Summit X is HERE! Official brochure from MartinLogan

[TomDac]

Hey guys.. Here's the official brochure for the Summit X. I made it into a jpg for space considerations.. I'm sure there will be more to follow.

[TomDac]

Summit X will start shipping next week. ML corporate website will be updated very soon.

[twich54]

Nice ! I'm looking forward to hearing it, hopefully when Overture has their "M/L" event they will have both the CLX and the new Summitt !!

[Feltran]

I'm sure that it will sound fantastic, but I was expecting more from it, considering how much more than the Spire it costs.

[sleepysurf]

Hah! Looks like they listened to our advice re longer spikes to allow more vertical tilt adjustments!

IMHO, it remains to be seen/heard if there really is a significant sonic improvement, or mainly cosmetics. Hope there will be some new dealers in FL to replace Tweeter/Sound Advice.

[amey01]

Hope there will be some new dealers in FL to replace Tweeter/Sound Advice.

I just hope there will be *A* dealer in Queensland. No such luck - I'll have to wait 'till I fly to Sydney before I hear this one...

[Feltran]

IMHO, it remains to be seen/heard if there really is a significant sonic improvement, or mainly cosmetics.

What cosmetic changes? Based on these couple of pictures, the only appearance difference I can discern between the Summit X and the Summit are the spikes.

[C.A.P]

Just my opinion but You Summit owners got the shaft. What a poor thing to do to you guys.(no Upgrade) Be glad you have a world class speaker but ML sure is showing lack of design and research on this one. Yes , It may sound better, but the Spire does too, At damn near 1/2 the cost, !:( A crossover change and you have a new speaker! With out the capability of any upgrades to the original speaker. :confused:
Sure it may sell to the people who cant use the CLX as of room constraints but the Spire will take care of that at a far better cost ! Hey even if you need a sub its still a good bit cheaper!

[User211]

Maybe it should have been called the Summit Y. Geddit?:D Not a very ML loyal statement, but I think what Chris just said has more than an element of truth.

[twich54]

It may sound better, but the Spire does too, At damn near 1/2 the cost, !:( A crossover change and you have a new speaker! With out the capability of any upgrades to the original speaker. :confused:
Sure it may sell to the people who cant use the CLX as of room constraints but the Spire will take care of that at a far better cost ! Hey even if you need a sub its still a good bit cheaper!

Chris my initial thoughts are somewhat the same but I will let my ears perform the final judgement. For now here's what we do know.....

Spire and Summitt 'X' both share the same ESL panel (unless 'spar' placement is different on Summitt)

Spire and Summitt both utilize 'Vojtko crossover topology'

Spire utilizes one 10" bass driver crossed over to ESL panel @ 320 hz

Summitt utilizes two 10' bass drivers crossing over @ 270 hz

Untill my ears tell me differently, me thinks I made a good choise in my Spire's, given the presence of my DD-15 already in my system.

[Bernard]

Guys, why pass judgement before you hear the things?

One thing I find irritating about their ads is their mentioning the "Vojtko" crossover. "Vojtko" is just the name of the guy who designed it; they don't tell us what's special about it.

[User211]

Guys, why pass judgement before you hear the things?

Because it seems reasonable given the perceived scope of the changes?

What kind of a name is Votjko anayway?:D

[Gordon]

I wonder if I can buy just the spikes?

Gordon

[aliveatfive]

My two cents: CAP hit the nail on the head. I was a very early adopter and I feel the way he describes. From appearances only, it's hard to imagine what could not be added in an upgrade package. I'm all for change, but a BMW dealer will give you some trade in value for your old BMW. ML dealers (at least the ones I deal with) either will not take trades or offer such little money, they are not feasible. Audiogon is a PITA as is packing those things to be shipped. I think we're scr_wed!

[urskog]

Hah! Looks like they listened to our advice re longer spikes to allow more vertical tilt adjustments!


Yes they are adjustable from -1 to +11 degrees, said to ease room placement from what I'm told.

[jtwrace]

Just remember who the original extra long spike maker was...:D

[twich54]

ML dealers (at least the ones I deal with) either will not take trades or offer such little money, they are not feasible. Audiogon is a PITA as is packing those things to be shipped. I think we're scr_wed!

Seth, Good morning ! First off correct me if I'm wrong......don't you have a great pair of speakers in the Summitt's ??

Myself I thought and for that matter I knew I had a great pair of speakers in my Vantage's but after listening to the Spire's I was willing to take the financial plunge and upgrade to them.

As far as packing them up...no big deal and off they went (damage free) to another forum member up in Canada.

I think one important thing for all of us to remember.....we don't really get in this hobby for financial gain (some do get lucky though !), when one buys new and then sells down the road anything above 50-60% is a plus.

[DrJRapp]

Just my opinion but You Summit owners got the shaft. What a poor thing to do to you guys.(no Upgrade)

I just find it difficult to believe that ML will abandon us on this one. They need to remember that prior to the CLX we were the people that purchased their flagship. Not that we are any more special than the rest of the ML owners, it's just that people who purchase flagship products do so because they anticipate more out of it than the rest do. Part of that anticipation is that we won't be left behind come upgrade time and we will have an upgrade path that doesn't involve moving to a speaker that is (1) very expensive, (2) at best is ugly as sin and (3)requires a lot of space to bloom (I'm talking about the CLX if anyone didn't get that..lol).

If ML fails to ultimately provide an upgrade for the Summit, I know it will have serious influence on what will be my next speaker. It can't and won't be a CLX based on the aforementioned problems with the CLX. I am sure that there are others that feel that way.

[aliveatfive]

I just find it difficult to believe that ML will abandon us on this one. They need to remember that prior to the CLX we were the people that purchased their flagship. Not that we are any more special than the rest of the ML owners, it's just that people who purchase flagship products do so because they anticipate more out of it than the rest do. Part of that anticipation is that we won't be left behind come upgrade time and we will have an upgrade path that doesn't involve moving to a speaker that is (1) very expensive, (2) at best is ugly as sin and (3)requires a lot of space to bloom (I'm talking about the CLX if anyone didn't get that..lol).

If ML fails to ultimately provide an upgrade for the Summit, I know it will have serious influence on what will be my next speaker. It can't and won't be a CLX based on the aforementioned problems with the CLX. I am sure that there are others that feel that way.

I stated your exact position in an earlier thread. According to what Jeff has previously written, it seems as if ML is abandoning us, the owners of the previous flagship. I also agree with your position that if this is the case, it might be time to consider the purchase of a product whose manufacturer is a little more considerate of its customers.

An aside to Dave: I understand your position and I was quite happy with my Summits. I'm just kind of upset at the way it seems ML is dealing with purchasers who shelled out 10 grand + for a product that was sold by them as recently as a couple of months ago.

[Rich]

I don't really understand what you guys are whining about. The Summit is a great speaker and I am thrilled to own a pair. The Prodigy before it was a great speaker too, and I wished I had owned a pair at some point, although I do still enjoy my Ascents.

I am sure the Summit X is a great speaker too, with its crossover refinements. But am I ****ed that years after I bought my Summit, then ML has the audacity to upgrade the model, but not retrofit older speakers with the upgrade? Of course not. That is ludicrous. I got what I paid for and am happy. But all manufacturers constantly change and upgrade their models and they don't often provide those upgrades as retrofit on older models. This is just the nature of the game. Why am I supposed to feel slighted by ML? They upgraded their product. If I want the upgraded version, I sell mine and I buy it. That is the way these things work. I am quite happy with my speakers though, so am not too concerned about it.

[twich54]

An aside to Dave: I understand your position and I was quite happy with my Summits. I'm just kind of upset at the way it seems ML is dealing with purchasers who shelled out 10 grand + for a product that was sold by them as recently as a couple of months ago.


