TDIMike
Well-known member
I tweeted ML about them. They replied with..."Will definitely be under 100k USD".
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You both are right. Thank's one big speaker. Look at the "depth".
Here's what Karmak the Magnificent thinks.
A full range 20 to 20 speaker, a super Summit on steroids with a large, amplified woofer(s) incorporating sophisticated, user adjustable DSP (microphone included), which will be called THE EVEREST. Price $55K.
I tweeted ML about them. They replied with..."Will definitely be under 100k USD".
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Martin Logan Monolith from 1984
$4850 in 1984 = about $13,600 today. In that sense, anything over about $25,000 for a Neolith is a joke, no?
Exactly! And if you compare them with the more recent Prodigy, the speaker which they resemble more than the Monolith, you get a similar valuation, as the Prodigy was more expensive than Monolith but it was more recent and inflation has been pretty tame since it was discontinued. Regardless, by any reasonable measure of past valuations, anything over $20 to $25 grand for these speakers is outrageous. Just another case of Shoreview trying to leverage the brand to maximize profits at the expense of a loyal customer base. Kind of like when they doubled prices on replacement panels. As much as I like this new speaker, part of me hopes this crazy price inflation comes back to bite them in the a$$.
I gave them the benefit of the doubt with the CLX, because of the bass panel R&D effort. But let's face it. This new speaker is nothing new technology-wise. It's just an upgraded Prodigy . . . at five to ten times the price of the Prodigy!
A sceptic would say most high end hi-fi is a rip off. In my opinion Vox Olympians are exactly that at £375K. I'd rather listen to the more exciting Neolith.
Rich - just at least hear it first!!
Really - I think a speaker should be priced according to how it sounds, as well as quality, construction, longevity, support, etc. But certainly not cost of manufacture.
If ML can produce a speaker that will command $100,000 (against the scrutiny of competition) for $500, then that's just good business in my opinion. Good luck to 'em.
And wasn't the move of production supposed to bring cost of manufacture down? Can you point out anything different and special about this speaker that would justify five to ten times the price of the prodigy? Because I'm missing it.
A sceptic would say most high end hi-fi is a rip off.
Lots of companies still provide excellent gear at reasonable prices. Roger Sanders is a prime example. For a similar price as the Summit X, his speaker comes with a high end external crossover and an excellent external amp to drive the bass module. Along with unparalleled customer service. And his speaker blows away the Summit X in the sweet spot.
The problem comes in when management just sees dollar signs and gets away from the concept of providing value for the money and building brand reputation the old fashioned way. The mantra becomes cut costs, increase marketing, and jack up the prices. And the customer gets less for more while the corporation profits. It's not peculiar to high end audio; we see it in everything. It's just a shame to see it happening to a company you love so much.
Most "normal" people would think that too.
IMO I am disappointed that so much of "hi-fi" is still trying to do everything electromechanically. We have good digital technology now.
A system like jonfo's with woofer tower (multiple drivers with low displacement for low distortion), active digital xo, and some PEQ or room correction is state of the art and based on good engineering principles.
Why waste money and mass bracing your panel when you can make the woofers separate, and now it isn't a problem?
Why waste money and mass making a 15" driver when you can get a servo-controlled Rythmik sub with lower distortion, lower freq extension, and better room response due to separate placement?
IMO, over-engineered in the wrong places.
The problem with perfect sound from only two speakers, Julian, is that the likelihood anyone will be able to place those two speakers so that they achieve not only ideal imaging, but ideal modal behavior is vanishingly small. Any two speaker, full-range setup will invariably be compromised, no matter how wondrous or expensive the design.You make a valid point, but a lot of people don't want separate woofer enclosures scattered about the room, they want perfect sound from 2 speakers. Given how difficult it is to accomplish that feat, a higher (I don't know how much higher) premium is justified, IMO.
The problem with perfect sound from only two speakers, Julian, is that the likelihood anyone will be able to place those two speakers so that they achieve not only ideal imaging, but ideal modal behavior is vanishingly small. Any two speaker, full-range setup will invariably be compromised, no matter how wondrous or expensive the design.
You make a valid point, but a lot of people don't want separate woofer enclosures scattered about the room, they want perfect sound from 2 speakers. Given how difficult it is to accomplish that feat, a higher (I don't know how much higher) premium is justified, IMO.
Rich, while your point regarding Roger is a good one , it's an 'apples to oranges' comparison with regard to M/L. God forbid something happens to Roger………..there goes your 'unparalleled' customer support !
Enter your email address to join: