Summit vs. Summit x

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

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

luisgc

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
Costa Rica
I have had my pair of ML Summit for some years, with a Ref Audio Research system: Ref 110 amp, Ref 5 preamp and Ref CD8. I am curious as to whether I should upgrade to Summit X. Has anyone compared the original Summit with the X?...is there that big a difference in performance? Pls give your opinion.
Luis G.
 
Hi Luis.

Short answer is don't hold your breath.

The only person that could do that (Jeff D.) is no longer posting.

Being a former Summit owner, I would also be curious.

GG
 
I have had my pair of ML Summit for some years, with a Ref Audio Research system: Ref 110 amp, Ref 5 preamp and Ref CD8. I am curious as to whether I should upgrade to Summit X. Has anyone compared the original Summit with the X?...is there that big a difference in performance? Pls give your opinion.
Luis G.

Hi Luis,

Interesting I have the virtually the same set-up apart from the power amplifier.

Also, I had the Summit's and now have the Summit X. I did post a very high level comparison some time back (link below):

http://www.martinloganowners.com/~tdacquis/forum/showthread.php?t=10009&highlight=summit

To be honest, I think there is a very substantial difference. The panel is voiced very differently, the crossover is much better and the integration from panel to woofer is the most seamless that ML have so far produced.

I too had the same dilema - it was a fair amount to upgrade (really I wanted the CLX however that was not within budget), but after changing over I was extremely pleased with my decision. I would strongly recommend you demo a pair and see what you think.

As a side note, I am comtemplating changing my power amplifier to the ARC Ref 210 - I don't suppose you tried that when selecting your Ref110?

Feel free to ask any other questions / more details.

Thanks
Marc.
 
Hi Luis,

Interesting I have the virtually the same set-up apart from the power amplifier.

Also, I had the Summit's and now have the Summit X. I did post a very high level comparison some time back (link below):

http://www.martinloganowners.com/~tdacquis/forum/showthread.php?t=10009&highlight=summit

To be honest, I think there is a very substantial difference. The panel is voiced very differently, the crossover is much better and the integration from panel to woofer is the most seamless that ML have so far produced.

I too had the same dilema - it was a fair amount to upgrade (really I wanted the CLX however that was not within budget), but after changing over I was extremely pleased with my decision. I would strongly recommend you demo a pair and see what you think.

As a side note, I am comtemplating changing my power amplifier to the ARC Ref 210 - I don't suppose you tried that when selecting your Ref110?

Feel free to ask any other questions / more details.

Thanks
Marc.

Hola...I agreed 100% with this. Besides, the changes inside the SummitX are so many, that to make a Kit to up-grade is too difficult. Here is what Joel Lopez from ML wrote..." One other feature is that the 2 woofers in each cabinet go into a phase shift from one another when reaching their crossover point, which drastically reduces side bass resulting in a more front and back bass response. This lets you place Summit X in smaller rooms while not getting too overpowering or boomy bass.

The feet allow you to rake the Summit X to a negative tilt for those that sit lower to the ground.

The crossover was the biggest change when it comes to listening. Summit X is much more lively and open sounding.

There isn't any mod kit or upgrade package for the Summit X. There are simply too many changes in the design to be able to switch the old Summits to the Summit X..." Happy listening,
Roberto.
 
I have Summit and hear SummitX on an occassional basis and without them sitting in the same room at the same time, I don't think I could call any significant differences. I would keep the money in your pocket if it was me.
 
Hi Marck,

Went to the link you posted above. You made a brief comment about the Summit X versus the Ascents. No comparison between the Summit and the X version. Did I miss something?

One assumes the X would be an improvement but I've yet to see anyone articulate the exact differences.

I know Jeff stated that he would likely swap out other hardware versus spending the additional money for the X.

As I said previously, I am curious.

GG
 
summits

i have had summits for almost two years and have enjoyed them very much most of the dealers i ask about differences say it is small but there. I have no desire to change to the Summit X. Since i bought mine at a good price i see no need to upgrade. Save your money and buy the CLX's when you can. Then you will hear the difference. Good luck.
 
