Inching closer to a Summit X

[spectral]

There are some interesting discussions recently on the Magnepan 20.1, 3.7 vs ML, GG going with MBL, etc. Anyone compare them with the Summit X? I am getting some chilling sounds from my Odysseys after the advent of the Spectral mono amps the last 9 months, and I mean some really exquisite sound that runs the gamut from solo piano, to soprano, all the way to organ and large-scale orchestral.

This has whet my appetite for more, and I have auditioned the X a couple of times recently, one alongside the Magico Q5. I must admit I liked the X better in the bass (tighter), and from a resolution standpoint, but not necessarily in the you-are-there dept with a few recordings (where I thought the Q5 excelled). Still, for the money, they are a steal.

What's the latest word on the X's? Any thoughts on upgrading the whatever crossover caps with Mundorfs?

Peter

 

[timm]

I have only compared the summit to the 20.1 in seperate stores on the same day. I 'think' I liked the 20.1 better - but, it would have to be determined at a later date. When I heard the summit - i felt the bass sounded like it was coming from a powered sub ( which it is)...It was punchy for sure - but not sure I liked it... Now, maybe they were not dialed in appropriately etc... or maybe the setup for the 20.1s was better (probably... it had ARC gear and the summits had Mcintosh gear)... A very difficult call to say the least. If I had to make a choice right now without giving another listen - I would think the 20.1 wins that battle. But, the 'X' - I have never heard...so keep that in perspective as well.... Neil H has the Summit and the 20.1s in his home.. Go look at that thread about the Summit X review....

 

[roberto]

There are some interesting discussions recently on the Magnepan 20.1, 3.7 vs ML, GG going with MBL, etc. Anyone compare them with the Summit X? I am getting some chilling sounds from my Odysseys after the advent of the Spectral mono amps the last 9 months, and I mean some really exquisite sound that runs the gamut from solo piano, to soprano, all the way to organ and large-scale orchestral.

This has whet my appetite for more, and I have auditioned the X a couple of times recently, one alongside the Magico Q5. I must admit I liked the X better in the bass (tighter), and from a resolution standpoint, but not necessarily in the you-are-there dept with a few recordings (where I thought the Q5 excelled). Still, for the money, they are a steal.

What's the latest word on the X's? Any thoughts on upgrading the whatever crossover caps with Mundorfs?

Peter

Hola Peter. I had the chance to listen both. The Summits are very big at the bass. If you do not adjust the bass controls correct... you can have one note bass at your listening position. But, if you use the controls wise (50HZ +_ 10dBs and 25Hz +_10dBs) you can adjust the bass performance so precise that you will think that the bass player is at your room, playing there for you. On the other hand, the Maggies, which are one of the speakers that are doing well on the marketplace , I did not like the size of the instruments. Some notes were so dynamic that the size of them at the room where too big. This it is a Maggi problem and usually all Magneplanar products do the same to my ears... Again, I am saying this happens TO MY EARS and not necessary to yours. Also, Summits were clearly better, more transparent. Please understand also that this is my liking. The question here would be if I could live with the sound of the Maggies, and of course I would... but having Martin Logan aside, I like them better. Listen to the cymbals, and they are with the drummer, at the maggies, sometimes they were too front forward of the position of the drummer at my head, the stage is more precise with ML. The left hand of the piano player is easer to understand, again to me, and having two musical instruments like a piano and a violin playing together, the size of the instruments are more real with ML. What I do is, I do try to go to listen a lot of live performance, specially not electronic instruments, and I do listen the resonances of the room, dynamics, how ease is to understand the image of the stage... and again, to my ears I do like better ML. This is my liking and might be yours too. Happy listening,
Roberto.

 

[Hocky]

After hearing Sander's 10c's this weekend, I would very highly suggest finding a place to audition them.

 

[timm]

Hocky--

Guessing you heard the 3.7s??? Heard very positive reviews online... any impressions?

 

[Hocky]

I haven't. :-( If they were at THE this weekend, I somehow missed them. I was pretty sure that I hit all of the room, but when we got out later that night I realized that we never saw the Maggies.

 

[timm]

I haven't. :-( If they were at THE this weekend, I somehow missed them. I was pretty sure that I hit all of the room, but when we got out later that night I realized that we never saw the Maggies.

i believe i saw pics from CES....

 

[Gordon Gray]

Peter,

What do you think the Summits are going to do better than your current ML speaker?

