Service Notice for Discontinued Products

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
You guys do realize of course that Martin Logan isn't required to do any of this right?


Agreed completely. But they said they would give warning so they should have done so. Stand by your words.

So, I have a Logos that could have done with a new panel but can't get it. With warning, I would have done a repanel - even if just for resale value. No loss of income to ML as they sold all that they had available.

Now I am wondering about my scripts and if/when/how much warning I'll get on those...
 
I understand that, David. And my point is that if I wanted to upgrade my legacy speakers rather than purchase new product, I would be willing to pay a premium to do so. Just as Justin was willing to pay Graz big bucks to restore his Apogees. For most audiophiles, it is worth the premium to restore their heirloom audio gear to like-new condition.

But the company telling me they no longer wish to support the products they sold just a few years ago leaves a sour taste in my mouth for that company. It tells me they no longer really care about their legacy and reputation in the high end community and that customer service is no longer one of their top priorities. That is not a company I am willing to spend a lot of money with.

The difference being of course that what you're asking is for Martin Logan to support the availability of those parts and assemblies. Graz is an aftermarket company that came into being after Apogee's demise. I honestly believe that someday there might be an aftermarket company to support Martin Logan legacy products. But I also believe that you'll pay significantly more than what you would have paid ML to repanel or replace (when available), because of the economies of scale associated.

I've mentioned before that I share a common vendor with Martin Logan (Diamond Perf). I recently had to create some prototypes of a product that are a simple deviation of one of our highest selling products. In my normal volume this part costs me about $16. This prototype however, because of it's one off nature, cost me nearly $800. Even in the smalll volume that this particular customer wanted (3500 pieces), my cost would have still been prohibative (roughly $48), especially given that the customer wanted me to hold my standard cost. We had to say no. By the time I factored my TCO my margin would have been less than 1%.

As much as I too would like Martin Logan to continue to support all of the products they have ever produced, that reality is that it simply doesn't make sense. If they did support something like an original Sequel it would make a few folks here happy, but if the cost to repanel them were closer to say $3500, would anyone here really pony up?
 
crap, i had typed a long answer, only to accidently delete it all.
I have to weigh in to react to some of the comments and shed some more light. Justin is very busy and has asked me to help when he is tied up on other aspects of his job. We do want to provide accurate answers so be patient as we work to get them.
This painful decision was reached internally, after analysis in the service department brought it to light. There is no grand conspiracy to keep all of our Porsches running, just the reality check of how to supply parts for dwindling demands versus the minimum orders required to get them. An example is the Quest panel, a unigue one, not used across many products. The minimum to order metal, as we do not punch that metal, would mean large dollars sitting for a very long time (lifetimes at current run rates) or, doing singles at a very prohibitive cost, resulting in ludicrous charges to the end user. Tough decision, but yes, as a business who has responsibilities to a huge customer base, employees and, of course, owners so these decisions have to be made. There have been some very painful comments made by some and that is your opinions, but we did not make the decision lightly. Yes, we have set some hard dates, but know that we are working on other methods of helping or minimizing impacts on those affected. The key is direct communicaiton with us. It is obvious that we will not be able to make all happy, but we have not done this to purposely hurt a small group of end users. We do have to be the most responsible to the last customer and so have set certain cutoffs to help them as they would have the shortest life span.
There is also some points to make about looking forward. As we have grown and diversified, we have tried to use more common parts, thus greatly increase the possibility service years down the road. Summit to Summit X, Spire is one example, where that metal will be around for years. The second is the efforts that have been made over the years to improve the longevity of the panels so replacements may not be needed in any kind of practical window. Edge bonding materials, dielectric coatings, bias strip changes for less environmental impacts, spars, methods of manufacturing have all greatly increased reliability versus many of the old legacy methods.
Now some of you believe that we are moving head long into midfi. I am sorry, but I love the Motion goods and they have been well recieved for the performance/value so are real ML products. At CES, we will have 3 new stats with two aimed at our high end line as know that we are working on more extreme items down the road so I don't see us going away from the high end.
Again, communication folks.
 
Let's not shoot the messenger, guys. As an official ML rep, Justin has to ensure that what he says is as accurate as possible, and that might mean delays in answering direct questions while he seeks the correct answer and/or permission to post it.

After reading this thread, I hope the CEO takes your advice Rich!
 
Point well taken Lance. I don't disagree that there could have and likely should have been some more timely communication.

You guys do realize of course that Martin Logan isn't required to do any of this right?

If they are on this board, they are required. Not by law, but out of decent courtesy. It would be immoral to be a member of this board and keep your mouth shut about this topic.