Seth, I understand, but maybe, just maybe an upgrade path (electronics, crossovers, etc) is not as easily undertaken as one would be led to believe ??

[DrJRapp]

Seth, I understand, but maybe, just maybe an upgrade path (electronics, crossovers, etc) is not as easily undertaken as one would be led to believe ??

Speaker crossovers aren't really that complicated.

[theWB]

I don't really understand what you guys are whining about. The Summit is a great speaker and I am thrilled to own a pair. The Prodigy before it was a great speaker too, and I wished I had owned a pair at some point, although I do still enjoy my Ascents.

I am sure the Summit X is a great speaker too, with its crossover refinements. But am I ****ed that years after I bought my Summit, then ML has the audacity to upgrade the model, but not retrofit older speakers with the upgrade? Of course not. That is ludicrous. I got what I paid for and am happy. But all manufacturers constantly change and upgrade their models and they don't often provide those upgrades as retrofit on older models. This is just the nature of the game. Why am I supposed to feel slighted by ML? They upgraded their product. If I want the upgraded version, I sell mine and I buy it. That is the way these things work. I am quite happy with my speakers though, so am not too concerned about it.

Agreed 100% Rich
I am also very happy with Summits they are still great speakers.

[amey01]

Speaker crossovers aren't really that complicated.

Ah - yes they are.

Agree - they are not complex in themselves, but designing one to work the way you intend / desire is exceedingly complex.

[DrJRapp]

Ah - yes they are.

Agree - they are not complex in themselves, but designing one to work the way you intend / desire is exceedingly complex.

Perhaps it may be if you're not an engineer. I am an engineer, I have designed and built crossovers and ...it's really not that complex, especially for what is basically a two way speaker in spite of the two different turnover points that the two woofers have.

[RichTeer]

Perhaps it may be if you're not an engineer. I am an engineer, I have designed and built crossovers and ...it's really not that complex, especially for what is basically a two way speaker in spite of the two different turnover points that the two woofers have.

You seem to be assuming that the only difference between the Summit and Summit X is the crossover. What if there's more to it than just that? What if the internal bracing has changed, or the drivers, or...? Perhaps a field upgrade really isn't possible.

Dunno about you (and others with a similar position), but the potential upgrade path doesn't figure very highly in my hifi buying priority list. I want the best sound/build/etc. quality at the price I can afford at purchase time. To say that you will settle for a lessor speaker (as implied by the hint of changing speaker manufacturer) just because ML doesn't offer an upgrade for the previous flagship model just doesn't make sense to me. *Shrug*

[jtwrace]

Just remember who the original extra long spike maker was...:D

for those of you that are new to this site...

http://www.martinloganowners.com/~tdacquis/forum/showthread.php?t=3665

[aliveatfive]

If there's an audible difference in the new technology, some of us would like to be able to take advantage of it after already shelling out megabucks for a loudspeaker. I also really don't understand why ML has been so closed-mouthed about what's inside these. Tell us why they can't be upgraded. In my opinion, ML is shooting itself in the foot. I don't think the original ownership would've behaved in this way.

[amey01]

Perhaps it may be if you're not an engineer. I am an engineer, I have designed and built crossovers and ...it's really not that complex, especially for what is basically a two way speaker in spite of the two different turnover points that the two woofers have.

I still hold that it is exceedingly complex. With respect, I'm sure you can't build a crossover that has an exact crossover point, 100% attenuation, 0 degree phase shift, 0 effect on impedance and is totally transparent.

If you can then you'd be extremely rich and famous. If not, then it's all about compromise and experimentation - that's the complex part.

[amey01]

Dunno about you (and others with a similar position), but the potential upgrade path doesn't figure very highly in my hifi buying priority list. I want the best sound/build/etc. quality at the price I can afford at purchase time. To say that you will settle for a lessor speaker (as implied by the hint of changing speaker manufacturer) just because ML doesn't offer an upgrade for the previous flagship model just doesn't make sense to me. *Shrug*

I think that says it perfectly. You buy the best speaker for your budget at a given time. Time moves forward and if next year your chosen speaker is no longer the best, so what? Yes, it's annoying, but no more annoying that if Avalon or B&W or Audio Physic or whatever came out with a speaker that now sounds better than the Summit.

To me, an upgrade path is just a cash gouge - what they're saying is "give us even more money, even though you only bought this thing last year".

Just an alternative point of view.

[Bernard]

I don't really understand what you guys are whining about. The Summit is a great speaker and I am thrilled to own a pair. The Prodigy before it was a great speaker too, and I wished I had owned a pair at some point, although I do still enjoy my Ascents.

I am sure the Summit X is a great speaker too, with its crossover refinements. But am I ****ed that years after I bought my Summit, then ML has the audacity to upgrade the model, but not retrofit older speakers with the upgrade? Of course not. That is ludicrous. I got what I paid for and am happy. But all manufacturers constantly change and upgrade their models and they don't often provide those upgrades as retrofit on older models. This is just the nature of the game. Why am I supposed to feel slighted by ML? They upgraded their product. If I want the upgraded version, I sell mine and I buy it. That is the way these things work. I am quite happy with my speakers though, so am not too concerned about it.Post of the day! I agree completely. I wonder if the Summit owners who feel slighted would still feel the same if ML did not call the new speaker the "Summit X", but instead called it the "Pinnacle" (as an example).

If they do come out with a "Pinnacle" I expect royalties for the name. :D

[DrJRapp]

I still hold that it is exceedingly complex. With respect, I'm sure you can't build a crossover that has an exact crossover point, 100% attenuation, 0 degree phase shift, 0 effect on impedance and is totally transparent.

If you can then you'd be extremely rich and famous. If not, then it's all about compromise and experimentation - that's the complex part.

Your answer sounds like a dance because you are trying to defend the indefensable.

Let me ask you a question. How difficult is it to design a crossover that you've already designed? I mean, changeing the PCB layout is probably all that needs to be done. The crossover has already been designed for the Summit X which has the same (or very similar) ESL panel and the same two woofers, so, worst case scenario the X's PCBs will not fit the old speaker due to physical space differences and they will need to create one or more PCBs specific to the upgrade version. That's all we are talking about having to do here. This it is not a major undertaking for a company with the resources that ML has, nor would it require many R&D $$$$. ML has done more complicated upgrades in the past.

My own belief is that ML is taking the "no upgrade" stance at the moment to see how many suckers they can get to unload their current "obsolete" Summits and go for the new. My guess is not many. Somewhere down the road they will realize the uproar that they have created and do "something" to bring the elder speaker more in line with the newer. Just an opinion.

[sleepysurf]

I, for one, disagree with the uproar re lack of an upgrade path for Summits. Nobody has even heard the Summit X, yet alone compared it to the original. Is the X really significantly better? If so, it would likely be due to a combination of new stator design plus new crossover. Why does everybody think ML owes us an upgrade path. Have they offered upgrade paths for all their legacy products in the past? When you bought your Summit did ML say there might be future upgrades? Of course not! Do other speaker manufacturers offer upgrades? None that I know of (? Meridian)

If they did offer to sell upgraded stat panels, plus all the electronic upgrades, having a bunch of user-installed gear creates warranty issues down the road.

Those of you/me that want the new Summit X, have the option of selling the old Summit, and buying a brand-spanking-new Summit X, with full warranty (or wait a while, and buy a used Summit X for quite a bit less).

[houstonshark]

I, for one, disagree with the uproar re lack of an upgrade path for Summits. Nobody has even heard the Summit X, yet alone compared it to the original. Is the X really significantly better? If so, it would likely be due to a combination of new stator design plus new crossover. Why does everybody think ML owes us an upgrade path. Have they offered upgrade paths for all their legacy products in the past? When you bought your Summit did ML say there might be future upgrades? Of course not! Do other speaker manufacturers offer upgrades? None that I know of (? Meridian)

If they did offer to sell upgraded stat panels, plus all the electronic upgrades, having a bunch of user-installed gear creates warranty issues down the road.

