MartinLogan Renaissance at AXPONA 2016

RonR said:

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.”)

Click to expand...

I do disagree with you here, Ron. I don't think such discussions are futile because everyone has a different opinion on such things. In fact, quite the opposite. I think such discussions would be futile if we all agreed. Only by discussing our differences of opinion, and the factual bases, experiences, and underlying rationale of those opinions, can we hope to learn anything in this hobby. Value is certainly subjective, but that doesn't make discussion of it futile by any means.

Rich said:

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.

Click to expand...

But to be fair, this is the same with any speaker.

You own the Summit, don't you? (We don't know, but I'll assume that).

What led you to buy the Summit over the Vantage? The only difference is a 44" panel as opposed to a 40" panel and a second woofer added. How can that possibly justify the increase in cost? They were double the price in back in the day, weren't they?

In the end though, as far as high-end speakers go, ML sell more than most.

How many units do Avantgarde, Krell (speakers), Quad, TAD, Burmester, Cabasse,..... even Paradigm. ML probably sells more speakers than all those combined!

I think that says a lot about the value proposition.

I get your point, Adam. Although I think the Summit/Vantage comparison is a poor choice of examples. There is a huge performance difference between those two speakers. The Summit goes a full 10 Hz. lower in the bass. The crossover point is 130 Hz. higher in the Vantage. The Vantage has 372 sq.inch panel radiating area; the Summit has 485 sq. inches. The Summit has more manual adjustment of bass response. It is taller, wider, and weighs about 30% more than the Vantage. And in my opinion it's performance is a huge leap over the Vantage. So, yes, in that instance, I think the Summit was worth double the price of the Vantage.

And maybe you guys are right that the Renaissance is worth 2.5 times the cost of the original Summit. The panel does have 200 sq. inches more radiating area. That's a big benefit. It only goes 2hz. lower on the low end, but it's probably got more accurate and effortless bass with the larger woofers and beefier amps. And then there's the ARC compatibility. And they're definitely bigger and heavier: 10 inches taller, 3.25 inches wider, 8 inches deeper, and at 140 lbs., literally almost twice as heavy! And that's significant. Weight adds stability, which is a must for panel speakers. So I get that there's a lot to like about this speaker and I can't wait to hear it. But as an owner of Summits, Ascents, Stage, Clarities, Descent, and Scenarios (all bought new at full retail), I still balk at the price. I don't think I would purchase a pair unless it was offered at a significant discount. Maybe my mind will change when I hear them in person. We'll see.

Rich said:

And maybe you guys are right that the Renaissance is worth 2.5 times the cost of the original Summit.

Click to expand...

Well consider this - wait 'till you hear about the price premium (over your price) that our "friendly" Australian distributor is going to charge us friendly Aussies for the privilege of ownership!

(Hint: Original Summit was $24,500 here).

Hocky said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm surprised that a dealer would give you a big discount on a newly-introduced speaker.

I think you should buy a pair :devil:

The price is only relevant if you want a pair. Then it's a bummer if you don't want to part with the cash. Leads to a kind of inner turmoil

Kedar was with Ron and didn't think the bass was well integrated at the London show. KJ had said they weren't broken in yet. If that was the case, and the same true of the Neolith, what were they playing at? Just break them in, then do the demo. Useless excuse IMHO.

Power and dynamics can be a really misleading thing. Some very powerful amps don't major on dynamics. I am thinking of a class D Merrill that was good for 700 Watts that I tried a few months ago. A dynamic sounding amp? Nope, no balls at all. I actually thought it quite unpleasant to listen to. Just taking up Rich's point about the Mac's power meaning the sound must have been dynamic. If it was, though, then I guess the Mac's get a clean bill of health in that regard

Some things never change, a new model gets introduced, and Rich questions the price. Is he right to do so? Well, why not? Was the R&D needed to produce them massive? TBH ESL's have been around for a long time, and it isn't hard to know what will make a good one. Rich is pretty clued as to which parameters will really make a difference and I guess most people are. I'm betting actual R&D costs were (or should have been at any rate) quite low. The problem for costs in a fair sized company is all the overheads with the number of people involved (and other overheads) in actually getting these things out of the door. Sander's suffers way less in that respect, but at the same time can't negotiate volume discounts for parts.