The Odyssey's seem to have the edge on panel size.

GG

 

[Audioseduction]

Peter,

I’ve owned a pair of Odyssey's before I upgraded to the Summit X’s. My experience with the Summit’s woofers to be very good as the integration with the panel to be seamless while utilizing the bass controls on the rear of the speakers. Listening to the Summits was like a thin veil has been lifted to allow the finer details of the highs to be revealed naturally and not edgy. The mids also blossomed a bit more lifelike while the instrument placements are right on across the entire sound stage giving you a holographic playback. I would simply say the Odyssey’s were very good but the Summits are a bit more refined.

 

[GaryG]

Hocky--

Guessing you heard the 3.7s??? Heard very positive reviews online... any impressions?

I spent some time at T.H.E Show listening the the 3.7s powered by the Bryston 28B'SST2's. I had just spent some time with Roger Sanders and so the Sanders sound was still ringing in my ears.

My Vegas system contains the CLX's also powered by the Bryston 28B-SST2's. I love my ML's and believe the CLX's are superb and they are my personal choice. Of course I am biased when it comes to ML.

As for the Sanders 10c, they are stunningly clear and he has the bass well integrated. For the price (Roger says he will throw in one amp) this may be the best way to get to audio Nirvana. When you are in the "Sanders" sweet spot, you know you are listening to a fine product.

I enjoyed my time listening to the 3.7's and they were indeed very good. I would not fault anyone who had them or coveted them. But alas IMHO CLX's rule.

P.S. Roberto it was a pleasure meeting you at CES and putting a face with the "Hola".

Regards,
Gary

 

[spectral]

Hi Gordon and George,

there are some significant differences between these two speakers, as auditioned with my gear:

1. The Odysseys have a kind of glare in the 400-500Hz and 4-5kHz range, not present in the X - O's can be annoying and can sound shouty at times.
2. There is no doubt the crossover quality is much higher in the X. This may account for the improvements described above.
3. Yes the Odysseys' panel is 4" taller, but I haven't perceived the X's lacking image size. Perhaps the Xstat panel is really superior to the older design.
4. The bass is undoubtedly tighter and more dynamic in the X. In addition, I have gone to great lengths in reducing the bass output from the O's with that custom in-series Caddock resistor I now use - the X's will hopefully enable me to better integrate them in my room with the 25 and 50Hz controls - especially the 50Hz, where I have a +14dB peak that I tame with the sub in reverse phase.
5. The X sounds so damn clear in the midrange, and I couldn't detect any high frequency hardness that I can (slight) with the O's.
6. The X's tonal balance can vary significantly with the rake angle - that's a drawback. At 0 vertical, I can't stand them. At ~-2 degrees they are magical; being able to adjust this way for one's failing ears, over the coming years, is a real plus.
7. I have measured the X's at the dealer's (presumably optimally set up), and the bass response in his room is much smoother than the O's in mine - I have a bit of thinness in the 160-200Hz region as well. I will be doing a home audition to see how they behave in my room.
8. I really need my REL powered on for as smooth reproduction as possible, and for very low-end articulation and weight; the O's are not articulate enough for me, and the differences w/ and w/o the sub are very evident, especially with kickdrum and of course pipe organ. There is so much low-end detail coming out of the Spectrals that only the REL and the X's can capture.

Overall, the X's sound more together and believable than the O's and they both sound spectacular. But it's the comparison with the Magico Q5 that was the eye opener for me. Frankly, overall, I walked away thinking that the X was on par with the Magico, despite the Q5's uncanny sense of space and be-there illusion.

There is absolutely no doubt that I will shed a lot of tears when the O's go, if I decide to pull the trigger, but there is no doubt from what I've heard that the X is a truly remarkable speaker. I've also fallen in love with the clear-aluminum-wenge combination I have in mind. I think the X is a not only a real bargain, but one thrilling speaker.

Other speakers I have yet to audition are the Rockport Ankaa, Vienna The Music, Marten's Bird, Gordon's MBL 116s, and I am passing on the Wilson Sashas (still colored), the Magico V3 (unmusical), the Magnepans & the CLX (due to size) and some others.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Peter,

Haven't heard the O's but have owned the Legacy Summit for five years now.

Can confirm that the S bass is quite engaging once you have tweaked to the room and, of course, the two controls on the back of the bass module. It also blends quite seamlessly with the panel once all is "dialed in".

And the vertical azimuth adjustment is quite helpful to fine tune the overall panel energy heard at the listening chair. I also have mine adjusted two degrees shy of perpendicular.

The aluminum / wenge combo is stunning.

Best of luck with your contemplated purchase. If you decide to go for the Summit X, I trust that you will not be disappointed.

Gordon

PS: FWIW, recently heard the M3's (list 18K) at Overture with Spectral electronics. Very smooth, great imaging but from a price / point perspective, I confirmed, again, that the Summit is an outstanding value.

 

[spectral]

Thanks Gordon. It sounds like you either heard the V2's at 18K - the M3s are a very old, special order, pyramidal aluminum configuration speaker with a ribbon tweeter, never really seen in public (you can get a glimpse here) - or the V3s (at 27K)??? (and to confuse things even more, the current M5 at $90K was code named the 3.5 when first shown at shows as a work-in-progress)...

I've always thought the V2s are more musical than the V3s, yet don't move the air I need.

 

[roberto]

I spent some time at T.H.E Show listening the the 3.7s powered by the Bryston 28B'SST2's. I had just spent some time with Roger Sanders and so the Sanders sound was still ringing in my ears.

My Vegas system contains the CLX's also powered by the Bryston 28B-SST2's. I love my ML's and believe the CLX's are superb and they are my personal choice. Of course I am biased when it comes to ML.

As for the Sanders 10c, they are stunningly clear and he has the bass well integrated. For the price (Roger says he will throw in one amp) this may be the best way to get to audio Nirvana. When you are in the "Sanders" sweet spot, you know you are listening to a fine product.

I enjoyed my time listening to the 3.7's and they were indeed very good. I would not fault anyone who had them or coveted them. But alas IMHO CLX's rule.

P.S. Roberto it was a pleasure meeting you at CES and putting a face with the "Hola".

Regards,
Gary

Hola Gary... it was a pleasure meeting you with the guys at ML booth. Please PM regarding your needs...
Regards from Costa Rica,
Roberto.

 

[sydsrig]

Hi Gordon and George,

there are some significant differences between these two speakers, as auditioned with my gear:

1. The Odysseys have a kind of glare in the 400-500Hz and 4-5kHz range, not present in the X - O's can be annoying and can sound shouty at times.
2. There is no doubt the crossover quality is much higher in the X. This may account for the improvements described above.
3. Yes the Odysseys' panel is 4" taller, but I haven't perceived the X's lacking image size. Perhaps the Xstat panel is really superior to the older design.
4. The bass is undoubtedly tighter and more dynamic in the X. In addition, I have gone to great lengths in reducing the bass output from the O's with that custom in-series Caddock resistor I now use - the X's will hopefully enable me to better integrate them in my room with the 25 and 50Hz controls - especially the 50Hz, where I have a +14dB peak that I tame with the sub in reverse phase.
5. The X sounds so damn clear in the midrange, and I couldn't detect any high frequency hardness that I can (slight) with the O's.
6. The X's tonal balance can vary significantly with the rake angle - that's a drawback. At 0 vertical, I can't stand them. At ~-2 degrees they are magical; being able to adjust this way for one's failing ears, over the coming years, is a real plus.
7. I have measured the X's at the dealer's (presumably optimally set up), and the bass response in his room is much smoother than the O's in mine - I have a bit of thinness in the 160-200Hz region as well. I will be doing a home audition to see how they behave in my room.
8. I really need my REL powered on for as smooth reproduction as possible, and for very low-end articulation and weight; the O's are not articulate enough for me, and the differences w/ and w/o the sub are very evident, especially with kickdrum and of course pipe organ. There is so much low-end detail coming out of the Spectrals that only the REL and the X's can capture.

Overall, the X's sound more together and believable than the O's and they both sound spectacular. But it's the comparison with the Magico Q5 that was the eye opener for me. Frankly, overall, I walked away thinking that the X was on par with the Magico, despite the Q5's uncanny sense of space and be-there illusion.

There is absolutely no doubt that I will shed a lot of tears when the O's go, if I decide to pull the trigger, but there is no doubt from what I've heard that the X is a truly remarkable speaker. I've also fallen in love with the clear-aluminum-wenge combination I have in mind. I think the X is a not only a real bargain, but one thrilling speaker.

Other speakers I have yet to audition are the Rockport Ankaa, Vienna The Music, Marten's Bird, Gordon's MBL 116s, and I am passing on the Wilson Sashas (still colored), the Magico V3 (unmusical), the Magnepans & the CLX (due to size) and some others.

Did you ever pull the trigger on the Summit X's, or os the lure of the new Magico Q3 catching your attention?

 

[PartTimeJedi]

I suppose I have a very different view. Spent allot of time with the Summit, Summit X and CLX, am really impressed with CLX and Summit X and spent hours upon hours in different dealers listening to them. I find even with the Summit X you are listening to 2 amps (the one to drive the panel and the internal one to drive the subs). And I truly went in circles, for my ears I came back to older Logans with bigger panels and the single amp driving the panel and bass. There's to my ears a holistic uniform sound that just works better for me, I also like a taller wider soundstage which the older Logans do (Quest, Prodigy, QuestZ, ReQuest- with bass). The problem then is your amp has to be able to handle the bass and panel without effort. You have great amps so adding a sub amp (Summit X) may or may not change the sound signature deep down below.

Re Maggies, never heard them but I may soon buy a pair of 3.7s just to experience them for a while.

 

[JordanD]

I might be late to the party but I figured it might help someone else that is in the same position.

This weekend I had my first listen to the CLX, and the experience was magical for me. I have listened to the Summit X quite a bit and I love that speaker.

Now at the place I was able to listen to the CLX he also carried maggies. Before going in I informed them I was not a potential buyer because I am a college student I just really wanted to listen. They were all more then happy to show me stuff let me listen and in general just shot the sh** with me. It was great fun got to listen to a lot of good stuff, but the CLX just kept me coming back. The maggies were good ( i dont know which models I listened to I'm sorry) they just didn't grab me. They almost sounded like the crossover had too much of a presence, whereas the CLX (and Summit X for that matter) was just clear as a bell and details just seemed to appear in mid air out of no where.

I then asked him (the owner of the shop) what he thought. He said the only reason he ever brought in Magnepan in the first place is because so many dealers were now carrying ML they were cutting into his business, so he needed something unique that no one else is carrying. He said the maggies were fine but he wouldn't choose them if he had a choice. He basically just validated what I was hearing.

But there was my two cents for what its worth haha

 

[tsv_1]

... the CLX (and Summit X for that matter) was just clear as a bell and details just seemed to appear in mid air out of no where.

Well put. Magical indeed!

 

[spectral]

Did you ever pull the trigger on the Summit X's, or os the lure of the new Magico Q3 catching your attention?

Ah, you hit the nail in the head... Yes the Q3 has caught my attention, but I haven't replaced the O's yet. I am still working on the ancillaries, and after recently having purchased an Ortofon A90 - which I have called the Spectral of cartridges - I just sold my preamp last week for the latest Spectral 30SS Series 2, due to arrive in September.

This preamp has had such a profound effect in my system that you just can't believe how realistic the O's sound right now, except for the two glare regions I mentioned before. I did an extensive home evaluation, and compared w/ and w/o the preamp in the chain. I reached the conclusion that this preamp is just straight wire with gain, given the O's resolution abilities. You can read more here.

Ever since discovering this Sheffield CD of o-Daiko drums, I have made it one of my references for power, dynamic range and headroom, attack and decay, low-level resolution against a very powerful drum, control, integration and presence. The sound coming out of the O's at the moment playing it is simply frightening in all of these aspects.

In the end, the last 10 years I have to come to realize that the O's are an exceptional design - just wish they had a better crossover - although they are probably still bettered by the X's - they must be; but I haven't heard the X's for a year or so now... I've also come to realize that unless you've heard ML's non-powered hybrids driven by an amplifier capable of ultimate control, you just haven't been able to tell how well integrated the bass can be with the panels. I suppose this is because of the sealed bass design.

Back to the Q3... the one time I auditioned it, it left me breathless. It has an uncanny ability to follow the signal - truly frightening speed in the entire spectrum. HiFi News is putting out a review next month, so we'll see what they have to say. In my opinion, that speaker sounded overall better than the CLX or the X, but these are just first impressions.

The bottom line is that I haven't had the time to narrow down my speaker choice yet, and I am still having a blast with the O's...

 

[PartTimeJedi]

Re Q3 I spent 2 full days from dusk till dawn at the Munich show in May and the Q3 without a doubt was nearly if not the best sound in 2 different installations. I did not get a chance to listen to the Q1 but I am sure its up there.