ML Production moving

[Rich]

I wonder what the exact panel size difference is between the prodigy and the summit? there is more hole than there is stator on the newer generation where when you look at the older ones it seems to be more stator than hole.I would like to compare directly the panel size and then factor in the real efficiency difference. you may find that the newer panels are actually bigger than the old I would like to know this.does anybody have the actual specs?

The Prodigy panel is about 16" wide by 48" tall; the Summit is about 12" wide by 44" tall. I'm not sure how you could get comparison figures for their efficiency ratings. I am also not convinced that efficiency of the ESL panel tells the whole story. It may be that the larger panel of the Prodigy is more capable of tonal depth at certain frequencies (i.e. lower midrange) than the Summit, regardless of overall efficiency. Or it may be that the Prodigy just produced a midrange hump that many of us find appealing, whereas the Summit is more neutral overall.

 

[MPS]

I wonder what the exact panel size difference is between the prodigy and the summit? there is more hole than there is stator on the newer generation where when you look at the older ones it seems to be more stator than hole.I would like to compare directly the panel size and then factor in the real efficiency difference. you may find that the newer panels are actually bigger than the old I would like to know this.does anybody have the actual specs?

The real difference between old and new generation panel is the stator/hole-ratio. This I belive has resulted in increased effiency. This has nothing to do with panel dimensions which result into directionality/frequency ratio and affects the lowest usable crossover frequency. Different effiency prohibits the use of new generation panel as replacement in older speakers without changes in XO and/or HV-transformer.
I dont think ML has any interest in manufacturing new desing panels for older generation speakers as it would require other changes as well and careful consideration of strip placements to create resonance behaviour equal to that of original panel. Older panels may cease to be available as materials and manufacturing amounts go low.
This has got nothing to do with moving manufacturing to different location. It is a totally independent decision weather or not to continue support. ML could even continue manufacturing spares at original production site if they wanted, it's all up to management. Who knows if current staff (to be unemployed?) will continue manufacturing ELS? (it wont then be ML, obvoiusly)

 

[Horchem1972]

There is only a 20hz differance in the crossover frequency but the slopes could be completely differant.If you listen to the CLS,Monolith's,or Prodigy speakers the soundstage is alot larger than the newer generation.No matter what size the holes are you cannot completely overcome the differance a larger panel makes.Not producing the older panels has nothing to do with the cost but to try and get people to buy the new product.I personally will not shell out $6000 for the newer models because I personally prefer the older generation or legacy models.They have already gone from $900 to $1500 to cover what they said was the extra cost.How much more milk do they wish to squeeze out of the cow.

 

[robertawillisjr]

Come on guys. Everything must come to an end. Those of us who have older models (for whatever reason) need to realize that ML can't continue to offer panels, etc, no matter how we would like them to. There just isn't any money in it because there just aren't many of us. I know some electronic companies still service their amps and preamps, but an amp is not a panel. You can get most parts from suppliers; you can't do the same for a panel.

So perhaps it is time to move on. If you don't like the new ones (for whatever reason) move on. I am sure there is a speaker out there that you can come to know and love just like your CLS or Quest or SL3.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Robert,

Here's an idea to address this issue.

Maybe ML can make, say 100 replacement panels for each legacy model and store them in Lawrence.

Once the remaining stock reaches a certain point, ML can post on their website to alert all users that the panel replacement option is coming to an end.

First come, first serve after that point is reached.

GG

 

[MOON]

Come on guys. Everything must come to an end. Those of us who have older models (for whatever reason) need to realize that ML can't continue to offer panels, etc, no matter how we would like them to. There just isn't any money in it because there just aren't many of us. I know some electronic companies still service their amps and preamps, but an amp is not a panel. You can get most parts from suppliers; you can't do the same for a panel.

I would disagree with you on this. There are a lot of owners of older Martin Logan products. Since they have raised the price of replacement panels for all models by 100%, ML is surely making money. Don't kid yourself.

 

[amey01]

Everything must come to an end............

............So perhaps it is time to move on. .

How the heck can you say this? Just throw a perfectly servicable HIGH END and very expensive speaker in the rubbish?

You've got to be kidding!! What an extraordinary waste! That's criminal.

We're not talking computers here. Next thing ML will be like Microsoft with thier "Support life cycle", A.K.A. "Planned obsolesence roadmap". F*ck that!

Not to mention the wicked effect all of this mentality has on our environment.

 

[robertawillisjr]

I would disagree with you on this. There are a lot of owners of older Martin Logan products. Since they have raised the price of replacement panels for all models by 100%, ML is surely making money. Don't kid yourself.

Well the number of owners is relative; their newer inexpensive models may have already sold enough to make it insignificant. It would be nice to see how many of us there are as opposed to sales of the newer "cheaper" models.

I would also like to know how much it takes MLto make a panel and what the profit margin really is.

 

[robertawillisjr]

How the heck can you say this? Just throw a perfectly servicable HIGH END and very expensive speaker in the rubbish?

You've got to be kidding!! What an extraordinary waste! That's criminal.

