Summit X review up!

We ran out of room in the new issue, but rather than wait to get the Summit X review out in six weeks, it is live now on our website:

http://www.tonepublications.com/gear/

Flame suit on!

Jeff, Nice article!

Not a flame, but some minor ‘heat’, so here goes:

While this is not convenient for everyone, the further you can get these babies from the side wall, the greater reward you will reap in soundstage width. The Summit X worked much better on the short wall (16 feet) of my studio than my reference CLX’s, when on the long wall (24 feet). With each speaker about seven feet from the side walls, they really opened up. If you just can’t achieve this in your listening room, some modest room treatment just behind the panel and about two feet in front of the panel on the side wall will help tremendously.

Click to expand...

The reason increased lateral width improves imaging is you are both extending the delay of the rear-wave arrival as well as its amplitude, thus hearing more of the direct front wave. The added delay is what makes the ‘ambiance’ or ‘soundstage’ seem bigger. In a narrower room, you are correct that a combo of wall-behind and lateral treatments are a way to mitigate. However, the guidance on ‘two feet in front’ is probably very room dependent.

The guidance I give is to go for the two reflection points for the rear wave. The one where it first hits the wall behind it (accounting for toe-in), and the ricochet hit point on the lateral wall closest to it (think billiard ball paths).
With the usual three feet out and three to four feet from side walls usually results in the second reflection being either just behind the speaker on the side wall, or even with it.

There are few (no?) lateral first reflections from an ESL two feet ahead of the speaker. Therefore, any benefit is likely derived from a decrease in room-induced mid-bass and midrange resonance. Always a good thing, but not ESL dependent IMHO.

I know you know this stuff, just being my usual detail-oriented self

Oh, to further prove that: the link to the controlled dispersion docs on the ML site is not an ‘active’, clickable link.

Finally, no mention of the Spire? We’ve had plenty of debate about Spires+Descent vs. Summit X around here. :devil:

JonFo said:

However, the guidance on ‘two feet in front’ is probably very room dependent.

Click to expand...

good points Jonathan.....and with regards to the above quote I totally agree for it comes back to the simple principle of "angle of incedence equals the angle of reflection". If in need of help merely have a helper (with mirror in hand) go along the side wall with you seated in 'your chair' and at the point you see the speaker in the mirror....that's the area to treat.

You know, sometimes you have to wonder. So much of what is written on this site is related to room treatments and dipole behaviour. It's like we're trying to make our dipoles not behave like dipoles. To some extent, this is nuts. It sez "go buy some MLs, but by the way, you'll need to spend a sh*tload on room treatments as well.". Personally, I think they perform excellently without any room treatment in my room. Newcomers to this forum should bear that in mind. No - you can't have my room

From the text on the website, ML state (or at least did) that dipole reflections add to ambience. You either like this or you don't, I guess. If you don't, you try and kill it. But then, why by a dipole?

I'd love to see a Summit X versus Spire + 2x Descent i comparison. OK the later takes more space, but it'd sure as hell be interesting, and the price for both set ups is pretty similar. Why do I think I'd prefer the later?

When I first heard the original Summit with about 10-12 feet away from the side walls, I was pretty impressed with the stage wdith, so it's a very valid point.

Summit X Owner

tonepub said:

We ran out of room in the new issue, but rather than wait to get the Summit X review out in six weeks, it is live now on our website:

http://www.tonepublications.com/gear/

Flame suit on!

Click to expand...

Hi Tonepub,

I have to say that I completely agree with your review and findings. I did go from the original Summit to the X and have found that they are entirely different speakers. Why did they simply not call the new speaker something different - this would have stopped all the banter about the lack of an upgrade to the original speaker.

Saying that, the X is truley amazing and is (IMO) a substantial improvement over the Summit. Anyone contemplating upgrading really should hear the new speaker - I think you will be very surprised. They may look the same, but they don't sound the same

Btw, on a different subject, have you heard the new ARC Ref5 preamp yet?!

Cheers
Marc.

