Summit X revisited
- Thread starter dafos
- Start date
I was an Aerius owner for many years and loved it, until I heard Wilson's. To my ears, my WP8's sound more true to life, more accurate and just plain right. My good friend, who lives about 1/10 mile from me had Summits for a few years, so we would listen to each other's system on a regular basis. To my ears, Martin Logan's have a sound, a house sound that is overlayed onto the music. I'm not sure what it is, but I can tell when I'm listening to a Martin Logan. It's like there is something between me and the music, which I do not experience with the Wilsons. With the Wilson's, the music seems to just come out of thin air, so free and real. Also, the bass from ML Summits is not as musical as Wilson bass, to my ears. I don't know if it is the built in bass amps in the Martin Logans that cause this, but I think those amps and also the small bass enclosures affect their bass negatively. Every time we listened to his Summits and then went to listen to the Wilson's we agreed the sound, the music just had a rightness to it with the Wilson's. Eventually, my friend sold his Summits and bought Usher BE 20D's and both of us think they sound amazing. This is all just my opinion and I hope I didn't offend anyone.
For me, I have always appreciated what the CLXs (and their matched Descent Subs) do for uncanny 3-D sense of space and 'spooky' presence. The speed of notes, decay is so enjoyable.
The key (for me) has been that when I go back to well designed cones (Wilson, Rockport for me)...I realize I enjoy the extreme sense of solidity of the notes and the overall presentation MORE than the remarkable spookiness/3-D of the CLXs. With my own X1s (admittedly old)...their solidity, scale and dynamics are some of my favourite things about them. On the 3-D thing, it has taken a TON of work to isolate the speakers to avoid vibrations, etc and to purify the signal going to them in order to create some semblance of the presence/spookiness I hear with CLXs...and frankly its still not quite there. But its much closer today than it was a year ago...and furthermore, I have decided that i am happy to make that trade-off in my own priority list of sound in return for the things that the Wilsons do really, really well where the CLXs by contrast do not do it for me as much (again, solidity, scale and dynamics).
I admire the ML speakers but have not (yet) been tempted. In a word, its about priorities for me. Look forward to hearing the Neoliths.
The key (for me) has been that when I go back to well designed cones (Wilson, Rockport for me)...I realize I enjoy the extreme sense of solidity of the notes and the overall presentation MORE than the remarkable spookiness/3-D of the CLXs. With my own X1s (admittedly old)...their solidity, scale and dynamics are some of my favourite things about them. On the 3-D thing, it has taken a TON of work to isolate the speakers to avoid vibrations, etc and to purify the signal going to them in order to create some semblance of the presence/spookiness I hear with CLXs...and frankly its still not quite there. But its much closer today than it was a year ago...and furthermore, I have decided that i am happy to make that trade-off in my own priority list of sound in return for the things that the Wilsons do really, really well where the CLXs by contrast do not do it for me as much (again, solidity, scale and dynamics).
I admire the ML speakers but have not (yet) been tempted. In a word, its about priorities for me. Look forward to hearing the Neoliths.
Exactly Llyod,
I have a friend who was an avid Martin Logan fan for almost solid three decades who finally took a different route for same reasons you mentioned - despite their renowned strengths.. ultimately do lack that last vestige of solidity, scale and dynamics. He last had the CLX + Descent subs/pr which I knew he did put his best effort to make it work. Here's a fuzzy/dark mobile shot I took during one of our listening session few years back..
*Amps he tried/owned included Goldmund, Balabo, Technical Brain, FMA, Jadis, Wavac, Kondo plus few more I may have missed.
Not met him since, hearsay he's currently running top line Cessaro Horns+its dedicated subs (close to a Mill$ retail I was told
, not sure which model), driven by flagship SET Kondos (amps+pre).. Totally different direction, so probably taste and preference do take a shift with age!
I have a friend who was an avid Martin Logan fan for almost solid three decades who finally took a different route for same reasons you mentioned - despite their renowned strengths.. ultimately do lack that last vestige of solidity, scale and dynamics. He last had the CLX + Descent subs/pr which I knew he did put his best effort to make it work. Here's a fuzzy/dark mobile shot I took during one of our listening session few years back..
*Amps he tried/owned included Goldmund, Balabo, Technical Brain, FMA, Jadis, Wavac, Kondo plus few more I may have missed.
