User211
Well-known member
wait... what was this thread about originally?
Sorry OP for the outright hijacking.
Yup - rogues we are. The people of this forum... I dunno. Now, let's inch back towards Summit X's, bottle of expensive port in our hands...
Inching closer to a Summit X
- Thread starter spectral
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Yup - rogues we are. The people of this forum... I dunno. Now, let's inch back towards Summit X's, bottle of expensive port in our hands...
tsv_1
Well-known member
Yup - rogues we are. The people of this forum... I dunno. Now, let's inch back towards Summit X's, bottle of expensive port in our hands...
Sod that! I'm on about completely unrelated book recommendations now
(but yes, always with good port in hand)The 360s Series II have more control than the 260 - and they are both extra-ordinary achievements. RE cables - yes, I keep hearing what the Oracle MA's do for Spectral amps, and indeed Spectral have recommended to me either the MIT/Spectral cables or the Oracle MA's, but the cost leaves me cold, and yes there is _difference_ but not necessarily improvement. Others are now raving about the Oracle MA-x rev 2 (at $35K???)... it never ends... I haven't lost it yet
Geez - I go out for coffee and the thread is hijacked
So back to the MIT cables - I just noticed there is now the Oracle MA-X rev2 HD for $40K. That's because the MA-X rev2 was not resolute enough at $35K. Any questions?
User211
Well-known member
Sod that! I'm on about completely unrelated book recommendations now
Oh yeah - popped out for a bit - and I come back to this, a big bomb in Oslo, and the Oracle MA-X rev2 HD for $40K. Oh well, I watched the video on the link, Todd. But I'll pass on a purchase. Farting teachers indeed...
Now if Martin Logan published a book entitled "Todd and the ML CLX - A Story Of True Love", I might read that - provided it had been appropriately censored, of course
Geez - I go out for coffee and the thread is hijacked
I get your point, and $35-$40k is way out of control. On the other had, the non MA-X cable is pretty darn good. I think it's the Oracle 1.3, and from what I hear from people in the know, they are on par performance wise with the original MA-X (which retailed for $25) but sound different. The 1.3's retail for about $15k I believe and can then be had at a decent discount on Agon, if one wishes to wait for them to come up.
tsv_1
Well-known member
Oh yeah - popped out for a bit - and I come back to this, a big bomb in Oslo, and the Oracle MA-X rev2 HD for $40K. Oh well, I watched the video on the link, Todd. But I'll pass on a purchase. Farting teachers indeed...
Now if Martin Logan published a book entitled "Todd and the ML CLX - A Story Of True Love", I might read that - provided it had been appropriately censored, of course
Holy smokes... that bomb situation in Oslo is horrendous!
User211
Well-known member
Yeah not good - and made all to easy by a human liking for green grass. Seems strange how a desire for something beautiful can result in facilitating something so destructive.
Indeed!
We were quite shocked when we heard about this yesterday as Oslo is only ~220km from where I live.
It suddenly gets very real when stuff like this happens next door...
I just read the HiFi+ review of the MA-X speaker cables in issue 79, where they are compared against the author's Magnum cables... among the accolades (which to me are really improvements over the serious deficiencies in his Magnum cables that other less expensive cables don't suffer from) the following caught my attention:
... adjustable articulation. The output end of each box carries a pair of rotary switches with five different positions. One is labelled 'Bass' the other 'Treble' and they permit the user to adjust the level of articulation in the lower or upper frequency ranges. The effect is like a subtle and well-executed tone control. Increased articulation in the treble brings high frequency information a little to the fore, decreased articulation in the bass makes the lower registers recede.
On the other hand, the Spectral/MIT cables simply move the missing output inductor from the amp to the boxes as a different and possibly better stabilization circuit, optimized for the cable length purchased, while at the same time you move unwanted magnetic fields generated by the inductor away from the output section of the amplifier. Same for the interconnects. I hear your arguments, but I am not looking for tone controls, adjustable or not...
Last edited:
So after briefly auditioning the Summit X next to the Magico Q3, I feel comfortable to now go order the X - I think the Q3 is very close to the X, but it's not better, unlike the Q5 for example. I felt the Q3's treble is just not as fast as an electrostat, and I felt the X's bass is actually faster than the Q3's. All this strengthens my perception that the X is one of high-end's biggest bargains, and I am starting to agree with Dick Olsher who claimed he can't think of a better sub-$40K box speaker... I suspect the CLX is better still in the frequency range it operates, but for the large orchestral music I listen to, I need the real bass.
