MartinLogan Renaissance at AXPONA 2016

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.

Wildcat Rudy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Location
SCS MI USA
I'm back from AXPONA (Chicago), and had a chance to listen to ML's brand new Renaissance ESL15a stats in the Audio Video Interiors room. They were powering these with a pair of McIntosh MC-1.2kw (1200 watt) monoblocks.

Each Renaissance has a 500 watt class-D power amplifier built in, powering a pair of 12" woofers (one firing forward, the other towards the wall), which they mentioned helps smooth out the bass response within the room. The stat panel is 46"x15" and if I recall, the crossover frequency is at 300Hz. From what I heard across two different demos, it is a very seamless match. The room was less than ideal (it was rather long, and they had a separate demo on the other end of the room which they would switch to at half hour intervals), but I found this to be quite a powerful sounding speaker, a lot more dynamic than what I expected. The demo from the first row was OK, but when I revisited and sat two rows back, the imaging and soundstage locked in tightly.

This is the flagship of a new series of stats, so I'm hoping a model will come along that is far less than the $25k price tag of this pair. I certainly wouldn't turn them down if given to me. :D But they were one of the highlights of the show for me.

The only other speaker which drew me in was a pair of ProAc Response D48B, driven by some nice VTL tube electronics down on the lower level. They use a ribbon tweeter and a pair of 6-1/2" woofers--the bass from this was incredible, and the sound, again, was seamless. The rep in the room mentioned he liked these since his reference speakers are Quad electrostatics, and these came closest to the electrostatic sound of any "box" speaker he'd ever heard.

And I have to say that for the money, the demo of the ELAC UB5 bookshelf speaker was mightily impressive--it is in the upcoming Uni-Fi series. The entertaining Andrew Jones was on hand to describe the philosophy behind the speakers. For having a single 5-1/2" woofer, they filled the room with surprising amounts of bass (enough to blow around the curtains behind them!), and at $499/pair, I would have no issues recommending them to friends who have more modest system needs. There is also a matching tower speaker in the line with three woofers vs. one ($499 each), and a center channel.

Saw plenty of other things, and the marketplace kind of reached its hand into my wallet a few times...quite a good time!

The Renaissance 15a:
IMG_20160416_150738.jpg
 
BTW, we had a little surprise in the middle of the first demo I attended--Gayle Sanders showed up...and got a warm round of applause once he was introduced.
 
With 1200 watts on the panels and 1000 on the woofers, I imagine it was dynamic! Looks like a nice speaker, kind of like a Summit on steroids. With the wider panel, larger woofers, and beefier woofer amps, I expect it performs great. But at 2.5 times the cost of the original Summit and Prodigy, I can't help but feel it's more than a little overpriced. It's got a 3" wider panel, 2" bigger woofers, and 300 watts more power on the woofers than the original Summit. But other than that I don't see a lot of difference to justify the 2.5 times increase in cost. Makes Sanders Sound speakers look like a bargain.
 
2x agree, not worth the huge price increase for the same technology, just more square ".
 
With 1200 watts on the panels and 1000 on the woofers, I imagine it was dynamic! Looks like a nice speaker, kind of like a Summit on steroids. With the wider panel, larger woofers, and beefier woofer amps, I expect it performs great. But at 2.5 times the cost of the original Summit and Prodigy, I can't help but feel it's more than a little overpriced. It's got a 3" wider panel, 2" bigger woofers, and 300 watts more power on the woofers than the original Summit. But other than that I don't see a lot of difference to justify the 2.5 times increase in cost. Makes Sanders Sound speakers look like a bargain.

I think it's a little bit more than a "larger Summit". There's a lot of R&D in that speaker.

In the end though, the market will dictate whether it is overpriced or not. If it is overpriced, they won't sell any. If it is is underpriced, they'll sell a bucketload. I don't see Sanders Sound selling a bucket load of speakers.
 
I think it's a little bit more than a "larger Summit". There's a lot of R&D in that speaker.

