Martin Logan Spire - Editor's Choice Hi-Fi News April 2009 - Better Than Summit!

[amey01]

He thinks the Spire's are more seemless in their integration than the Summits.

I find this amazing given the higher crossover - I'd love to hear ML's comment and technical reasoning.

 

[twich54]

I find this amazing given the higher crossover - I'd love to hear ML's comment and technical reasoning.

270 vs. 320....both fall within the fourth octave (lower midrange) I really wonder how big a deal it is ???

 

[Gordon Gray]

Well folks,

Let me give you one example / variable that hopefully most people have tried.

Adjust the rake angle of the panel.

This one item, not to mention all the other variables that exist (room, treatments, hardware, etc.), has a dramatic effect on the overall sound of the speaker including, first and foremost, the apparent blending between the panel and the dynamic driver.

Aside from the crossover controls that I previously mentionned, how did the reviewer account for / address this anamoly?

By the way Justin, thanks for the information. Always good to hear what's being said out there in the review world.

GG

PS: I agree with others that the room effectively "controls", and everything else is secondary to and is influenced by that baseline factor.

 

[FISH_MAN]

the way I have adjusted the rake I have placed the jam nut from the spikes for my spires on the back legs under the rubber bumper "between it and the aluminum leg cylinder" this gives me the lilt I like and its easy to be sure they are all the same

 

[Mantana]

Indeed we do... zzzzzzzzzzz from that point of view...


1) ML are lying about sensitivity. Then again, they always have done. Are you reading this ML??? The Spire measures 86.8dB and not the 91dB claimed.


4) The waterfall plots don't look good and show strong lower and upper treble resonances - but then again, these plots never have looked good for an ML.

There's more nasties, but I'll leave it at that.

In the next post - I'll tell you the nice things...

I disagree about the sensitivity only being approx 86 versus
91....i certainly don't have the equipment or the knowledge to
measure but my PBN Montana EPS2s are rated at 91 and i can't
notice a real difference from the Spires in the volume at the
same level on my amp. They're either both at 91 or at 86....since
i usually only play at the 9 or 10 o'clock level and get decent
volume, i would have to say they're both pretty efficient
speakers. Also, i can't detect a difference in the volume
between my left and right speaker.

 

[tonepub]

I agree with Gordon, the rake thing is very important.

I'm back listening to the Spires again after having CLX's in the system for a while and yes the CLX is a better speaker, but I'm not disappointed with the Spires. These really are amazing speakers for the money!

Using them with the new Burmester 082 integrated and it is fantastic. I could live with this setup for the rest of my life and be perfectly content.

 

[twich54]

I could live with this setup for the rest of my life and be perfectly content.

I probably will !

 

[tonepub]

Indeed we do... zzzzzzzzzzz from that point of view...


3) Pair matching is nothing but poor - at least for the review pair at +/-3.8dB. That is serious in my book. If I had that pair, I'd send them back. Think balance control for how big a discrepancy that is. But then again, I think this is refering to "over the frequency range", so they won't necesssarily sound lopsided. I've always suspected this with the MLs I have owned. There's an easy test for it - just swap the leads on your CD player - does the guitar sound slightly louder, say, out of one speaker?

Once again, this lends me to believe that the amateur scientists in audience can't measure properly..

Any of you that have been to the factory will verify that ML measures every high end ESL to spec and if they are more than about a db off from what the reference is supposed to be, they get rejected.

I watched them do it on a number of speakers, including my CLX's when I was there.

I'm not buying this one.

Having actually compared the Summit, side by side to the Spire, we never felt the diff was huge. Some more transparency in the midrange, but not as much low end giddyup.

I still think the deciding factor is really whether you need the extra bass response of the Summit (or now Summit X) and if you can work with the Spires' 35hz bass control, or the separate 25 and 50hz controls on the Summit/Summit X.

Dialing the bass in is going to affect how the mids in either speaker sound a lot more than the slight change in the crossover between Summit and Spire.

Had em both side by side for a few months....

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[robertawillisjr]

What was the difference in cost between the Spire and the Summit. If many people agree the Spires are somewhat better, was the Summit worth the extra thousands of dollars?

This is the question that ML had to answer and it seems (I hate to suppose or assume anything, but since they aren't responding) they decided to "improve" the Summit. Now the question is how much better is the Summit X.

I think ML botched this entire affair, no one seems to be happy. Particularly the folks who bought Summits at the full retail price. Did I hear anyone say rebate?

 

[twich54]

I think ML botched this entire affair, no one seems to be happy. Particularly the folks who bought Summits at the full retail price. Did I hear anyone say rebate?

I'm happy !!! and besides i know of not one savy shopper that has EVER paid MSRP for anything !

 

[User211]

3) Pair matching is nothing but poor - at least for the review pair at +/-3.8dB. That is serious in my book. If I had that pair, I'd send them back. Think balance control for how big a discrepancy that is. But then again, I think this is refering to "over the frequency range", so they won't necesssarily sound lopsided. I've always suspected this with the MLs I have owned. There's an easy test for it - just swap the leads on your CD player - does the guitar sound slightly louder, say, out of one speaker?

