Help! - Summits versus Ascent/Descent

[sfulmer]

Hello,

I have owned MLs for years. My current system is a complete Krell Evolution system (202 pre, 505 CD and Evo One Mono Blocks). My speakers are Ascents with a Descent Sub. I use this system only for 2 channel music listening. I am considering buying a pair of ML Summits and understand that the Summit woofers are active (with amps built-in) and must be used. Questions:

1) Does it bother you that the woofers don't utilize your hi-end amps? (in my case, the EVO ones are so expensive that the ML built-in woofer amps seem to be a compromise)

2) Are the built-in amps good or do you feel the performance of the speakers is limited due to the relatively low power of the 200w amps?

3) Can I eliminate a separate sub now that the Summits have a powered sub that is built in?

Thanks

Steve

 

[Gordon Gray]

No. No. Yes.

GG

 

[marck]

At the level of the equipment that you are running you should audition the Summit X. I think you will be amazed at the difference between those and the Ascent's.

You will not need a sub with them since the amp driving the bass drivers is more than sufficient. Infact the bass (and inparticular integration with the panel) is probably the largest difference / improvement over the older generation of ML's

Cheers
Marc.
Note I had Ascent (with Descent), Ascent I (with Descent), Summit (with out Descent) and now Summit X's (with out Descent)

 

[Neil H]

I have a Gryphon DM100 amp running my summits but am not a bit worried that they don't power the bass drivers. I find the bass really excellent. The speakers go down very low but are never boomy in my room. I don't see why anyone would want a sub with them for music alone. It may be different for surround sound movies but I don't go there.

 

[Rich]

The Summits' internal amps are excellent and I don't think they compromise the bass sound at all. And honestly, 200 watts per driver is not underpowered for the bass module. When I bi-amped my Ascents, I only had 200 wpc on the woofers and it was plenty of power.

The Summits do not have a "powered sub" built in. They have active woofers. That is not the same as a subwoofer. The Summits go pretty low and many people do not feel the need to mate a subwoofer with them, but those with home theaters or need for a deeper low end will want to put a subwoofer with them. Personally, I don't use my Descent with my Summits when listening to music. They go low enough on their own.

 

[kcl]

You might be interested that I had exactly the same setup as you, including the switch. I had Ascents with a Descent sub for 4+ years, and then in early 2007 I upgraded to Summits. My system also serves as a home theater (check my system link for details) and the Descent sub does an excellent job for that. However, when I listen to music I now prefer to disable the Descent. I found that the active subs integrated with the summits are more than sufficient for the music I like, and that includes jazz, classical, rock, bluegrass, among others.

 

[TomDac]

Hi Steve,

I think ML started powering their speakers for 2 reasons:

1. because it opened up their higher end products to people who didn't need or want to have a big behemoth amp to get the best out of them... ie, people with mid-fi amps could appreciate them more..

2. the bass cabinets could be made MUCH smaller. Ever see the Odyssey or Prodigy bass cabinets? they're frickin HUGE!!! :music:

This translates into more sales for ML.

The bottom line for me is how they sound. I went from reQuests, which were AMAZING to Summits, which were more amazing with a much smaller presence in my living room, which meant a higher WAF.

As far as a sub goes.... I don't care for having a sub in my system.. the Summits shake the whole house and offer plenty of low bass. Others on the site insist on a sub. It's a personal preference really...

I should also state that I've heard Ascents at Taylode's house.. he is driving them with McIntosh monoblocks and they sounded PHENOMENAL without a sub. Bass was controlled and very good.

 

[CCH]

Perhaps it's because of the room I use them in, but I run a Descent i with my Summits for playing music, and I love the extra kick it gives to the low bass. I do turn the sub down or even off occasionally, depending upon the recording. Necessary? No. I enjoyed the Summits without it. Their bass doesn't seem to get a lot of reinforcement in my room, however, so perhaps my situation is somewhat unusual. Anyway, I wouldn't count out the use of an excellent sub. Naturally, the ideal is to try before you buy.

 

[Craig]

The Summits represent the quality of the bass signal very well and divert the fullpower of your amps to the panel. You will essentially be adding more power to your speakers and in fact bi-amping. The internal amps in the Summits are matched to the woofers and degrade nothing. The output and signal from the Krell mono amps will put to good use.


The speaker system you currently have is excellent and will accurately respond to any improvements in your source components and media resolution. However, not much room for improvement there. Although, I bet you can hear a big difference in recording quality between CDs and the crisp clear clean sound and tone of SACDs.

With that said. You have some fine gear and you may want to consider skipping over the Summits completely and go the Summit X to fully realize what your Krell system is capable of. WHile the Summits are very good, the Summit X's are further refined.
Yes you can remove your sub from your system or leave it in and carefully tune it to have only a subtle presence to augment your Summits or Summit Xs.

 

[sfulmer]

Pictures

Thanks for the feedback. Here is a picture of the system.

 

[sfulmer]

One more picture

Also, as you can see, I have a pair of Krell Modulari Primos. These sound very different....still assessing these...I switch on and off between the MLs and these, depending on my mood.

 

[twich54]

Steve, welcome, thanks for sharing the pics, beautifull gear !

