So...it's been out a long time...Does Xstat work?

[akm3]

When the Summits were first announced, the design was...difficult to accept for those of us used to giant Prodigies and Odyssey's and Ascents.

They were TINY! We had been taught big panel=big sound. But these were smaller then the then top of the line. They told us they had developed a technology that exposes more radiating surface causing an equivalently larger panel surface to be exposed.

So...I haven't gotten to compare the old to the new back to back, but I have heard almost all of the old line, and the Vistas.

For folks who've really been able to compare them, does Xstat really work? With my Vistas, I wasn't feeling it. They didn't sound as good as I remember Requests, Ascents, etc sounding. But I was in a different environment, with different electronics, separated by years.

Is there any way to objectively measure non Xstat versus Xstat for performance?

Why am I asking: I am deciding if I should invest in an older pair of potentially better sounding ML's, or if the new designs truly are superior, and not just more expensive with better WAF.

 

[timm]

I would be interested to hear if anyone has actually listened side by side as well... My very humble opinion is a vague one at best. When I heard the Summits - Yes they were good - did I think they were better than my Odyssey/Descent combo?? Not really sure about that. I like the height I get with the Odyssey. I think both sound great - honestly - and to say one is better than the other - I think is mearly a coin toss. Back when we had Summit/Vantage only (I haven't heard the Spires) - I think you had to go to a Summit to beat or match the Odyssey... for what that is worth. I still think the large speaker is hard to beat... I mean - I don't think anyone here really cares if their speakers take over one of their rooms as long as their 'god' appears every now and then while they are playing.... Most people that purchase a 5-10K speaker - I think would rather throw a spot light on them and say 'LOOK AT THESE!!!' Well, at least I would anyway

 

[Craig]

The newer designs are a little more efficient (i.e. a higher sensitivity rating) than the older models and so are less demanding on amp power requirements. The Summits, Spires, and Vantages with their internal amps and tuning controls are definitely improved in the bass vs the older models but most older models are pretty good in lower freqs as long as you have an amp with enough clean power to drive the panels and woofers.

The older models are probably some of the best sounding speakers you can find for the dollar. Excellent deals are common on used Ascents, Odysseys, and Prodigies and if you liked what you heard from them and then that is certainly a good way to go. Personally, I prefer the classic look of the older models I mentioned.

 

[akm3]

You summed up what I was asking perfectly.

There was one time I had that 'God' experience with Martin Logans. It was an absolute revelation.

Once.

At a dealer.

Once.

I could never get it back again at that Dealer, after they changed out the Requests for the next generation and changed rooms.

I didn't get it when I owned the Aerius'. I didn't get it with my Vistas. I certainly didn't get it with my *single* Fresco!

I didn't get it at any other dealers I've been to, or from any other speaker manufacturer.

I've literally spent over 10 years trying to get back to that perfect audio revelation I've heard *once* from the Requests, oh so long ago.

I'm just not sure how to get there, or if it's even real, or if my hearing is capable of experiencing that anymore!

 

[C.A.P]

Well Having owned the Quest and now the CLS and having the Prodigies at my listening disposal(good friend has um near by). I have heard the Summits in a great controlled room as with the CLX. This I can tell you. The Summits are the best Hybrid I have ever heard. The Spires are supposed to be a bit more detailed with the CLX technology in them. It was seamless with its bass integration. The Micro perf is all that and a bag of chips. The sound was as wide and detailed as any big panel. I demoed them in the same room with Maggie 20.1, exact set up and it was no comparison. The summit blew them away. The Quest can be good but tend to have a bump in that area where the bass of the woofer takes over. Mating a sub was a bear. Amps make a huge difference in the older designs where the newer ones have less panel area and better impedance curves. That being said The Quest had one of the sweetest midrange of any speaker I have heard. Now the final chapter in the older panel design. The CLS . This beast is capable of amazing things that will blow your socks off. You need outstanding upstream equipment to extrapolate the best out of this speaker,( they made me change my front end from a Good Theta unit to a world class Krell KPS25sc , which was the best move I made in audio) but , when you give it good friends its as good as it gets. The large 2x4 ft full range panel is amazing. midrange is full and detailed with such great mid bass. However; One needs a sub to have the full audio spectrum from them.

Now Back to the Micro Perf technology in the CLX . In one word W O W !
They are amazing and are the best Loudspeaker I have ever heard . They are as clean and detailed as it gets. Bass was tight and stage was wide and deep . This I feel is a effect of Micro Prf technology.