Those of you/me that want the new Summit X, have the option of selling the old Summit, and buying a brand-spanking-new Summit X, with full warranty (or wait a while, and buy a used Summit X for quite a bit less).

I agree. I don't remember seeing anywhere on the literature of the Summit (or any ML product) that should an improvement be made an upgrade will become available. It's not like we're talking about a firmware update here. I bet there are only a handful of consumer products out there (not just AV gear) that truly offer an upgrade path. Many manufacturers have used the fact that their products (electronics are the only that come to mind) are future proof and upgradeable as a selling tool. The followup (Parasound Halo) either didn't occur or was sooo slow that it really didn't matter.

I guess the fact that Martin Logan opened that door in the past by offering upgrades entitles owners of their product to whine and complain when new revisions of their products become available.

If they were so concerned with the owners on this forum and their complaints about an upgrade path they would have named it the Spire X. Clearly there would not be an upgrade path from the Spire to the Spire X and that discussion would have never come up. Marketing wise it made a lot more sense to use the Summit name since it was a popular and great sounding speaker.

[User211]

Hm... can I ask a question from someone who is up on list prices? What was the US retail of the Summit? And the Summit X's intended selling price?

And what is the price of a Spire plus a Descent i and/or Depth i?

This should help out with any "perceived value" notions, or lack thereof.

[garf]

Post of the day! I agree completely. I wonder if the Summit owners who feel slighted would still feel the same if ML did not call the new speaker the "Summit X", but instead called it the "Pinnacle" (as an example).

If they do come out with a "Pinnacle" I expect royalties for the name. :D
Quite agree!

Having owned a Sequel II for years I bought a discounted ex-demo Summit a few months ago (thanks to the impending Summit X!) and couldn't be more pleased. The Summit is one of the grreat speakers of the world and I doubt it can be significantly bettered without rebuilding my listening room.

The Summit X has virtually the same specifications as the old one: same frequency response, same (almost), sensitivity, same base driver setup and amplification, same panel size (both 44 inches high), same impedence, same cross-over frequency (this is a surprise - Vantage and Spire are higher), same power handling and -yes- both have a Vojtko crossover, whatever that is. The spikes look taller and the pointless top blue light costs extra. I note the Summit X has been 'inspired' by the CLX - what does that mean?

So, the new Summit may sound better, who knows, but any difference (and upgrade path) are going to be pretty small. I siggest everyone with an old Summit relaxes and enjoys the music!

[aliveatfive]

The opposition just does not seem to get it. When you are told by advertising, as we were a few years ago, that a purchase of "so-and-so" is the greatest, and the purchase costs many thousands of dollars (or pounds,) you are generally lead to believe that you are purchasing something that will not be surpassed for many years. ML has followed this path (in their previous incarnation) many times. The Sequel IIs that I bought in 1989 were created from the original Sequel. There was an upgrade path. The Ascentis that I bought were created from the original Ascents. Original purchasers were given the opportunity to upgrade. The Summit X is virtually indistinguishable from its predecessor, its dimensions are identical, and yet no upgrade. In my opinion, ML is trying to squeeze the last dollar out of its customer base. I owned a BAT VK51SE preamp, which I liked. The original model in this series was called a VK50SE. When an upgrade to the VK51 series was announced, it was made available as an option to earlier purchasers. When the VK52 came out, no upgrade path was provided. After auditioning, I found that I preferred the sound of the ARC Ref3. In went the Ref - out went the BAT. I suspect it will be the same with my Summits. ML - I am disappointed in you.

[amey01]

Your answer sounds like a dance because you are trying to defend the indefensable.

Let me ask you a question. How difficult is it to design a crossover that you've already designed? I mean, changeing the PCB layout is probably all that needs to be done. The crossover has already been designed for the Summit X which has the same (or very similar) ESL panel and the same two woofers, so, worst case scenario the X's PCBs will not fit the old speaker due to physical space differences and they will need to create one or more PCBs specific to the upgrade version. That's all we are talking about having to do here. This it is not a major undertaking for a company with the resources that ML has, nor would it require many R&D $$$$. ML has done more complicated upgrades in the past.

My own belief is that ML is taking the "no upgrade" stance at the moment to see how many suckers they can get to unload their current "obsolete" Summits and go for the new. My guess is not many. Somewhere down the road they will realize the uproar that they have created and do "something" to bring the elder speaker more in line with the newer. Just an opinion.

Let's not speculate on the type of redesign they've done - I don't think anyone would pay for an "upgrade" just to have a redesigned circuit board in their speaker!

To me, a redesign of the crossover means all new components, circuit path, and consequently electrical characteristics in order for it to ultimately sound better. We'll see.

[Bernard]

I found that I preferred the sound of the ARC Ref3. In went the Ref - out went the BAT. I suspect it will be the same with my Summits. ML - I am disappointed in you.So if ARC comes out with a Ref 4, with no upgrade path from the Ref 3, will you be disappointed with ARC ?

[houstonshark]

Hm... can I ask a question from someone who is up on list prices? What was the US retail of the Summit? And the Summit X's intended selling price?

And what is the price of a Spire plus a Descent i and/or Depth i?

This should help out with any "perceived value" notions, or lack thereof.

Summit retailed for $10,995 (officially discontinued June 1, 2008)

Summit X will be $14,000 (per a ML employee in the know 2 days ago)

Spire retail is $8,495

Descent i retails for $2,995

Depth i retails for $1995

[Rich]

The opposition just does not seem to get it. When you are told by advertising, as we were a few years ago, that a purchase of "so-and-so" is the greatest, and the purchase costs many thousands of dollars (or pounds,) you are generally lead to believe that you are purchasing something that will not be surpassed for many years.

Sorry, aliveatfive, but this is a bunch of horse-hockey. What we were told by ML marketing when the Summit came out was that it was a new "reference level" product from them that improved upon their previous reference level product (the Prodigy). And they were correct. It was. But nothing in that marketing or in ML's own previous actions should lead anyone to suspect that the product will not be upgraded in a few years time, or that the upgrades would definitely be available to original owners. If you were "led to believe that" it was by your own doing and nothing from Martin Logan that did it.

And for the record, the Summit came out in March 2005, almost four years ago. It was not surpassed until the CLX came out this past fall. I would say three to four years between new iterations of reference level products is a pretty reasonable cycle. I also think it is very thoughtful of ML to use whatever new technology they have learned from producing the CLX to spice up the previous flagship model instead of just discontinuing it and moving on to other products. I agree it would have been nice to offer an upgrade path, but I understand that sometimes that is just not feasible.


ML has followed this path (in their previous incarnation) many times. The Sequel IIs that I bought in 1989 were created from the original Sequel. There was an upgrade path. The Ascentis that I bought were created from the original Ascents. Original purchasers were given the opportunity to upgrade.

Indeed, there have been times when ML has allowed an upgrade path when it was feasible for them to do so. But there have also been plenty of times when that was not the case. My descent is not upgradeable to a descent i. I expect there are more examples of new versions not being upgradeable by ML than there are examples where they offered an upgrade path. Sometimes it is just not feasible or reasonable from a business standpoint to offer such a service.


The Summit X is virtually indistinguishable from its predecessor, its dimensions are identical, and yet no upgrade.

Since the Summit X has not been released and you have very little information about what the upgrades to it actually consist of, this remark has no substance. You are simply speculating that they are virtually identical with no real idea of the electronics changes and the difficulty of adapting a standard Summit into a Summit X.

I don't have a problem with speculating about such things, but I do have a problem when you lambast the company for making decisions based on greedy motives but have no idea of the real issues they had to look at from a business perspective.