Not met him since, hearsay he's currently running top line Cessaro Horns+its dedicated subs (close to a Mill$ retail I was told
, not sure which model), driven by flagship SET Kondos (amps+pre).. Totally different direction, so probably taste and preference do take a shift with age!
Last edited:
Hi Don,
I agree that active/servo subs are generally better. And at a lower cost typically. Also agree that early Logans had issues with integration, though back then, the results were acceptable, especially if one wanted electrostatic speakers with some power and bass. After all, what were the options? Acoustat? The panels were huge, wide, pigs to drive, and I never got the hig frequency extension. Ever! Owned the Spectra line, 2s, even 1+1s. Nope, didn't do it. Quads? Great speakers overall, (owned at least 3 pairs not to mention the '57s, of which I currently have 2 pairs in stacked configuration a la the Levinson HQD, minus the H and D!) but they didn't have the low bass power, and cranking the '63s could lead to the speakers shorting out the amp! And they were much more expensive than the Sequels I owned. Plus butt ugly! Soundlabs? Way more expensive, huge, pigs to drive, and couldn't play loud enough before they arc'ed. I believe Logan has gone on record somewhere that the success of the Sequels and Monoliths enabled the company to grow beyond mere curiosity. The Quests, flawed as they were, made many many clients very happy.
It's also easy to forget that there weren't that many sub companies only 15-20 years ago, and even fewer that were any good. With the advent of home theater, many speaker companies became much more successful, selling 6-8 speakers/sub instead of just 2! The R&D budget increased for many of these companies, and, I believe, led to better subs. I owned early Velodyne subs, the Servo 12 and 15, and though in hindsight they were not fantastic, they were much better than passive options. I was able to mate a Velodyne servo15 with my Wilson Watt 1 in 1988 (thereabouts), and had decent results. Ok I lie. I was ecstatic! Ah, the early ignorant years when I didn't know so much but was totally bombed out on the sound I got. These days, I would like to think I know a lot more, yet I yearn for those halcyon days when I could rock out on Def Leppard, Huey Lewis, Brian Ferry, and yes, Air Supply!! and not be aware that there were integration issues. Damn you Don for enlightening me!
)Best
Adrian
Heard them all and a few more (who could forget Beveridge, Statik's, Model Nine's, etc.) No point in debating preferences, especially among a group of great speakers (despite their flaws).
I built my sub around 1979, maybe 1980. There were only a couple of active designs I knew about at that time, and maybe a handful of subs overall. I currently own a pair of Rythmik's that use a design very similar to my earlier design (knew I should have patented it! )
LL21: I was going to draw a pretty picture but need to practice. I realized at last night's rehearsal just how little I had practiced over the summer (work's been a pain), and that I had woefully neglected my sight-transposition skills. It showed. Instead, here's an analogy that might help (a pretty loose one, apologies to the purists). When you drop a pebble into a still pool of water, ripples radiate out. If the pebble is an impulse into a speaker, ideally there would be no ripples; the sound would follow the pulse and stop instantly when the pulse stops. In the real world, the speaker cannot stop instantly and there are ripples (ringing) after the impulse has stopped. those ripples fill in the sound when there should be silence, and can interfere with the next sound that comes along. Servo design helps the speaker follow the music without those extra ripples (ringing) to muddy the sound.
I built my sub around 1979, maybe 1980. There were only a couple of active designs I knew about at that time, and maybe a handful of subs overall. I currently own a pair of Rythmik's that use a design very similar to my earlier design (knew I should have patented it!
)LL21: I was going to draw a pretty picture but need to practice. I realized at last night's rehearsal just how little I had practiced over the summer (work's been a pain), and that I had woefully neglected my sight-transposition skills. It showed.
Instead, here's an analogy that might help (a pretty loose one, apologies to the purists). When you drop a pebble into a still pool of water, ripples radiate out. If the pebble is an impulse into a speaker, ideally there would be no ripples; the sound would follow the pulse and stop instantly when the pulse stops. In the real world, the speaker cannot stop instantly and there are ripples (ringing) after the impulse has stopped. those ripples fill in the sound when there should be silence, and can interfere with the next sound that comes along. Servo design helps the speaker follow the music without those extra ripples (ringing) to muddy the sound.
thank you gentlemen, for your thoughts and replies.
i think you are correct with the crossover point theory.
that's where the major difference lies.
i think you are correct with the crossover point theory.
that's where the major difference lies.
very interesting...thanks for that. In some respects, the horns may not be such a different direction, but an evolution? I am told that horns have alacrity and instant stop/start when done right...but the really big horns also have body when amp'd right. I have little experience with horns having heard 2 Cessaros only (Beta plus sub) and the bigger Liszts more recently.