And of course just a short while after I get mine, there will be the Summit X2, won't it
And of course just a short while after I get mine, there will be the Summit X2, won't it
The sweet spot is narrow for both speakers, and frankly I have stopped worrying about it - like, when was the last time I ever sat off-center for listening, and why would I want to.
Bass integration? I have given up on the fallacy that anyone can make a point source like the woofer behave like a line-source - that ain't going to happen. The X's though do a good job, and it's no CLX either and it'll never be. So I am concentrating on the speed of the bass instead, and here we have a winner. But I also have very fast bass at home with the very high damping factor of my amps.
I just came back from another audition driven by my electronics - and this time I am having second thoughts about how well the X's will work with the Spectral amps. For example, the very low impedance of the speaker (0.8 ohms) shut down one of the amps, at very high (but not ear-splitting) volumes, playing Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (during a crescendo with lots of winds and cymbals). This is a problem. I also found the sound a bit too bright, and this is not something where tilting might help, although I need to think about this some more.
Compared to my Odyssey's, the midrange and up is a bit crisper thus more transparent (perhaps); but perhaps this is an illusion due to the added brightness. I've got to be honest, I really like the sound of the Odysseys, and probably better than the X's right this moment - smoother, if you will, a little more forgiving perhaps. I am beginning to think that the X's were designed for tube amps.
And visually - oh, there is no doubt in my mind that I like the Odyssey/Prodigy styles much better than the current generation - I still have not been able to come to terms with those sharp edges of the bass module or the visible woofer (which I also hated in the SL3s I owned).
And as I write this, I can't forget that the Odyssey's sound so nice with the panel vertical, while the X's were tilted about -2 to -3 degrees and still sounded brighter. All this brings memories of endless threads here about the virtues of the older panels. In a way, I am finding hard to move away from these older panels. And finally - resonances with the bass module - huge thumping could be felt when I touched it, not the case with the Odyssey's - not good. The O's have their own issues, but man am I in love with them. It just feels like I only need to upgrade the O's crossover. I even like the lower crossover point in the O's.
Confused? I sure am.
I am going back for more auditions next week. I may have to punt and go for the Q3 when I can afford it. Perhaps the comment about the faster treble in the X's (i.e. slower in the Q3) I made earlier might have been excessive brightness.
Bass integration? I have given up on the fallacy that anyone can make a point source like the woofer behave like a line-source - that ain't going to happen. The X's though do a good job, and it's no CLX either and it'll never be. So I am concentrating on the speed of the bass instead, and here we have a winner. But I also have very fast bass at home with the very high damping factor of my amps.
I just came back from another audition driven by my electronics - and this time I am having second thoughts about how well the X's will work with the Spectral amps. For example, the very low impedance of the speaker (0.8 ohms) shut down one of the amps, at very high (but not ear-splitting) volumes, playing Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (during a crescendo with lots of winds and cymbals). This is a problem. I also found the sound a bit too bright, and this is not something where tilting might help, although I need to think about this some more.
Compared to my Odyssey's, the midrange and up is a bit crisper thus more transparent (perhaps); but perhaps this is an illusion due to the added brightness. I've got to be honest, I really like the sound of the Odysseys, and probably better than the X's right this moment - smoother, if you will, a little more forgiving perhaps. I am beginning to think that the X's were designed for tube amps.
And visually - oh, there is no doubt in my mind that I like the Odyssey/Prodigy styles much better than the current generation - I still have not been able to come to terms with those sharp edges of the bass module or the visible woofer (which I also hated in the SL3s I owned).
And as I write this, I can't forget that the Odyssey's sound so nice with the panel vertical, while the X's were tilted about -2 to -3 degrees and still sounded brighter. All this brings memories of endless threads here about the virtues of the older panels. In a way, I am finding hard to move away from these older panels. And finally - resonances with the bass module - huge thumping could be felt when I touched it, not the case with the Odyssey's - not good. The O's have their own issues, but man am I in love with them. It just feels like I only need to upgrade the O's crossover. I even like the lower crossover point in the O's.
Confused? I sure am.
I am going back for more auditions next week. I may have to punt and go for the Q3 when I can afford it. Perhaps the comment about the faster treble in the X's (i.e. slower in the Q3) I made earlier might have been excessive brightness.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Peter,
Not criticizing the Summit X or other ML models.
