you just use common sense and tighten just enough till the slack is gone? I've read the magico manual and nowhere does it state that these rods have to be tightened every so often. In fact, the reason Magico uses this system of bolting its drivers is because they believe screws on wood will always loosen with time, the implication being that with the ways the q drivers are fixed, loosening of the tensioning rods should not be an issue for the foreseeable future with regular use.

 

[ack]

Why was I thinking you sold your MLs after you bought some Magico speakers?

I know; I have been close a couple of times; they are the closest to electrostatics that I have access to, and though the Q3's bass is nonpareil and so realistic, with a midrange just as clean, there are a couple of fundamental issues that others speakers do much better; at least from a design perspective. And I would need a bigger room to get the drivers to blend well. Meantime, I keep modifying these MLs, and throwing better electronics at them... the DMA-400RS monos are to arrive in the next month or two - and as I, for example, thought losing ultimate control with massive scale Mahler was a limitation of the MLs, it turned out the 400RS have an insanely better control of the orchestra, and the gap with Q3 is even smaller... and round-and-round we go

 

[dafos]

xxx there are a couple of fundamental issues that others speakers do much better; at least from a design perspective.xxx

I'm curious what these fundamental issues are so can you be a bit more specific?

 

[mep]

The problem I have always heard with the Martin Logan speakers I have owned and listened to is that they either don't have any real bass, or the bass they have is lousy. The original Monolith speakers had horrible bass and made me appreciate true transmission line bass. My Aerius speakers I owned through a second set of panels just didn't have much bass at all. Good subs are mandatory for the ML speakers I have heard. And mind you I haven't heard most if not all of the new product line so that may not be true anymore.

 

[ack]

I'm curious what these fundamental issues are so can you be a bit more specific?

Oh, what I said earlier: I would want a totally sealed midrange like the S5, and separate chambers for each of the woofers (unless I am mistaken and they are all covering the same range, which I don't think they are). I know Magico can do better, and I am certain they will be building better speakers in the next 5 years. I would also love to see them bi-ampable out of the box. Still a mouth-watering speaker when set up correctly, but I just can't pull the trigger yet.

 

[ack]

The problem I have always heard with the Martin Logan speakers I have owned and listened to is that they either don't have any real bass, or the bass they have is lousy. The original Monolith speakers had horrible bass and made me appreciate true transmission line bass. My Aerius speakers I owned through a second set of panels just didn't have much bass at all. Good subs are mandatory for the ML speakers I have heard. And mind you I haven't heard most if not all of the new product line so that may not be true anymore.

You are absolutely right... and it's mostly in the crossover (proven not only by my mod, but also by others' own on the MLO site who followed suit), though they could also use higher-tech drivers too. The Mundorf crossover I did is nothing short of a metamorphosis, followed by this RoadKill product lining all around inside the enclosures (that material is usually used inside car doors to absorb vibrations). I am actually about to try drivers with very similar Thiele-Small parameters, like these SEAS and Accuton

 

[puroagave]

The problem I have always heard with the Martin Logan speakers I have owned and listened to is that they either don't have any real bass, or the bass they have is lousy. The original Monolith speakers had horrible bass and made me appreciate true transmission line bass. My Aerius speakers I owned through a second set of panels just didn't have much bass at all. Good subs are mandatory for the ML speakers I have heard. And mind you I haven't heard most if not all of the new product line so that may not be true anymore.

the aerius is hardly an example of their best work:b their narrow panels were mid/tweeter only supplanted by an 8" woofer. STs measurements show they go no lower than an average stand mount monitor - In fact they were designed to take up no more floor space than a monitor. the magic with ML is in the larger models that have bass segmented panels - it fills out the mid-bass better before being handed off to a woofer or sub. the CLS has two bass panels on either side of the mid/tweeter that are padded to lower the resonate freq. combined with a sub I have few complaints re the bass - not quite the equal of a direct radiator but excellent nonetheless.

 

[mep]

the aerius is hardly an example of their best work:rolleyes::b their narrow panels were mid/tweeter only supplanted by an 8" woofer. STs measurements show they go no lower than an average stand mount monitor - In fact they were designed to take up no more floor space than a monitor. the magic with ML is in the larger models that have bass segmented panels - it fills out the mid-bass better before being handed off to a woofer or sub. the CLS has two bass panels on either side of the mid/tweeter that are padded to lower the resonate freq. combined with a sub I have few complaints re the bass - not quite the equal of a direct radiator but excellent nonetheless.