Exactly Llyod,
I have a friend who was an avid Martin Logan fan for almost solid three decades who finally took a different route for same reasons you mentioned - despite their renowned strengths.. ultimately do lack that last vestige of solidity, scale and dynamics. He last had the CLX + Descent subs/pr which I knew he did put his best effort to make it work. Here's a fuzzy/dark mobile shot I took during one of our listening session few years back..
View attachment 17226
*Amps he tried/owned included Golmund, Balabo, Technical Brain, FMA, Jadis, Wavac, Kondo plus few more I may have missed.
Not met him since, hearsay he's currently running top line Cessaro Horns+its dedicated subs (close to a Mill$ retail I was told
Disclaimer: I am not a speaker designer.
Horns (compression drivers) have much smaller driving area and generally much higher B-E fields. They are generally much lower in distortion and higher in efficiency than conventional drivers. One of the tricks with horns is to get flat frequency response over a reasonable area given how the horn affects their radiation pattern. Planer speakers, dynamic (Magnepan) or electrostatic (ML), are at the opposite extreme -- very large area, pretty inefficient, although they also have very low distortion. Conventional drivers fall in between with a range of efficiency usually better than planers but not as good as horns, and moderate distortion not as good as horns or planers. However, when large excursion is required, planers lose on both efficiency and distortion, thus their poor rep for high dynamic range (undeserved in many if not most cases; "limited" compared to some speakers does not mean "low" dynamic range). Within their limits, horns can and do deliver very high SPL. Paul Klipsch was no dummy even if he was a bit cantankerous at times.
Back on topic: I am not sure I have heard the Summit X. How do they compare to the Montis? And, has anyone compared them to say Sanders?
Horns (compression drivers) have much smaller driving area and generally much higher B-E fields. They are generally much lower in distortion and higher in efficiency than conventional drivers. One of the tricks with horns is to get flat frequency response over a reasonable area given how the horn affects their radiation pattern. Planer speakers, dynamic (Magnepan) or electrostatic (ML), are at the opposite extreme -- very large area, pretty inefficient, although they also have very low distortion. Conventional drivers fall in between with a range of efficiency usually better than planers but not as good as horns, and moderate distortion not as good as horns or planers. However, when large excursion is required, planers lose on both efficiency and distortion, thus their poor rep for high dynamic range (undeserved in many if not most cases; "limited" compared to some speakers does not mean "low" dynamic range). Within their limits, horns can and do deliver very high SPL. Paul Klipsch was no dummy even if he was a bit cantankerous at times.
Back on topic: I am not sure I have heard the Summit X. How do they compare to the Montis? And, has anyone compared them to say Sanders?
My experience had only been with Tannoy Westminster and Royals way back driven by low powered tube/SETs.
Moving on to panels/Els later on, did missed the solid dense palpability and sense of scale and dynamics of the former..
Having not heard the big Cessaro, so pure speculation on my part that they too will easily manage that. Hope will get to hear them soon.
*Different direction more in the sense of low powered amps/hi-effeciency speakers camp, as opposed to ESLs which usually require the opposite.
Disclaimer: I am not a speaker designer.
Horns (compression drivers) have much smaller driving area and generally much higher B-E fields. They are generally much lower in distortion and higher in efficiency than conventional drivers. One of the tricks with horns is to get flat frequency response over a reasonable area given how the horn affects their radiation pattern. Planer speakers, dynamic (Magnepan) or electrostatic (ML), are at the opposite extreme -- very large area, pretty inefficient, although they also have very low distortion. Conventional drivers fall in between with a range of efficiency usually better than planers but not as good as horns, and moderate distortion not as good as horns or planers. However, when large excursion is required, planers lose on both efficiency and distortion, thus their poor rep for high dynamic range (undeserved in many if not most cases; "limited" compared to some speakers does not mean "low" dynamic range). Within their limits, horns can and do deliver very high SPL. Paul Klipsch was no dummy even if he was a bit cantankerous at times.
