Summit X is HERE! Official brochure from MartinLogan

[Rich]

The opposition just does not seem to get it. When you are told by advertising, as we were a few years ago, that a purchase of "so-and-so" is the greatest, and the purchase costs many thousands of dollars (or pounds,) you are generally lead to believe that you are purchasing something that will not be surpassed for many years.

Sorry, aliveatfive, but this is a bunch of horse-hockey. What we were told by ML marketing when the Summit came out was that it was a new "reference level" product from them that improved upon their previous reference level product (the Prodigy). And they were correct. It was. But nothing in that marketing or in ML's own previous actions should lead anyone to suspect that the product will not be upgraded in a few years time, or that the upgrades would definitely be available to original owners. If you were "led to believe that" it was by your own doing and nothing from Martin Logan that did it.

And for the record, the Summit came out in March 2005, almost four years ago. It was not surpassed until the CLX came out this past fall. I would say three to four years between new iterations of reference level products is a pretty reasonable cycle. I also think it is very thoughtful of ML to use whatever new technology they have learned from producing the CLX to spice up the previous flagship model instead of just discontinuing it and moving on to other products. I agree it would have been nice to offer an upgrade path, but I understand that sometimes that is just not feasible.

ML has followed this path (in their previous incarnation) many times. The Sequel IIs that I bought in 1989 were created from the original Sequel. There was an upgrade path. The Ascentis that I bought were created from the original Ascents. Original purchasers were given the opportunity to upgrade.

Indeed, there have been times when ML has allowed an upgrade path when it was feasible for them to do so. But there have also been plenty of times when that was not the case. My descent is not upgradeable to a descent i. I expect there are more examples of new versions not being upgradeable by ML than there are examples where they offered an upgrade path. Sometimes it is just not feasible or reasonable from a business standpoint to offer such a service.

The Summit X is virtually indistinguishable from its predecessor, its dimensions are identical, and yet no upgrade.

Since the Summit X has not been released and you have very little information about what the upgrades to it actually consist of, this remark has no substance. You are simply speculating that they are virtually identical with no real idea of the electronics changes and the difficulty of adapting a standard Summit into a Summit X.

I don't have a problem with speculating about such things, but I do have a problem when you lambast the company for making decisions based on greedy motives but have no idea of the real issues they had to look at from a business perspective.

In my opinion, ML is trying to squeeze the last dollar out of its customer base.

This is certainly your opinion, and it is based on very little relevant information, in my opinion. What could they possibly gain by not offering the upgrade path? I suspect they would sell a lot more upgrades to Summit owners than they will sell new Summit X's to Summit owners. So how, exactly, do they gain from not offering the upgrade?

I owned a BAT VK51SE preamp, which I liked. The original model in this series was called a VK50SE. When an upgrade to the VK51 series was announced, it was made available as an option to earlier purchasers. When the VK52 came out, no upgrade path was provided. After auditioning, I found that I preferred the sound of the ARC Ref3. In went the Ref - out went the BAT. I suspect it will be the same with my Summits. ML - I am disappointed in you.

Seems pretty silly to change manufacturer brands because one doesn't offer an upgrade path. If you liked the Ref 3 better than what you had, that is great. But if you weren't satisfied with the sound of the VK51SE, why did you buy it in the first place? Don't be surprised when ARC comes out with a new version of the Ref 3 and doesn't offer an upgrade path. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, just like every manufacturer out there. In fact, there was no upgrade path to the Ref 3 from the previous version. And believe it or not, their motives are not always based on greed. Sometimes, they are just based on business and engineering realities.

So now you are going to sell your Summits and switch to another manufacturer just because they didn't offer an upgrade path to Summit X? Good luck finding one that sounds anywhere near as good for anywhere near what you paid for your Summits. Also, make sure and check that the manufacturer you go with has a history of ALWAYS offering an upgrade path for their newly released reference products. Gee, I wonder how many speaker manufacturers that leaves you to choose from?