Is there though, really? They stiffened the panel frame and attachment to the woofer box and went back to a vertical panel orientation. These are things we have been telling them to do since the Summit came out. But other than that and the extra few inches of width, this panel appears technologically no different than the Summit's Panel. They have a new marketing name for the "force forward" bass box design of the Summit, but is it really that much of a leap from the previous design? It would appear that most of the r&d is in improving Vojtko's crossover (for which they claim massive improvements with every single iteration) and incorporation of Anthem Room Correction software. What other r&d do you suppose is in this speaker to justify a $15,000 price jump over the Summits? I just don't see it. But ultimately, you are correct. The market will decide whether it is overpriced.

Edit: Thinking back, I remember feeling the same way when they introduced the Summit X at a $5,000 price point increase over the Summit. Half again as much for virtually the same speaker with a few minor upgrades? Ouch! That's how this speaker feels to me. A few upgrades, a little better sound, and a HUGE jump in price.
 
Last edited:
As for Sanders, no question he is a small operation without the kind of marketing department that ML has. I'm sure he sells a lot less product, although I'm pretty sure he sells about as many as he can produce. But in terms of value to the consumer for dollars spent, I think he blows ML away. Let's compare some specs of the Renaissance with those of Sanders' Model 10D, shall we?

Price: Sanders- $15,000 ML- $25,000
Sensitivity: Sanders- 94 db ML- 92 db
Freq. Response: Sanders- 20hz-27khz +\-2db ML- 22hz-21khz +\-3db
Crossover Point: Sanders- 172 Hz ML- 300 Hz
Crossover type: Sanders- external fully adjustable linkwitz riley ML- internal non-adjustable Vojtko
Woofers: Sanders- 1 10" transmission line woofer with 900 wpc external amp ML- 2 12" with 2 500 wpc internal amps.
Panel width is the same on both speakers. Sanders uses a flat panel, which has a smaller "sweet spot" but much better imaging, soundstaging and holographic presentation. ML uses a curved panel which results in a wider sweet spot at the expense of a holographic soundstage.

So there it is. Bang for the buck, based on actual specs (rather than marketing hyperbole), I think it's clear that the Sanders 10D outclasses the Renaissance by a good margin. It's more efficient, has a wider frequency response range, has a lower crossover point, and is just a little more than half the cost. Hence my opinion that the ML is overpriced for what you get.
 
Guys I was there too at Axpona 2016 and these speakers stole the show as far as I was concerned. I actually heard them at my dealer two days before so I had some idea just how good they were before hand. The comments that they are overpriced or really are not that much different then current Summit X's, Montis etc. is just about as far as you can get from the truth. First off the panel is obviously wider but also the film is significantly thinner then current models except the new flagship. Then when you go in to the bottom end it has incorporated into it the bass correction software that the 212,210 subs have basically from Anthem plus an amp change. This make a huge difference in how bass is controlled and sounds. I listened at several times during my stay and the sound was lively, realistic and very enjoyable. Dennis from ML played a very wide range of music and it all sounded just fantastic once all the changes are combined. The other thing that ML had going for them this time around compared to last Axpona they had a decent size room. Last year they had the Neolith in a standard size room with tons of McIntosh eq. it was just way to small. This time around they got it right not perfect but much much better.

Pricing is pricing and I think they not only got the scale right on this new model but the pricing seems in line as well. For those that this will not work I'm sure this process will continue throughout their line in the future so other price points can be available.
 
I got to hear the Renaissance over the last weekend at a local SoCal dealer called Evolution Audio and Video. Evolution just added Martin Logans to their lineup and kicked things off with a bang by demo'ing the Renaissance. They put on a nice show with wine and food and Peter Soderberg was on hand as well. They powered them with Krell amplification and Peter was using his android phone streaming Tidal as source. Under the circumstances, the Renaissance sounded excellent with mids and bass very clean and solid. Speakers were only about 1 ft from the rear but were positioned right in front of wall cutouts with a curtain on each cutout and a bass trap behind the curtain. So not sure if the bass treatment helped or the room correction made all the difference but bass was very clean without affecting the mids and highs. It's a huge speaker that is 2 feet deep given the woofers in opposite facing directions. Gorgeous speakers and sounded impressive.
 