Back on topic: I am not sure I have heard the Summit X. How do they compare to the Montis? And, has anyone compared them to say Sanders?
Hi Don, what speaker technology do you currently use? I love the effortless dynamic contrast of horns I have heard, though I hear some level of honk/horn artifact in virtually every one I have listened to. I do like the idea that you can control the directivity. And of course, I like that you can use lower powered amps.
Then again, these days, given the real world rooms/neighbours/condo situation, high dynamic range can actually be a real negative. I love demonstrating the wonderful dynamic contrast of the Wilsons, but most of the time, I play music that has dynamic nuance, not necessarily from very loud to very soft.
The new Logan hybrids are actually very capable in dynamic contrast, specifically the powered bass versions. They've come a long way
Have not compared to the Sanders directly, though I've heard them at the shows. The Sanders have wonderful clarity, just as you'd expect. Bass seemed powerful and deep as well though I didn't listen for very long. The problem for me was the extremely narrow sweet spot. Very obvious. Slight movement of the head led to the infamous "venetian blind" effect. Perhaps the Sanders is a better speaker than the Summit X, but I personally would not be able to own a pair for long due to this.
Best,
Adrian Low
Magneplaner MG-IIIa (1988 vintage). I have owned a lot of different speakers when I was younger, and by virtue of working for several high-end dealers heard many more (some in my system, some not). I have done very little of that in the past decade or so due to a lack of time, money, and interest. Just got back into the audiophile world a few years ago.
The sweet spot issue is largely resolved with room treatment and speaker placement but a narrower flat panel will always have a narrower sweet spot than a curved panel. The early Quads also had a fairly narrow sweet spot. The HQD systems I have heard were in well-designed rooms, fairly large, and seemed to suffer less. The later Quads did not seem as bad but it has been years since I auditioned a pair. ML uses curved panels to broaden it a bit. There are other pitfalls with curved panels, natch, including more early reflections. (Roger can go into great detail. ) Dipoles are a bear to set up no matter where you put them. All life is a compromise.
I must say I got really, really tired of dealers who did not understand how to set them up, whether ESLs (ML, Soundlabs, Sanders, Beveridge, Acoustat, etc.), Maggies, Apogees -- any dipole seemed to give most dealers conniptions. You can't shove them against the wall next to a conventional speaker and expect to hear them at their best, let alone in a hotel room (gack!) One of the things I got good at way back then was dialing them in for best sound in a showroom. That led to a decent side business setting them up in homes, but all too often the answer for best sound was not what they wanted to hear.
The sweet spot issue is largely resolved with room treatment and speaker placement but a narrower flat panel will always have a narrower sweet spot than a curved panel. The early Quads also had a fairly narrow sweet spot. The HQD systems I have heard were in well-designed rooms, fairly large, and seemed to suffer less. The later Quads did not seem as bad but it has been years since I auditioned a pair. ML uses curved panels to broaden it a bit. There are other pitfalls with curved panels, natch, including more early reflections. (Roger can go into great detail.
) Dipoles are a bear to set up no matter where you put them. All life is a compromise.I must say I got really, really tired of dealers who did not understand how to set them up, whether ESLs (ML, Soundlabs, Sanders, Beveridge, Acoustat, etc.), Maggies, Apogees -- any dipole seemed to give most dealers conniptions. You can't shove them against the wall next to a conventional speaker and expect to hear them at their best, let alone in a hotel room (gack!) One of the things I got good at way back then was dialing them in for best sound in a showroom. That led to a decent side business setting them up in homes, but all too often the answer for best sound was not what they wanted to hear.
Definitely sounds like you have the battle scars to prove your experience . Gets harder today to convince buyers to let us set up the speakers for best performance in their homes. Ironic, since homes today are far larger than when I started buying high end speakers. Most of the homes are highly decorated, beautiful to look at, but speakers are either hidden or shoved against the wall. Maybe someone should invent a pair of mini Klipschorns...Don?
Best
Adrian
. Gets harder today to convince buyers to let us set up the speakers for best performance in their homes. Ironic, since homes today are far larger than when I started buying high end speakers. Most of the homes are highly decorated, beautiful to look at, but speakers are either hidden or shoved against the wall. Maybe someone should invent a pair of mini Klipschorns...Don?Best
Adrian
Similar threads
