Service Notice for Discontinued Products

[Brad225]

This topic has been debated over and over and over with no one seeming to change their feelings about ML. We all know how everyone feels.

You can either choose to keep your ML's and update parts or products or move on. That is choice is yours.

Whether ML had an obligation to inform you of their decisions ahead of time is certainly not a requirment. More time would have been nice but .......

Stay or leave ML but, as far as products being eliminated the horse is dead put the stick down.

 

[Len44]

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.

So, I saw the answer provided by Justin / ML... BUT, if ML could somehow figure out how to do this (given advanced / newer techniques, etc, to not damage / alter the shape of the panels, time reduction, and so forth), THEN ML could pretty much provide LIFETIME support for ALL (or nearly all) of their speakers.

Perhaps this could at least be given an fair and honest evaluation? Think of the reputation that Martin-Logan would then enjoy!

Not to mention the significant reduction in angst among the ML faithful (but concerned) on this forum and elsewhere. Just think about it!

 

[shakham]

This topic has been debated over and over and over with no one seeming to change their feelings about ML. We all know how everyone feels.

You can either choose to keep your ML's and update parts or products or move on. That is choice is yours.

Whether ML had an obligation to inform you of their decisions ahead of time is certainly not a requirment. More time would have been nice but .......

Stay or leave ML but, as far as products being eliminated the horse is dead put the stick down.

Funny you said that .

 

[zaphod]

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.

When a company representative promises that they will give a heads up I should be able to trust them at their word.

 

[Rich]

This topic has been debated over and over and over with no one seeming to change their feelings about ML. We all know how everyone feels.

You can either choose to keep your ML's and update parts or products or move on. That is choice is yours.

Whether ML had an obligation to inform you of their decisions ahead of time is certainly not a requirment. More time would have been nice but .......

Stay or leave ML but, as far as products being eliminated the horse is dead put the stick down.

I'm sorry. I must have mistaken this board for a public forum. One where people actually discuss things related to Martin Logan speakers. Silly me.

So it is fine to go on and on ad infinitum about whether silver cables sound better than copper cables, or whether some cheap receiver will be sufficient to power my Martin Logan speakers . . . but not to discuss our dissatisfaction with the current direction of Martin Logan managerial decisions?

Sorry to be so sarcastic, but it always amazes me how many people on this forum try to tell others to shut up anytime they start expressing some dissatisfaction with the direction Martin Logan is taking. If you have an opinion, state it. That's fine. But don't try to tell others they are not allowed to discuss it just because you don't want to hear what they have to say. Is this a public forum, or is it just a fan page for Martin Logan?

 

[MiTT]

I'm sorry. I must have mistaken this board for a public forum. One where people actually discuss things related to Martin Logan speakers. Silly me.

So it is fine to go on and on ad infinitum about whether silver cables sound better than copper cables, or whether some cheap receiver will be sufficient to power my Martin Logan speakers . . . but not to discuss our dissatisfaction with the current direction of Martin Logan managerial decisions?

Sorry to be so sarcastic, but it always amazes me how many people on this forum try to tell others to shut up anytime they start expressing some dissatisfaction with the direction Martin Logan is taking. If you have an opinion, state it. That's fine. But don't try to tell others they are not allowed to discuss it just because you don't want to hear what they have to say. Is this a public forum, or is it just a fan page for Martin Logan?

I actually agree Rich. Forgive me if I seem to take Marin Logan's side a bit too much, but I enjoy the discourse and if it seems like I'm biased it really is because I'm faced with many of the same decisions. I'm all for the discussion though, and agree that maybe they could have handled the implementation of these EOL issues a bit better, but hey, it's the first time they have ever done it.

Hey, I'm guessing at their revenue, but based upon what we saw when we visited their facility a few years ago, I think I may be close. Point is that I think it's easier for what I believe are smaller companies (CJ, AR, Soundlab), to support legacy because of the structure of their organizations. I may be wrong, but have a feeling I'm pretty close to the heart of it. A smaller company that is more vertically integrated can afford to be more nimble. My organization is similar to ML in that we essentially assemble procured components and that means a very materials centric structure. Awesome for cost containment and quick turns so long as your supply chain is well tuned, but difficult to shift and respond to one off opportunities and unfortunately, yes, that means working from very structured cost models.

 

[jvitez]

So now what do I do with my Sequel II's?

My old pair of Sequel II's still sound good as they've seen light use only, and were in storage for a few years. Then I purchased my Summits. The Sequel II's coating is degrading, so the cabinetry needs stripping and refinishing. I was planning to use them for a basement HT system, though now I'm starting a secondary system for my office, and could use them there.