Not heard the Renaissance yet, but I don't doubt it is good in the right environment with the right driving electronics. For me, though, I've spent too many years with MLs to want a pair. Whichever model.

That last post might have been a bit harsh on the ML R&D people. No disrespect intended. It is appreciated a lot of time can be spent trying to tweak the best out of a speaker. But the basics for a good ESL hybrid speaker are indeed well known.

Great points, Justin. As always. Your point about dynamics is correct, and goes both ways. My CJ amp is only 140 wpc, but is one of the most dynamic amps I have heard on ESLs. It shines in this area with the Summits and also with the Ascents when I biamped them with SS on the woofers. Interestingly, when I ran the Ascents full range with just the CJ, dynamics suffered. The Sanders monoblocs (800 wpc) also have great dynamics, although I don't think they best the CJ in this regard. I do believe the McIntosh 1.2Kw has a reputation for dynamics, though. They certainly have exhibited that when I have heard them.

As for your point on costs to produce these speakers, I would add this. As a larger company, ML enjoys certain economies of scale that allow them to produce more product at a lower price point than someone like Sanders. Weren't we told that one of the primary reasons they were moving production to Canada was to take advantage of certain efficiencies and cut production costs? When they laid off some long-term employees in Customer Service, wasn't that to save costs? As you said, there isn't that much R&D cost to produce a good ESL. Every design is just a few tweaks on a prior design. And yet, the cost of the higher end MLs has gone up stratospherically over the past few years.

I struggle with the economies of scale thing. Sure ML can bulk buy but they also have secretaries, the overhead of a large premise, more than one person in R&D etc etc.

The reason I say this is that as a one man band, as is the case in the construction of my Apogees, and probably not far off Roger's case, the bits to make a loudspeaker actually don't cost much anyway. OK rare earth magnets used to make an Apogee are expensive, as so many are used, and China has a monopoly and has raised prices a lot in recent years. But apart from that, the truth is material costs are low. Even for a one off speaker. The ML equivalent is mylar and some perforated metal sheet, with some probably bought in bass drivers (am I wrong here wrt the dynamic drivers?). Above that there are the costs for frames, and bass cab enclosures. Also likely to be low relative to the final selling price.

In my case, there was no middle man (dealer) and Roger sells direct. ML don't have that luxury and have to cope with dealer margins. So basically, I think they have to be more expensive for genuinely competing products. Having said that it is a very complex problem for ML to actually work out what their true costs are.

But as you point out in your last post Rich, there is a bit of a paradox going on in ML's case. I think you can argue the MLs of today are better made than those in the 80s, with better choice of materials, but that, to a large extent, is just a facet of progress in manufacturing techniques and materials. The materials used these days simply weren't available at reasonable cost machined to the tolerances they are now.

In the more special case of the Neolith, that cabinet must cost quite a bit more than say, Monolith's did. So there is a definite justification for a higher relative price, I think, on that aspect alone.

Without access to the true production costs ML incurs, I think it is actually really quite hard to argue exactly what ballpark (to within a couple of K $) the current range should be priced at with any degree of certainty of it being 'fair'.

User211 said:

Without access to the true production costs ML incurs, I think it is actually really quite hard to argue exactly what ballpark (to within a couple of K $) the current range should be priced at with any degree of certainty of it being 'fair'.

Click to expand...

True. And in other industries, you could compare prices with other similar competing products to get an idea of value for cost. But in the topsy-turvy world of hifi you can hardly get two people to agree on what speakers are sonically competitive. The Maggie 20.7s are only $14,000, but most ML fans would say they can't compete with the ML hybrids and most Maggie fans would swear the Maggie's are better. I think Sanders are competitive and superior in some respects, but he gets dismissed as a niche manufacturer. And then there are so many companies that charge (and get) obscene prices for their products that the whole idea of value for money spent is skewed. It doesn't help that the mainstream audio mags don't call out some of these companies on their pricing. Can't really blame them though. Heck, I do it here on a public forum and I get skewered. Imagine the flac those guys would take.