With respect to system performance I can state honestly that you would help out your cause by bringing your speakers a couple more feet out into the room if at all possible. All phases of image and sounsdstage would improve at the very least.

 

[asindc]

I know you asked about Summits w/o an amp, but I made a similar move from Ascent-i with a Depth to Vantages without a sub. I actually have a Velodyne DD-12 sub, but I only run with HT, not 2-channel. In my 11.5 x 19 x 8 room, the Vantages produce plenty of bass, and I play some bass-heavy music at times. This should especially be true for Summits.

By the way, if I was in the market now and looking to trade up from Ascents, I would go for either the Summit-X or the Spires. Might as well go for the new technology. The Spires are going for the same price used as the Summits, but many find them to be at least the equal of the original Summits.

 

[MOON]

Twitch,

I was thinking the exact same thing upon seeing the pictures. Nice system, but it looks like the panels are only 2 1/2 feet from the wall. Try doubling the distance to 5 feet from the wall to the stator panel. Reap the benefits!!!
Cheers, Greg

 

[babydoc]

Ascents/Summits: What next?

Thanks for the feedback. Here is a picture of the system.

I had an Ascent-i, 2 Descent system for several years. I found that the subs when dialed in made the midrange fuller and the sound presentation more musical. I went on to Summit with a pair of Descent i's. The subs were additive to an already great speaker. I think that your decision to upgrade and keep or not keep the sub depends on what you listen to, your room dimensions, and your listening preferences.
The easiest decision is to get the Summits (now x-version) and keep the sub for a while to see if it adds to your listening enjoyment or not. Since the Summit woofers can be dialed in as can the Descent, you can with some experimentation find the "sweet spot" for low to mid-bass reproduction.
As others have noted from your picture, the speakers are very close to the rear wall. ML recommends moving out about 56" as measured from speaker center to rear wall. This might not be possible in your room but the closer you can get to that distance the more open your speakers will sound and less bass-heavy.
Your sub appears to be in a corner. Probably the least good location for a single sub since it reinforces bass nodes and makes the sub less easy to integrate. If you can move it out you can experiment with different positions in your room. This would also help with bass integration.
You will have some interesting decisions to make. I don't think that you can go wrong with either a Summit X or Spire as your upgrade path.

 

[sfulmer]

Placement

Yeah, you are all absolutely correct. My weakest link in my system is the room. The room is quite small, and as a result, my speaker placement is less than ideal. As a result, bass response of lower frequencies is very difficult to reproduce, and often times the speakers sound too bright.

Also, should be noted that one of the reasons my stereo needs help in the "bass" area is because my stereo has no frequency boost/tone controls....also, I listen to lots of 70s classic rock which is bass shy relative to movies or modern recordings...this is why I am so focused on the bass questions...

 

[Gordon Gray]

Steve,

As previously stated, the two crossover volume adjustments on the back of the Summit can and, assuming properly set, will resolve the bass blending issue.

To the best of my knowledge, most hi end preamps don't have tone controls due to the negative impact on the sound quality.

GG

 

[sfulmer]

Yeah, pretty much all high end pre-amps have the purist approach, which means that no alteration of the signal is allowed. It seems that approach overall works very well, as the sound that results is unquestionably excellent and pure. However, I have known many people with more normal type mid-fi (including me for most of my life) stuff perform numerous frequency response modifications through tone knobs, equalizers, dbx units of various types, etc...and, overall these systems can sound pretty good...though certainly not like the really high end stuff.

My system, while sitting in the sweet spot, often sounds bass shy and bright due to the room dimensions, as well as somewhat due to the older recordings. BTW, on the Krell 505 CD, you can also play DVDs (audio only) and on newer concert recordings, the bass is great. Also, the 505 plays SACD, and on newer SACD recordings, the system has great bass too. But on typical 1970s standard classic rock CDs, the system seems to often need help. So, this results in me turning on the subwoofer and having to periodically adjust the level of the unit based on the characteristics of the recording (pain in the neck). So, ideally, it would be great to get rid of the sub, for simplicity sake (also, btw, the Krell speakers have the same brightness issue...which tells me that likely it is overall a system/room set-up issue that I am trying to mitigate through the subwoofer).

 

[Gordon]

I expended an enormous effort to blend my subs with the Spire. Even still, there are some recordings that either have very little bass content encoded or the engineer dialed it up very high. I have a varied music library and it could drive one nuts trying to adjust the bass for every genre. I just finally accepted all music is not recorded the same and listen and enjoy as it is, for what it is.

I had a McIntosh C2200 with tone controls and never really used them. I experimented with them but usually left them at zero. My new pre amp has no tone controls except for balance which is quite handy since one speaker is near another room and needs a bit of boost on that side.

Gordon

 

[Gordon Gray]

Have to agree with G here.

One of the quickest ways to audio neurosis and defeat the very reason why you have a high end audio system (as in enjoy the music) is to try to adjust the tonal quality of your system to each recording.

I also believe that most folks accept the fact that many rock recordings of the 70's or whatever lack good sonics and trying to adjust your system to compensate for this is like rolling the proverbial rock uphill.

GG