Do I spend the time refinishing the Sequel II cabinets, run them till they sound awful, then discard them? Do I sell them at a blow out price now? Or will someone somewhere outside of ML figure out how to refurbish these old panels, or install other models of still available panels in there place?

 

[amey01]

Is that what you're asking?

~J

Yes, and thank you! That was a small oversight on my part and for that I apologise.

What I still don't understand is that there could be any parts constraint on panels. They are the same as what is produced today, with albeit different geometery.

What's even more confusing is that some of the panels ML is not supporting are exactly the same as what ML IS supporting. Case in point, Sequel --> Sequel II --> SL3 --> Ascent --> Ascent i.

 

[Rich]

I actually agree Rich. Forgive me if I seem to take Marin Logan's side a bit too much, but I enjoy the discourse and if it seems like I'm biased it really is because I'm faced with many of the same decisions. I'm all for the discussion though, and agree that maybe they could have handled the implementation of these EOL issues a bit better, but hey, it's the first time they have ever done it.

Thanks for that, Tim. I appreciate it. I know you are trying to look at this logically from the experience and background that you have. That's why I think all perspectives are important. We each come with different backgrounds and biases.

Hey, I'm guessing at their revenue, but based upon what we saw when we visited their facility a few years ago, I think I may be close.

Hmmm. I think maybe you're pretty close. I did find this out in the ether. Says that in 2005, their sales were estimated at $24 million. If they increased sales 20% a year (which may be highly unlikely in this economy), they would have sales just over $50 million by now.

 

[GaryG]

in 1995, their sales were estimated at $24 million. If they increased sales 20% a year (which may be highly unlikely in this economy), they would have sales just over $50 million by now.

If they increased their sales by 20% per year their current sales rate would be $369.8 million per year (compounding). This would indeed be highly unlikely. However if they increased their sales by a compounded 5% per year, their current sales rate would be $49.9 million per year.

Regards,
Gary

 

[GaryG]

I did find this out in the ether. Says that in 1995, their sales were estimated at $24 million. If they increased sales 20% a year (which may be highly unlikely in this economy), they would have sales just over $50 million by now.

Rich

I should have read the article before making the last post. You meant to say their sales in 2005 (not 1995) was estimated to be $24 million. At an increase of 20% per year this would yield approx $59 million run rate today and a 5% growth rate would yield a current sales rate of approx $30 million.

Regards,
Gary

 

[Rich]

Oops, my bad Gary. I was being distracted by a toddler when I wrote that post and didn't get to proofread it as thoroughly as I normally do. Thanks for the correction. I'll go back and edit my original post. Thanks for doing the math for me too, including compounding with different sales percentage increases. I was trying to be generous with the 20% figure, but I expect their sales increases have been lower than that over the past five years. So we can assume they are probably sitting at somewhere between $30 million and $60 million a year in annual sales right now. I expect that Tim's arguments regarding economies of scale still play out in that range, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the exact number.

 

[shakham]

I think this whole discussion could have been squashed if ML had released their upgrade program along with this 3 week notice (or 0 week for the Logos, which co-incidentally I have).

Hey Justin, has ML figured out their upgrade program?

For some ideas...
Emotiva has a pretty nice deal 40% off new for a specific upgrade:
http://www.emotiva.com/upgrade.shtm

In my younger days, I was into car audio, had a then hot Orion 250HCCA. At some point it died...I called about paying for service...the Orion folks had an upgrade program....$350 (worth $1K) for a new similar model which was a steal. Though I don't do car audio anymore, but I still think that was a amazing move and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them as a company.

I have a mixed bag of equipment (new Vantage, Logos, and Aerius i in the rear) and would love a "real" opportunity to upgrade. I have only been in this stuff for a little over a year. Honestly if I had known, I would probably have never bought the Logos as I had read so many good things about them.

 

[-justin-]

Hey Justin, has ML figured out their upgrade program?

Our sales team are the only ones who can answer that, and they request you call in and speak with them directly: 785-749-0133

~J

 

[Rich]

Ultimately, everyone is different regarding their motivations when it comes to purchasing high end audio components. I guess a lot of my angst on this forum comes from my lament at witnessing the transformation of Martin Logan from a small, elite, high-end boutique type of company run by an entrepreneur with vision and integrity into a large, corporate mass-market company owned by a faceless investment firm and run by a CEO with no background in high-end audio whose avowed specialization is cost-cutting to increase the bottom line.

I try to buy the highest quality audio components I can find, and I like to support companies run by true leaders in the field that show integrity to their customers with unparalleled customer service and who produce components with an eye toward quality above all else. Companies that believe customer satisfaction is their primary objective and who refuse to cut corners on products to increase their bottom line. It seems there are fewer and fewer of those companies out there. But that is why I own brands like Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Sanders Sound Systems, Pass Labs, Sunfire, Wadia, and others.