Thanks for sharing your experiences, guys. I just want to say that I have no doubt that this is an excellent speaker. ML has listened to their customer base and made some great changes to create this model and I am sure it sounds superb; but then again, so does the Summit X and Sanders Model 10. My only issue is whether the improvements in this speaker are enough to justify the $10,000 price increase over those two speakers. I honestly don't think it is, given the technical specs of the three models. But I guess until there is a direct comparison between them all no one can say for sure.

I would also note that while the Anthem Room Correction is great stuff, it isn't included in the price of the Renaissance. That costs extra. I don't even know how much, but still. You're paying $10,000 more for this new design (with only slightly better specs than the Summit X and slightly worse specs than the Sanders) and then you have to pay even more to use the ARC to optimize the bass response? Just seems overpriced for what you get.

Edit: looks like you have to buy a PBK to use the ARC software, so only an additional $100. Not so bad as I was thinking.
 
Last edited:
Good times at Evolution. Sorry we couldn't get them tweaked by Saturday, due to noise and control issues in they front end and that they are just getting the store put back together. I left them with details on how to get everything arranged and I hope to be back when they do a grand opening of the new store in the upcoming month or two. who knows, maybe I will have a pair of Neoliths kicking around. Mike, their programming guy has the before and after corrections on his computer. big difference and that cavity behind the speakers did not help, but ARC got it flat. they will probably fill in those walls to make it a normal wall again.
Small correction to the first post. There are two amps in each speaker as the rear woofer is in its own chamber and has a different roll off point to accomplish the force forward function. So, that is 2k worth of power for the two speakers.
 
Peter, it was great meeting you and I hope Evolution realizes what an honor it was to have someone of your stature present for their ML unveiling. Be sure to let us know if you bring the Neoliths next time you are back. I will be present for that one for sure.

Rich, glad you added your edit. In speaking with Peter, I believe the ARC is built into the speaker and you just hook it up to a microphone on a stand (either comes with speaker or perhaps small additional cost?) and take measurements around the listening room. Then you're all set to have awesome, clean bass.
 
Considering the prices is similar, I would be curious to hear how people that have heard both Renaissance and CLX, how do they compare?
 
Last edited:
If you're interested, ask your dealer to get you the right price. I was offered a pair at a lot lower than 25k. It has taken all of my restraint to not go and buy them. lol
 
Considering the prices is similar, I would be curious to hear how people that have heard both Renaissance and CLX how they compare?

Interesting thought. My gut says the Renaissance may well sound better. They certainly look better. But then I'm not a big fan of the esthetics of the CLX. They would need a sub or two in the mix to come close to competing at the low end. And the wider panel of the Renaissance may very well sound better above 500 Hz. Still, it would be an interesting comparison.

If you're interested, ask your dealer to get you the right price. I was offered a pair at a lot lower than 25k. It has taken all of my restraint to not go and buy them. lol

Yeah, at the right price I think these speakers are very appealing. I could see how a deal on them would be hard to resist.
 
Peter S. is an amazing asset to MartinLogan! I hope the executives at ML, and the executives at the private equity holding company level, appreciate how well Peter understands ML's products and how well Peter understands the different segments of the ML customer base.

I heard the new Renaissance speakers at KJ West One in London, England last week. As an owner of ML speakers since 1990 (I presently own Prodigys) I feel I am familiar with the evolution of ML's hybrid speakers over time.

I think the Renaissance is a significant advancement over the Prodigy and the Summit. Yes, the price has gone up significantly, but not nearly as much as the prices of competing products. Even at the price level of the new Renaissance I think there is very little anywhere near its price range which can compete with it sonically.

Separately, while I think the Renaissance is a significant advancement, I think the Neolith is truly a breakthrough product. After auditioning and reviewing over the last several months the Genesis 1.1, the Wilson Audio X-1, the Rockport Arrakis and Altair II, and the Gryphon Pendragon I think the Neolith is a viable contender at that exalted level.
 
Last edited:
I think the Renaissance is a significant advancement over the Prodigy and the Summit.

In what ways, specifically? Especially in regards to the Summit? On the spec sheet, it doesn't appear to perform that much different than the Summit X. I know specs don't tell the whole story, but they are certainly a starting point to gauge from. I'm curious what you heard to make you feel this speaker is a significant advancement over the Summit.