If I was buying newer ML and wanted a hybrid and had a choice of new mid range products with Micro Perf Versus the older top shelf designs of their day. (Quest, Monoliths,Prodigy, Oddyssey) . I would opt for the older designs pending I had a GOOD high current amp.

Now I left out the CLS as its not a Hybrid and its my #1 choice speaker behind the CLX. However as I stated you better be ready to give it some good friends or it will not perform. Remember too, the larger the panel the larger the room. Big panels like big rooms.

Hope this helps !


Hearing what we audio philes say is a revaluation is a rare event. Remember it, and never forget it! It was the first time you got the hook! Like a addict chasing that initial rush. We too are all searching for that first revelation rush in our own homes.

 

[timm]

You summed up what I was asking perfectly.

There was one time I had that 'God' experience with Martin Logans. It was an absolute revelation.

Once.

At a dealer.

Once.

I could never get it back again at that Dealer, after they changed out the Requests for the next generation and changed rooms.

I didn't get it when I owned the Aerius'. I didn't get it with my Vistas. I certainly didn't get it with my *single* Fresco!

I didn't get it at any other dealers I've been to, or from any other speaker manufacturer.

I've literally spent over 10 years trying to get back to that perfect audio revelation I've heard *once* from the Requests, oh so long ago.

I'm just not sure how to get there, or if it's even real, or if my hearing is capable of experiencing that anymore!

I think in order to see the 'all mighty' - you need one of 2 things...errr make that 3 things -- I have seen him (or was it a her) - with (believe it or not) Aeons and some killer Mac gear.... The 'one' has appeared (lets just call him/her - Neo to make it easier) with my Odysseys and Sunfire gear - and I have seen Neo appear with Ascents and Bryston gear... So - in a nutshell --- Killer electronics - and a lower model of electrostat or an upper model electrostat with pretty darn good electronics. But, in either case you will need 1 additional thing - a room that will allow you to do it and correct speaker positioning ... So keep the faith --- Neo is out there ....

 

[Bernard]

You summed up what I was asking perfectly.

There was one time I had that 'God' experience with Martin Logans. It was an absolute revelation.

Once.

Does this count? Once while listening to Reference Recordings' "Star of Wonder" on vinyl around Christmastime, with the lights low, I swear I was able to smell the candles in the church.

Maybe that's it ! Have you tried vinyl ?

 

[cstory]

I think Timm has it right in that it is a combination of speakers, electronics and room.

Getting back to the original question of newer ML's vs older, like most things subjective, food, wine, etc. people are going to have their individual preferences. I went from a pair of Aerius i's to Vista's and my initial impression with the Vista's was that the sound seemed a bit thiner, and not as "pretty". After time, and especially with classical music I found that the Vista's were more accurate, more detailed and the bass was better integrated into the sonic whole. But sometimes honesty in a speaker may not be the best thing and I can see where the more romantic sound of the Aerius would still have an appeal.

I didn't hear God, but once I did hear a pair of Summits with McIntosh gear in the same room as Sonus Faber (~$29,000) and Dali Megalines, and honestly, I preferred the Summits to the Souns Faber's (but I am a ML fan). The Megaline's presentation I thought was strange. There was some good points to it, and it was quite dynamic, but the Summits were in no way embarrased by this higher priced competetion.

I think the X-Stat is a good thing.

Chuck

 

[VanDaRo]

I have heard the Puritys, Vantages, and Summits, all having the latest technology. With the exception of the Summits, I felt that something in the midrange was not as smooth as the older technology speakers. But this may be the case of the speakers needing some break-in time. The Summits are wonderful though and I recommend them to all that have the means.

But do not discount the older MLs just because they are older. They can sound just as good as the new gear, and the tall models just look cool as heck. If you are looking to get into a ML system and need to do it with budget constraints, hit the 'Gon and pick up an older set at a reasonably low cost.

I absolutely love the Prodigy, Odyssey, Quest, Sequel/SL and especially the CLS models (thanks to CAP for re-introducing me to these). They "do something to me" where some of the newer speakers do not. Go forth and give as many models a listen as you can. After all, it really is a lot of fun.

~VDR

 

[Neil H]

I now have a pair of Summit's and Prodigy's. I bought the latter and had new panels fitted. When I purchased my Summit's I also auditioned Prodigy's and found the choice difficult. I have found the same to be still true now that I have both speakers.

I have compared the 2 using the same electronics and which one is better really depends on what you are looking for in sound and also on the type of music that is played. For example I prefer some recordings with male vocals on the Prodigys because it seems to accentuate the voice more. The Prodigy also gives a larger image which is not necessarily accurate but is very impressive to listen to.