I also wanted to add that 3 weeks notice may as well be no notice at all to many who are regular member of this forum. As a member for 6 years, I'll be visiting the forum every day for months, and then stop for months, and then get back on for months. I never heard about the notice (with no deadline) that came out months ago.

I just started getting back on these boards but if I didn't, i could have missed the notice. (Luckily I called the day this notice came out, about the notice, w/o even knowing it came out!)
 
You guys do realize of course that Martin Logan isn't required to do any of this right?

You're still not getting it! No, they're not required to do it, but they're most certainly expected to do it!

See the difference?

Martin Logan is not "required" to build a speaker that sounds any better than a Sony or Pioneer either. But for the money we pay, we damn straight expect them to sound a whole lot better than jap-crap.

Likewise relating to the extension of customer service and support of old models. And particularly relating to a consumable component.
 
Last edited:
take up to 6 months to build/deliver them

But I thought.........and I quote.......

-justin- said:
"lack of availability of specific proprietary parts and raw materials

and again.....

-justin- said:
"for which we can no longer purchase parts and, therefore, will not be able to provide service"

How then, can they be built after present day?
 
Last edited:
So, Who's here is pi**ed because the ink wasn't dry yet on the check?
 
But I thought.........and I quote.......

and again.....

How then, can they be built after present day?

I'm not sure what you're asking here? But I'll take a guess. They can build them because there's enough raw materials left IN STOCK to take order for the next three weeks and build what they need to build from those orders. The actual time it will take to build will depend on how many man hours they can dedicate to it.

Is that what you're asking? :confused:

~J
 
The difference being of course that what you're asking is for Martin Logan to support the availability of those parts and assemblies.

. . .

As much as I too would like Martin Logan to continue to support all of the products they have ever produced, that reality is that it simply doesn't make sense.

Why does it not make sense for Martin Logan, when it does make sense for Soundlabs, Magnepan, Sanders Sound, Conrad Johnson, Audio Research, etc., etc.? Those of you willing to give ML a bye on this issue haven't seriously addressed that question.
 
But I thought.........and I quote.......



and again.....



How then, can they be built after present day?

because the stat panel builder is responsible for more than just stat building.

because he is not full time building of stat panels, it takes time for the stat panels to be built. such is life. they have parts for X more pairs of panels. the time to build all X pairs of panels is apparently six months.

now guys and gals, take a minute to consider that ML does not appear to have a full time stat panel builder. consider it carefully.
 
An example is the Quest panel, a unigue one, not used across many products. The minimum to order metal, as we do not punch that metal, would mean large dollars sitting for a very long time (lifetimes at current run rates) or, doing singles at a very prohibitive cost, resulting in ludicrous charges to the end user.

Peter, isn't it the mylar that actually needs replacing when a panel goes bad, rather than the metal grills? So why should you have to order new metal and provide a completely new panel vs. refurbishing the customer's existing panel with new mylar? Wouldn't it be quite easy to have the customer ship their expired panels back to ML, have you take them apart, clean them up, and replace the mylar, and then ship them back to the customer, charging a reasonable fee for the labor and materials involved? Please explain to me why that isn't considered an option.
 
because the stat panel builder is responsible for more than just stat building.

because he is not full time building of stat panels, it takes time for the stat panels to be built. such is life. they have parts for X more pairs of panels. the time to build all X pairs of panels is apparently six months.

now guys and gals, take a minute to consider that ML does not appear to have a full time stat panel builder. consider it carefully.

Actually, I think it is more complicated than that. I am guessing that the new models are now being produced full-time at the Paradigm factory in Canada, and those employees are now trained and making stat panels for all those models. But the legacy support is still coming out of the old factory in Kansas, and I am guessing that they fired most of those production workers, so only have a few experienced hands available to build legacy stat panels. Of course, this is all conjecture on my part.
 
Peter, isn't it the mylar that actually needs replacing when a panel goes bad, rather than the metal grills? So why should you have to order new metal and provide a completely new panel vs. refurbishing the customer's existing panel with new mylar? Wouldn't it be quite easy to have the customer ship their expired panels back to ML, have you take them apart, clean them up, and replace the mylar, and then ship them back to the customer, charging a reasonable fee for the labor and materials involved? Please explain to me why that isn't considered an option.

Wow, got a FAST response to that one, apparently that was an easy question. Here's the answer:

"Once the metal is pried apart, you can not get it to go back the same shape as it once was, which is crucial. Plus the pressure sensitive tape used in the stators is impossible to get apart once it has been put together. It would be VERY time consuming to try and rework an old stator, and the potential for failure is very very high."
 
Quit shooting the duck that can feed you ! Your lucky that You were notified at all. When does it call for any company to tell you they are gonna quit servicing parts for obsolete models and give a warning. I THANK YOU JUSTIN for the heads up.