In my opinion, ML is trying to squeeze the last dollar out of its customer base.

This is certainly your opinion, and it is based on very little relevant information, in my opinion. What could they possibly gain by not offering the upgrade path? I suspect they would sell a lot more upgrades to Summit owners than they will sell new Summit X's to Summit owners. So how, exactly, do they gain from not offering the upgrade?


I owned a BAT VK51SE preamp, which I liked. The original model in this series was called a VK50SE. When an upgrade to the VK51 series was announced, it was made available as an option to earlier purchasers. When the VK52 came out, no upgrade path was provided. After auditioning, I found that I preferred the sound of the ARC Ref3. In went the Ref - out went the BAT. I suspect it will be the same with my Summits. ML - I am disappointed in you.

Seems pretty silly to change manufacturer brands because one doesn't offer an upgrade path. If you liked the Ref 3 better than what you had, that is great. But if you weren't satisfied with the sound of the VK51SE, why did you buy it in the first place? Don't be surprised when ARC comes out with a new version of the Ref 3 and doesn't offer an upgrade path. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, just like every manufacturer out there. In fact, there was no upgrade path to the Ref 3 from the previous version. And believe it or not, their motives are not always based on greed. Sometimes, they are just based on business and engineering realities.

So now you are going to sell your Summits and switch to another manufacturer just because they didn't offer an upgrade path to Summit X? Good luck finding one that sounds anywhere near as good for anywhere near what you paid for your Summits. Also, make sure and check that the manufacturer you go with has a history of ALWAYS offering an upgrade path for their newly released reference products. Gee, I wonder how many speaker manufacturers that leaves you to choose from?

[RichTeer]

So if ARC comes out with a Ref 4, with no upgrade path from the Ref 3, will you be disappointed with ARC ?

Good question, given that although one could upgrade from Ref 1 to Ref 2, one cannot upgrade from Ref 2 to Ref 3.

[User211]

Summit retailed for $10,995 (officially discontinued June 1, 2008)

Summit X will be $14,000 (per a ML employee in the know 2 days ago)

Spire retail is $8,495

Descent i retails for $2,995

Depth i retails for $1995

As I suspected - a Spire + Descent i can be had for substantially less than the Summit X. Given that ML know this and aren't stupid, there must be a performance advantage over a Spire + Descent i. Quite how that has been achieved, I or possibly we don't know yet.

I can't see how the X could beat the Spire/Descent i combo... yet, at least. When someone actually hears a pair and reports back, we'll know more...

C.A.P already made this point but this spells it out even more clearly.

[twich54]

As I suspected - a Spire + Descent i can be had for substantially less than the Summit X. Given that ML know this and aren't stupid, there must be a performance advantage over a Spire + Descent i. Quite how that has been achieved, I or possibly we don't know yet.

I can't see how the X could beat the Spire/Descent i combo...


My thinking as well Justin, or in my case a pair of Spire's and a Velodyne DD-15 !

Truth be told I'm actually more 'jazzed' about hearing the new "X" than the CLS's .....go figure !

[aliveatfive]

A lot of speculation could be ended with a statement from ML. Why is it their policy not to contribute to this forum? I'd like to hear from the horse's mouth what I'd be giving up by not obtaining the Summit X and keeping the Summit. ML _ I'm waiting!

BTW - I just checked their website and there is absolutely no info on Summit X. Why is it good PR to be absolutely closed-mouthed about a product.

FYI - When I wanted to upgrade a power amp, I looked at the ARC Ref 110. I had a VT100II which is very similar in appearqance to the Ref. ARC, however, provided info as to the differences between the two. (They were substantial.) What are the substantial differences between the Summit and the Summit X?

[Feltran]

BTW - I just checked their website and there is absolutely no info on Summit X. Why is it good PR to be absolutely closed-mouthed about a product.

A lot of companies do it. I think the theory is that you never want someone to put off a purchase (they might change their mind, and even if they wouldn't you want a constant revenue stream), so you only talk up a future product if the current products aren't selling.

[DrJRapp]

BTW - I just checked their website and there is absolutely no info on Summit X. Why is it good PR to be absolutely closed-mouthed about a product.




I suspect that outside of this forum there isn't much interest in the Summit X, and there won't be any until units start hitting the dealers shelves and the reviewers doors. There isn't anything ground breaking or revolutionary about the Summit X as there was with the original Summit.

I don't see the Summit X being a huge money maker for ML. That's why I predict there ultimatly will be an upgrade, if for no other reason than to make some $$ bak in the development cost. We are in a very volitile market and so far ML hase been lucky with CLX sales. However, just how many people are interested in a $20K speaker that requires $6K of subwoofers, a large room and $30-50K of accompanying electronics? I would suspect that demand has been nearly met by the "I gotta have" croud with lots of disposable income. . An $8500 speaker with a $3K sub makes far more sense to most of us, and a $14000 "swiss army knife" speaker is sort of the middle ground.

The Summit X may not really be a big improvement over the Summit and may be in a strictly business sense a "market repositioning" of a former flagship product.

[Rich]

A lot of speculation could be ended with a statement from ML. Why is it their policy not to contribute to this forum? I'd like to hear from the horse's mouth what I'd be giving up by not obtaining the Summit X and keeping the Summit. ML _ I'm waiting!

What exactly are you waiting for? They made their statement. It is in the form of a press release posted at the beginning of this thread. It states, in part:


CLX inspired crossover engineering perfectly blends Xstat and dual controlled dispersion powered force drivers to provide an unparalleled sonic experience.

So obviously, they are saying that by staying with the Summit, you are giving up a certain amount of midrange clarity and openness that the X provides. They have made the integration of the panels and woofers better through a newly-designed crossover network and newly-designed woofer drivers. What more do you expect them to tell you? Would it even matter to you what they say? Most people ignore marketing hype from the manufacturers and just read what the reviewers write or what average folks like us write on forums like this once the product has been released. A few folks actually go and listen and compare for themselves to see what the differences are.

As for ML's decision not to post on this site, I, for one, completely agree with it. I believe it provides more independence and credibility to this site. There is no appearance of ML having any control over the conversations that occur here. There is no question of Tom being controlled in any way by ML corporate. Also, given the trashing that Ethan and others take when they express their opinions on this and other sites, I think it is a wise decision for a corporate entity to remain above these petty frays. I do appreciate that Ethan puts up with a lot of trash talk and still tries ardently to provide helpful information on acoustics to everyone, but I think it is probably wise for most manufacturers to avoid forums like this where their published opinions could step on the toes of some of their customers.


BTW - I just checked their website and there is absolutely no info on Summit X. Why is it good PR to be absolutely closed-mouthed about a product.

I don't know. Why not ask Apple or Conrad Johnson or the literally thousands of other companies that adhere to similar policies? Perhaps there are very good business reasons for being tight-lipped about your upcoming products when competition is so fierce and companies are constantly copying other company's products. For whatever reasons, ML has decided to not discuss upcoming products before they are released. I personally don't see why that should be a reason to trash them.


FYI - When I wanted to upgrade a power amp, I looked at the ARC Ref 110. I had a VT100II which is very similar in appearqance to the Ref. ARC, however, provided info as to the differences between the two. (They were substantial.) What are the substantial differences between the Summit and the Summit X?

I still find it humorous that you seem perfectly happy with ARC and your Ref 3, despite the fact that there was no way to upgrade from the Ref 2 to the Ref 3. I suspect you would have felt very different about ARC had you owned a Ref 2. Did ARC provide you with information regarding the "substantial" differences between the VT100II and the Ref. 110 BEFORE the Ref 110 was released? Or after?

[aliveatfive]

Rich, do you work for MartinLogan? You seem to be quite an apoligist. Sorry, but I do not agree with the way this debut is being handled. I think this is turning into a PR failure. If you do not agree, so be it. I guess we agree to disagree!