Yes, the price has gone up significantly, but not nearly as much as the prices of competing products. Even at the price level of the new Renaissance I think there is very little anywhere near its price range which can compete with it sonically..

I guess that depends on what you consider to be competing products. As I pointed out above, the Sanders speaker bests the Renaissance on most specs and easily bests my Summits in several respects, but is priced the same as the Summit X. Would be interesting to compare the Sanders with the Renaissance in the same room / same system.

No question that there are lots of mega-expensive high end speakers out there, and I guess ML is trying to compete for some of those dollars. But I'm truly curious what actual real-world improvements the Renaissance offers over models like the Summit X or Sanders Model 10 to justify the extra ten grand price tag.
 
In what ways, specifically? Especially in regards to the Summit? On the spec sheet, it doesn't appear to perform that much different than the Summit X. I know specs don't tell the whole story, but they are certainly a starting point to gauge from. I'm curious what you heard to make you feel this speaker is a significant advancement over the Summit.



I guess that depends on what you consider to be competing products. As I pointed out above, the Sanders speaker bests the Renaissance on most specs and easily bests my Summits in several respects, but is priced the same as the Summit X. Would be interesting to compare the Sanders with the Renaissance in the same room / same system.

No question that there are lots of mega-expensive high end speakers out there, and I guess ML is trying to compete for some of those dollars. But I'm truly curious what actual real-world improvements the Renaissance offers over models like the Summit X or Sanders Model 10 to justify the extra ten grand price tag.

I have never heard the Sanders speakers so I cannot comment on them or compare them to ML. I do not go by "specs" at all; I am purely a subjectivist.

Raising the crossover of the dynamic drivers to 300 Hz provides greater dynamics and "oomph" and impact in the critical (in my opinion) 100 Hz to 300 Hz frequency range. Improvements to the panel design and construction result, I think, in greater transparency and greater dynamics.

I think discussions of value or what an improvement is worth in dollar terms are futile. Each of us is going to apply a different monetary value to a given improvement in sound. (And this assumes we can even agree there was an improvement in sound. One audiophile's "welcome increase in detail" is another audiophile's "edgy and fatiguing.”)
 
In what ways, specifically? Especially in regards to the Summit? On the spec sheet, it doesn't appear to perform that much different than the Summit X. I know specs don't tell the whole story, but they are certainly a starting point to gauge from. I'm curious what you heard to make you feel this speaker is a significant advancement over the Summit.

Why don't you do the unthinkable Rich, and have a listen to it. Then comment.
 
Why don't you do the unthinkable Rich, and have a listen to it. Then comment.

I will certainly do that when I get a chance, Adam. I don't know of anyone anywhere near me that has them available for a listen. And I don't think the fact that I haven't heard them precludes me from commenting on available information or asking specific questions of those who have heard them and call them a "significant advancement" without providing any specifics on what they heard that leads them to that conclusion. Not sure why you have a problem with that. This is a forum to discuss Martin Logan speakers, is it not?

As for the Renaissance, I do much prefer the design and esthetics to the Summits. I like the vertical orientation and rectangular woofer box. I have little doubt the added panel stiffness and better attachment to the box result in a better sound. And I expect the beefier bass module and ARC software result in a better low end and improve the all-important woofer/panel integration. As of now, I just have a hard time believing that the actual difference in sound to the listener in a well-treated room, compared to the Summit X, justifies a $10,000 bump in the price. Just like I never felt like the improvements of the Summit X over the Summits justified a $5,000 increase in their price. I think the Renaissance would be a no-brainier at $15,000. It will be interesting to see how they fare in the market at $25,000.

I do find it interesting that Ron's comments basically boil down to greater dynamics, transparency, and oomph in the low end. ML electrostats are known for their dynamics and transparency. A lot of that depends on what you feed them. My Summits are incredibly dynamic and transparent with the CJ 140 and with the Sanders 800wpc monoblocs. I imagine they would be even more so with Mcintosh 1.2Kw's. And I've certainly never felt they were lacking anything in the oomph in the low end. So I guess I'm still curious what the real-world sound improvements of the Renaissance are. Guess I won't know for sure until I have a chance to hear them.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top