We're not talking computers here. Next thing ML will be like Microsoft with thier "Support life cycle", A.K.A. "Planned obsolesence roadmap". F*ck that!

Not to mention the wicked effect all of this mentality has on our environment.

I said nothing about throwing anything away and 20 years + is not planned obsolesence. There are lots of high end speakers that are no longer supported by their manufacturers. The owners find a way to keep them, if they want to. There are high end parts that are no longer supported by the manufacturer and if there is a market, someone takes over.

Pragmatically, we can't expect ML to continue making panels for older speakers. We have become "spoiled" by ML's excellent service and loyalty to its customers. But all things come to an end.

 

[Sambob2]

Robert,

Here's an idea to address this issue.

Maybe ML can make, say 100 replacement panels for each legacy model and store them in Lawrence.

Once the remaining stock reaches a certain point, ML can post on their website to alert all users that the panel replacement option is coming to an end.

First come, first serve after that point is reached.

GG

HERE! HERE! That's what I'm talking about!

My ReQuests are going on 11 years later this year and I am not in the market for new ESL's at this time or for the next 5 or more years! Knowing when a NOS (new old stock) reserve stock is going to be depleted would be perfect.

 

[adanny]

First production, now hockey ...

...With MartinLogan jobs going first, and now the hockey gold And you may barely have noticed that Canada also has more golds than the US. Clearly, US super power days are over, but more importantly...
...Canada ....just....might....be.....the.....new....(gasp)....China.....

 

[adanny]

I said nothing about throwing anything away and 20 years + is not planned obsolesence. There are lots of high end speakers that are no longer supported by their manufacturers. The owners find a way to keep them, if they want to. There are high end parts that are no longer supported by the manufacturer and if there is a market, someone takes over.

Pragmatically, we can't expect ML to continue making panels for older speakers. We have become "spoiled" by ML's excellent service and loyalty to its customers. But all things come to an end.

I am of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, ML has made promises (albeit by a previous owner) about supporting future panel replacements. Also, they have set a truly admirable customer service standard that has attracted many newbies, delighted many veterans and spoilt all of us. It has been part of the ML experience. if that changes, feelings will be hurt.

Equally importantly, the notion of discarding anything so significant as a loved, high end speaker when it appears to be functioning in most aspects is basically nauseating. Its the same reason my wife and I always share an entree at restaurants these days - waste nauseates us, and it ain't about the money.

On the other hand, I have empathy for the burden that this support might be on ML. How profitable/unprofitable is manufacture of obsolete panels? Given the already low volumes in high end, chances are that older panels are pretty unprofitable, and an irritant - but thats the price of promises. And the price of espousing a technology that has a 10-yr shelf life ynless replaced.

Would I rather see them go under, than support old panels? Obviously not.

If this is not a significant burden for ML, I would strongly encourage them to continue supporting older panels - and frankly, make a big deal about it. Its a responsible, customer friendly strategy and they should get credit for it. Looking at just the margins, and not the long term effect, would be short sighted

if this is a significant burden for them, i would encourage them to look at other ways to support older panels. Maybe they should encourage and support the 12 laid off people to start a company that makes older panels. Maybe they should train and license Graz et al to take on the challenge of supporting these panels as well.

More i think about it, I sort of like the second idea. There are many entrepreneurs with greater passion and lower cost to operate that could support older panels than ML itself. They would enjoy it more, and have a greater chance to make money of them.

 

[User211]

I'm really liking some of the more recent posts in this thread concerning panel size. It is truly cutting through some of the BS associated with smaller panels + more holes = bigger panel. It doesn't.

The older models not only had bigger panels, but they were mounted higher, resulting in much more imposing speakers which throw a sound with greater scale and presence.

But as I have said before, DO NOT WORRY too much about the panels - if ML stops the supply, someone WILL step in with an alternative. It'd be a good setup company for an ex-ML employee or two, should they ever get made redundant

It's possible all models won't get covered, though. I don't deny that. Nothing lasts forever. It is part of the risk of buying something in the first place.

 

[User211]

if this is a significant burden for them, i would encourage them to look at other ways to support older panels. Maybe they should encourage and support the 12 laid off people to start a company that makes older panels. Maybe they should train and license Graz et al to take on the challenge of supporting these panels as well.

More i think about it, I sort of like the second idea. There are many entrepreneurs with greater passion and lower cost to operate that could support older panels than ML itself. They would enjoy it more, and have a greater chance to make money of them.

we both just made the same point within minutes....

Here's a thought - the non-ML panels might even be better

 

[amey01]

I said nothing about throwing anything away

Well, the panels are a consumable. If there is no panel supply, then - sooner or later - throwing away is all they're good for.

 

[amey01]

It is part of the risk of buying something in the first place.

Risk, yes - but calculated risk. There were ES manufacturers I didn't even consider because of my calculated risk. Funnily enough, Final was one of them. Didn't even audition them. Didn't care how they sounded because I didn't trust that Final would be there tomorrow.