However, I find the Summit to be a sweeter sounding speaker, it does have more bass ( I miss the lowest notes when listening to the Prodigy) and the instruments are placed more precisely in the soundstage (at least in my room). I think the Prodigy has more impact in that it fills the room more. When listeing to the Summit I get the impression that there is a blacker background to the music and the sound seems more delicate if that makes sense.

The bass is interesting. Although the Summit bass goes much lower and is more punchy, I don't know if it is as natural as the Prodigy. I see a lot of live music and the Prodigy seems to create a kind of hollow sound to a drum which is more similar to the live event than the Summits.

I think the Summit is a better speaker overall but the sound of the 2 is so different that it is really a matter of taste.

 

[Feltran]

However, I find the Summit to be a sweeter sounding speaker, it does have more bass ( I miss the lowest notes when listening to the Prodigy)

I chose the Spires over the Summits, I hope I don't also feel that there is bass missing (they haven't arrived yet). I have a Depth i also, but the Depth i has a very low soft rumble, not the kind of punch that I'd like from my bass in the slightly higher notes.

 

[C.A.P]

Good summary of the two. I can attest that what you state is exactly my impression of the two. Couldn't have said it better!

 

[User211]

Well, I listened to the Summit via a Krell. Then got back home and listened to my Ascent/Descent via my 211 monos.

Very different sound, really. The Summit via the Krell was hyper detailed, almost like it was trying to invent it, to extract every last ounce of information, but not quite managing it all. In a sense it just felt like it was trying to hard, and as such, wasn't a good long term listening proposition. Image placement was very precise too. It really was very impressive, though. It was an AV oriented Krell, though - can't remember the model because I never asked.

One thing I learn't (my taste only) many years ago is a lot of amps sound very impressive in the dem room, then you get home and find you can't listen to them without feeling exhausted/aggravated by them after about 30 minutes. The Krell definately fell into that category.

The Ascent/Descent via the 211s just sounds relaxed, natural and detailed without struggling. Good long term listening proposition! The Ascent also sounds a bit bigger than a Summit, because it IS taller.

I think the difference between the two amps was a massive factor here. The stat panels are so transparent they really reveal amp characters - old or X-Stat. I didn't prefer the Summit/Krell combo over my own. But I may well prefer the Summit with my 211 monos. I very much suspect I would. But I don't feel the need to spend £6000 on a pair of 2nd hand Summits to find out - I am going to wait for the next generation, I think.

My overall gut feeling in that the Summit panel is an improvement on the Ascent one, and that it isn't just down to micro-perf, but also the rigid metal frame that the panel is held in, and probably a better x-over.

If you want a good speaker, though - buy the CLX! Way better than a Summit, and so it should be.

 

[akm3]

Unfortunately, I don't have the means OR the space (OR wife acceptance - she thinks they are hideous) to get the CLX.

Since Amps are so important, perhaps I should find a used pair of Purities. Martin Logan must have picked an adequate amp? Then I only have to worry about room and placement.

But, can the Purities deliver the sound I heard in the ReQuest? Probably not.

The Vista did sound 'thinner' than the Aerius, which surprised me. Perhaps thinner is 'more accurate', and I do prefer the romantic sound of the Aerius.

In that case, I should probably look for a pair of SL3's or ReQuests, and then invest into better Amplification. But, then (Especially with the ReQuests) I have these giant speakers that I don't really have the space for.

Then, there is the Summit/Vantage/Spire, which I do have the space for, and my wife likes the look, but after my Vista experience, I'm worried they don't have the magic I'm looking for. Sure, I believe they are *Better* than the older speakers, but *Better* also means *Different*, and the improvements might have sucked out the magic that I loved about the older speakers.

Quite a dilemma. It's hard being an average joe making $65k a year dabbling in high-end audio. I live far, far below my means and invest, but all this stuff seems so out of reach. I just can't comprehend having the budgets that doing this 'right' would require.

My 'ideal' setup would be a new house, with a dedicated, large room, and CLX (or Statement E2 with huge Krell or Sunfire Signature (I love these amps...looks...I've never actually heard one haha) amplifiers.

Champagne tastes with a rainwater in a bucket budget...sigh.

I should probably just can the whole idea of Martin Logans, since I doubt I'll ever get them to where I want them, so I'll just be frustrated. Get a nice set of Atlantic Technology speakers for the home theater, and just be happy with the gut thumping booms - that always seemed to impress everyone else...sigh...

