Exact Differences between Summit & Summit X?

I have been trying to find the details on other threads but I am wanting to know specifically what the differences are?

As far as I can tell, the panels are different and the crossover is different. Is this correct? Is that all that is different. I would like to know about every detail including cosmetics since I am on the verge of purchasing a standard Summit.

Thanks for the help guys.

Dominick

Dominick,

Panels are the same. The x-over has been revised in the "X".

Given what I know, I would be reluctant to recommend, within the context of price, the "X" over the original.

Best scenario. Listen to both and make your own judgment.

If you choose to buy the legacy model, I trust you will not be disappointed.

GG

Thanks Gordon!

Really, is that all that is different? The crossover is different?I have to think that after all these years, ML would have had the crossover pretty much nailed down with there panels when the original Summit was released. I would think that a revamp of the crossover would be almost negligible. Yet, the price on the Summit X is significantly higher.

Are there other differences guys?

For example, the Summit X says that it has mood lighting LED's underneath the speaker for the "cool" effect. Does the Legacy Summit have these? Is everything else literally the same?

Thanks for helping me get exact with this!

Dominick

The Summit X uses crossover technology learned from their implementation of the CLX, where they vary the phase of the output near the crossover point. This is supposed to provide a more seamless transition between woofer and panel than the crossover in the original Summit. I think you would have to hear them side by side to really notice the difference. That is the main difference between the two speakers.

The lighting effects are another difference. Along with adjustable tilt on the spikes. But these differences are really pretty minor.

Rich said:

The lighting effects are another difference. Along with adjustable tilt on the spikes. But these differences are really pretty minor.

Click to expand...

I agree that the lighting effects are minor, but I think the new feet on the X do make quite a difference. I purchased a set for my Legacy Summits and was surprised at what the ability to get the speaker rake fully upright did for "focus". In fact I wonder just how much of the improved clarity and image of the X is really due to the ability to set it up better with the new feet.

Of course there are other ways than changing the feet to achieve the zero rake benifits.

DrJRapp said:

I agree that the lighting effects are monor, but I think the new feet on the X do make quite a difference. I purchased a set for my Legacy Summits and was surprised at what the ability to get the speaker rake fully upright did for "focus". In fact I wonder just how much of the improved clarity and image of the X is really due to the ability to set it up better with the new feet.

Of course there are other ways than changing the feet to achieve the zero rake benifits.

Click to expand...

Did you purchase the new feet straight form ML and how much are they for?

Thanks

Look under "Gear" on Tone Publications Web Site for review of the Summit X. Here is a little cut...

"The Summit X also edges out the Summit in terms of low-level detail retrieval and microdynamics. Cymbals and percussion instruments fade out with longer gradations than they did before, and very dense musical pieces are unraveled more easily. Listening to both speakers side by side, each seemed to be able to play equally loud without fatigue. So this is definitely an evolutionary upgrade."

Devil's advocate so don't get on me for this question.

If so many Summit owners feel that the stator should be nearly upright, why didn't ML come to the same conclusion?

robertawillisjr said:

If so many Summit owners feel that the stator should be nearly upright, why didn't ML come to the same conclusion?

Click to expand...

They obviously did...over time.....that's why they built that ability into the X.

Almost everything on the Summit X is different than the Summit. As for the comment on "most Summit owners" preferring them upright, we really don't know if that is the case, do we? 20 people saying so on this forum, doesn't really constitute most owners.

What ML did was give you a wider range of adjustment on the X.

The panel, woofer and crossover all have different part numbers than the original summit.

That being said, as Dan pointed out in our quote, that the change was "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary".

With the original Summit being 11k at the end of the model run and the summit X being 14k at the end of the run, the upgrades to the new model make sense and offer a better product, but the original Summit is still an excellent speaker and not to be discounted. A used pair of Summits is still an excellent value.

Having used both extensively, unless you've got out of this world gear powering them and a well treated room, you will hear a diff between the two, but not an Earth shattering one. And a pair of Summits with outstanding gear will reveal more music than Summit X with mediocre gear.

Once the Summit X has been on the used market, I'm guessing the price diff between the two will shake out to a few thousand dollars, just as the retail prices did.

The original summit is still an outstanding speaker.

tonepub said:

Almost everything on the Summit X is different than the Summit. As for the comment on "most Summit owners" preferring them upright, we really don't know if that is the case, do we? 20 people saying so on this forum, doesn't really constitute most owners.

Click to expand...

Good point. This is why the feet are adjustable so everyone can have their "preferred" setup. Like everything else in this hobby, there is no "best", it is just what each of us likes the best.

robertawillisjr said:

Devil's advocate so don't get on me for this question.

If so many Summit owners feel that the stator should be nearly upright, why didn't ML come to the same conclusion?

Click to expand...

The story that I heard is that it had something to do with European regulations for the size and shape of speaker.

robertawillisjr said:

Devil's advocate so don't get on me for this question.

If so many Summit owners feel that the stator should be nearly upright, why didn't ML come to the same conclusion?

Click to expand...

Each ML speaker that I have seen has varied in the rake angle. If I recall correctly, the Odyssey was nearly vertical and the Aeon is tilted back and the Ascent was somewhere in between. Not exactly sure which but I know they're all a little different. But the spiked feet allowed for minute adjustments.

I think it all depends on the height of the listening position. Some HT rooms have elevated seats and in this case you might need the speakers to be tilted way back. The design of the Summit X feet allow for a wide range of rake angle adjustment.