User211 said:

You know, sometimes you have to wonder. So much of what is written on this site is related to room treatments and dipole behaviour. It's like we're trying to make our dipoles not behave like dipoles. To some extent, this is nuts. It sez "go buy some MLs, but by the way, you'll need to spend a sh*tload on room treatments as well.". Personally, I think they perform excellently without any room treatment in my room. Newcomers to this forum should bear that in mind. No - you can't have my room

Click to expand...

Justin, has it occurred to you that maybe you have given up audiophilia nervosa and are just enjoying the music ?

My MLs also sound good without room treatment.

User211 said:

It's like we're trying to make our dipoles not behave like dipoles.

Click to expand...

Justin....not at all, IMO, it all comes down optomizing the basic design of the speaker. Not everyone can have their Logans 5-6 feet out into the room, thus the use of absortion / diffusion. Besides anyone that has their Logans 'up against' the wall dosen't understand di-pole basics 101 to begin with !

I'd love to see a Summit X versus Spire + 2x Descent i comparison. OK the later takes more space, but it'd sure as hell be interesting, and the price for both set ups is pretty similar. Why do I think I'd prefer the later?

Click to expand...

probably for the same reason I would as well !! .....:music:

JonFo said:

Jeff, Nice article!

Not a flame, but some minor ‘heat’, so here goes:



The reason increased lateral width improves imaging is you are both extending the delay of the rear-wave arrival as well as its amplitude, thus hearing more of the direct front wave. The added delay is what makes the ‘ambiance’ or ‘soundstage’ seem bigger. In a narrower room, you are correct that a combo of wall-behind and lateral treatments are a way to mitigate. However, the guidance on ‘two feet in front’ is probably very room dependent.

The guidance I give is to go for the two reflection points for the rear wave. The one where it first hits the wall behind it (accounting for toe-in), and the ricochet hit point on the lateral wall closest to it (think billiard ball paths).
With the usual three feet out and three to four feet from side walls usually results in the second reflection being either just behind the speaker on the side wall, or even with it.

There are few (no?) lateral first reflections from an ESL two feet ahead of the speaker. Therefore, any benefit is likely derived from a decrease in room-induced mid-bass and midrange resonance. Always a good thing, but not ESL dependent IMHO.

I know you know this stuff, just being my usual detail-oriented self

Oh, to further prove that: the link to the controlled dispersion docs on the ML site is not an ‘active’, clickable link.

Finally, no mention of the Spire? We’ve had plenty of debate about Spires+Descent vs. Summit X around here. :devil:

Click to expand...

Without getting into an overly technical discussion in the article, that's still a pretty fast and easy way to get better sound with most speakers, but especially panels. Of course experimentation and measurement might make for further optimization, but that's .000001% of the audience.

Also, over the 25 years I've spent with various ESL speakers AND friends wives, most of them will put up with a pair of sound deadening panels, maybe two in a room without complaining.

That's why I made the suggestion that I did. Of course the advanced user can always do more.

User211 said:

You know, sometimes you have to wonder. So much of what is written on this site is related to room treatments and dipole behaviour.

Click to expand...

IMO there is a lot of stuff being written out in the audio world about room treatments for all setups. This site just has more users who discovered the benefit of room treatments in relation to improved sound. Trouble is not many or us have perfect dedicated rooms to get the best out of our setups.

Acoustically addressing your home listening room(s) is really a very new concept in the audio world and slowly catching on as a great benefit in cost versus performance.

It sez "go buy some MLs, but by the way, you'll need to spend a sh*tload on room treatments as well.".

Click to expand...

Spending poop-loads on treatments is a "room treatment misconception" IMO. When looking at the cost of my setup and the cost I have spent on treatments it comes out to around 3-4% (DIY helps this). And the sound benefit with the treatments is tremendous.

If you are really happy with your sound, that is the bottom line.

User211 said:

Personally, I think they perform excellently without any room treatment in my room.

Click to expand...

Justin, I felt the same way. It wasn't until I treated the room, however, that I realized how much better than "excellent" they could sound. As Dan says, it needn't be expensive.