 

[RichTeer]

So if ARC comes out with a Ref 4, with no upgrade path from the Ref 3, will you be disappointed with ARC ?

Good question, given that although one could upgrade from Ref 1 to Ref 2, one cannot upgrade from Ref 2 to Ref 3.

 

[User211]

Summit retailed for $10,995 (officially discontinued June 1, 2008)

Summit X will be $14,000 (per a ML employee in the know 2 days ago)

Spire retail is $8,495

Descent i retails for $2,995

Depth i retails for $1995

As I suspected - a Spire + Descent i can be had for substantially less than the Summit X. Given that ML know this and aren't stupid, there must be a performance advantage over a Spire + Descent i. Quite how that has been achieved, I or possibly we don't know yet.

I can't see how the X could beat the Spire/Descent i combo... yet, at least. When someone actually hears a pair and reports back, we'll know more...

C.A.P already made this point but this spells it out even more clearly.

 

[twich54]

As I suspected - a Spire + Descent i can be had for substantially less than the Summit X. Given that ML know this and aren't stupid, there must be a performance advantage over a Spire + Descent i. Quite how that has been achieved, I or possibly we don't know yet.

I can't see how the X could beat the Spire/Descent i combo...

My thinking as well Justin, or in my case a pair of Spire's and a Velodyne DD-15 !

Truth be told I'm actually more 'jazzed' about hearing the new "X" than the CLS's .....go figure !

 

[aliveatfive]

A lot of speculation could be ended with a statement from ML. Why is it their policy not to contribute to this forum? I'd like to hear from the horse's mouth what I'd be giving up by not obtaining the Summit X and keeping the Summit. ML _ I'm waiting!

BTW - I just checked their website and there is absolutely no info on Summit X. Why is it good PR to be absolutely closed-mouthed about a product.

FYI - When I wanted to upgrade a power amp, I looked at the ARC Ref 110. I had a VT100II which is very similar in appearqance to the Ref. ARC, however, provided info as to the differences between the two. (They were substantial.) What are the substantial differences between the Summit and the Summit X?

 

[Feltran]

BTW - I just checked their website and there is absolutely no info on Summit X. Why is it good PR to be absolutely closed-mouthed about a product.

A lot of companies do it. I think the theory is that you never want someone to put off a purchase (they might change their mind, and even if they wouldn't you want a constant revenue stream), so you only talk up a future product if the current products aren't selling.

 

[DrJRapp]

BTW - I just checked their website and there is absolutely no info on Summit X. Why is it good PR to be absolutely closed-mouthed about a product.

I suspect that outside of this forum there isn't much interest in the Summit X, and there won't be any until units start hitting the dealers shelves and the reviewers doors. There isn't anything ground breaking or revolutionary about the Summit X as there was with the original Summit.

I don't see the Summit X being a huge money maker for ML. That's why I predict there ultimatly will be an upgrade, if for no other reason than to make some $$ bak in the development cost. We are in a very volitile market and so far ML hase been lucky with CLX sales. However, just how many people are interested in a $20K speaker that requires $6K of subwoofers, a large room and $30-50K of accompanying electronics? I would suspect that demand has been nearly met by the "I gotta have" croud with lots of disposable income. . An $8500 speaker with a $3K sub makes far more sense to most of us, and a $14000 "swiss army knife" speaker is sort of the middle ground.

The Summit X may not really be a big improvement over the Summit and may be in a strictly business sense a "market repositioning" of a former flagship product.

 

[Rich]

A lot of speculation could be ended with a statement from ML. Why is it their policy not to contribute to this forum? I'd like to hear from the horse's mouth what I'd be giving up by not obtaining the Summit X and keeping the Summit. ML _ I'm waiting!

What exactly are you waiting for? They made their statement. It is in the form of a press release posted at the beginning of this thread. It states, in part:

CLX inspired crossover engineering perfectly blends Xstat and dual controlled dispersion powered force drivers to provide an unparalleled sonic experience.

