MartinLogan design

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

How has your view of the "new" Gen3 Martin Logan design changed?

  • I hated the look of the Summit when released, now I love it

    Votes: 5 10.6%
  • Hated look of Summit at release, but it has grown on me slightly - I still prefer other ML designs

    Votes: 13 27.7%
  • I hated the look of the Summit when released and still do

    Votes: 3 6.4%
  • I've always loved the look of the Summit / Gen 3 MLs

    Votes: 26 55.3%

  • Total voters
    47

amey01

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
5,367
Reaction score
248
Location
Queensland, Australia
With the talk of the design of the new CLX, I thought I would post a poll on how the MartinLogan design has grown on us (or otherwise).

I have chosen the Summit as a reference as it is the oldest of the "new" (Gen 3) designs.
 
Love the sound of the Summiits.
But still prefer the looks of the Prodigys and Odysseys, Etc.

Something about the larger size and stature
 
I have SL3s, and would change to Summits in a heartbeat if I had the funds. I prefer the modern look, and they tend to not dominate the room as much.
 
You need to add an "other" category or something. You only allow for the extremes: either loved it or hated it. What if you were indifferent to the design or liked it o.k. but not loved it, or didn't exactly like it but didn't exactly hate it?

Personally I preferred certain aspects of the older design but also liked other aspects of the newer design. Didn't particularly love or hate it.
 
You need to add an "other" category or something. You only allow for the extremes: either loved it or hated it. What if you were indifferent to the design or liked it o.k. but not loved it, or didn't exactly like it but didn't exactly hate it?

Personally I preferred certain aspects of the older design but also liked other aspects of the newer design. Didn't particularly love or hate it.

I was thinking about it, but really, I'm just after an overall opinion. ie. do you like it or not.

I like and dislike certain aspects of it, but I could write a page on the issue - this is just a snapshot. While I love the look of the Summit, I also agree with Wayne that the stature of the Gen2 speakers is much more appealing. But then there are aspects of this design I really don't like (like the woofer) - see - I could go on all day.........
 
Does CLX count as Gen3 or is it on it's own gen?

I don't really know - I was counting it, but it is a bit "Different", isn't it?

I'd say count it........but I started this thread because of what people are saying about the CLX, so it is really not included..........
 
The sleek and contemporary look of the Summit and Theater i helped win me over to ML. I'd never been a fan of their "barn door" looking speakers and some of the predicessors to the Summit, such as the Aion looked a bit ill concieved to my architect/engineer's eyes.
 
I reckon there's some porky pies being told here.

There certainly weren't that many people that loved the Summit when it was released! Unless there was a very vocal minority that opposed??
 
Still - porkies aside, at this point only 10% of people hated the Summit and still do. Probably a fairly good indication that the CLX will grow on us in the same way...... Keep the votes coming...
 
I like the look of the gen3's, but I don't like the compromises they made for looks over performance.

For me, the Gen1’s absolutely vertical panel with 48" length, sitting with a top point 72" above the floor is the ideal sonically.

All other designs (such as the SL3) with lowered, tilted panels are all packaging, WAF or other consideration compromises.

At some point, I'll obtain a Spire (same panel as the Summit) and do a mount that will do it justice. Coupled with a good mid-bass array and a speaker processor, that will be a Gen3 to love :devil:
 
I'll admit, even though I have a Gen1 Martin Logan (original Scenarios) I always thought the Gen2's looked a lot better--sleeker, more organic, and MUCH less boxy. When the Gen3's came out I shouted "They FINALLY got it right--ultra sleek panel on an understated (but still a little quirky looking) woofer box. YES!!!"

Then I heard the Vista. Yummy...

Then I heard the Vantage. Wow...

Then, FINALLY, I heard the Summit, driven by a top-shelf ARC/Ayre/Nordost system, and set up with near perfect stereo imaging in a room with proper acoustic treatment. As my 20-something stepdaughters would say--OMG!!!

Needless to say I was floored. The sound is miles better than the Gen1's. Considerably more fluid and "present" than Gen2's. And the panel/woofer integration is edging delightfully close to perfect.

My only real complaint with the ENTIRE Gen3 line is that they are physically too short, and by dropping the stator panel down a full 12", Martin Logan has, IMO, seriously compromised one of the truly mind-boggling sonic features that Martin Logan speakers have always had over almost all other speakers (with the exception of REALLY tall line-source speakers)--a soundstage that is not only wide and deep, but HIGH.The Summit/Spire is shorter than my Sequels by 13 inches--almost 15" shorter than the Monolith or 8" less than the Prodigy.

Although I sort of understand the desire of Martin Logan to improve the SAF of it's big speakers by making them less visually intrusive, I think this vertical truncating does a TREMENDOUS disservice to the overall sound of the Gen3 ML's--even the "big boys" like the Summit and Spire. I mean if I was the kind of guy who could afford to drop $10K+ on a pair of speakers, I believe that SAF would be WAY down on my list of technical specifications anyway. Exactly what demographic are these new designs aimed at?

And why are all three of the "ESL line" Gen3's so narrow? What happened to those beautiful WIIIIDE panels from the ReQuest, Prodigy, Monolith, or Statements?

Can you imagine what a speaker that had the panel-to-woofer integration of the Summit/Spire, but was as tall and wide as a reQuest (72+ inches high and 18" wide) would sound? Can you imagine the HUMONGOUS soundstage--beyond the walls, floor, AND ceiling--that a speaker like that would throw? And with MArtin Logans modernized, automated ESL manufacturing techniques, you'd think that the cost of making a panel that size would be considerably less than it was back in 1996, when they were still assembling the reQuest panels almost entirely by hand...

So, yeah, I LOVE the look of the Gen3 MLs. I like almost everything about the sound of them--they are much better than the Gen2's and that puts them DECADES ahead of anything with cone drivers. My only disappointment with the Gen3's is that, to my ears, they actually sound "short", like a much faster and smoother Prodigy or reQuest, but with the top 12 or 14 inches chopped off and the edges of the room folded in a little...
 
And why are all three of the "ESL line" Gen3's so narrow? What happened to those beautiful WIIIIDE panels from the ReQuest, Prodigy, Monolith, or Statements?

The one real unarguable benefit of the new design is that the lattice is more air and less stator, which means every square inch of panel has much more functional panel area. I'd need the actual numbers to verify, but making an engineering guess I'd say the Summit has pretty close to the same panel area as, maybe more than, anything short (haha) of the Monoliths.

Personally, I'm in no hurry to replace my Sequels. I love the look and construction of them, and the sound is good enough that I can't imagine feeling the need for something else. When I'm floating in money I might get some Odysseys or Prodigies, but there are a few dozen thousand things I need before new speakers. :)
 
I like the Summit, Vista, Vantage, but not ANY of the other current products... Sorry about that... I also like nearly all of the 2nd gen stuff (Shocking I know! LOL!)
 
It's C-o-c-kney Rhyming slang, originally from the UK. Porky pies (or just porkies) = lies.

Indeed it is. What is any Aussie doing using that? Must admit I am suprised, Adam - didn't think it would make it over there. But you do have much stronger connections with England than America, I guess. We should form a pact...:)

Anyway, best looking MLs - CLS, CLX, Prodigy, Odyssey/Ascent, Monolith, Summit in that order, left to right.

But I really like the construction quality of the Summit's airframe. Not keen on the Ikea box stuck onto it. But if it is in Bubinga, it looks way cool...:)
 
Gonna change my mind and vote the CLX better looking than the CLS - it has grown on me a lot. And they look better in the flesh.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top