[User211]

Actually, 2x Descent i and 1x Spire = about the same as the X:eek:.

Point of note, you don't really need 2 Descent i's with a Spire, but you will with the CLX. That's because of the higher x-over frequency with the CLX, where one Descent would make the bass appear to come from wherever it is sited.

Alive - Rich will defend both ML and Sanders to the hilt. And he does it extremely well, to his credit.

But at the end of the day, there IS a huge difference in price between the Spire and the X. It material terms, can it really be justified? No. Not when you consider how much h/w 2 Descent i's consitutes.

All I can say is, it had better perform, and perform very well. Or any honest reviewer will rip it to bits for the massive price difference over the Spire.

[sleepysurf]

Rich, do you work for MartinLogan? You seem to be quite an apoligist. Sorry, but I do not agree with the way this debut is being handled. I think this is turning into a PR failure. If you do not agree, so be it. I guess we agree to disagree!

Hah! I find it amusing that some of us seem to think the MLOC is representative of the entire ML market! We have 1099 members here, of which probably 25% (or less) are active, so we represent an extremely small subset of the entire population of ML owners, and potential owners. Most ML owners probably plop them into their family room, up against a wall or corner, drive them with receivers (and/or iPods), and are quite content, never truly knowing what these speakers are capable of. Fact is, it's those sales that keep this company going. Let's be thankful the newer Design series are being sold via Amazon, Best Buy/Magnolia, etc, as that allows them to continue developing the ESL line for the rest of us. Over the years ML has treated us all with respect, listening to us (i.e. longer spike design on Summit X), and providing superb customer service. It's not fair to criticize them for not catering exclusively to our wacko audiophile group, and not providing an upgrade path. Get real folks!

[Rich]

Rich, do you work for MartinLogan? You seem to be quite an apoligist. Sorry, but I do not agree with the way this debut is being handled. I think this is turning into a PR failure. If you do not agree, so be it. I guess we agree to disagree!

That's funny. I have been previously accused of being an employee/apologist for both Roger Sanders and Ethan Winer. No, I am not an employee or an apologist. Rather, simply a fan of their products and someone who has visited their corporate center (as part of the first ML forum get-together), and talked closely with their employees, and also someone who has some idea of the difficulties and limitations of running a manufacturing business like this.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree with you or anyone else. We all have our opinions and there is no requirement that they agree. But I believe that part of the fun and benefit of this forum is discussing and debating the underlying bases of those opinions. I don't get any enjoyment out of saying "I like A" and you saying "I don't like A" and then saying, "oh well, we will just have to agree to disagree." Where is the fun in that? How does that further anyone's understanding?

It is much more interesting and informative to debate the underlying reasons why we hold the opinions we do. To analyze the actual facts and logic we give to support our opinions and contentions. That is where the meat of discussion lies, and that is what makes a site like this both interesting and informative to all. Being trained as a lawyer, that is also just kind of the way my mind works. I don't take anyone's opinion at face value. I like to dig into the proposed reasoning and factual bases supporting the opinion.

So please understand I am not trying to pick a fight with you or undermine the validity of your opinion. I am just trying to understand and critically question the reasoning underlying your opinions and also offer contrary reasoning to support my own opinion.

Honestly, I am still interested in your reasoning for why you are so happy with ARC, which pretty much treats its customers no different than ML on these issues, yet you seem completely put off with the way ML has handled the introduction of the Summit X. You say they have completely bungled it and it is turning into a "PR failure" but you haven't explained how their rollout of this speaker is any different than their rollout of any previous speaker, other than that they won't provide retrofit upgrades to previous Summit owners and haven't yet explained why that is the case. Again, how is the rollout of this product any different than previous ML product rollouts, or the rollout of any other manufacturer's products? Why do you consider it such a PR failure, when they haven't even introduced the product into the marketplace yet?

Tell me how much you know about the ARC Ref 3, mark II? When will they come out with it? What technological advances will it offer? Will I be able to upgrade my Ref 3 when it comes out? Why are they being so close-lipped about this upcoming version of their reference preamp? Do you get my point? All manufacturers are pretty tight-lipped about upcoming products until they are ready to release them.

I think if you have a little patience, and give ML a chance to actually roll out their product before you bash them on how they are rolling it out, all your questions will be answered, for better or worse.

[User211]

It's not fair to criticize them for not catering exclusively to our wacko audiophile group

Statement of the day!:)

[twich54]

Agreed Justin !

Good rebuttal Alan, I agree wholeheartdly !!!

[Rich]

Alive - Rich will defend both ML and Sanders to the hilt. And he does it extremely well, to his credit.

Thanks for the compliment, Justin. But I would clarify that I will defend my opinions to the hilt. I have criticized ML in the past for certain things; I have criticized Ethan's viewpoints; and if I were of the opinion that Roger Sanders was doing or saying something really stupid, I would be just as quick to criticize him.

But I see a lot of comments on this forum that are critical of business decisions being made by various companies, with seemingly no recognition of the difficulties in running these types of businesses. People seem to have some real misconceptions about what is reasonable to expect from a manufacturer. People seem to expect every company to make all their product decisions solely with their most avid customers' opinions and needs in mind, regardless of the limitations and constraints imposed by trying to run a successful profitable business. Sorry guys, but this is a cut-throat market and these are businesses trying to earn a profit. That does impose some constraints on how they can operate.

And then, there is just the fact that there is no pleasing everybody. Roger Sanders has one of the best customer service reputations in the business. But then, he gets criticized for being a one-man show. Of course, he tried to go the other route and expand his business by bringing in an outside investor, and look where that got him. The guy took control of his business and ran it into the ground!

ML devotees long for the days when the company was smaller and run by Gayle Sanders . . . yet look how far the company has come and expanded and improved its products in the years since Gayle left. Business is business, and each way you try to run it will have its constraints, its advantages, its disadvantages, its devotees and its detractors.

So yes, I do occasionally play devil's advocate and question the realities behind these assertions and criticisms when I don't agree with them.

[DrJRapp]

So obviously, they are saying that by staying with the Summit, you are giving up a certain amount of midrange clarity and openness that the X provides. They have made the integration of the panels and woofers better through a newly-designed crossover network and newly-designed woofer drivers.

I don't think that they are saying that at all...we are speculating that.Here is the PR from the original Summit press release. Please explain to me if you can how this differs from the press release on the Summit X.



Vojtko™ Crossover Audiophile-grade proprietary Vojtko crossover
Carefully hand-built using only the finest polypropylene capacitors and air-core coils, the crossover employ's MartinLogan's proprietary Vojtko topology for vanishingly low distortion and seamless driver integration. This precision-tuned network preserves even the most microscopic sonic nuances while handling the full dynamics of any source.

Now the Summit X has a CLX inspired crossover. And here is the PR on the CLX crossover:

Vojtko™ Filter Audiophile-grade proprietary Vojtko Filter
Featuring an advanced proprietary Vojtko™ filter topology, MartinLogan electronic specialists hand-build each CLX filter utilizing only the finest of components and construction techniques to assure the cleanest, most precise signal path possible. The resulting precision filter flawlessly preserves even the smallest subtleties in sound while effortlessly handling the broadest range of dynamics contained within even the most demanding sonic source, whether used in a 2-channel audio system or dedicated home theater

And just for good measure the Spire

Vojtko™ Crossover Audiophile-grade proprietary Vojtko crossover
Featuring an advanced proprietary Vojtko™ crossover topology derived from the flagship CLX™ loudspeaker, MartinLogan electronic specialists hand-build each Spire crossover utilizing only the finest of components and construction techniques to assure the cleanest, most precise signal path possible. The resulting precision crossover flawlessly preserves even the smallest subtleties in sound while effortlessly handling the broadest range of dynamics contained within even the most demanding sonic source, whether used in a 2-channel audio system or dedicated home theater.