I am afraid Martin Logan is just no longer in this elite group of manufacturers, at least as far as I am concerned. Management has made decision after decision in recent years that increases sales numbers, cuts costs, and boosts the bottom line at the expense of the reputation and integrity of the brand and the level of customer service and product quality they provide.

Does this mean I am going to go out and immediately sell my Ascents, Summits, Descent, Stage, Clarities, and Fresco i's? No. Of course not. But it does mean that I won't be upgrading my Summits to a CLX, as I had considered doing. It means that when I do upgrade my Summits, for the first time in ten years, I will be shopping for a brand of speakers other than Martin Logan. And for me, that's a pretty big deal.

 

[GaryG]

Oops, my bad Gary. I was being distracted by a toddler when I wrote that post and didn't get to proofread it as thoroughly as I normally do. Thanks for the correction. I'll go back and edit my original post. Thanks for doing the math for me too, including compounding with different sales percentage increases. I was trying to be generous with the 20% figure, but I expect their sales increases have been lower than that over the past five years. So we can assume they are probably sitting at somewhere between $30 million and $60 million a year in annual sales right now. I expect that Tim's arguments regarding economies of scale still play out in that range, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the exact number.

Rich,

After I read the article, it was obvious that you had made a simple typo. Good find on the sale numbers. I must say I am surprised at ML's poor communications on this subject. From Justins first post 3 days ago until now it seems a little muddled. I would have expected them to start out with a well written statement containing what, when, and why on the first salvo.

ML did not.

For sure this has caused at least a modicum of damage to the "Good Will" in their business. Of course in the end it is all about the product. However, a little better "communication" out of ML wouldn't hurt.

Regards,
Gary

 

[Peter Soderberg]

I went and checked the post on his personal rebuild and it actually supports our position of building new versus trying to refit. His was a pair Sequel II, when the bonding tape at the top and bottom was simple foam based and could be cut very carefully with a razor knife, which he states took hours as just one step. Panels made over the last several years uses a harder, low surface energy tape that is, if one was to simply pry, is tougher than the metal and then one will have trouble maintaining the curve. Also you state a solvent bath then would be fine, but would probably damage the insulating powder coating, this meaning a complete strip and recoating. Every step adds labor dollars going backward and at the end of it, you may still not have a working panel. Actuall materials alone are not the cost factor in this particular scenario but the labor clock ticking away. For absolute consistency and less labor, starting fresh is the best so we can apply a garuntee to the part.
Now, the good news is that ingenuity and free labor by owner may open up aftermarket oppurtunities for legacy owners so it may be something that will exist, solving some issues. But as a manufacturer, with all the baggage of being a manufacturer, we may have to let that happen as a natural course. As so many of you have pointed at examples in other industries, car manufactueres may not support, but the aftermarket niche people can step in. I had a Triumph TR250 that I rebuilt using aftermarket items on, long after Triumph themselves where gone.
On a couple of other items that you mentioned as to other people continuing to support such as SoundLab, who uses small cells, relatively easily swapped, but ofter they have to be very expensively shipped to get it done, or CJ, AR whose parts can sit in small bins for years without aging issues, or electonic parts that can be substituted relatively easily such as caps, resistors etc, and the world is full of people that make those, to Sanders, who has already been sadly hurt by Innersound dabacle, now, late in his career, building a (good) new product with a very limited line up and has only been around for a few years, so history is needed to use as them as an example? I just ask fairness when trying to make very direct comparisons.
ON to other conjecture. Where the hell do you guys get your business estimates? I promise you, all of your numbers are quite a bit higher than our best year, by a little to ridiculous. Even if we made that much, it is the profit that counts and yes, it has been a challenging several years in this market, which we feel lucky to have a decent Xmas party out of it. We are in good shape, but no way can we get silly on throwing money around.

