Tonight I spent some time listening to my Ascents and Summits and I have to admit that the olders logans may have more of a "midrange sparkle" (once again, trying to find words to describe sound in detail) than the Summits. However, I'm going to do some more tuning on the Summits such as gradually turn down the bass levels and see if that helps the midrange become more pronounced. It's just so easy to over do the bass on the Summits. One thing nice about the Summits is that they have some tuning capability.
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Joey_V
Well-known member
Craig said:
Balance is one thing, sparkle is another. You may be looking for something that just isnt there, Craig.
I know very well about this *sparkle* you talk about.... it comes at the cost of balance.
K
kid4lyf
Guest
Maple trim.Craig said:
Thanks.
I have a sub I use for HT only.TablaPlayer said:
Wasn't planning on running one in 2 channel system. Most subs seem to have a hard time keeping up with statics.
Last edited:
Anthony A.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2005
- Messages
- 125
- Reaction score
- 0
along comes another hater....
no seriously, i recently listened to the summits at a dealer for a long time and thought they sounded quite forward, with excellent bass, but i excused their lack of intimacy based on the components powering them. but now im not so sure it was the equipment, as others here share my same feelings. i would assume however, that the center channel would far better as a more forward presentation is what you need to hear dialog accurately. anyways, i love my ascent i's and won't change them. cheers!!!!
no seriously, i recently listened to the summits at a dealer for a long time and thought they sounded quite forward, with excellent bass, but i excused their lack of intimacy based on the components powering them. but now im not so sure it was the equipment, as others here share my same feelings. i would assume however, that the center channel would far better as a more forward presentation is what you need to hear dialog accurately. anyways, i love my ascent i's and won't change them. cheers!!!!
Joey_V
Well-known member
Anthony A. said:
What do you mean by "lack of intimacy"?
If you mean its treble is more forward and so the midrange doesnt take as much precedence as they did in the 2nd gens, then yeah. But then again, keeping the soundstage deep and extending the vocal reach up front is another trait of the Summits... precise positioning and awesome vocal extension from the fundamental tones to the harmonic tones are what it's about.
The Summits remind very much so of the BW800D and 802D in terms of presentation, with obvious transparency leaning towards the Summits. These sets of speakers push the performers forward without needless fatigue and keeps the midrange (instrumental) in balance without particular favor.
Last edited:
jmschnur
Well-known member
replacing Clarity with Vantage
After 4 months of break in , tweaking, and listening I have decided to take up Tweeter's offer of full credit for the Clarity and move up to the Vantage. My reasons for this have to do with mid to low bass.
My sub woofer is an older HSU 1225 which does not keep up well with the panels. When I try to get the Clarity's to work in the 80-40 hz I get the same effects; a double bass note gives a picking of the string before the thump of the bass is heard.
This was not a problem for HT use but is apparent in critical listening to music-e.g. Jazz and classical quartets. The Manhatten Quartets renditions of Shoshtikovich quartets are a good example of this as is Ron Carter in several cuts of his.
After tweeking and "break in" I got the mid range and highs to be very very good with fine depth and localization. The Clarity's are fine speakers. However given that I would not "lose" any $ on the exchange I went for the upgrade.
Summitts would never fit in my HT (now music room 12.5'x14.5'x8') and after serious thinking and calculations I can get the Vantages ~2.5' from the side walls and 3-4' from the front walls so all should work out.
The comments on the Grotto versus the Vantage were very useful. The Grotto sounds like a great speaker. I did not go that route becuase (1) I would not have gotten the credit on it at Tweeter and (2) it would have been much more difficult to fit in my HT/Music room.
Joel
After 4 months of break in , tweaking, and listening I have decided to take up Tweeter's offer of full credit for the Clarity and move up to the Vantage. My reasons for this have to do with mid to low bass.
My sub woofer is an older HSU 1225 which does not keep up well with the panels. When I try to get the Clarity's to work in the 80-40 hz I get the same effects; a double bass note gives a picking of the string before the thump of the bass is heard.
This was not a problem for HT use but is apparent in critical listening to music-e.g. Jazz and classical quartets. The Manhatten Quartets renditions of Shoshtikovich quartets are a good example of this as is Ron Carter in several cuts of his.