However, if there is any way you can listen to the MBL 116's or 111's (if you have a large room), I would highly encourage you to do so.
Can pick up a used pair on Audiogon for same dollars (or less) as a new X pair. Paying retail for MBL gear is not best bang for the buck. Buying used offers outstanding value for the dollar.
From my experience, MBL's do everything that ML's do and then some.
No more worries about sweet spot. Not a problem with MBL's. Do they sound better in the center seat? Yup. Do they sound great sitting off axis, standing and walking around , you bet. The difference between the two listening perspectives (sweet spot vs other positions) is significantly less with MBL. I typically sit to the right of the right speaker and am a very happy camper.
If you can't find a dealer, which will likely be difficult, attend the RMAF show in a couple of weeks. MBL will be there. Or I will gladly be a host if you choose to pursue.
Good luck with your speaker search.
Gordon
Not criticizing the Summit X or other ML models.
However, if there is any way you can listen to the MBL 116's or 111's (if you have a large room), I would highly encourage you to do so.
Can pick up a used pair on Audiogon for same dollars (or less) as a new X pair. Paying retail for MBL gear is not best bang for the buck. Buying used offers outstanding value for the dollar.
From my experience, MBL's do everything that ML's do and then some.
No more worries about sweet spot. Not a problem with MBL's. Do they sound better in the center seat? Yup. Do they sound great sitting off axis, standing and walking around , you bet. The difference between the two listening perspectives (sweet spot vs other positions) is significantly less with MBL. I typically sit to the right of the right speaker and am a very happy camper.
If you can't find a dealer, which will likely be difficult, attend the RMAF show in a couple of weeks. MBL will be there. Or I will gladly be a host if you choose to pursue.
Good luck with your speaker search.
Gordon
Gordon, thanks. I think there is another variable here... the new Spectral DMC-30SS Series 2 preamp, which, when I auditioned a few moths ago with the Q3's, I did come out exclaiming its tipped-up treble that made it extremely realistic - in fact, this is apparently because of some coupling capacitors they removed, according to the bulletin. So when I originally auditioned the X's a year ago (before the S2 introduction), the sound was balanced. Now, it doesn't appear to be the case with the X's, but sure is at home with O's.
In the end - nothing new, it's all about system matching. Funny, I just checked and Dick Olsher as well other reviewers/owners of the X are using tubed amplifiers!
WRT MBL - they have messed up their dealership network, so no way to audition unless I find a local owner with similar equipment. But I am dumbfounded and perplexed - in the end, a coil is still moving bending "things"; how can this be faster than the ultra-thin membrane in electrostats? The coil alone weighs a LOT more than the electrostatic diaphragm... I don't think I "see" the science behind MBL, but granted, I have not heard their product.
In the end - nothing new, it's all about system matching. Funny, I just checked and Dick Olsher as well other reviewers/owners of the X are using tubed amplifiers!
WRT MBL - they have messed up their dealership network, so no way to audition unless I find a local owner with similar equipment. But I am dumbfounded and perplexed - in the end, a coil is still moving bending "things"; how can this be faster than the ultra-thin membrane in electrostats? The coil alone weighs a LOT more than the electrostatic diaphragm... I don't think I "see" the science behind MBL, but granted, I have not heard their product.
Last edited:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Peter,
I assume the word "coil" means the MBL equivalent of their tweeter and midrange omni drivers.
As I am not a techno regarding driver technology, I can't answer your questions about driver "mass" and speed thereof.
All I can provide is my listening experience with the MBL technology as compared with my previous experience with ML.
Gordon
I assume the word "coil" means the MBL equivalent of their tweeter and midrange omni drivers.
As I am not a techno regarding driver technology, I can't answer your questions about driver "mass" and speed thereof.
All I can provide is my listening experience with the MBL technology as compared with my previous experience with ML.
Gordon
With Odyssey you've got a tremendous loudspeaker - a new panel + tweaked crossover (you can even try
Mundorf foil inductors + resistors) should catapult it into heights that you never dreamed of (I never expected
such a huge difference on my Ascents). I went for cheaper components and did capacitors only.
I also added a pair of low bass boosted sealed subs ($500 + a weekend of woodworking) and have a flat
response down to 15 Hz (maybe deeper but my measuring microphone goes only to 15). I hooked them to
a Behringer parametric EQ so I got both woofer equalization and room correction - and it works like a charm.