 

[Peter Soderberg]

I actually want to continue with some of the monetary comments made as there are two things happening at the detriment to the arguements. One is the unsubstantiated estimating of our growth such as "30 to 60 million by now" and that component becomes a damning statement reflecting our greed, where that number is wildly off. No, I can't provide numbers, as I am not an officer and it is a private company, but to state that makes it a fact in many readers mind, yet is not based in any reality. I see sales numbers daily and as a small company and being a regional manager, i also have insight to P&L, so I can tell you, you are off base.
I also have issues on another thing that was stated a while ago as a fact, but was very wrong that also was an attempt to reflect on us as a greedy company. The CLX has had a ART frame update, upgraded power cables and binding posts and which is now set at $23K. Your negative statement about how we jacked up the price by $3K from its initial price of $19995 was completely wrong. The August, 08 price sheet for a standard linear CLX was $21, 832 with simple power cable and plastic posts. Add the upgraded power cable, at $270, then stainless posts at $295 and you have a total cost of $22,397 For the more expensive, both in more wood and harder finishing process in the ART we are now, 2 years later, at $23K for a true price increase of $603. Yes, early in announcing the product, we had hoped for a $19995 cost, but it never existed at that retail for the customer. Our mistake, i agree. By doing it as a modular product initially, we did make it confusing, but the retail at the dealer comes from the very first price sheet CLX appeared on. Before damning us, please be accurate with your data. That way, our responses will be direct to the question as opposed to straightening things out first.

 

[David Matz]

Hey Justin, has ML figured out their upgrade program?

For some ideas...
Emotiva has a pretty nice deal 40% off new for a specific upgrade:
http://www.emotiva.com/upgrade.shtm

In my younger days, I was into car audio, had a then hot Orion 250HCCA. At some point it died...I called about paying for service...the Orion folks had an upgrade program....$350 (worth $1K) for a new similar model which was a steal. Though I don't do car audio anymore, but I still think that was a amazing move and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them as a company.

Recent Bose Customer Service experience: I own their noise cancelling head phones (along with some killer Beyer T1's). The headphones broke, but the model was discontinued and replaced with a new model. I contacted Bose asking for a replacement part. They said they don't stock any old parts and don't bother fixing old headphones. But for $100 they sent me a new pair! (New ones are about $300.) Not cheap, but I did not feel ripped off either.

 

[Rich]

Where the hell do you guys get your business estimates? I promise you, all of your numbers are quite a bit higher than our best year, by a little to ridiculous. Even if we made that much, it is the profit that counts and yes, it has been a challenging several years in this market, which we feel lucky to have a decent Xmas party out of it. We are in good shape, but no way can we get silly on throwing money around.

Peter, I provided the link to the document where I obtained your estimated sales figure for 2005 (the year Shoreview purchased the company). I made clear in my post that that was an ESTIMATED figure of sales. That document also said sales during 2005 had increased by 40% and were on track for a 30% increase in 2006. I made my conjectures on possible sales growth from that point to today in order to evaluate the validity of Tim's (MITT's) argument about the size of the company.

Interestingly, you mistakenly think I am posting those numbers to show the greed of the company. Tim made the argument that it is a lot harder for a larger company (sales of $50 million or more) to provide the kind of customer service that a smaller company (sales of $10 to $20 million or so) can afford to provide. He assumed you were in the $50 million range when he made that argument. I was trying to give him some benefit of the doubt there with my projections. The funny thing is that you pretty much refute that argument, saying that your overall sales numbers are much lower than we are estimating. So by Tim's logic (and he does seem to have some direct experience in these things), you should be more able to provide the kind of support you have provided in the past (supporting all legacy models), not less able as you profess to be.

For absolute consistency and less labor, starting fresh is the best so we can apply a garuntee to the part.

If this is truly the case, and I still have my doubts, then you should figure out how to provide new, updated designs of panels that work for these older speakers. Then you can claim the moral high ground that you will do whatever it takes to keep your customers happy in the long term, and provide support to every model you have ever made. Just like Soundlabs. Just like Magnepan. Etc. Etc.

. . . to Sanders, who has already been sadly hurt by Innersound dabacle, now, late in his career, building a (good) new product with a very limited line up and has only been around for a few years, so history is needed to use as them as an example?

Boy, you really picked a bad example there to bolster your point. Do you realize that Roger Sanders still supports every product that Innersound ever produced, even though he is under no legal obligation to do so? THAT is the kind of unwavering support to the end customer that I am talking about. THAT is the kind of attitude that Gayle Sanders ran his company with. And THAT is the kind of attitude that is sorely lacking at Martin Logan today.

As for the CLX art frame comments, I do admit I used your projected sales numbers rather than what they actually began selling at. That was my mistake. Unfortunately, it was difficult to find that data and I did the best I could, assuming I could rely on your communications about the starting price. But it was incorrect and I accept responsibility for that mistake. At the same time, you ended up charging $1800 more for the speaker than you said you were going to when you announced it. Then, according to your own post, you "upgraded" it by requiring people now to get the upgraded binding posts and power cords (rather than letting people decide whether they want that option for themselves) for a $600 price increase, and then add another $600 price increase for a different look (which people may or may not like) for a total price increase of $1200 during a time of recession when most people have less to spend on such luxury items. No matter how you figure it, I don't really think it makes you look that good.