After tweeking and "break in" I got the mid range and highs to be very very good with fine depth and localization. The Clarity's are fine speakers. However given that I would not "lose" any $ on the exchange I went for the upgrade.
Summitts would never fit in my HT (now music room 12.5'x14.5'x8') and after serious thinking and calculations I can get the Vantages ~2.5' from the side walls and 3-4' from the front walls so all should work out.
The comments on the Grotto versus the Vantage were very useful. The Grotto sounds like a great speaker. I did not go that route becuase (1) I would not have gotten the credit on it at Tweeter and (2) it would have been much more difficult to fit in my HT/Music room.
Joel
Review of Martin Logan Vantage
I would like to give a brief review of the Vantages. It is quite difficult to find a dealer who properly showcases Martin Logan. The fellow I visited no longer sells retail. He specializes in high end cutom installations, but still is supportive of his old retail clients.
The Vantages were fully broken in and were used in conjunction with Conrad Johnson tube electonics.
I currently own a pair of Aeon I speakers with a depth sub-woofer.
My impressions are as follows:
These speakers were quite enjoyable. I went with my wife to listen and we both agreed that the speakers draw you into the music. From top to bottom the sound was quite well blended and distributed.
I have heard some comments that the midrange was rather lacking in the Vantges. I don't think that this point is quite accurate. It seems that the Aeon's were a bit more midrange forward. The Vangate paid equal attention to the entire range of music with no specific section over-emphasized.
In addition the Aeon's were a bit congested when the music became more complex. The Vantages handled all types of music with ease. From my 70's style symphonic progressive music to light jazz.
The powered woofer in the Vantage was a significant upgrade over the Aeon. If I purchase a pair, I will keep the depth subwoofer. My friend told me that they will provide additional presence to the music that rounds out the low end.
In addition the horizontal disperson was much better than with the Aeon I. You no longer need to sit dead center to enjoy the speakers. You are still limited in where you can sit to obtain the best sound, the spread is certainly improved.
I am not an engineer or technical wizard and I don't measure speakers, but there was a wholistic charm of these speakers that seems to address many of the complaints I have heard (and have had) about electrostatic speakers.
I look forward to upgrading from the Aeon's to the Vantages when possible.
Hope this was helpful.
Mike
I would like to give a brief review of the Vantages. It is quite difficult to find a dealer who properly showcases Martin Logan. The fellow I visited no longer sells retail. He specializes in high end cutom installations, but still is supportive of his old retail clients.
The Vantages were fully broken in and were used in conjunction with Conrad Johnson tube electonics.
I currently own a pair of Aeon I speakers with a depth sub-woofer.
My impressions are as follows:
These speakers were quite enjoyable. I went with my wife to listen and we both agreed that the speakers draw you into the music. From top to bottom the sound was quite well blended and distributed.
I have heard some comments that the midrange was rather lacking in the Vantges. I don't think that this point is quite accurate. It seems that the Aeon's were a bit more midrange forward. The Vangate paid equal attention to the entire range of music with no specific section over-emphasized.
In addition the Aeon's were a bit congested when the music became more complex. The Vantages handled all types of music with ease. From my 70's style symphonic progressive music to light jazz.
The powered woofer in the Vantage was a significant upgrade over the Aeon. If I purchase a pair, I will keep the depth subwoofer. My friend told me that they will provide additional presence to the music that rounds out the low end.
In addition the horizontal disperson was much better than with the Aeon I. You no longer need to sit dead center to enjoy the speakers. You are still limited in where you can sit to obtain the best sound, the spread is certainly improved.
I am not an engineer or technical wizard and I don't measure speakers, but there was a wholistic charm of these speakers that seems to address many of the complaints I have heard (and have had) about electrostatic speakers.
I look forward to upgrading from the Aeon's to the Vantages when possible.
Hope this was helpful.
Mike
Joey_V
Well-known member
congers said:
Mike,
I completely agree with your synopsis. The Vantage/Summits do not give outward preference to any frequency band (midrange or not) and this is what gives them the edge of being more balanced and allows for a more cohesive and uncongested performance even during complex passages.
You hit on the head when you mentioned about the midrange preference given by the Aeon. That's exactly what I think.
Enjoy the Vantages... whenever you move up to them. They are worth it.
Joey