ML on the other hand - I knew the comany, I knew how long they had been around, and I knew their reputation for supporting products. Now this is being threatened.

 

[Rich]

Come on guys. Everything must come to an end. Those of us who have older models (for whatever reason) need to realize that ML can't continue to offer panels, etc, no matter how we would like them to.

What? Of course they can. That is ridiculous to say they "can't!" They are making a conscious choice not to. That is very different from "can't." Soundlab can. Magnepan can. Why can't ML?

There just isn't any money in it because there just aren't many of us.

No money in it? You have just about a guaranteed sale of at least one replacement panel for every pair of speakers you have ever sold. How can there be no money in that? The real money is made on the front end, anyway because of their reputation. One of the reasons ML gets so many repeat sales is because of their stellar customer service. If ML gets the reputation for not supporting their customers on a long-term basis, then used prices will drop off a cliff, and people will desert their high end models in droves. In other words, if people know these very expensive speakers will become defunct and worthless in ten or twenty years, they are going to move on to a manufacturer who they can trust to support their speakers. Like Soundlab, or Quad, or Magnepan . . . the list goes on.

And how much can it cost them, really? The metal stators are preformed from someone else. They just cut them to size and coat them. The mylar is the same as in their newer models. So is the double-sided sticky tape. The materials are very simple and easy to obtain. And for what they charge for them, they make a handsome profit off each pair sold.

I know some electronic companies still service their amps and preamps, but an amp is not a panel. You can get most parts from suppliers; you can't do the same for a panel.

As I said above, the parts for the panels are very basic. It is much easier for ML to support these panels than it is for an electronics manufacturer to support their electronics, which contain thousands of parts, including tubes that may be hard to source. I mean, really, what is so hard to source? The metal stator material is easy to get. The mylar is no different than what they are already using. The tape is no different. What else is there? Besides, the new facility they are moving to manufactures all the drivers for Paradigm in house. You are telling me they can make woofers and tweeters, but they can't form a couple of metal stators and affix them around a sheet of mylar? Give me a break.

So perhaps it is time to move on. If you don't like the new ones (for whatever reason) move on. I am sure there is a speaker out there that you can come to know and love just like your CLS or Quest or SL3.

This is exactly what I expect will happen. People will move on to a different manufacturer because they will know they can no longer rely on ML to support their products. And they will tell their friends that this isn't the same company and they should look elsewhere for their high end gear. And little by little, sales of new products, particularly the expensive stuff, will dry up. Most folks on this forum do not just have one pair of speakers from this company. I personally have nine different speakers from ML. These types of repeat purchases are going to dry up if people can't trust the company to support their products long term. Why on earth would I spend twenty large on a pair of CLX knowing they will be rubbish at some point in the future?

Now having said all that, I do think Justin is right and someone else will probably step up to the plate and refurbish old MLs. And it really wouldn't be that hard for some of the DIY guys to do it themselves. But I still think the hit to MLs reputation from this decision is likely to be a big one. I know I'm not likely to buy another pair if they don't have some fair and reasonable replacement panel policy in place.

 

[Jungle Jack]

Hello,
As usual, I completely agree with Rich. The ability to restore to like new performance of a Legacy Pair of Martin Logans was always thought to be a given. This is the reason there is strong resale value for older Models.

The idea that ML will no longer offer Replacement Panels for Legacy Models goes against everything the Company used to represent.
Cheers,
ML

 

[adanny]

Well the number of owners is relative; their newer inexpensive models may have already sold enough to make it insignificant. It would be nice to see how many of us there are as opposed to sales of the newer "cheaper" models.

I would also like to know how much it takes MLto make a panel and what the profit margin really is.

Rarely do consumers ever know that about any of the products they buy. We only know it about products where we are the manufacturers/executives and we pray our customers never find out

Rich has posted some detail indicating that cost to manufacture may not be that high. I tend to buy that logic. However, the irritation factor cant be ignored. They may be making as few as 10 of some old panels. They have to pause the regular flow of work to make those. Or make them in a batch, but then hold them in inventory for a while. Who knows....In any event, this appears ideally placed for a smaller scale entrepreneur to take over, ideally on license from ML. Maybe Rich

One of my acquaintances who is an industry insiders told me that high-end is a strange industry. Cost to manufacture is very little so gross margins are typically very high. 80-90% high. Higher for cones. Dealer margins are also very high. again, as much as 30-50% of the product retail cost. But does everyone in the chain make a ton? No. Because of volumes. So dealers make an apparent boat load per product sold but struggle to pay rent or buy personal porsches etc because of the low volumes.

Very few consumers have ultimately got convinced that audio is a desired luxury item where its ok to pay as much as a porsche, much less a Ferrari. Some got convinced about that for HT. But far fewer for audio

Thats the challenge of this industry, besides ridiculous fragmentation

 

[adanny]

we both just made the same point within minutes....

Here's a thought - the non-ML panels might even be better

Ha-ha! Maybe we get a meeting going between you, Graz, me and Rich. I will have zero value to add to that illustrious group but I could be your guys groupie