I don't know how important it is but I use an angle locator tool to match the rake angle of each speaker as closely to each other as possible. I have them set at 5 degrees of rake. 0 being perpendicular to the floor. This is addition to matching the distances and toe-in of both speakers from the listening position as accurately and precisely as I can.

See the Summit X manual

Being curious (I don't have the Summit X), I went to the ML site and looked at the manual. Page 12 shows how to adjust the rake and gives a very brief explanation. The picture on page 15 is far more instructive. My guess is that the rake is set for an "average" person sitting at an "average" height.

I would expect that anyone with an angled stator would benefit from the adjustable cones. On the subject of the cones, I have the adjustable ones and they have been great getting my Quests level. Lately, I have been experimenting with the rake and found that a very slight (0.25") forward rake brings the sound together better. I added a 10lb weight on the chasis for piece of mind, since I have a PS Audio Duet for switching of the speakers.

Thanks guys...

This is all great info. I am struggling with dropping the dough on the legacy Summit. I don't want to have any regrets so I have to decide to either just stick with the Ascent i's I have or make a move for the standard Summit.

I can't swing the Summit X even on the used market!


Thanks again everyone,
Dominick

I have noticed that the Spire is bi-wireable while the Summit is not.

Why would the lower Spire have that option and the Summit not have it?

Dominick

Dominick22 said:

I have noticed that the Spire is bi-wireable while the Summit is not.

Why would the lower Spire have that option and the Summit not have it?

Dominick

Click to expand...

I really wish they would have made the spire also non bi-wireable as I hate the jumpers and do not need bi-wires.I think they stopped because of all the confusion about the powered driver or drivers in the bottom.it is kind of un-nerving that they change there stuff like that though even the CLX has one set of binding posts.

Get the sprire instead

I think that raising the Summit vs. X question with the Summit owners, who unfortunately could not pursue an upgrade path, brings up a lot of sore spots...

Get the Spire instead. The market prices the Summit and Spire pretty much identically. But having heard both, the Spire is better. You will have better sound than the summt due to the newer crossover. (Jeff's quote describing the X is right on the money and applicable to the Spire vs. Summit comparison equally as it does in the original context). You will also have slightly less measured bass, but better bass.

As to your comments about ML nailing the crossover, that's wishful thinking. Crossovers and hybrid speakers will be a work in progress for the next 30-50 years...

David,

With all due respect, I totally disagree with the assertion that the Spire is a better speaker than the Summit.

All of the following comments are based on 2 channel listening.

Better bass. What does that mean? What recordings were used to make that determination? How loud was the music? Was the room treated to address standing waves? How far from the back wall and side walls were the speakers positioned to validate the assertion? Where was the listening position relative to the speakers?

You will have a better low end foundation with two 10" drivers and 400 watts of power versus one 10" driver with 200 watts of power. There is no way you can argue to the contrary. That is a very substantial, physical difference between the two models.

Then there's the issue of where the crossover knobs are set. As I've stated numerous times, depending on where you set the crossover controls, you can make the Summit sound anemic or totally bloated and undefined in the mid / lower bass. I'm sure the same is true, to a lesser degree, with the Spire.

I find it very difficult to envision how you can identically match this crossover adjustment and render the opinion that one speaker is better than the other.

You also have folks who own the Spires that have added one or two subs to the system to realize the low end foundation that the Summit has without adding a sub.

And then there's the room, the electronics, the wire, etc.

Sorry, I don't buy the assertion regardless of the improved crossover in the Spire.

And for all those who like the Spires, the Summit, and the Summit X, kudos for making that choice but threads like this just encourage class warfare.

My speaker is better than your speaker. Blah, blah.

Just enjoy the flippin music.

GG

Gordon Gray said:

David,

With all due respect, I totally disagree with the assertion that the Spire is a better speaker than the Summit.

Better in what specific way?

All of the following comments are based on two channel listening, not home theater.

You will have a better low end foundation with two 10" drivers and 400 watts of power versus one 10" driver with 200 watts of power. There is no way you can argue to the contrary. That is a very substantial, physical difference between the two models.

Then there's the issue of where the crossover knobs are set. As I've stated numerous times, depending on where you set the crossover controls, you can make the Summit sound anemic or totally bloated and undefined in the mid / lower bass. I'm sure the same is true, to a lesser degree, with the Spire.

I find it very difficult to envision how you can identically match this crossover adjustment and render the opinion that one speaker is better than the other.

You also have folks who own the Spires that have added one or two subs to the system to realize the low end foundation that the Summit has without adding a sub.

And then there's the room, the electronics, the wire, etc.

Sorry, I don't buy the assertion regardless of the improved crossover in the Spire.

And for all those who like the Spires, the Summit, and the Summit X, kudos for making that choice but threads like this just encourage class warfare.

My speaker is better than your speaker. Blah, blah.

Just enjoy the flippin music.

GG

Click to expand...

Gordon,
I had a similar first reaction as you to this post, but I have been considering the Spire. The only reason I have focused more on the Summit is because of the above criteria and then they are priced very similarly.

I don't mean to say that the crossover is perfect or could not be made better, but I do not notice any issues with it in my Ascent i's. The crossover is virtually seemless as far as I can tell. If they claim to have made it better, well that's great....but as long as it is as good or better than the Ascent i's, I won't be complaining or having feelings of missing out on something. I think the crossover is a negligible difference. Furthermore, we don't even know what the differences are because ML won't release those details. I love ML and all, but they might have changed a capacitor from 300 uf to 310 uf and then called it a patent vojito or whatever the name is. Either way, I don't care...especially if we are talking hundreds or thousands of dollars!

Thanks for so much food for thought guys.

Dominick