Summit Review

[aliveatfive]

OK Guys - Here's another one. Try Hi-Fi Choice, October 2005. I just received my copy in the mail. I guess the English are not too prompt with their overseas delivery.

The mag reviews several dozen products purported to be the best in the world. Among these are a review of the Summit. I also perceive it as a positive review, but the reviewer also mentions colorations inherent to 'stats. Try to read it if you can and report on your own conclusions. I think designing a speaker with no colorations is a virtual impossibility. What each of us can live with is what determines our own preferences.

 

[amey01]

OK Guys - Here's another one. Try Hi-Fi Choice, October 2005. I just received my copy in the mail. I guess the English are not too prompt with their overseas delivery.

The mag reviews several dozen products purported to be the best in the world. Among these are a review of the Summit. I also perceive it as a positive review, but the reviewer also mentions colorations inherent to 'stats. Try to read it if you can and report on your own conclusions. I think designing a speaker with no colorations is a virtual impossibility. What each of us can live with is what determines our own preferences.

I have my copy of HiFi Choice at home so can't refer to it, however I believe this review may have been written by Alvin Gold as well.

 

[Joey_V]

I have my copy of HiFi Choice at home so can't refer to it, however I believe this review may have been written by Alvin Gold as well.

Same guy same stuff. He needs to find a new reference speaker.

 

[socialxray]

Well you ALWAYS have to take a review with a "half gallon of salt" as the reviewer says. These reviewer guys are more than a little jaded not to mention they are human too with good days, bad days, stress, and deadlines to keep. How many times have you read a review where the reviewer gives what seems to be a positive review and then read another review or article later where to attitude is not so peachy? It happens a lot.

Anyways reviews just get you in the stands of the ballpark. What I do is read both user reviews and professional reviews. Even then there is no substitute for actually hearing the speakers in questions. (Although I must admit in the Internet age that is becoming rarer and rarer.)

Actually I do not mind an honest opinion whether it is good or bad as long as it is meaningful. There are way to many site where you read a review and it is so ambigious that you are not sure what the opinion was.

 

[aliveatfive]

Agreed. A few months ago, Michael Fremer of Stereophile gave a rave review to a new, rather inexpensive phono preamp. He compared it directly to the Manley Steelhead, which retails for >$4,000 than the Whest which he was reviewing. Later on, he changed the tone of his review. He still recommended it, but with several caveats. Was he reprimanded by Manley? Don't know, but the chain of events might seem unusual. Best advice - listen for yourself and don't depend solely on the reviews.

 

[[email protected]]

A. Gold's odd premise and tortured syntax and grammar

"I did have an interesting gates of Damascus experience with one Martin Logan design (not one of their best), that is used as one of the test models in the Harman group blind listening facility which I was heard (sic) about 18 month ago."
AG uses this unexplained group and line of unlisted speakers to point out how easily the ML was recognized as "most obvious and colored". Could it be possible that the unnamed ML product stood out so much because it did not exhibit the "cone in box sound" that the others apparently had in common? He than proceeds to suggest this same line of reasoning in the next paragraph by saying "we tend to learn to ignore their particular coloration signatures" when refering to better box type speakers.
Why then keep refering to ML's coloration artifacts throughout the review as though this is a universally accepted observation?

The reviewer shows some other quite contradictory sentiments by speaking of "lack of solidity" and elsewhere "lack of balls", whilst being surprised by "quality and attack of the Stienway grand and "well developed large scale Mahlerian orchestra textures".
The proper reproduction of those musical phenomena in my mind, is probably the most difficult to attain and a solid indication of what only the most capable and uncolored speaker designs can aspire to. If a speaker can convincingly reproduce a Steinway concert grand and make it identifiable as such, one should not hestitate to put on top of one's short list of most capable and desirable for any kind of instrumental or vocal reproduction.

All in all Mr. Gold's was a review worth reading with some real opinion honestly expressed, unlike so many sycophantic and dishonest pieces that make up the mainstream audio press today (finding major faults but recommending the product anyway, cause it's ad is on the next page). It just seems that he likes the product in spite of himself, by undermining his own arguments at times. I did enjoy it though, but as others would have suggested any competent tube amplification instead of Krell would have been a better match. For some reason so many dealers demo ML speakers, from CLS to Summit, with Krell amps. But that combination has always lacked the harmonic subleties of which all ELS Logans have always been so capable.

Dirk

Just a couple of items that I noticed while reading this article...



This is odd, I and lots of others have NEVER associate "metallic ringing" with Steinway grand. Steinways have always been known for their warm, organic quality.


Spike