Maggies? Did you say Maggies? Well, they aren't actually made of much at all and certainly don't have anything approaching real magnets in them. And the stands? Don't get me started on the stands...:ROFL:

HaHa. Yeah, I thought I would get your goat with that one, you Apogee diva.

You would have thought the CLX was far less costly to produce than the Renaissance, so maybe pricing is just set to what ML perceive the market will bear...

Hi Rich,

I don't think anyone is putting you on the bbque grill but merely expressing a different perspective.

Individual preferences will always drive perceived value. Tis the nature of this wonderful hobby.

I'll cite an example from another forum that I post on.

Many folks on that forum have six figure systems and there's at least one that I speculate is into the seven figure bracket.

This individual has a record stabilizer / slash weight (one that you put on the spindle on top of the record) that costs $2,500.

I'm not criticizing this person or his purchase or prioirties. To him and what he hears from his system with this item in place, there is value justifying the cost. Many other examples but I trust this example underscores the dynamic that everyone experiences the perception / value / cost consideration when deciding to purchase or not purchase a product.

So there's my two cents.

Best,

Gordon

User211 said:

You would have thought the CLX was far less costly to produce than the Renaissance, so maybe pricing is just set to what ML perceive the market will bear...

Click to expand...

I don't think there is any question that ML is now pricing to what they think the market will bear, vs a simple cost of production and overhead plus a percentage for profit margin. And Gordon's example shows there are certainly people out there willing to pay whatever exorbitant price is asked to get what they want. People bought the Statements. People are buying the Neolith (I assume). And I'm sure some people will shell out twenty-five grand for the Renaissance. But it won't be me.

Rich said:

I don't think there is any question that ML is now pricing to what they think the market will bear, vs a simple cost of production and overhead plus a percentage for profit margin. And Gordon's example shows there are certainly people out there willing to pay whatever exorbitant price is asked to get what they want. People bought the Statements. People are buying the Neolith (I assume). And I'm sure some people will shell out twenty-five grand for the Renaissance. But it won't be me.

Click to expand...

They are all doing this.

In fact some dealers have complained when products are not priced high enough to hit price points that some people have burning a hole in their pocket.

I'm sure $5K, $7.5K, 10K, 15K, 25K, are typical break points no matter what they cost to manufacture.

There are two ways to look at this. You can be upset because of the reduced value as the prices spiral up, or you can feel grateful if you can afford something you like and know the audio companies are doing their best to stay in business as the middle class is squeezed out of existence. So while the cost multiplier may go way up, the volume is down and they are trying to make up for that.

My Renaissance in Ferrari Red have arrived at Mike Ware's warehouse in Az. They will be delivered to me in Las Vegas next Wednesday. They will replace my Prodigy's as rears in my theater system. However, I will start out setting them where my Neoliths are and listening in two channel. this will best allow me to evaluate what they can do and provide me with bet comparisons with the Neoliths, Prodigy's and CLX anniversaries. When i first heard the Renaisances at CES Peter Soderberg had them dialed in nicely so let me second RonR's earlier comments on Peters value to ML.He has been an integral part of ML's growth in the past decade and I am sure his contribution must be recognized. as a businessman myself I can tell you good help is hard to find and Peter is most definitely good help.

GaryG

Looking forward to your thoughts on them, Gary. You have experience with some great speakers to compare them with.

Rich said:

And then there are so many companies that charge (and get) obscene prices for their products that the whole idea of value for money spent is skewed.

Click to expand...

had a good laugh Rich ............'obscene prices' ...... and I thought you were referring to attorney fees... :devil:

twich54 said:

had a good laugh Rich ............'obscene prices' ...... and I thought you were referring to attorney fees... :devil:

Click to expand...

There's a thought, Dave. Maybe I should barter some legal work to Martin Logan for some speakers. A week's worth of work should get me a pair of Renaissance. Or I could work for a whole month for a pair of Neolith's!