So obviously, they are saying that by staying with the Summit, you are giving up a certain amount of midrange clarity and openness that the X provides. They have made the integration of the panels and woofers better through a newly-designed crossover network and newly-designed woofer drivers. What more do you expect them to tell you? Would it even matter to you what they say? Most people ignore marketing hype from the manufacturers and just read what the reviewers write or what average folks like us write on forums like this once the product has been released. A few folks actually go and listen and compare for themselves to see what the differences are.

As for ML's decision not to post on this site, I, for one, completely agree with it. I believe it provides more independence and credibility to this site. There is no appearance of ML having any control over the conversations that occur here. There is no question of Tom being controlled in any way by ML corporate. Also, given the trashing that Ethan and others take when they express their opinions on this and other sites, I think it is a wise decision for a corporate entity to remain above these petty frays. I do appreciate that Ethan puts up with a lot of trash talk and still tries ardently to provide helpful information on acoustics to everyone, but I think it is probably wise for most manufacturers to avoid forums like this where their published opinions could step on the toes of some of their customers.

BTW - I just checked their website and there is absolutely no info on Summit X. Why is it good PR to be absolutely closed-mouthed about a product.

I don't know. Why not ask Apple or Conrad Johnson or the literally thousands of other companies that adhere to similar policies? Perhaps there are very good business reasons for being tight-lipped about your upcoming products when competition is so fierce and companies are constantly copying other company's products. For whatever reasons, ML has decided to not discuss upcoming products before they are released. I personally don't see why that should be a reason to trash them.

FYI - When I wanted to upgrade a power amp, I looked at the ARC Ref 110. I had a VT100II which is very similar in appearqance to the Ref. ARC, however, provided info as to the differences between the two. (They were substantial.) What are the substantial differences between the Summit and the Summit X?

I still find it humorous that you seem perfectly happy with ARC and your Ref 3, despite the fact that there was no way to upgrade from the Ref 2 to the Ref 3. I suspect you would have felt very different about ARC had you owned a Ref 2. Did ARC provide you with information regarding the "substantial" differences between the VT100II and the Ref. 110 BEFORE the Ref 110 was released? Or after?

 

[aliveatfive]

Rich, do you work for MartinLogan? You seem to be quite an apoligist. Sorry, but I do not agree with the way this debut is being handled. I think this is turning into a PR failure. If you do not agree, so be it. I guess we agree to disagree!

 

[User211]

Actually, 2x Descent i and 1x Spire = about the same as the X.

Point of note, you don't really need 2 Descent i's with a Spire, but you will with the CLX. That's because of the higher x-over frequency with the CLX, where one Descent would make the bass appear to come from wherever it is sited.

Alive - Rich will defend both ML and Sanders to the hilt. And he does it extremely well, to his credit.

But at the end of the day, there IS a huge difference in price between the Spire and the X. It material terms, can it really be justified? No. Not when you consider how much h/w 2 Descent i's consitutes.

All I can say is, it had better perform, and perform very well. Or any honest reviewer will rip it to bits for the massive price difference over the Spire.

 

[sleepysurf]

Rich, do you work for MartinLogan? You seem to be quite an apoligist. Sorry, but I do not agree with the way this debut is being handled. I think this is turning into a PR failure. If you do not agree, so be it. I guess we agree to disagree!

Hah! I find it amusing that some of us seem to think the MLOC is representative of the entire ML market! We have 1099 members here, of which probably 25% (or less) are active, so we represent an extremely small subset of the entire population of ML owners, and potential owners. Most ML owners probably plop them into their family room, up against a wall or corner, drive them with receivers (and/or iPods), and are quite content, never truly knowing what these speakers are capable of. Fact is, it's those sales that keep this company going. Let's be thankful the newer Design series are being sold via Amazon, Best Buy/Magnolia, etc, as that allows them to continue developing the ESL line for the rest of us. Over the years ML has treated us all with respect, listening to us (i.e. longer spike design on Summit X), and providing superb customer service. It's not fair to criticize them for not catering exclusively to our wacko audiophile group, and not providing an upgrade path. Get real folks!