Once again, this lends me to believe that the amateur scientists in audience can't measure properly.

Amateur scientists? That's a little ripe, Jeff. Here's why:

Hm... so we don't believe both the sensitivity rating (earlier post) and the pair matching? Well, I think they are almost certainly right for the sensitivity. This is no cowboy publication - it is Hi-Fi News - they have been measuring gear for years. It will be right. Period. Unless they made some sort of mistake. But they always say ML's sensititivty ratings are BS. So I think it will be right - it's in line with other models they have measured.

The pair matching does have a disclaimer - microphone positioning relative to the big panel may account for some of the discrepancy. But I think the implication behind this statement is "by no means all".

 

[Rich]

I think ML botched this entire affair, no one seems to be happy. Particularly the folks who bought Summits at the full retail price. Did I hear anyone say rebate?

What???? Where do you get this stuff? As an original Summit owner (at full price when I bought them), I am exceedingly happy. I have one of the best speakers in existence today, in my opinion. Is the Spire "better" than the Summit? Is the Summit X "better" than the Summit or Spire? Who knows? Who cares?

Define "better." The Spires have a somewhat clearer, cleaner lower midrange / upper bass, but don't have the low-end force or creative control over the low end frequency response that the Summits have. This was rectified supposedly with the Summit X's inclusion of the same crossover technology as the Spire. Ultimately, the Spires really need a sub to satisfy those with serious low-end needs, whereas the Summits don't really need a sub. Is one really "better" or more cost-effective than the other? I doubt it. And I, for one, don't really care.

I fully expect Martin Logan will continue to do what they have done for the past several decades and keep producing speakers that are incrementally better than the ones they produced before. That is not "botching" the affair. That is simply progress. If you are going to get upset every time a manufacturer upgrades a product, then maybe you shouldn't be an early adopter. As good as you think the Spire and the Summit X might sound, I promise you that ML is already designing the speakers that will replace them and which will sound incrementally "better" to the magazine pundits like Kessler.

If you are going to judge the worth of your system and the cost-effectiveness of each of your components based on what those guys say, then you will never be happy with your system. Period. If you have Summits, just enjoy them. If you don't, you should definitely consider purchasing some. They are a fantastic product.

 

[FISH_MAN]

I'm happy !!! and besides i know of not one savy shopper that has EVER paid MSRP for anything !

I got sucked into Tweeter upgrade game Vista>Vantage>Spire / cinema i > stage but hey tweeter sold me my clarity speakers for only $800 bucks out of their training room it was worth paying full price for my spires just to see the evil eye of envy from the tweeter employees as I told them "dolly those over to my truck its parked right over there its really to bad you guys won't get a chance to hear these lol". I really do not think I would have handed over the extra money for the summit X it would have been CLX or bust for me.but then I would need to put those into a separate room for a two channel system as I do not think even I could use them in a HT setup it just would not be right. just thinking about how my TT would sound hooked up to the CLX just makes the hairs on my back stand up! I have a feeling that a used market for those will be a long time in the making and perhaps not even at all.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Rich,

Thanks for your input. As always, a well reasoned, succint observation.

Gordon

 

[robertawillisjr]

What???? Where do you get this stuff? As an original Summit owner (at full price when I bought them), I am exceedingly happy. I have one of the best speakers in existence today, in my opinion. Is the Spire "better" than the Summit? Is the Summit X "better" than the Summit or Spire? Who knows? Who cares?

Define "better." The Spires have a somewhat clearer, cleaner lower midrange / upper bass, but don't have the low-end force or creative control over the low end frequency response that the Summits have. This was rectified supposedly with the Summit X's inclusion of the same crossover technology as the Spire. Ultimately, the Spires really need a sub to satisfy those with serious low-end needs, whereas the Summits don't really need a sub. Is one really "better" or more cost-effective than the other? I doubt it. And I, for one, don't really care.

I fully expect Martin Logan will continue to do what they have done for the past several decades and keep producing speakers that are incrementally better than the ones they produced before. That is not "botching" the affair. That is simply progress. If you are going to get upset every time a manufacturer upgrades a product, then maybe you shouldn't be an early adopter. As good as you think the Spire and the Summit X might sound, I promise you that ML is already designing the speakers that will replace them and which will sound incrementally "better" to the magazine pundits like Kessler.

If you are going to judge the worth of your system and the cost-effectiveness of each of your components based on what those guys say, then you will never be happy with your system. Period. If you have Summits, just enjoy them. If you don't, you should definitely consider purchasing some. They are a fantastic product.

As I said it is my opinion (and we all have one). ML botched the PR here and there are a good number of Summit owners who are very irate (just read the posts here). I didn't say that the products under discussion aren't fantastic (and not all ML speakers are fantastic). I merely said that whatever transpired with the release schedule was very much mishandled by ML. These things happen.