Mullards shipped last Thursday, so I should have them this week, I reckon.:music:

User211 said:

You know, sometimes you have to wonder. So much of what is written on this site is related to room treatments and dipole behaviour. It's like we're trying to make our dipoles not behave like dipoles. To some extent, this is nuts. It sez "go buy some MLs, but by the way, you'll need to spend a sh*tload on room treatments as well.". Personally, I think they perform excellently without any room treatment in my room. Newcomers to this forum should bear that in mind. No - you can't have my room

From the text on the website, ML state (or at least did) that dipole reflections add to ambience. You either like this or you don't, I guess. If you don't, you try and kill it. But then, why by a dipole?

Click to expand...

Alright, Justin, got your flame suit on? You knew you were going to get a few responses to this one, right? O.K., here goes:

First of all, as Dan said, room treatments are essential for the best sound from ANY speaker, be it dipole, bipole or monopole. You still have reflections that cause comb filtering and ruin your imaging and soundstage, and you still have room nodes in the bass region that cause boomy or muddy bass. You may convince yourself that your speakers sound good without them, and perhaps they do, but you are just kidding yourself if you think you are getting the most performance they are capable of (again -- any speakers) if you haven't properly treated your room for the radiation patterns of those particular speakers.

Box speakers with point source drivers have a tendency to reflect off the ceiling and floors, which causes problems. Now, if someone puts some absorption on the ceiling and a carpet on the floor to minimize that, would you say they are trying to make their box speakers behave like dipoles? That's just silly.

The advantage of a dipole speaker like ML's is that there is no pressure resistance behind the driver to slow it down, thus you get a very quick driver that can deliver great speed, details and dynamics in the music. That is part of what gives ML's their "transparency." The rear wave reflection off the back wall is an unintended consequence of this design and can harm aspects of the sound, like imaging and soundstaging. Why on earth wouldn't you try to mitigate this issue and get all the advantages of the dipole without the disadvantages? It is just like having a tube preamp with a solid state amp. We are trying to get the advantages that each offers while mitigating the disadvantages of each.

As far as what ML says on their website, sorry. What speaker company (or any kind of company) isn't going to try to take the disadvantage of their products and try to make it sound like an advantage? ML's marketing team works overtime to try to convince everyone that every speaker they make is perfect, no matter how you set it up. But most of us can see through the marketing BS pretty clearly. It's like that picture they have on the site with two center channels turned vertical for L and R channels, as if that would sound decent. Sure, it looks cool in the picture. But the physics of the sound radiation patterns of those center channels clearly prohibit that kind of setup. So why is the picture on there if it is clearly a horrible setup? One word. Marketing.

I find it more than a little disingenuous that you say your speakers sound great in your room without any room treatments, yet in another thread you were lamenting that they didn't sound good on particular recordings and you were blaming it on the nature of the ELS panel! One of the suggestions made to you in that thread was to try some room treatments, but you ballyhooed that suggestion without ever seriously considering it. You also poo-pooed the idea of bi-amping them without ever trying it. Both of those steps would have brought your Ascents to a much higher level that you didn't realize they could reach, in my opinion. But if you are not willing to try it and see for yourself, then it is hard to take your opinions on the matter very seriously.

RUR said:

Justin, I felt the same way. It wasn't until I treated the room, however, that I realized how much better than "excellent" they could sound.

Click to expand...

BINGO! I thought my old VW Rabbit performed pretty well too, but then I bought my Mercedes and realized what true performance was.

Rich, Im pretty new on here and couldnt find your system posted.

Did I miss it somewhere?

I was trying to look at your room and get an idea what you had done as far as room treatments to get some more ideas about my own.

You seem as much as a proponant for them as anyone on the forum , I have been to JonFo's home and saw what he has done in his theater and was curious about yours

Thanks, Larry

Jeff -

Just curious if you happen to know the answer to this. If my Summit panels go South and I order a new pair of panels, what would I receive from ML? Summit panels or Summit X panels? It would seem kind of stupid to maintain a double inventory of almost-alike panels. Wonder what Summit X panels installed in Summit would sound like?