This is all ML has said.

Now we know for a fact based on user and reviewer comments that the Spire has a bit cleaner lower midrange than the Summit,and we are speculating the Summit X to perform likewise..... however, we don't know if the clarity is from the crossover or just the fact that it's easier to impliment a clean transition from a panel to a single woofer than it is to a dual woofer, especially since one is out of phase with the other due to physical positioning.

[Rich]

I don't think that they are saying that at all...we are speculating that.Here is the PR from the original Summit press release. Please explain to me if you can how this differs from the press release on the Summit X.

Jerry, did you read the press release for the Summit X at the beginning of this thread? That is where I took my comment from. I can't cut and paste from it and I am not going to waste my time typing in all the relevant portions from it, but if you go back and read it carefully, they seem to make the assertion that the "amazing midrange clarity and openness" of the Summit X is due to "variable phasing near the crossover point" provided by the CLX-inspired Vojtko crossover, as well as from the "Controlled Dispersion PoweredForce Woofer technology."

The implication I get reading that press release carefully is that ML has designed a new crossover for the Summit based on lessons learned designing a crossover for the CLX, and they have also added some new technology to the dual-woofer array ("Controlled Dispersion PoweredForce technology"), and they feel these changes result in a speaker that exhibits more midrange clarity and openness (their words, not mine).

To answer your question, the difference between the press release for the Summit X and the ones you quote from is that they specifically mention variable phasing near the crossover point for the Summit X crossover (the others don't mention this) as well as the new woofer technology which appears to be a new thing with the X. They also specifically mention midrange clarity and openness as a hallmark of the X.


however, we don't know if the clarity is from the crossover or just the fact that it's easier to impliment a clean transition from a panel to a single woofer than it is to a dual woofer, especially since one is out of phase with the other due to physical positioning.

You are right, we don't "know" anything at this point. All we have is ML's marketing hype to go on. But given that, a statement like:

"Amazing midrange clarity and openness inspired by the CLX" and other references to "CLX-inspired crossover engineering,"

it seems pretty clear that they are touting the midrange clarity and openness of this speaker and attributing it primarily to the new crossover technology from the CLX. Given that midrange clarity and openness have been suggested to be strengths of both the Spire and the CLX by those who have reviewed them, it makes sense that ML would be touting that benefit for the Summit X due to its inclusion of that same crossover technology.

I agree it is all speculation until someone actually listens to a Summit X, but if you read their press release carefully and compare it to previous ones, I think there is ample evidence for the conclusions I made. Understand that I wasn't trying to speculate about the actual sound of the new speaker. I was simply trying to decipher ML's marketing language to help aliveatfive understand what ML is saying this speaker does that the original Summit doesn't do. Looking at the language they use in this press release, it seems pretty clear to me.

[DrJRapp]

If I were the VP of Marketing I would want the Summit to be associated with the Flagship product even though the CLX probably has more of the old Summit in it (the HF & MF ESL panel) than the Summit X has CLX. It's all just hype till someone actually is able to a/b them side by side with the same connected equipment in the same room.

It's easy to make cavalier statements. My Summits exhibit remarkable mid range clarity with my Meridian 808 that they don't with my Benchmark DAC1 and Theta Data Basic Transport....get the drift

[Rich]

It's all just hype till someone actually is able to a/b them side by side with the same connected equipment in the same room.

Yes . . . and no. I understand that a press release is a lot of marketing hype, but at the same time it has been my experience that ML products tend to live up to ML's marketing hype. So I do put some faith in the things they say. A lot of people on this forum were trashing the Summit when it first came out because it was so different from the Prodigy, but all that criticism fairly well disappeared once people actually got a chance to see and hear them in person. Same thing happened recently with the CLX. So yes, until we can actually compare the two it is just hype, but ML's history has been one of living up to their hype, in my opinion.


It's easy to make cavalier statements. My Summits exhibit remarkable mid range clarity with my Meridian 808 that they don't with my Benchmark DAC1 and Theta Data Basic Transport....get the drift

True, but I am not sure exactly what this point has to do with our topic of conversation. ML's press releases are not "cavalier statements," I assure you. A lot of thought goes into the exact wording of each statement in that release and I expect it is reviewed and revised by numerous staff members.

And, if you look back through the thread, you will see that this particular topic came up because I was responding to a statement from aliveatfive that read:


A lot of speculation could be ended with a statement from ML. Why is it their policy not to contribute to this forum? I'd like to hear from the horse's mouth what I'd be giving up by not obtaining the Summit X and keeping the Summit. ML _ I'm waiting!

And my point was simply that ML has made such a statement in this press release, for those willing to read it closely and try to understand it. And until the speaker is actually released and people can audition it for themselves, there really isn't much need for ML to make any further statements on the subject. As you say, it is just speculation by us and no one trusts anything ML says anyway because they are just spouting "marketing hype." Then again, given the reviews of the Summit, Spire, and CLX, I would say ML's marketing "hype" has been pretty spot-on lately. So, again, I am just not sure what relevance your point has to the conversation.

[C.A.P]

Why are some so anecdotal with this !

[twich54]

Why are some so anecdotal with this !


the're bored....the only good teams left in the NFL playoffs are from the North !

[aliveatfive]

This will be my final post on the subject. I just want to clarify things. Sometime between 2005 and 2006 I decided that my Ascent i loudspeakers were somewhat deficient in some aspects of the audible spectrum. Around this time, MartinLogan announced the availability of a new product - the Summit. I guess I fell for the hype, although when I heard them at a dealer for the first time, I knew they possessed qualities which I had never experienced in Logans before. They were also a manageable size which appealed to me. Had they been $5,000 more expensive, would I have purchased them? Probably so. Cut to the release of the CLX. Had I the room, I would probably try to grab a pair assuming I could sell my Summits. (Not an ideal supposition.) Next, I start hearing things about a new speaker called the Summit X. My information came entirely from this forum. First reports indicated that the upgrade would eventually be made available as a retrofit. Bits and pieces of info began to trickle down from company sources especially through Jeff and others. We all then discovered that the Summit X was to exist as an entity only to itself. Frankly, I did not then, and still do not, understand the reasons why. I have been building electronic projects (and I still do) ever since I was a kid. I see the new crossovers have higher quality caps, and it should be no biggie to retrofit them to the board. To say the least, I was quite dissappointed. An irrational emotion? Quite possibly, but that's how I feel.

When the Summit X is finally reviewed, I am quite anxious to hear what the reviewers will say. Will the Summit X be a revelation or will it be barely different from the speaker which proceeded it? If I'm lead to the conclusion that the new speaker is revolutionary, I will be faced with a decision. Roger Sanders new speakers? Magnapans? Wilsons? Sonus Fabers? Summit X?

Quite honestly I'm (maybe irrationally) already prejudiced against the Summit X. Will I be able to buy better caps and replace those already in my crossover circuits? Can't answer yet with certainty. This episode has just caused me to re-think my blissful relationship with ML. There are other gals at this dance. Hey, no one ever accused audiophiles of being rational. I may be worse than most. Unfortunately, music is a passion and passions are frequently not dealt with on a rational level.

[amey01]

I think you feel a lot better with yourself now! Yes, obsolesence is intensely frustrating - not least because it reduces the value of your asset.


If I'm lead to the conclusion that the new speaker is revolutionary, I will be faced with a decision. Roger Sanders new speakers? Magnapans? Wilsons? Sonus Fabers? Summit X?




