Summit X - do you consider this a warm speaker?

[spectral]

I did a brief audition this past weekend and although I had the 50Hz setting at -6dB in a very well damped dealer room (25Hz at dead center) I thought the low-to-mid bass was still overly warm (although the deep bass was exceptionally controlled), even with simple things like pizzicatos of contrabass (e.g. on very familiar Chesky recordings that are anything but bloated in the bass). However, it could have been the electronics (unfamiliar to me), or I just didn't turn the setting low enough.

How would you characterize the Summit X's overall bass performance? What do the magazines say in this respect?

Thanks

Peter

 

[Gordon Gray]

Peter,

I have not yet had the chance to listen to the "X"

However, based on my experience of owning the Summits for several years, the crossover settings have an enormous influence on the overall presentation. I can make them sound strident, bloaty, or anywhere in between depending on the settings.

The "X" model, if I understand the upgrade correctly, was supposed to provide better woofer / panel integration in the mid range area, which appears to be contrary to your experience.

As you know, many factors can influence the sound. Maybe the electronics had a somewhat warm signature in the mid bass area or the room was over treated.

Hope that helps.

GG

 

[David Matz]

Hi Spectral,

I have not heard the X yet, but the original Summit was warmer that the Sanders (unadjusted) in the same room.

Here is a quote from Alan Sircom's glowing review of the X - where he called the Summit X a "CLS killer". He does not use the word "warm" but uses the word "enriching". (Is that the same as "warm"? To whom? In what system? in what mood? With what kind of recordings? In what room????)

"It's not the last word in neutrality, with a distinct enriching character to
the sound, but this might not be a bad thing. Some will love its performance, citing how it enhances arliculation and integration of sounds,especially in the midrange. Others will listen to the same and criticise it because of the word 'enriching and 'enhancement'. Whatever it's clearly a speaker that's going to promote healthy debate. These speakers are all about musical flow, and that might even occur when 'flow' is not a word that sums up the music. Themes in a piece of music blend together with a sense of naturalnesd that could turn Stockhausen In to Rachmaninov. And when it comes to Rachmaninov..isle
of the Dead becomes the ambient tone poem it so often fails to be in other systems."

Also, Sircom lurks on avguide occasionally, so you might want to pose that question to him there.

 

[spectral]

Thank you both for your responses. David, I have to admit I am now more confused. 'Enriching' to me means colored, the opposite of neutral, somewhere in the audio spectrum (but he didn't specify where); it feels like he's talking about the midrange; if so, he must have neutralized the bass with the controls, but he made no mention of that???

On the other hand, a CLS killer? As if the CLS was more enriching? Isn't the CLS a paragon of neutrality from the upper bass on up? Or does this mean the color the Summit X allegedly adds, albeit more than the CLS, is insignificant compared to the overall performance improvement over the CLS???

I can't decipher what Sircom wrote. One thing I suppose I have to agree with is that, what I heard as a system, was not neutral, thus I have to try again with similar (or the same) electronics as mine. I'll ping him on avguide, but I should buy that review copy first.

 

[David Matz]

Spectral,

Check your Private Messages for a link to the review.

 

[David Matz]

Thank you both for your responses. David, I have to admit I am now more confused. 'Enriching' to me means colored, the opposite of neutral, somewhere in the audio spectrum (but he didn't specify where); it feels like he's talking about the midrange; if so, he must have neutralized the bass with the controls, but he made no mention of that???

On the other hand, a CLS killer? As if the CLS was more enriching? Isn't the CLS a paragon of neutrality from the upper bass on up? Or does this mean the color the Summit X allegedly adds, albeit more than the CLS, is insignificant compared to the overall performance improvement over the CLS???

I can't decipher what Sircom wrote. One thing I suppose I have to agree with is that, what I heard as a system, was not neutral, thus I have to try again with similar (or the same) electronics as mine. I'll ping him on avguide, but I should buy that review copy first.

I never took much stock in "audiophile terms" for the reasons you mention. Who knows what these things mean without listening? His review definitely comes across as if he is the "authority". Personally, I did not need him to tell me that the X is better than the CLS. I thought the original Summit was better. I agree that reaching out to him with questions is the best way to go.

Good Luck

PS. Are you sure you don't want to get the CLX instead?

 

[spectral]

David, you are a mind reader Yes, I also have my eyes on the CLX, but won't be another year at least. We do need to move to a larger house first. Thanks for the link!

 

[spectral]

I think I got my answer... Sircom says:

Below 100Hz, the two bass drivers are in phase,which helps enhance bass extension

This should be enough to overpower that average-size room I was in. I need to go back with an SPL meter and a test CD; it would appear -6dB attenuation was not enough. However, two in-phase 10-inch woofers will be very hard to tame in my room, at those frequencies. If it were bi-wireable like the original Summit I could use the same in-series-resistor tweak I currently use with the Odyssey woofer input to attenuate bass output (and so effectively, I might add). Doesn't feel like a likely candidate for me.