I agree, but I still enjoyed the hell out of them for years, but I used them with a pair of true 1/4 wavelength transmission line subs I designed and built many moons ago. They were a great combo.

 

[analog brother]

are the summit x and montis a big step up from the previous series, specifically the vantage?
i find the vantage a little bit slow/muddy in the mid to upper bass.
other than that, a nice speaker.

 

[Adrian Low]

are the summit x and montis a big step up from the previous series, specifically the vantage?
i find the vantage a little bit slow/muddy in the mid to upper bass.
other than that, a nice speaker.

I believe the new generation is an improvement over the previous, though more evolutionary. The Summit/X and Montis are 2 of the finest speakers I've heard. As some other posters have suggested, adjust the rake to vertical (as long as you do your listening sitting down), and you will be shocked at the improvement. When the Summit was first introduced, we had the B&W 802 D (first generation Diamond tweeter), Wilson Sophia, Magnepan 20.1 and the Revel Studio on display. All at the same time. My fav were the Sophia and the Summit. By far. Certainly, some other speakers have more airy top end, others image more precisely, etc, but for the cost, I believe the Logans are truly competitive among the finest speakers.

Best,
Adrian Low

 

[DonH50]

My bias is to Maggies so take my comments with a grain of salt.

Going from Vantage to Montis you go from 8" to 10" woofer and drop the crossover from 400 Hz to 340 Hz (I think) with the larger panels. Moving on up to the Summit you get two 10" woofers and a crossover of 270 Hz. IMO, dropping the crossover frequency makes a significant difference in sound, helping reduce the discontinuity between panels and conventional drivers. Better integration is another way to say it. I suspect that is the main reason bass sounds cleaner on the upper models.

 

[Adrian Low]

My bias is to Maggies so take my comments with a grain of salt.

Going from Vantage to Montis you go from 8" to 10" woofer and drop the crossover from 400 Hz to 340 Hz (I think) with the larger panels. Moving on up to the Summit you get two 10" woofers and a crossover of 270 Hz. IMO, dropping the crossover frequency makes a significant difference in sound, helping reduce the discontinuity between panels and conventional drivers. Better integration is another way to say it. I suspect that is the main reason bass sounds cleaner on the upper models.

Hi Don

Love Maggies too. Own and sell them. During my second year of University, I lived in a 10' x 10' bedroom, a mattress and a table. But I had a VPI HW19/ET2 arm/Koetsu Rosewood cartridge, Audible Illusions preamp (can't remember what transformer), Counterpoint SA12 power amp, and a pair of Maggies 2C (I think). Had my priorities straight!

You may be right re the lower crossover point. I have never tried modifying them so I don't know. I do know that I much prefer the Summit to the previous model, the Prodigy. Could never get the Prodigy to cohere as well as I thought it should. The bass is far better integrated in the Summit/X, sounds much faster and deeper, with real conviction. Plus, aesthetically, the Prodigy always looked bulky and clunky to me. That said, the panel was wonderful.

I also really like the Ethos. Again, don't know if it is due to the crossover point etc, though I suspect some of it has to do with the actively driven bass driver. It seems to integrate well.

Best,

Adrian Low

 

[DonH50]

I have not heard recent ML's to speak of and generally shy away from sound comparisons -- old ears, lack of recent knowledge, and a combination of engineering skepticism and Missouri "show me" mule-headedness gets me in trouble every time I voice an opinion about the sound of anything.

What I do know is some years ago ML bass had serious flaws, IMO and that of many others. Measurements showed some significant concerns in alignment of woofers to panels. They went through a pretty major redesign that resulted in much better LF response and blending with the panels. What little listening I have done in the past few years showed much better bass than perhaps 10 - 15 years ago.

I went with servo-controlled subs decades ago, beginning with my own design (Velodyne, AudioPro were new and too expensive for a college boy, and I didn;t care for their approach so went a slightly different way in my servo implementation). The listening and measurements back then proved to me and my friends that a big part of "muddy" bass was due to ringing of the subs, nothing to do with "speed" of a subwoofer (a curious concept). A good passive design with a good amp was just as good, but the overall performance for a servo sub a fraction of the cost was usually much better. All this to help explain why the active design might be better. Another is the ability to provide much higher crossover slopes, much finer control of crossover parameters like gain and phase, and tight coupling of the amp to driver. Without a passive crossover between amp and driver cone control is much improved.

All IMO/IME! - Don