 

[Rich]

Rich, do you work for MartinLogan? You seem to be quite an apoligist. Sorry, but I do not agree with the way this debut is being handled. I think this is turning into a PR failure. If you do not agree, so be it. I guess we agree to disagree!

That's funny. I have been previously accused of being an employee/apologist for both Roger Sanders and Ethan Winer. No, I am not an employee or an apologist. Rather, simply a fan of their products and someone who has visited their corporate center (as part of the first ML forum get-together), and talked closely with their employees, and also someone who has some idea of the difficulties and limitations of running a manufacturing business like this.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree with you or anyone else. We all have our opinions and there is no requirement that they agree. But I believe that part of the fun and benefit of this forum is discussing and debating the underlying bases of those opinions. I don't get any enjoyment out of saying "I like A" and you saying "I don't like A" and then saying, "oh well, we will just have to agree to disagree." Where is the fun in that? How does that further anyone's understanding?

It is much more interesting and informative to debate the underlying reasons why we hold the opinions we do. To analyze the actual facts and logic we give to support our opinions and contentions. That is where the meat of discussion lies, and that is what makes a site like this both interesting and informative to all. Being trained as a lawyer, that is also just kind of the way my mind works. I don't take anyone's opinion at face value. I like to dig into the proposed reasoning and factual bases supporting the opinion.

So please understand I am not trying to pick a fight with you or undermine the validity of your opinion. I am just trying to understand and critically question the reasoning underlying your opinions and also offer contrary reasoning to support my own opinion.

Honestly, I am still interested in your reasoning for why you are so happy with ARC, which pretty much treats its customers no different than ML on these issues, yet you seem completely put off with the way ML has handled the introduction of the Summit X. You say they have completely bungled it and it is turning into a "PR failure" but you haven't explained how their rollout of this speaker is any different than their rollout of any previous speaker, other than that they won't provide retrofit upgrades to previous Summit owners and haven't yet explained why that is the case. Again, how is the rollout of this product any different than previous ML product rollouts, or the rollout of any other manufacturer's products? Why do you consider it such a PR failure, when they haven't even introduced the product into the marketplace yet?

Tell me how much you know about the ARC Ref 3, mark II? When will they come out with it? What technological advances will it offer? Will I be able to upgrade my Ref 3 when it comes out? Why are they being so close-lipped about this upcoming version of their reference preamp? Do you get my point? All manufacturers are pretty tight-lipped about upcoming products until they are ready to release them.

I think if you have a little patience, and give ML a chance to actually roll out their product before you bash them on how they are rolling it out, all your questions will be answered, for better or worse.

 

[User211]

It's not fair to criticize them for not catering exclusively to our wacko audiophile group

Statement of the day!

 

[twich54]

Agreed Justin !

Good rebuttal Alan, I agree wholeheartdly !!!

 

[Rich]

Alive - Rich will defend both ML and Sanders to the hilt. And he does it extremely well, to his credit.

Thanks for the compliment, Justin. But I would clarify that I will defend my opinions to the hilt. I have criticized ML in the past for certain things; I have criticized Ethan's viewpoints; and if I were of the opinion that Roger Sanders was doing or saying something really stupid, I would be just as quick to criticize him.

But I see a lot of comments on this forum that are critical of business decisions being made by various companies, with seemingly no recognition of the difficulties in running these types of businesses. People seem to have some real misconceptions about what is reasonable to expect from a manufacturer. People seem to expect every company to make all their product decisions solely with their most avid customers' opinions and needs in mind, regardless of the limitations and constraints imposed by trying to run a successful profitable business. Sorry guys, but this is a cut-throat market and these are businesses trying to earn a profit. That does impose some constraints on how they can operate.