Absolutely - if it comes to the time when you are no longer happy with your Summits, wouldn't you evaluate everything anyway? That's what audiophiles do - evaluate everything in the price range and buy the one that suits you best. If I were buying speakers today, I wouldn't just blindly buy ML - just because five years ago when I bought my Summits they were the best at the price. To this end, just because the Summit X outperforms the old Summit (which I'm sure it will), it is no reason to get any more upset than if Sonus Faber or Wilson or Magnepan or anyone else brought out a speaker that outperformed the old Summit.

Oh - and you forgot Avalon!

Bear in mind also that if ML were to offer a retrofit, the existing Summits would have to be wholly and equally upgradeable - if (for example) the extra long feet fitted slightly differently or not as snugly as on a real pair of Summit Xs then ML couldn't risk people galavanting around claiming speakers were "Summit X" when in fact they were not the complete / real / whole thing.

[aliveatfive]

I lied about not posting again. I don't feel better about anything concerning audio. If you can't tell, I'm still pi$$ed as hell. Please don't try to be so self-righteous. My previous post was not meant as a confession to you or others!

[amey01]

Please don't try to be so self-righteous. My previous post was not meant as a confession to you or others!

I certainly didn't intend it that way - I'm sorry if you took it that way. I would be p1ssed too - really! As I said, obsolesence is frustrating. I was merely trying to be "devil's advocate" in pointing out a few legitimate reasons why there may not be an upgrade available.

Put it this way, I'd be p1ssed by obsolescence whether there is an upgrade available or not - either way, you're still having money extracted from you, right? It sux.

More importantly, you've got good speakers, and if and when you want an upgrade, evaluate all offerings - not "just" ML or "anything but" ML - evaluate EVERYTHING. Only a fool would do otherwise.

Now what would be really nice is ML said "We're sorry we made a mistake with the original Summit and it wasn't as good as it could have been - we've fixed the product and would like to swap out your speakers"...........mmm, I can dream.

[Rich]

aliveatfive,

I don't understand why you are so unhappy about all this unless you are truly dissatisfied with the sound of your Summits. Unless I missed it, I didn't notice anywhere that you stated you were unhappy with them. Only that you were unhappy with the way ML has handled the rollout of the X series.

If you are happy with the sound of your Summits, as I am with mine, then take a deep breath and relax. Once the X is out, you can audition them and read the reviews and learn more about the differences between them and the original. And in the context of time and experience, all of this will seem pretty minimal, I think. Sometimes the announcement of a new product from a favorite company just sends everyone into a tizzy and no one is happy with the change. And then, as the product settles in and people get more familiar with it, they relax and appreciate its benefits (assuming it is a great product). As I mentioned above, people all over this forum went through the same machinations when the Summit originally came out.

It's always good to question your allegiance to any brand and compare them against others of similar quality in deciding your next upgrade. But I know many members of this forum, myself included, have repeatedly auditioned other great speakers and keep coming back to ML because the others just don't provide the magic that ours do (I expect Sanders and Maggies probably come closer than any of the others you mentioned, though). At the same time, I am sure there are people that leave ML for some other brand and never look back.

It seems to me you are taking this product rollout personally because you bought the top of the line and are not allowed to upgrade it to the new model. It is not meant as a personal slap in the face to you and other Summit owners. It is a simple business decision that ML had to make. They have shown a willingness to provide upgrades when feasible, and according to sources were considering it in this case, but they obviously determined that it just wasn't feasible. If you are really as upset about that decision as you say, why not call or write ML directly and ask for a response to your question? Ask them, as an owner of their former flagship speaker, why exactly they decided to not allow upgrades to the new model. I expect that you will get a full and fair answer, but I don't know. I would be interested to hear what they tell you, though.

I find it interesting that some folks buy whatever ML speaker they can afford, and own it joyfully for fifteen or twenty years before upgrading. Others absolutely must own the top-of-the-line new model every time it comes out or they are just not satisfied with their systems. This puts them on the roller coaster of changing out their speakers and shelling out big bucks every two to four years, and they are never satisfied for very long with what they have. Personally, I think that is a sad state of affairs. My suggestion, again, is to just sit back, relax, and enjoy the beautiful music your Summits are making and stop worrying about whether the midrange is as clear and open as it could be if you could just upgrade to the X version. If you enjoy what you have, what does it matter what new products the company is bringing out? The grass is not always greener.

As for the Summits, they were an incredible deal when they first came out. They were priced the same as the Prodigies before them, and that is pretty unusual in this business, especially for a top-of-the-line upgrade as radically different as the Summit was from the Prodigy. ML could have easily charged twelve grand or more for them right off the bat and most folks that wanted them would not have batted an eye. So it is not surprising that the X series will see a pretty good price jump. That is just the way business works. You have to recoup money from product development and you have to keep up with inflationary pressures and keep up with your peers in charging what the market will bear. The top speakers from other great companies are not cheap either, and I don't expect any of them always offer an upgrade path to a new model.

My expectation is that the Summit X will sound a little better than the Summit, but not enough to make it worth the cost and effort of upgrading. I felt, and still feel, the same way about the Ascents. My Ascents are original and I never felt the need to upgrade them to the Ascent i's. And, according to sources at ML, the Ascent i upgrade was more about esthetics than real performance improvements anyway. Now the CLX may be worth upgrading to, if I had the room, but is it's sound quality worth twice the price I paid for my Summits? Does it sound twice as good as the Summits? I seriously doubt it. So I think I will just relax and enjoy my Summits until I have a little more space and the CLX's are on the 'gon for half price.

[aliveatfive]

Rich -
A post with which I can agree! What we have here is a marketing strategy that does not make me happy. Yes I do like the sound of my Summits. Yes I've heard better. Once the reviews are in I suppose we can all become more rational over this. However, I'll open up another can of worms by saying that your own 2 ears are the best arbiter of audio quality. Unfortunately for me, the last 2 local dealers to carry Logans just went out of business. It will be very difficult for me to hear the top of the product line. (And this is in NYC!) My ultimate decision may have already been made for me!

[tonepub]

I think unless you have taken the rest of your system as far as it can go, there's still a lot more sound lurking in your Summits to be had by upgrading your system, or room.

When I still had the Summits (and still have the Spire) I can get much better sound out of those speakers with world class electronics than I can get out of the CLX with mediocre electronics, so I wouldn't be so bummed about the Summit.

Heck, it's not like computers where Apple releases a better laptop (for less money, usually) every six months!

The Summit is still an incredibly good speaker.

[DrJRapp]

Bear in mind also that if ML were to offer a retrofit, the existing Summits would have to be wholly and equally upgradeable - if (for example) the extra long feet fitted slightly differently or not as snugly as on a real pair of Summit Xs then ML couldn't risk people galavanting around claiming speakers were "Summit X" when in fact they were not the complete / real / whole thing.

They could always create a Summit i.

[Bernard]

I hear the Summit X i is just round the corner.

.....just kidding !! :D

[amey01]

They could always create a Summit i.

Good idea!

[Brad225]

When the Summit was announced in Jan. 2005 were those of you that owned Prodigy's upset that a new speaker had been released?
The Summit was a new generation with what ML's latest R&D technology had produced.

In 2005 when the Summit was released I would think they were working on the technology that has created the CLX in 2008. The Summit was the next step from the Prodigy to advancement in panel and smaller bass cabinet design.

The Summit X is just another step in the progression of products. For what ever reason they choose to unveil it in the CLX before the Summit X.

I don't think any of the Summit owners here would have not wanted to see a potential advancement of the product line.

I don't know of any company that announces much further ahead of a new product to replace an existing one than ML did.

None of us like to see a company replace a product that we own with something they tout as better. That is just the way it works.

It does seem that if the Summit is not going to be upgradeable they might have given it another name. Didn't Spire replaced another speaker in the line (sorry I am not familiar with all the products). It was given a new name not an X

That said many other products have been given the i designation.

Can someone tell me if other products were upgradeable to an "i". I could not find that information.