As per your definition of better. The advantages YOU give to the Spires are the same advantages that people in love with very high priced "bookshelf" speakers beg for. They aren't as interested in the lower end. Why is the CLS still such a popular speaker (many owners don't have subs)? Why is the CLX getting rave reviews. Bass is only part of the equation any to many people having that extra heft is not only not needed but not wanted.

I think that ML did a good thing by producing the Summit X (if they thought that the improvement was worth it). I just think that they did a very poor job of handling it. They botched it and the ramifications can even be seen in the used market for their speakers.

 

[FISH_MAN]

If you are going to judge the worth of your system and the cost-effectiveness of each of your components based on what those guys say, then you will never be happy with your system. Period.

somebody had to say it !

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Roberta,

I don't know if I would characterize the Summit owner's post as "irate".

Impassioned yes and that's a good thing as long as we keep things in perspective.

Underscoring what Rich said, I love my Summits as they've given me literally thousands of hours of enjoyment.

Rebate? Not for this guy.

Thanks to ML for all the great products and future products they will build.

GG

 

[FISH_MAN]

I still think logan should not have named the new product after an old one most of this could have been avoided with a new name. I mean they did not call my spires "chopped summits X" did they? but that's really what they are. or the Eco Summit

 

[tonepub]

Amateur scientists? That's a little ripe, Jeff. Here's why:

Hm... so we don't believe both the sensitivity rating (earlier post) and the pair matching? Well, I think they are almost certainly right for the sensitivity. This is no cowboy publication - it is Hi-Fi News - they have been measuring gear for years. It will be right. Period. Unless they made some sort of mistake. But they always say ML's sensititivty ratings are BS. So I think it will be right - it's in line with other models they have measured.

The pair matching does have a disclaimer - microphone positioning relative to the big panel may account for some of the discrepancy. But I think the implication behind this statement is "by no means all".

Well if we want to throw my amateur scientist perspective in the mix, I'm currently listening to a pair of Verity Audio Sarastro II's, which are claimed to have a sensitivity of 93.5 db.

Just sitting on my couch playing with a crapola Radio Shack sound level meter, playing a 1000hz test tone (how much more amateurish can I get)
With the meter on a tripod, so I'm not altering the position, I get a 2 db drop going from the Spire to the Sarastro.

Swapping speaker cables to the 86db Harbeth 40.1's revealed another 3db drop, which would suggest that perhaps the Harbeths are a little more efficient than they claim. But the difference in level on the same music between the ML's and the Harbeths, with everything else the same was pretty substantial.

Again, ML builds their stuff to a pretty tight spec, so I would think that if one measured almost a 4db diff between speakers, that one was either defective or damaged in shipping. At that point I would request another pair.

Most preamplifier mfrs try to keep a .1-.2db channel balance. If you had a 4 db channel imbalance, that would be pretty big cause for alarm. I can't imagine a high end speaker mfr on Earth that allows a 4db tolerance between production samples.

So that leads me to three conclusions:

1. The person making the measurements was not properly skilled

2. The test gear/methodology was flawed (leads back to #1)

3. The product is damaged or defective


That's my amateur scientist perspective and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Rich]

As I said it is my opinion (and we all have one).

I understand. 98% of what gets said on this or any other forum is user opinion. No problem with that. But what separates out relevant opinion from useless and even misleading opinion is the use (or lack thereof) of verifiable facts to support one's argument. You keep making the conclusory statement that ML somehow "botched" the introduction of the Spire and Summit X while giving very little in the way of actual fact to back it up.

ML botched the PR here and there are a good number of Summit owners who are very irate (just read the posts here).

There are quite a few Summit owners on this forum. How many of them have made "irate" posts about this issue? Very, very few. And just as many (like me and Gordon and others) have said we are very happy with our Summits and could care less about the way ML has introduced these newer products). There was a lot more consternation with ML over how long it took them to get the CLX into production than any of this petty bickering over the release of the Spire and Summit X.

Again, I just don't see any facts in your posts to show how ML really botched any PR here.

Bass is only part of the equation any to many people having that extra heft is not only not needed but not wanted.

That's fine. My point was simply that one could not be said to be objectively "better" than the other. They will simply appeal to different groups of people with different needs and preferences. I needed and wanted a deeper lower end and I have been quite happy with my Summits. The Vantages or Spires just wouldn't have done it for me. Not to say that I wouldn't prefer the Summit X to my Summits. But it doesn't decrease the value of my Summits (to me) to know that the Summit X is out there now.

I think that ML did a good thing by producing the Summit X (if they thought that the improvement was worth it). I just think that they did a very poor job of handling it. They botched it and the ramifications can even be seen in the used market for their speakers.

Again, please explain your reasoning and provide some facts to show what you mean by "they botched it". What ramifications in the used market are you referring to? Summits appear to be priced in the $6,000 range on the 'gon. I paid $10,000 for mine brand new, so they are at better than half their original retail value. Not bad in this market. Very similar to where the Prodigy was after the Summit came out. Nothing there that I can see that supports your perspective. Please enlighten me.