And then, there is just the fact that there is no pleasing everybody. Roger Sanders has one of the best customer service reputations in the business. But then, he gets criticized for being a one-man show. Of course, he tried to go the other route and expand his business by bringing in an outside investor, and look where that got him. The guy took control of his business and ran it into the ground!

ML devotees long for the days when the company was smaller and run by Gayle Sanders . . . yet look how far the company has come and expanded and improved its products in the years since Gayle left. Business is business, and each way you try to run it will have its constraints, its advantages, its disadvantages, its devotees and its detractors.

So yes, I do occasionally play devil's advocate and question the realities behind these assertions and criticisms when I don't agree with them.

 

[DrJRapp]

So obviously, they are saying that by staying with the Summit, you are giving up a certain amount of midrange clarity and openness that the X provides. They have made the integration of the panels and woofers better through a newly-designed crossover network and newly-designed woofer drivers.

I don't think that they are saying that at all...we are speculating that.Here is the PR from the original Summit press release. Please explain to me if you can how this differs from the press release on the Summit X.



Vojtko™ Crossover Audiophile-grade proprietary Vojtko crossover
Carefully hand-built using only the finest polypropylene capacitors and air-core coils, the crossover employ's MartinLogan's proprietary Vojtko topology for vanishingly low distortion and seamless driver integration. This precision-tuned network preserves even the most microscopic sonic nuances while handling the full dynamics of any source.

Now the Summit X has a CLX inspired crossover. And here is the PR on the CLX crossover:

Vojtko™ Filter Audiophile-grade proprietary Vojtko Filter
Featuring an advanced proprietary Vojtko™ filter topology, MartinLogan electronic specialists hand-build each CLX filter utilizing only the finest of components and construction techniques to assure the cleanest, most precise signal path possible. The resulting precision filter flawlessly preserves even the smallest subtleties in sound while effortlessly handling the broadest range of dynamics contained within even the most demanding sonic source, whether used in a 2-channel audio system or dedicated home theater

And just for good measure the Spire

Vojtko™ Crossover Audiophile-grade proprietary Vojtko crossover
Featuring an advanced proprietary Vojtko™ crossover topology derived from the flagship CLX™ loudspeaker, MartinLogan electronic specialists hand-build each Spire crossover utilizing only the finest of components and construction techniques to assure the cleanest, most precise signal path possible. The resulting precision crossover flawlessly preserves even the smallest subtleties in sound while effortlessly handling the broadest range of dynamics contained within even the most demanding sonic source, whether used in a 2-channel audio system or dedicated home theater.


This is all ML has said.

Now we know for a fact based on user and reviewer comments that the Spire has a bit cleaner lower midrange than the Summit,and we are speculating the Summit X to perform likewise..... however, we don't know if the clarity is from the crossover or just the fact that it's easier to impliment a clean transition from a panel to a single woofer than it is to a dual woofer, especially since one is out of phase with the other due to physical positioning.

 

[Rich]

I don't think that they are saying that at all...we are speculating that.Here is the PR from the original Summit press release. Please explain to me if you can how this differs from the press release on the Summit X.

Jerry, did you read the press release for the Summit X at the beginning of this thread? That is where I took my comment from. I can't cut and paste from it and I am not going to waste my time typing in all the relevant portions from it, but if you go back and read it carefully, they seem to make the assertion that the "amazing midrange clarity and openness" of the Summit X is due to "variable phasing near the crossover point" provided by the CLX-inspired Vojtko crossover, as well as from the "Controlled Dispersion PoweredForce Woofer technology."

The implication I get reading that press release carefully is that ML has designed a new crossover for the Summit based on lessons learned designing a crossover for the CLX, and they have also added some new technology to the dual-woofer array ("Controlled Dispersion PoweredForce technology"), and they feel these changes result in a speaker that exhibits more midrange clarity and openness (their words, not mine).

