Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25

Thread: Summit x vs Maggie 20.7 vs 3.7

  1. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Timm,

    Great review and characterization of the different speakers.

    How would you describe the bass presentation of your Odysseys and Descent combo as compared to the newer MLspeakers with powered subs?

    Thanks,

    Bing

  2. #17
    Super User
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BadaBing11 View Post
    Timm,

    Great review and characterization of the different speakers.

    How would you describe the bass presentation of your Odysseys and Descent combo as compared to the newer MLspeakers with powered subs?

    Thanks,

    Bing
    Well that is a great question bing. My system is set up more optimal than what I heard on the montis summit x. There is absolutely no need for a sub w the newer models in my opinion. However I will say that the descent I find to be an excellent sub and I find it 'sneaky' good in that if it is tuned properly the bass just sneaks up on you and I find it very omnidirectional. Because you can place it in your room I think that is advantageous as well. I also think the smaller cabinet on the new models created this directional bass I speak of. Not so much with the descent. Saying all that I still really liked the Maggie planer bass. It was non directional. Had depth and was very detailed. It was also from a volume perspective nicely matched with the rest of the speaker. It didnt yell at you. If u r measuring SPL the logan line blows it away. Maybe you can smooth things out with the new Logan's but in 3 listening sessions I have not done it yet. It is a cone and a stat and well...they sound different. So in a nutshell based on my current listening experiences on the logans alone I have a tendency to like the descent bass better than the sound of the bass coming from the smaller cabinet on the newer models. However the new logan line does blend better with cone/panel. I just think the smaller cabinet inhibits the space that really good bass creates. My opinion of course and that could always change. .

  3. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    sf bay area, CA
    Posts
    150

    Default

    As you may know, the ML speakers in your test were placed too close to the wall, so the bass is also boosted. Plus if they were perpendicular to the wall, the sound shoots out the back and bounces right back into the panel. Also, if you cut the bass ON PURPOSE, it will make the midrange and highs sound better.
    If you have a chance to visit that store again, I would try:
    Pull the speakers out more if you can.
    Turn the bass down below flat. I would not worry about the bass now because you can always fix it later.
    Try to get something absorbing behind the speakers
    If the room is wide, try toeing the speakers waaaaay inwards, such that they cross in front of you. The point here is to get the back wave to spray more out towards the side.
    Never mind my system. Read this book instead:
    Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms by Floyd Toole

  4. #19
    Super User
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag View Post
    As you may know, the ML speakers in your test were placed too close to the wall, so the bass is also boosted. Plus if they were perpendicular to the wall, the sound shoots out the back and bounces right back into the panel. Also, if you cut the bass ON PURPOSE, it will make the midrange and highs sound better.
    If you have a chance to visit that store again, I would try:
    Pull the speakers out more if you can.
    Turn the bass down below flat. I would not worry about the bass now because you can always fix it later.
    Try to get something absorbing behind the speakers
    If the room is wide, try toeing the speakers waaaaay inwards, such that they cross in front of you. The point here is to get the back wave to spray more out towards the side.
    That makes a whole lotta sense BB. I'm going to have to just tell them to step back and learn.

  5. #20
    Member bzr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    H.Valley Australia.
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Hey timm, I haven't posted here for a long time & I occasionally pop in to catch up on the threads.
    I have owned the Summit X with very good components as well as now own the 20.7's
    My take is the 20.7's hands down, not trying to start an arguement or create a lather here, just my preference.
    The speed of the 20.7 panel is absolutely incredible & needs to be lived with to understand. The integration of upper, mid & bass is quite stellar for a panel that the Summit X, again here I reiterate, imo, can never keep as in the way of the design.
    The bass of the 20.7 is special & makes one smile/laugh out loud etc when you realise it is not overly intrusive but very accurate & more than one would expect from a panel. It really is a special speaker, don't get me wrong here though, it too needs work as in good jumpers, fuses, stands, isolation etc but once done, it enters into the "wow"!!! Happy travels & better listening.