 

[User211]

Chin up, akm3. I can't believe how little 2nd hand MLs are in the US, and panel replacements are cheap, too. I used to own the Aerius and loved them. They are still very good speakers.

If the budget is tight, get some 2nd hand Aerius, Ascents, ReQuests - even the CLS is only $2000 2nd hand stateside. Then ask the guys here for some amp/CD recommendations.

 

[theWB]

Then, there is the Summit/Vantage/Spire, which I do have the space for, and my wife likes the look, but after my Vista experience, I'm worried they don't have the magic I'm looking for. Sure, I believe they are *Better* than the older speakers, but *Better* also means *Different*, and the improvements might have sucked out the magic that I loved about the older speakers..

Go out and listen, let your ears be the judge.
The first time I heard the Summits, I was instantly seduced and knew I wanted a pair. At the time I was a very happy and satisfied Odyssey owner.
I didn't pony up for the Summits until they were discontinued and got a very good deal on them. For a short time I had both the Odysseys and Summits side by side and though I prefer the look of the Odysseys IMHO the Summits sound better. The bass is Crisper, Faster, Deeper, and better integrated with the panel on the Summits. The longer I've had the Summits the more I like them. The soundstage to me sounds wider with the Summits.

I should probably just can the whole idea of Martin Logans, since I doubt I'll ever get them to where I want them, so I'll just be frustrated. Get a nice set of Atlantic Technology speakers for the home theater, and just be happy with the gut thumping booms - that always seemed to impress everyone else...sigh.

Who cares what others think, it's what you think that counts.
Enjoy the journey.
Realize that most of us here are middle aged or past middle aged.
And we did not start out with what we have now.
Hell I had a pair of Klipsch Fortes for 19 years before landing my first pair of Logans.
And to 211's point you can get some very good used Logans for a great price if your patient. Check the Gon daily.
Good Luck

 

[SteveInNC]

I had an almost-ideal comparison of old .v new tech: I was auditioning my Ascent i at roughly the same time that the Summits came out (and the Ascent i was discontinued not long after). I got to compare the same source recordings at the same time at the dealer, albeit in different rooms. In my experience, the Summits did sound that much better. At the time, they were running on better equipment (a stack of Classe .v the Musical Fidelity A5s for the Ascents), but I think it was more a matter of the speakers in this case. The room quality was roughly comparable (high-end, long history dealer who knows how to set stuff up). I don't know that it was worth roughly twice the price of the Ascents that I bought, at least to me, but it was distinctively better reproduction. At this range, you're getting into diminishing returns...

As to someone earlier who commented on their Depth being more rumble than attack, I think your set-up is off. When I had a single Depth (not-i) in my system, I noticed a distinct change in character by changing the sub's phase. It went from base-y to percussive with that simple change. The sub was positioned roughly next to one of the Ascents, out in the room a few feet from back and side walls. I've since added a second Depth, just for balance across the soundstage.

 

[MDSPHOTO]

Summits Versus Sequals

I think the Xstat technology as loosened the vice from the listening position, meaning you do not need to hold your head in the perfect spot to get excellent imaging. However, so far I cannot say that the Summits are head and shoulders above the Sequels when it comes to filling the room with sound. Using the Stereophile test CD to check proper set-up of the system. I noticed that the vertical imaging is just not as good as the much larger Sequel. Overall, there are trade offs with both speakers. Are the $10,000 Summits better than the $2,800 Sequels? Yes they are, but are they $7,200 better? It depends on your tastes and pocket book.

Please forgive any spelling errors, I am on my 3rd Victory Imperial Stout. This beer was rated a perfect 100 by Beer Advocate and I have to agree this is one great beer.

 

[MOON]

From what I am reading , the only thing lacking in the older designs is the bass. Although my Odyssey's go fairly low, I added a depth sub and that really was the icing on the cake.As suggested, I would buy a used set of Odyssey's , Prodigy's and add an ML sub. They are always on Audiogon at great prices.I much prefer the look of the older models over the new ones.

Also , as already stated, you must have top notch components mated to your ML's to get that neo feeling. The money saved buying used ML's could go toward component upgrades if they are not up to snuff.

Cheers

 

[sleepysurf]

In addition to the XStat panels themselves, I think the AirFrame design was an even bigger improvement. The newer ML models are a lot less obtrusive, and able to fit better in limited spaces, with higher WAF, and no loss of fidelity. There's no way I'd ever have been able to get a Prodigy or Odyssey setup into my family/listening room, but no problem with the Summits! So, yes, I believe the XStat plus AirFrame works!