Hi Todd and Bernard,
First off, I hope the OP doesn't mind a minor detour from the intent of this thread although I think it is consistent with the basic theme of the thread.
Bernard, listening "space" is 14' deep by 19' wide. Speakers are placed 5.5' from each side wall and 5' from the back wall, which principally consists of glass windows. Distance from speakers to listening chairs is about 9'. Back wall (windows) contains numerous plants and a combination of ATS and GIK panels. Diffusion and absorption. For all practical purposes, it is a "near field" listening environment and consistent with MBL recommendations, meaning speaker placement on the "long" wall.
Regarding sonic differences (Summits vs the MBL 116's), please bare in mind that the following comments apply to my room and my equipment. YMMV. Also, please remember that I was and still am a big fan of the ML line. Outstanding value for the money, which is something I can't say about MBL unless you buy used. I've owned four models (CLS2A's, Aerius, SL3's, and the legacy Summits) over 25 years. I've always been intrigued by the MBL technology (omni dispersion for the 116 down to 3K hertz) and came upon a situation that I could not pass up. My sincere thanks to Bill Parrish / GTT Audio for making the switch from ML to MBL affordable.
The 116's are the second speaker up from the bottom but are effectively full range (IMO) with response down to the lower 30's. There are 4 drivers mounted on each speaker (2 per side) , which handle the below 3K output.
After 8 months of listening (changing speaker position and rearranging panels), here's my take on the differences.
As I said previously, the 116's load my room in a more uniform manner. The top end is more polite. The mid bass / low bass fuller. End result is a more liquid, relaxed presentation without giving up the "detail" that we all desire.
Given the omni nature of the speaker, one is effectively released from the "sweet spot" issue. For me, this is important given the fact that I prefer to listen in my recliner that is located to the right of the right speaker. I'm not a big fan of the "you have to sit here to hear the speaker at optimum" comment often heard about speakers.
The Summits (again in my room) did tend to "beam". The 116's do not have this shortcoming. Although I admire Roger Sanders, I would never buy his speaker given the fact that they are literally a "head in a vice" transducer.
Like the ML's, the MBL's are placement / equipment sensitive. And like the ML's, they do like "horsepower" to reach their performance potential.
Similarities between the two include dimensionality, speed, and the ability to bring the listener closer to the music.
As an aside, I was never a believer in room treatments until I purchased the "magic dots". Just kidding Bernard. I will say that room treatments have a profound impact on the listening experience and once you have your system dialed in, minor speaker adjustments (1/4" forward in my most recent tweek)) are quite audible.
Perhaps others can provide their insights on other speakers that share, but are somewhat different than ML, that have allowed them to better connect with the music which, I trust, is why we all do what we do.
Gordon
PS: My listening tastes are principally classical and jazz. Having said that, the MBL's do rock and other genres quite well. Within the context of my preferred music, the MBL's do dimensionality and "space" better than any transducer that I've heard in my life time.
Joking of course.