To answer your question, the difference between the press release for the Summit X and the ones you quote from is that they specifically mention variable phasing near the crossover point for the Summit X crossover (the others don't mention this) as well as the new woofer technology which appears to be a new thing with the X. They also specifically mention midrange clarity and openness as a hallmark of the X.

however, we don't know if the clarity is from the crossover or just the fact that it's easier to impliment a clean transition from a panel to a single woofer than it is to a dual woofer, especially since one is out of phase with the other due to physical positioning.

You are right, we don't "know" anything at this point. All we have is ML's marketing hype to go on. But given that, a statement like:

"Amazing midrange clarity and openness inspired by the CLX" and other references to "CLX-inspired crossover engineering,"

it seems pretty clear that they are touting the midrange clarity and openness of this speaker and attributing it primarily to the new crossover technology from the CLX. Given that midrange clarity and openness have been suggested to be strengths of both the Spire and the CLX by those who have reviewed them, it makes sense that ML would be touting that benefit for the Summit X due to its inclusion of that same crossover technology.

I agree it is all speculation until someone actually listens to a Summit X, but if you read their press release carefully and compare it to previous ones, I think there is ample evidence for the conclusions I made. Understand that I wasn't trying to speculate about the actual sound of the new speaker. I was simply trying to decipher ML's marketing language to help aliveatfive understand what ML is saying this speaker does that the original Summit doesn't do. Looking at the language they use in this press release, it seems pretty clear to me.

 

[DrJRapp]

If I were the VP of Marketing I would want the Summit to be associated with the Flagship product even though the CLX probably has more of the old Summit in it (the HF & MF ESL panel) than the Summit X has CLX. It's all just hype till someone actually is able to a/b them side by side with the same connected equipment in the same room.

It's easy to make cavalier statements. My Summits exhibit remarkable mid range clarity with my Meridian 808 that they don't with my Benchmark DAC1 and Theta Data Basic Transport....get the drift

 

[Rich]

It's all just hype till someone actually is able to a/b them side by side with the same connected equipment in the same room.

Yes . . . and no. I understand that a press release is a lot of marketing hype, but at the same time it has been my experience that ML products tend to live up to ML's marketing hype. So I do put some faith in the things they say. A lot of people on this forum were trashing the Summit when it first came out because it was so different from the Prodigy, but all that criticism fairly well disappeared once people actually got a chance to see and hear them in person. Same thing happened recently with the CLX. So yes, until we can actually compare the two it is just hype, but ML's history has been one of living up to their hype, in my opinion.

It's easy to make cavalier statements. My Summits exhibit remarkable mid range clarity with my Meridian 808 that they don't with my Benchmark DAC1 and Theta Data Basic Transport....get the drift

True, but I am not sure exactly what this point has to do with our topic of conversation. ML's press releases are not "cavalier statements," I assure you. A lot of thought goes into the exact wording of each statement in that release and I expect it is reviewed and revised by numerous staff members.

And, if you look back through the thread, you will see that this particular topic came up because I was responding to a statement from aliveatfive that read:

A lot of speculation could be ended with a statement from ML. Why is it their policy not to contribute to this forum? I'd like to hear from the horse's mouth what I'd be giving up by not obtaining the Summit X and keeping the Summit. ML _ I'm waiting!

And my point was simply that ML has made such a statement in this press release, for those willing to read it closely and try to understand it. And until the speaker is actually released and people can audition it for themselves, there really isn't much need for ML to make any further statements on the subject. As you say, it is just speculation by us and no one trusts anything ML says anyway because they are just spouting "marketing hype." Then again, given the reviews of the Summit, Spire, and CLX, I would say ML's marketing "hype" has been pretty spot-on lately. So, again, I am just not sure what relevance your point has to the conversation.

 

[C.A.P]

Why are some so anecdotal with this !