 

[tonepub]

I think it's more a matter of "different" rather than better. The CLS, like the CLX has a more coherent presentation, because there isn't a cone speaker in the mix, like the Summit/Summit X.

However, when you listen to CLS and CLX or Summit X side by side, there is a bit of graininess (or veiled, etc. whatever you want to call it) in the CLS presentation.

Though there is the slightest bit of upper bass bump or warmth to the Summit, Summit X, what these speakers really add to the mix is the ability to play a lot louder and more effortlessly than the CLS.

I'm still amazed at how good the CLS is after all of these years and wouldn't be surprised that if one were to take a pair with a brand new set of panels and completely rebuild the crossovers with premium components, how close they would get to the current ML sound.

I think the choice would also depend on your room, music collection and how loud you need to listen to your music.

 

[FISH_MAN]

I think it's more a matter of "different" rather than better. The CLS, like the CLX has a more coherent presentation, because there isn't a cone speaker in the mix, like the Summit/Summit X.

However, when you listen to CLS and CLX or Summit X side by side, there is a bit of graininess (or veiled, etc. whatever you want to call it) in the CLS presentation.

Though there is the slightest bit of upper bass bump or warmth to the Summit, Summit X, what these speakers really add to the mix is the ability to play a lot louder and more effortlessly than the CLS.

I'm still amazed at how good the CLS is after all of these years and wouldn't be surprised that if one were to take a pair with a brand new set of panels and completely rebuild the crossovers with premium components, how close they would get to the current ML sound.

I think the choice would also depend on your room, music collection and how loud you need to listen to your music.

I am still impressed with the sound I heard from the CLX at DaVinci media they where loud coherent fast and amazing.if i had a listening room big enough I would buy a pair.

 

[tonepub]

The CLX is another story altogether. Matched to a Gotham sub (or a pair of Gothams) is pretty staggering...

 

[Gordon Gray]

Lack of info on the cross over settings

Peter,

I have yet to read a review, be it the Summit, the "X", or the Spire that really fleshes out how influential these adjustments are to the overall sound of the speaker.

Hence, my continued skepticism of the "real" value of the "X" over the original Summit.

GG

 

[Gordon]

Peter,

I have yet to read a review, be it the Summit, the "X", or the Spire that really fleshes out how influential these adjustments are to the overall sound of the speaker.

Hence, my continued skepticism of the "real" value of the "X" over the original Summit.

GG

Gordon, I'm wondering the same thing. If a guy had the technical ability to upgrade the crossover in the Spire or the Summit with higher quality components, would the cost outweigh the benefit or would it match or exceed the X? I've searched for crossover upgrades but they seem to be about as common as hen's teeth

G

 

[spectral]

Peter,

I have yet to read a review, be it the Summit, the "X", or the Spire that really fleshes out how influential these adjustments are to the overall sound of the speaker.

Hence, my continued skepticism of the "real" value of the "X" over the original Summit.

GG

I intend to contact this guy using Summits to see how he presumably tames the bass with the two REL subs in addition to the ML controls, and will report back. This assumes the two drivers are still in phase below 100 Hz - anyone know? They are not in my Odysseys or the Prodigys and this is a big plus.

It would appear to me the X is meant for much larger rooms, and my guess is that the 50Hz control's range isn't wide enough, which would mean you can lower the output around that frequency but not necessarily in the 30-40 or 60-80 range, leaving you with fairly significant bumps there - I am definitely going back with an SPL meter. Perhaps the X wasn't meant for classical music that I listen to.

PS: I gotta admit - if there is one thing I love about Stereophile reviews is the measurements

 

[Gordon Gray]

Peter,

Classical and jazz is about all I listen to anymore.

I can't imaging the "X" not being suited for the classical genre.

Jeff D. made a comment about the Summit versus the Spire awhile ago and stated, if I recall correctly, that room size was a variable regarding which model would be best.

Interesting stuff.

GG

 

[tonepub]

HI Gordon, that is correct, I've really found the speakers to have some overlap, but the bigger speakers tend to work better in bigger rooms, because of the bass issues. Shape, volume, surfaces and how much is packed into a room all will effect the speakers bass performance, because there will be different peaks and valleys.

As I mentioned, I was able to get better integration in my room with the Summit/Summit X and a pair of Descent i's and JL F110's, because I've got a little bit of a mid bass bump (about 2dB at 42hz) in the room and the 25 and 50hz controls on the Summit's allowed me to get it just right while I still had a touch too much mid bass with the Spire (only has a control at 35 hz).

However, there is a lot you can do with speaker and subwoofer placement to affect all of these issues. It just depends on your level of patience and how much flexibility you have to move everything around. I'm lucky, I have a dedicated room for all of the review gear. In my living room, I have no flexibility and have had to find a speaker that works in that situation...

 

[User211]

It's a good speaker. It is expensive, though.