I just ordered mine !
 
Wow, got a FAST response to that one, apparently that was an easy question. Here's the answer:

"Once the metal is pried apart, you can not get it to go back the same shape as it once was, which is crucial. Plus the pressure sensitive tape used in the stators is impossible to get apart once it has been put together. It would be VERY time consuming to try and rework an old stator, and the potential for failure is very very high."

I don't really find that answer believable, especially since I know that several members of this forum have themselves done just that (and even recoated the mylar sheet with conductive coating themselves). Here is just one example:
http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7424

So I find it hard to believe that forum members can DIY a panel rebuild and make it work, but the company that originally manufactured the panel can't pry it apart, scrape off the sticky tape, mold the panel back to shape if it got bent, put on some new tape and mylar, and then press it back together.
 
I don't really find that answer believable...

So I find it hard to believe that forum members can DIY a panel rebuild and make it work, but the company that originally manufactured the panel can't pry it apart, scrape off the sticky tape, mold the panel back to shape if it got bent, put on some new tape and mylar, and then press it back together.

Oh you make it sound SO easy! Would you like to come work for our service department?? I'm sure you'd be a welcome addition! :D

Believe it Rich, or not...either way it's the truth from the people that service these panels day-in and day-out, so take that for whatever it's worth.

~J
 
Oh you make it sound SO easy! Would you like to come work for our service department?? I'm sure you'd be a welcome addition! :D

Hmmmm? Would I be based in Kansas . . . or have to emigrate to Canada? ;)

Seriously, though, how much more difficult could it be? I've seen the production team putting these together, and it takes some skill, but it's not rocket science. Taking them apart should require little more than some heat or a solvent bath. And if DIY guys can do it at home, I have a hard time believing Martin Logan's skilled support staff can't do it in the factory.

Believe it Rich, or not...either way it's the truth from the people that service these panels day-in and day-out, so take that for whatever it's worth.

~J

I understand you believe it's the truth. To me it sounds like a flimsy excuse from a company that is trying to find ways to cut costs. But of course, that's just my perspective.
 
You're still not getting it! No, they're not required to do it, but they're most certainly expected to do it!

See the difference?

Martin Logan is not "required" to build a speaker that sounds any better than a Sony or Pioneer either. But for the money we pay, we damn straight expect them to sound a whole lot better than jap-crap.

Likewise relating to the extension of customer service and support of old models. And particularly relating to a consumable component.

Actually, I think I get it better than most folks here because I live it every day, granted in a different line of business, but certainly dealing with the same issues. The only people who Expect them to do it are the ones who are angry about it here, and I promise you that you are in the minority. The fact that Justin and Peter are brave enough to face the lions here at all is a testament to the fact that they do care. They don't even have to do that. Remember that this board has absolutely no affiliation to Martin Logan. They reached out to Tom and elected to participate.

What has some folks up in arms is that they aren't getting the answers they want to hear without ever considering what it might actually take to appease them in the real world. Things do wear out, be they dynamic loudspeakers, stats, amps, CD players etc. Nothing is permanent. I can't get a battery for my 2 year old state of the art cell phone, at least not from Palm. I can't get a chuck for my 7 year old cordless drill from Craftsman. Try and find a 7 speed rear cluster for your 10 year old mountain bike. It can't be done, you need to go get a new 9 speed cluster, and you better pick up a new derrailuer and crankset while you're at it. Time marches forward guys.

I get that our speakers are a boutique item, that they cost a lot more and that we should expect a high level of service. I believe we've all received that. Where I differ from some of you is that I don't expect any company to deliver that ad infinitum because I understand the cost constraints associated with it when your talking about a publicly held $50M+ level business. Believe it or not, it is actually easier to accomodate if you are a privately held $15-20M business. I can go into the economics if you want, but it isn't terribly interesting.
 
Where I differ from some of you is that I don't expect any company to deliver that ad infinitum because I understand the cost constraints associated with it when your talking about a publicly held $50M+ level business. Believe it or not, it is actually easier to accomodate if you are a privately held $15-20M business. I can go into the economics if you want, but it isn't terribly interesting.

I can't speak toward their gross sales, because they don't publish those figures, but I can assure you Tim that Martin Logan is still a privately held company, not a public company. Shoreview Industries is a private investment firm.

Your argument still avoids addressing the question I asked earlier:

Why does it not make sense for Martin Logan, when it does make sense for Soundlabs, Magnepan, Sanders Sound, Conrad Johnson, Audio Research, etc., etc.? Those of you willing to give ML a bye on this issue haven't seriously addressed that question.
 
Back
Top