Jeff,

Do you believe your observations would also apply to a much smaller listening room than yours?

Gordon

Rich said:

But if you are not willing to try it and see for yourself, then it is hard to take your opinions on the matter very seriously.

Click to expand...

Rich, I'm amazed you bothered - I'd have thought you'd have given up by now

1) Don't think I don't understand all your arguments - I do. And they are all logical.

2) The Ascents are probably going. I've loved them for many a year, but I want a change. Therefore, I am not going to "room tune" around them.

3) I have made numerous comments on room tuning, especially Ethan's excellent videos and presentations. I know the effect these things have. I have sat in rooms that have the treatments and listened carefully.

4) To be honest, my system blows 95% of what I hear in most places away. I know it is excellent. 100% no doubt about it. WITHOUT ROOM TREATMENTS!!!:devil::devil::devil:

5) I have heard some of the world's finest systems and reported profusely on this website about them - with photographic evidence that I was there!!!!

However, I 100% stand by all my previous remarks on MLs and room treatments... and I'm not going to re-iterate them again. I do not want to damp the rear reflection - I know I like it! And I actually agree with the ML "pretend to turn it into an advantage" statement. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The reason the Ascents will probably go is the simple desire for a change... that's not unreasonable. 16-17 years with one manufacturers speakers is just more than a little narrow minded.

However, I admit I am a bit worried about Apogee D. Sig. bass in my room. And if it is excessive, guess what, I'll buy some of Ethan's bass traps. How's that?

Boxing putty tat - out!

aliveatfive said:

Jeff -

Just curious if you happen to know the answer to this. If my Summit panels go South and I order a new pair of panels, what would I receive from ML? Summit panels or Summit X panels? It would seem kind of stupid to maintain a double inventory of almost-alike panels. Wonder what Summit X panels installed in Summit would sound like?

Click to expand...

Because the panels are different, I would assume you would get Summit panels..., but I'd talk to Jim Power to confirm.

Gordon Gray said:

Jeff,

Do you believe your observations would also apply to a much smaller listening room than yours?

Gordon

Click to expand...

A much smaller room always has it's own issues, especially with fairly big speakers like the Summit X. My experience has been that with a big speaker in a small room, it's pretty easy to "overdrive" the room and affect the results.

Room treatments always help, but especially in a small room. Which leads us to our next comment...

User211 said:

Rich, I'm amazed you bothered - I'd have thought you'd have given up by now

4) To be honest, my system blows 95% of what I hear in most places away. I know it is excellent. 100% no doubt about it. WITHOUT ROOM TREATMENTS!!!:devil::devil::devil:

5) I have heard some of the world's finest systems and reported profusely on this website about them - with photographic evidence that I was there!!!!

Click to expand...

Though JonFo and I differ in our approach, I do agree that a treated room will always outperform an untreated room, no matter what kind of speakers you have. Some rooms untreated are better than others, due to dimensions and construction, but I've never heard a system that couldn't be dramatically improved by at least some room treatments, especially in the areas of imaging, inner detail and especially bass performance.

Just because you've heard a lot of the world's best hifi gear at some shows, doesn't mean you have any idea of what this gear is truly capable of. I've heard all the gear you have at plenty of shows and it's a pretty pale indication, especially with the better, more resolving gear. Lousy hotel rooms and tradeshow booths are just that. It's a testament to the abilities of most manufacturers setup skills that they can get the level of sound they do at most shows.

If at the end of the day, you think what you have sounds better than 95% of the world's finest gear, why bother changing anything? Sounds like you already have nirvana.

I guarantee you are going to have the same issues with Apogees in your room that you are having with ML. The acoustic properties of your room aren't going to change with your speakers.

And I'm really curious to see your luck driving those speakers with a pair of SET's..... Good luck there pal! I'll bet a few pints of your favorite whatever that you're changing amps within a few weeks of getting the Apogees.

All that being said, they are great speakers. I loved mine....

Best of luck.

repman said:

Rich, Im pretty new on here and couldnt find your system posted.

Did I miss it somewhere?

Click to expand...

Rich's system is very special. It can be found in System 261...