[TomDac]

I don't see why some of you are getting your panties all in a bunch over the Summit X.

The introduction of the Spire and now Summit X will not change the fact that the Summit is an outstanding loudspeaker.

MartinLogan learns new things when developing a flagship product such as the CLX and then incorporates these new things into other products in their lineup. This is how they've always done it... Things they learned when developing the Statement e2 were put into other products as well.

This is what improves all of their products!! This is not a money making scheme, it's the natural progression of a product line, and it's what makes ML grow as a company and it's what makes their products continue to get better.

The Summit X could've just as easily be called the Summit i... "i" always stood for "improved" with the older ML products. They chose to use "X" because the improvements were derived from the CLX. I think that is simply a marketing thing... Would you feel better if it was called Summit i?

I feel that the "X" version (or in the past, the "i" version) is not a reason to upgrade. I, for one, will not be selling my Summits to get the Summit X.

So, to recap:
Summit X could not be possible without the CLX.

The cart cannot go before the horse...

Now turn on your system and listen to some music!! That's what it's all about, anyway!!! :rocker:

[tonepub]

Good post, Tom!

[MiTT]

This is not a money making scheme, it's the natural progression of a product line, and it's what makes ML grow as a company and it's what makes their products continue to get better.

Well, actually Tom, it IS a money making scheme. If Martin Logan were to develop a speaker like the original Summit, and then stop all R&D effort and never make another new speaker, how long do you think they would last?

I am charged with Vitality in my company. I need to insure that at least 30% of our net revenue comes from new products and I am only allowed to claim Vitality on any given product for 3 years after it's launch. How long do you think my company could survive without continuous product improvement? How long do you think I would have a job?

Bottom line is that Vitality increases investor confidence that a company is more than stable, that it is innovative. THAT's how you grow a business.

[TomDac]

Tim,
in that respect, it indeed is to grow the company, but it's not meant to screw us Summit owners over, which is kind of how I interpreted the tone of some of the posts in this thread..

[aliveatfive]

Tim,
in that respect, it indeed is to grow the company, but it's not meant to screw us Summit owners over, which is kind of how I interpreted the tone of some of the posts in this thread..

Well then, I suppose the people who bought Ascent is were responsible for a terrible loss in ML profits. You can interpret this situation any way you want. I'm sure additional profit motive was one of the prime movers. Are they entitled to do this? Absolutely! Do I (or we) have to upgrade? No!

[TomDac]

Like I said... don't upgrade just to have the latest and greatest...

[MiTT]

Tim,
in that respect, it indeed is to grow the company, but it's not meant to screw us Summit owners over, which is kind of how I interpreted the tone of some of the posts in this thread..

Absolutely. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree with the decisions Martin Logan is making. They are continuing to develop and improve their products. If they didn't have such an agressive posture I doubt they'd be around at all 3-4 years from now.

[Rich]

I'm sure additional profit motive was one of the prime movers. Are they entitled to do this? Absolutely! Do I (or we) have to upgrade? No!

Entitled? Are you kidding? Not only are they entitled, they are darn near REQUIRED to continuously upgrade their products if they want to stay in business. Do any of us "have" to upgrade? Of course not. You can listen to your Summits in perfect bliss and harmony for the next twenty years, and ML will be quite happy for you.

That is, if you can possibly enjoy listening to the mediocre sound of your outdated Summits with full knowledge that the unbelievable midrange clarity and openness of the Summit X is out there and available to you for just a few thousand more dollars . . . :devil:

[David Matz]

Truth be told I'm actually more 'jazzed' about hearing the new "X" than the CLS's .....go figure !

Dave,

You must be putting a lot of Kahlua in your coffee for your snow mobile rides! :D:devil:

If you hear a CLX in a big room with quality electronics, it is way beyond any other Logan - I mean you cannot even compare it to anything else.

Seriously, though, I hope when you demo it, it is a comfortable environment so you can relax, play your own music and feel the magic. I look forward to your impressions.

[Bernard]

Entitled? Are you kidding? Not only are they entitled, they are darn near REQUIRED to continuously upgrade their products if they want to stay in business. And would we want to buy products from a company that did not continuously upgrade their products, assuming of course that they did stay in business?

[Bernard]

Truth be told I'm actually more 'jazzed' about hearing the new "X" than the CLS's .....go figure !


Dave,

You must be putting a lot of Kahlua in your coffee for your snow mobile rides! :D:devil:I think that the cold during those snowmobile rides has slowed Dave's thinking - he said "CLS's" instead of "CLX's"! :D

[DrJRapp]

If you hear a CLX in a big room with quality electronics, it is way beyond any other Logan - I mean you cannot even compare it to anything else.


You are right, you can't compare it to anything else. It's the best performing tweeter/midrange unit ML makes, however it isn't a full range speaker, so it can't be compared to anything else. I listened to the CLXs without subs and thought they sounded hollow. It was different for sure and better in some ways...whether I would call them way beyond is another story. I left with a huge sigh of relief that the CLX didn't sound "way beyond" my Summits so I wouldn't be compelled to move up.

[C.A.P]

I think that the cold during those snowmobile rides has slowed Dave's thinking - he said "CLS's" instead of "CLX's"! :D
Its his subconscious coming out of the closet. He cant hide it any more!
Ths CLS will do that to you. After 25 years they still can cause a man to have delusions of Grandeur! Its OK Dave I have the Cure !:ROFL:

[User211]

Entitled? Are you kidding? Not only are they entitled, they are darn near REQUIRED to continuously upgrade their products if they want to stay in business. Do any of us "have" to upgrade? Of course not. You can listen to your Summits in perfect bliss and harmony for the next twenty years, and ML will be quite happy for you.

Then again, you could argue they are so far ahead of anything else they don't need to bother... and that the new models come because they are essential. Newest and latest is always best, and a new model always helps the sales figures and keeps the Hi-Fi press's attention on your product.

Might be a loose argument, though. After all, if they didn't, we wouldn't have the CLX.

[User211]

You are right, you can't compare it to anything else. It's the best performing tweeter/midrange unit ML makes, however it isn't a full range speaker, so it can't be compared to anything else. I listened to the CLXs without subs and thought they sounded hollow. It was different for sure and better in some ways...whether I would call them way beyond is another story. I left with a huge sigh of relief that the CLX didn't sound "way beyond" my Summits so I wouldn't be compelled to move up.

Hm... I think they are way beyond the Summits too... what gear did you have hooked up in the demo? How big was the room? If you have posted telling us already I must have missed it, or at least I can't remember at the moment...

[DrJRapp]

Hm... I think they are way beyond the Summits too... what gear did you have hooked up in the demo? How big was the room? If you have posted telling us already I must have missed it, or at least I can't remember at the moment...

My post goes back a few months. I'll find it and link it. In short: gear was all Krell SS Monoblocks and SS Preamp, source was Meridian 808.2. All gear and spekers had been playing together for over three weeks so was "run-in" already.

Room was acoustically treated 30x20 with a 12' celing height and the speakers were supposidly set up by the ML rep for an "event".

The dealer was the same one that I heard my Summits at for the first time, however they had relocated to a new facility.

Overall I felt that the CLX was bright and edgy for my taste. The midrange was very clear and detailed to the point of being analytical. So, if your preference is for a brighter more analytical speaker you might think the CLX is way beyond the Summit. But you would probably think the same of a B&W 803D vs a Summit.

I prefer the warmer, darker presentation of a speaker like the Summit.

[houstonshark]

FYI, not that you can hear them and begin to put some of these arguments to rest but the Summit X is now available on the Custom Shop.

[houstonshark]

I just built a loaded $23,595 Summit X

[houstonshark]

The Summit X is now live on the main ML site.

[TomDac]

yep.. Devin emailed me that...