Hi,

In my system I noticed a significant difference between the two version of the Summit's. However as with everything in this hobby it depends on so many factors - other equipment, cabling, room etc etc

The main areas of improvement I touched on in my first post, which are:

The panel is voiced very differently.
The crossover is much better.
The integration from panel to woofer is the most seamless that ML have so far produced.

So to me, I find the bass to be more articulate and focused, the soundstage wider (even though the panels are the same size) and the imaging more exact. For example, with the Summit's I had a problem that they never quite imaged centrally, it always off to the right very slightly. However with the new speakers this disappeared.

I can see where khenegar is coming from - I did think the same re CLX's. However taking into account I would want a pair of Descent's with the CLX's the outlay was significantly different to the cost of changing the Summit's.

Ultimately, the only way you can decide if it is worth it is to try them. I was not dissapointed, but since each system and room is individual there is only one way for you to convince yourself!!

M.
 
Hi marck,

Thanks for the clarification. Your post is appropriately qualified.

Out of curiosity and if you recall, what were the differences in the 25 / 50 hz control settings on the Summit versus the Summit X?

GG
 
Hi marck,

Thanks for the clarification. Your post is appropriately qualified.

Out of curiosity and if you recall, what were the differences in the 25 / 50 hz control settings on the Summit versus the Summit X?

GG

Hi Gordon,

I would say that there was not much difference between the two (if my memory serves me correct!) One point I would add is that at 40Hz I had a slight problem - however this seems not to be the case with the X's. I have no idea why that should be so, but it is :)

Btw, I am thinking of changing my amp - from the Krell 700cx to maybe the ARC REF210's. Do you have any experience with them in a similar set-up?

Thanks
Marc.
 
Summit vs. Summit X

Thanks everyone for your opinions . Based on Mark's experience I maintain my interest on upgrading to Summit X for two reasons: CLX is ideal but too big a jump, considering it also means adding subwoofers and second, I have a dedicated listening room that I feel will help bring out Summit X qualities. Plus the fact that in the end, it's always about small differences and subtleties isn'nt it?

Luis G.
 
Thanks everyone for your opinions . Based on Mark's experience I maintain my interest on upgrading to Summit X for two reasons: CLX is ideal but too big a jump, considering it also means adding subwoofers and second, I have a dedicated listening room that I feel will help bring out Summit X qualities. Plus the fact that in the end, it's always about small differences and subtleties isn'nt it?

Luis G.

Cool. Let me know how it goes!!
M.
 
Hi!

I have owned the Summit for one year and it was a great speaker but after a while i have found there was something wrong with what i expected from this famous ML sound. Then I replaced them with the new Summit X and I have finally found again the transparancy I was waiting for.
The new summit X are much more transparent as the Summit (which sounds a bit dull and soft), with the X you have that "light" again, more open, more details.... Is it worth the price difference ? Well when you love ML sound, you don't ask....

Let us know if you have the same feeling whrn you'll have the X
 
Hi!

I have owned the Summit for one year and it was a great speaker but after a while i have found there was something wrong with what i expected from this famous ML sound. Then I replaced them with the new Summit X and I have finally found again the transparancy I was waiting for.
The new summit X are much more transparent as the Summit (which sounds a bit dull and soft), with the X you have that "light" again, more open, more details.... Is it worth the price difference ? Well when you love ML sound, you don't ask....

Let us know if you have the same feeling whrn you'll have the X

The Summits are anything but dull and soft. They are incredibly accurate and transparent. Funny, but you never read any comments critical of the sound of the Summits before the CLX and Summit X were in existence. I think that people work a little hard sometimes to justify upgrading to the next top-of-the-line speaker that comes along. I find it hard to believe you hear more details from the Summit X, since the panel is virtually identical and the main difference is the crossover. That may affect panel/woofer blending and perhaps openness, but it isn't going to affect detail retrieval very much. It could be that there was a hardware malfunction with your Summits of which you weren't aware if they sounded dull and soft to you. Or perhaps it was the gear with which you had them matched. The rest of your system can have a big impact on how a particular speaker sounds. Regardless, a year is a pretty short time to go from "a great speaker" to "dull and soft."
 