  6. #21
    Super User roberto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    San Jose, Costa Rica
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Hola. Just a little two questions... You Summit's panel weights less than the air that it moves it. There is no mass at all. How a panel that has attached a silver wire to it, giving a lot of mass, is going to be faster? Your Summit has a coherence from less than 270Hz to top, there is no crossover...how can you integrate a crossover without any phase shift of the signal? With all respect, I think that your Summits are not working properly. I do know about the clarity of ribbon tweeters. Also, of course I do like Magneplanar. But the stage that if offers to my ears, is not what I usually get with ML. Yes, I know. Sound is a matter of liking, and what I do like, not necessary you have to like it. I had the Maggies previously, and the problem that I had, was that certain moments of the music playing, listening to the human voice, (usually female) at my golden seating position, I almost could feel her breath and smell it!...certain notes were too close to me...it was like a cartoon. Also had troubles with the string of the guitars. I could almost listen the pick plucking the guitar strings. Again, this was too close for me. I can listen the pick but there, with the musician(s) at the stage, not next to me. Some instruments were too big at certain notes. The flugelhorn, is one. Listening to the album "Martirio" (a Spain singer) in New York, here with this recording, you can listen what I am talking about. I have to say that the Summit X are not a perfect, but the stage presentation is one of the best that I ever listened. But again, it is my liking. I do believe that the most important thing is to enjoy what we have, as you are doing with your Maggies. Please excuse my dare to chimed in here with my liking and thoughts. Happy listening!
    CLX, Stage X and Motion 4, BF-210 sub, Summits in second system. Conrad Johnson Classic One Twenty SE amp, ET-7 Conrad Johnson pre, Exasound E-32 DAC with Teddy Pardo linear power supply, Shun Mook products, Nordost and DHLabs cables. Anthem AVM-60 audio and video processor. Anthem MCA-325 center and surround power amp. BPT Signature 3.5 Plus Balanced Line Power Conditioner.

  7. #22
    Super User Gordon Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Alto, NM
    Posts
    3,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timm View Post

    First stop: Montis & Summit X...

    Both were hooked to some parasound gear.... not the best.... not set up very well.... Summit X's were too close to the wall - maybe 2 feet.... They sounded good... however, they didn't blow me away... Same thing with the Montis... Compared to the older speaker line - I find the stat to have more body... the woofer and stat definitely do integrate better - and you don't really know what that is until you hear it... Thing is - I just didn't go 'wow'.... Now- when I listened to my Odysseys about 10 years ago... I went 'wow'!!!!!.... I just can't get away from that powered woofer... I think it just seems to force the bass at you ...it seems very directional to me...and to me - that seems to mess up the magic of the speaker.... Of course, my opinion and the YMMV applies as always.... It was a lousy setup - no doubt - but I definitely got a feel for the sonic signature of the speakers -- and to me - they are very much like the old summit....with some improvements.
    timm,

    With all due respect, ML speaker setup, along with ancillary gear, are absolutely critical to judging their performance.

    Based on your description of the room and the setup, I would put zero credence on your observations unless one is limited to compromising optimum position.

    Any credible speaker can be made to sound marginal based on synergy with the room and ancillary gear.

    "Natural" bass level / balance can be dealt with in numerous ways. Set up properly and again in the right room with the right gear, there is no major issue in attaining this quality with the ML Summits or "X" version.

    I'm glad you like the Maggies.

    GG

  8. #23
    Super User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    946

    Default

    Like most people here, I love Maggies. They have lots of character and offer a BIG soundstage and load a room like no other speaker. But when it comes to coherency, speed, dynamics, detail, and sheer musicality - nothing beats an electrostatic panel. I would love to say otherwise, but it wouldn't be true.

    In relation to perceived issues when auditioning ML electrostatic speakers, any perceived shortfalls usually come down to poor setup, amplifier mismatching, or poor source material.

  9. #24
    Forum Administrator twich54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    SE Pa
    Posts
    6,138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edwinr View Post

    In relation to perceived issues when auditioning ML electrostatic speakers, any perceived shortfalls usually come down to poor setup, amplifier mismatching, or poor source material.
    Ed, I couldn't agree more !!
    Dave

    System #79 - Analog is Alive and Well, if in doubt, click the link below !

    Click Here to see my System

  10. #25
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin
    Posts
    53

    Default

    I agree with Martin Logan Summits, but combining Magneplanar Tympani IV bass panels
    and not using the woofers in the Summits, results in "coherency" and stunning bass.
    Soundstage is huge with depth that contributes to the feeling of space.
    Jim Winey's Tympanis were his best efforts in bass reproduction and its too bad that
    they are no longer made.
    It takes a large room for this combo, a large distance from all walls and acoustics
    to match.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •