Martin Logan food chain - is this correct?

[RichTeer]

Spire equal or better than the Summit?

Sorry but I can't agree with that and it's not because I own the Summits.

The Summit has double the woofers and double the power for those drivers than the Spire.

Given the hardware differences between the two models, it's pretty obvious to me that the Summit will have better low end weight and produce the low end with less strain than the Spire, regardless of a panel crossover adjustment.

I think the Summit and Spire are probably equal, but different. The Summit has the advantages you mention in the bass area, but the Spire has its own advantages from the mid-range up. So which one is ultimately "better" is probably a matter of one's priorities and so forth. Besides, one can always augment the Spire's bass with a Descent or two, but there nothing that can be done for the Summit's mid-range and up.

That being said, it seems that the Summit X is essentially the best of both worlds: the bass advantages of the dual-woofer Summit, plus the mid-range strengths of the Spire. To me, that would suggest that the Summit X is the superior of both the Spire and the Summit.

 

[akm3]

My comment about the Spires being 'better' than the Summit were in the context of you using a Descent subwoofer, for home theater duties, where you are crossing the speakers off at 80hz anyways. So even this scenario, the Spire isn't 'better' but cheaper giving you the same thing for the price. But then the good point that the Summit has a lower x-over freq was brought up, probably tipping the edge back to the Summits in this application.

 

[JonFo]

My comment about the Spires being 'better' than the Summit were in the context of you using a Descent subwoofer, for home theater duties, where you are crossing the speakers off at 80hz anyways. So even this scenario, the Spire isn't 'better' but cheaper giving you the same thing for the price. But then the good point that the Summit has a lower x-over freq was brought up, probably tipping the edge back to the Summits in this application.

I’d agree with this thesis. A Spire with Subs is a great, high-value combo.

One of the benefits of the Spire vs the original summit is that the single woofer is more tuned to covering the mid-bass. The higher crossover point means the panel dipole cancellation in the mid-bass is less of an issue.
The tradeoff is less ultimate SPL capability in the ultra-low bass.

There is a reason I run my Monoliths at 315Hz crossover, and why I changed the bass driver for one more focused on 60 to 800hz performance. That yields much cleaner mid-bass, and much cleaner midrange (as the ESL is not overstressed at high-volumes).

I do that because I have the 18 – 80Hz range covered by my sub. So I can focus on making the rest of the speaker handle frequencies from 60hz on up.

The Summit was clearly engineered to be a well-rounded full-frequency speaker system. But in doing so, there are inevitable compromises at certain points. Not a knock, just a fact that all speakers have.

Personally, I’d always take a Spire + Sub over just a Summit (or Summit-X) setup. But I wouldn’t complain if I had to live with either setup

 

[akm3]

Personally, I’d always take a Spire + Sub over just a Summit (or Summit-X) setup. But I wouldn’t complain if I had to live with either setup

You liar JonFo! You would certainly complain and within 3 months have either system frankensteined into something cooler.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Did anyone say it was?

Read Post No. 1.

 

[JonFo]

You liar JonFo! You would certainly complain and within 3 months have either system frankensteined into something cooler.

Yes, and heck yes

 

[David Matz]

Interesting thread. If I am understanding Jonathan's post correctly, the conventional thinking about the crossover point being at a lower frequency may be fallacious. Is this correct?

Also, both CLX and CLS use some type of a crossover to switch between the high/ mid panel and the bass panel. Ultimately it's a crossover. Why don't people refer to it as such? Is it really different than a regular crossover?

Also, ML prides itself on being "transparent" or true to the source. The Summit has 2 woofers and goes deeper. The Spire has only 1 woofer and goes down to 29. If going down to 29 the Summit sounds "fuller", which speaker produces the more "accurate" or "correct" bass?

Finally, those of you using subwoofers, do you feel like you lose some of the magic when you hook up an external sub? Some people would rather lose some low bass than potentially hear 2 distinct components in their system due to sub integration issues.

 

[Spike]

Interesting thread. If I am understanding Jonathan's post correctly, the conventional thinking about the crossover point being at a lower frequency may be fallacious. Is this correct?

Not quite. It all comes down to personal preferences. I prefer the purer (lower) midrange offered by the panels, without the smearing due to overlapping with the woofer. I always noticed the sluggish lower mids on the likes of Odysseys/Prodigys as well as Vantages when compared to my ReQuests. The Summits are the only recent models that I could live with. But then again, I put the Pass Aleph 2 monos (borrowed from a friend) on the woofers, complementing the SixPacs on the panels and blew away most combinations that I've heard, Summits or others. It goes to show that the caliber of the "woofer" amplifier does make a huge difference when it comes to musicality and integration with the panels.
As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, others may prefer the added dynamics offered by the woofer operating in these frequency range. As JonFo pointed out, "there are inevitable compromises at certain points".

Spike

 

[Gordon Gray]

One of the benefits of the Spire vs the original summit is that the single woofer is more tuned to covering the mid-bass. The higher crossover point means the panel dipole cancellation in the mid-bass is less of an issue.
The tradeoff is less ultimate SPL capability in the ultra-low bass.


Hi Jonathan,

Excuse my ignorance but could you please elaborate on your statement cited above.

Also, have you had any personal listening experience with the Spire and Summit to support your "tradeoff" position or is this based on something else?

Thanks for the help.

GG

 

[User211]

Yeah I thought that but didn't say it - just use a tone generator if you're not sure of the difference in real terms...

Hm... I just tried this and there really is quite a big perceived pitch difference...

http://www.nch.com.au/tonegen/index.html

 

[JonFo]

One of the benefits of the Spire vs the original summit is that the single woofer is more tuned to covering the mid-bass. The higher crossover point means the panel dipole cancellation in the mid-bass is less of an issue.
The tradeoff is less ultimate SPL capability in the ultra-low bass.


Hi Jonathan,

Excuse my ignorance but could you please elaborate on your statement cited above.

Also, have you had any personal listening experience with the Spire and Summit to support your "tradeoff" position or is this based on something else?

Thanks for the help.

GG

Hi Gordon, regarding the dipole cancellation:

As frequencies go lower, the wavelengths grow longer and at around 300hz, they are already over 45” long, much longer than any panel is wide. So there is significant acoustic cancellation from the rear wave.
The lower you go, the more there is cancellation.
This calculator will help show the lengths involved: http://www.mcsquared.com/wavelength.htm


If you’d like to experiment with the effect, just attach some cardboard ‘wings’ say 12 to 14” to either side of your Summits and play the same test song as before the ‘wings’ and see what you notice.

Obviously not a practical solution to increase the width of the speaker front, but it conveys the root issue.

I’ve done extensive listening to Summits and brief listening to Spires, albeit in different rooms and rooms that are not treated as mine is.
I found the spire to be really cohesive in the crossover region, and the less stressed woofer to be able to perform better in the mid-bass.

But I can confidently say, my rig sounded better than either, but there are tons of factors involved.

The fundamental laws of physics are hard to argue with, and regardless of crossover topology, a higher crossover point WILL minimize cancellation effects.

The other thing that mitigates dipole cancellation is adequate treatments behind the speaker. Products like a MiniTrap HF do wonders here.

But it’s a tough question, and one without an easy answer. As we’ve seen, ML has had crossover points all over the map across the years. It’s all about tradeoffs.

 

[twich54]

Personally, I’d always take a Spire + Sub over just a Summit (or Summit-X) setup. But I wouldn’t complain if I had to live with either setup

I ressemble that comment and I approve this message ! Opps, sorry that's behind us now.