The Summits are anything but dull and soft. They are incredibly accurate and transparent. Funny, but you never read any comments critical of the sound of the Summits before the CLX and Summit X were in existence. I think that people work a little hard sometimes to justify upgrading to the next top-of-the-line speaker that comes along. I find it hard to believe you hear more details from the Summit X, since the panel is virtually identical and the main difference is the crossover. That may affect panel/woofer blending and perhaps openness, but it isn't going to affect detail retrieval very much. It could be that there was a hardware malfunction with your Summits of which you weren't aware if they sounded dull and soft to you. Or perhaps it was the gear with which you had them matched. The rest of your system can have a big impact on how a particular speaker sounds. Regardless, a year is a pretty short time to go from "a great speaker" to "dull and soft."

I know it sounds a bit exagerated but the summit was the first product of the new generation post Gayle Sanders, and for value rentability it was probably on the market a bit too soon. Then the Spire arrived and many reviews and people thought it was a better product, "more balanced and open " than the Summit. The new ML headoffice have been aware of the fact that the filter was very important and the one inside the Spire derived from the acclaimed CLX achieved very interesting results, therefore they included this new filter in the Summit X. Some reviews on the Summit X quoted that it was more detailed and open than the previous Summit. At first, I was not convinced but as soon as the new Summit X was in me home, side by side with the Summit, the difference was obvious, a window was open. But don't worry I claim that the Summit was a great speaker but the new X goes further as the Spire and the CLX.....
 
I find it hard to believe you hear more details from the Summit X, since the panel is virtually identical and the main difference is the crossover. That may affect panel/woofer blending and perhaps openness, but it isn't going to affect detail retrieval very much. It could be that there was a hardware malfunction with your Summits of which you weren't aware if they sounded dull and soft to you. "

Hi Rich,

I am afraid I have to agree with Martin! I did not change any equipment, cables, rooms etc, however the points that Martin made I also found. I know the panel is the same size but it is very different. It is more detailed, wider soundstage etc.


Rgds
Marc.
 
Interesting observations. Having recently switched from the Legacy Summit to the MBL 116, I find the latter to be quite a bit darker with "apparent" less top end / midrange extension.

In my room, I find the 116 to be a more musical, engaging speaker. Based on this, I'm not sure that I would like the "X".

Could be due to alot of factors, one of which was inadequate room size to allow the Summits to really open up.

GG
 
I know the panel is the same size but it is very different. It is more detailed, wider soundstage etc.

The panel is not just the same size. It is the exact same panel. Nothing has changed in the panel. Nothing has really changed in the woofers. The only thing that has changed is in the crossover and electronics, and the phasing of the woofers. The crossover point hasn't even changed, nor has the overall frequency range. The only thing that has changed is that the woofers' phasing emulates the dipolar nature of the panel near the crossover point. This makes for a more seamless blend between the woofers and the panel. But that's it.

I really have a hard time believing that this can make for more detail retrieval, wider soundstage, etc.
 
Crossover and electronics can have an effect on overall sound anywhere in the spectrum - they are, after all, in series with the signal. Therefore, my guess is that, when they talk about the "panel" they are referring to the sound coming out of the panel, as a result of the changes in the guts of the X, not the panel itself.

Therefore, it's conceivable that the soundstage be wider, depending on the effects of whatever is in the path is or is not having on the signal... For example, I've had wider but more diffuse, less 3D soundstage in the past in my system from older equipment I used to own, driving the same Odysseys; someone was clearly playing tricks. And long ago when working with DIY crossover projects, the effects of capacitors on the sound was simply immense, and easily demonstrated by replacing one capacitor value with multiple in parallel - the sound would simply collapse with three or more. This was because you can't rely on all capacitors charging and discharging all together at the same time. This is just an example of crossover interference to the overall sound and an extreme case at that, but it does easily showcase why crossovers are so undesirable and hard to design properly.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top