I know that it is not just loudspeakers, but I have heard Summit X at the dealer the other weekend.
I must say Summit X sounds really great, but to me my gear sounds better than what I heard there.
For that matter, better than anything I heard so far, one notable exception being the CLX.
Of course, this all is purely subjective. If you can invest money + time to tweak the Odysseys
then I would seriously try it before going for another loudspeaker, then you can compare the sound
and make the decision. Please note that Mundorf caps need quite some time to burn in, especially
if you go for Supreme silver/oil or gold/silver. Anything less than that - I'd say try Obbligatos instead.
Mundorf foil inductors + resistors) should catapult it into heights that you never dreamed of (I never expected
such a huge difference on my Ascents). I went for cheaper components and did capacitors only.
I also added a pair of low bass boosted sealed subs ($500 + a weekend of woodworking) and have a flat
response down to 15 Hz (maybe deeper but my measuring microphone goes only to 15). I hooked them to
a Behringer parametric EQ so I got both woofer equalization and room correction - and it works like a charm.
I know that it is not just loudspeakers, but I have heard Summit X at the dealer the other weekend.
I must say Summit X sounds really great, but to me my gear sounds better than what I heard there.
For that matter, better than anything I heard so far, one notable exception being the CLX.
Of course, this all is purely subjective. If you can invest money + time to tweak the Odysseys
then I would seriously try it before going for another loudspeaker, then you can compare the sound
and make the decision. Please note that Mundorf caps need quite some time to burn in, especially
if you go for Supreme silver/oil or gold/silver. Anything less than that - I'd say try Obbligatos instead.
Thanks. I got the Odyssey schematic from ML and am about to launch on this. I'll probably start with the two woofers, whose crossover is very simple, just six parts. The panel's is much more involved. The challenge will be in finding the exact same values especially the caps... Will report back...
Actually, it is the caps on the panels that brought in a huge change.
On the bass driver (at least on Ascent) putting a 270uF foil cap brought a faster, cleaner bass.
If the values don't fit, you can combine 2 or more but this can easily eat up the free space on the back cover
(I assume Odyssey also has the crossover mounted there) - so I found Obbligatos good since they
are not so big.
Also, don't forget to bypass the capacitors, I find Vishay MKP1839 a very good solution.
10 nF is a good value to use.
Good luck! I wish you the same amount of fun I had hearing what a better capacitor can do
On the bass driver (at least on Ascent) putting a 270uF foil cap brought a faster, cleaner bass.
If the values don't fit, you can combine 2 or more but this can easily eat up the free space on the back cover
(I assume Odyssey also has the crossover mounted there) - so I found Obbligatos good since they
are not so big.
Also, don't forget to bypass the capacitors, I find Vishay MKP1839 a very good solution.
10 nF is a good value to use.
Good luck! I wish you the same amount of fun I had hearing what a better capacitor can do
roberto
Well-known member
Hola. www.partsconnexion.com has a lot of good capacitor manufactures on its site. You might find there your needs. Happy listening!.
That's exactly right - cleaner faster bass is what I got with the first Mundorf MKP's I put in two days ago, and easily verifiable... for example, I upgraded one woofer's cap in one of the speakers, then played warble tones; clearly, if I stick my ear next to that woofer the sound is cleaner, while the other speaker's muddier. This is wonderful.
Actually, in the Odysseys things are quite a bit better - there are two crossovers that sit on either face of a vertical plate mounted in the middle of the cabinet, splitting it in two - this is how they separate the two woofers into their own cabinets. Therefore, there is a lot of space to put in the huge Mundorfs in the front cabinet, where the crossover for both woofers sits, and the rest in the rear-facing crossover for the panels. SO far, I had to put a few caps in parallel in a couple of places, which is fine as long as the values are exactly the same or extremely apart from each other (mine are exactly the same).
Thanks for pointing that out - I've been thinking about this already, but I don't know why I would need them??? Can you explain? It's not that I am trying to clean up A/C line noise or something. What's the benefit of these caps in this type of application? BTW, did you mean to say MKP1837 10nF?
Good luck! I wish you the same amount of fun I had hearing what a better capacitor can do
Thanks for all the help...
EDIT: I am having trouble breaking down a 47uF and a 51uF capacitor - how would you do it?I can do two 22uF +-3% Mundorfs in place of the 47 (because the value is within the tolerance range +- 10%), and something similar for the 51 - would that be acceptable?
Last edited:
Similar threads
