Joey_V
Well-known member
But am I right to infer (from all the threads I've read) that the Montis has a better crossover system than even the Summit X?
What's the difference between Summit and Summit X?
- Thread starter Joey_V
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
jmschnur
Well-known member
I think that is correct but I do not know for sure. Perhaps Peter could chime in on the subject.
Joel
Joel
That would be the inference. My dealer informed me that the new crossover offers the best integration of panel and woofer of any speaker ever made by Martin Logan. I am told that some time down the track, Martin Logan will offer the new crossover in the next version of the Summit - but don't hold your breath.
I used to own the Summit, and I have to say that to my ears, the Montis is leagues ahead of the earlier speaker. Even the bass seems to go lower, although it's not as hard hitting (overpowering?) as the Summit. In my room the Summit's bass always caused me heartache symptomatic of myocardial infarction. I found the Summit hard to integrate. No such problems with the Montis. They worked fine from day one. The more I play them, the better the bass gets. If asked to describe the Montis' bass, the word 'stunning' comes to mind.
Also regarding the materials used in the construction of the Montis' panels, I believe they offer a greatly extended life span over previous iterations. This would also apply to the materials used in the construction of Martin Logan's woofers.
I have to admit, this line of marketing gets a little tiring. With every generation, starting with the original Summit, ML and all the reviewers swear the woofer/panel integration is light years ahead of the previous generation. I guess since there isn't much they can do to improve the panel or the overall sound of the speaker, they have to put all their marketing efforts into convincing people that the woofer/panel integration of each generation is so much better than the last. Take your supposed weakness and turn it into a strength, and all that. Honestly, with my Summits tuned perfectly in an acoustically-treated room, I just don't have any issues with the woofer/panel integration.
Not picking on you, edwinr. Just something that has been on my mind lately.
jmschnur
Well-known member
There is no doubt that the advanced modeling tools available today can make discernible differences in speaker design. Whether or not they are audible needs to be assessed by the listener.
Best way to do this is is to compare in three identical rooms the speakers in question with the same electronics and then evaluate.
That is not going to happen.
So each to their own.
Be happy.
Joel
Best way to do this is is to compare in three identical rooms the speakers in question with the same electronics and then evaluate.
That is not going to happen.
So each to their own.
Be happy.
Joel
Hocky
Well-known member
I spent some time with the Montie at Axpona this weekend. In that room on that day, it was not better than either pair of Summits in my room. They had no bass authority... That is an important piece for me. Beyond that, I noticed no improvements. They were probably the same over 500hz.
jmschnur
Well-known member
I use my Montis with two subs in a 9.2 setup so I would not notice the difference that you are hearing. Stereo is 2.2
Clearly the two woofers in the Summitt must help considerably with the bass .
However, for me , the mid bass heard in my room on the Montis is very nice indeed. Panel and woofer are very much in sync.
J
Clearly the two woofers in the Summitt must help considerably with the bass .
However, for me , the mid bass heard in my room on the Montis is very nice indeed. Panel and woofer are very much in sync.
J
Well... You could be right Rich. I remember when the Summit was introduced, Martin Logan and nearly every reviewer DID say the same thing about woofer/panel integration. How much 'better' can it get? Not that that's a bad thing. If ML doesn't churn out a better product every couple of years or so, no-one will want to upgrade. :eek1:
I guess nobody can deny that the build quality and longevity issues have improved.
Last edited:
eknuds01
Well-known member
Hasn't woofer + panel integration ALWAYS been a ''knock" against these sorts of speakers? I think that's one of the tradeoffs we have to make. Years ago I listened to some Quad speakers at a dealer in Baltimore. He knew I was a ML enthusiast and made the case that the Quad speakers were essentially devoid of the issues that hurt ML-type speakers.
While the Quads did sound very nice, I can't say they were a world apart vs what I currently have. One would think that since ML has been designing speakers of this type for decades that would have slayed this dragon. I just think most reviewers/enthusiasts/casual listeners see a blend of two technologies and immediately bring up woofer/panel integration like it's always a big deal.
While the Quads did sound very nice, I can't say they were a world apart vs what I currently have. One would think that since ML has been designing speakers of this type for decades that would have slayed this dragon. I just think most reviewers/enthusiasts/casual listeners see a blend of two technologies and immediately bring up woofer/panel integration like it's always a big deal.
Exactly! When I listen to my Ascents, I say: "Wow, that sounds incredible." I don't say: "that sounds good, but I wish the woofers and panels were a little more seamless. However, if I compare them directly to my Summits, I might detect a bit more neutral sound through the crossover region. But I do think it is over-exagerrated and ML uses it as a marketing tool with every new speaker they put out.
User211
Well-known member
With regards to ML bass integration issues, some posts on forums over here indicate some people have a real problem with it. The usual gripe is the portrayal of height, and it seems to emanate from people with a high regard for classical music.
The complaint runs along the line of "that instrument sounds as if it is coming from the bottom of the speaker - why?". This usually refers to some stringed instrument with substantial LF content.
Logically, it is not hard to understand this - all LF emanates from the bottom of the speaker. This is more of an issue than bass/panel integration IMHO.
Of course the CLX doesn't have this problem and it is a convincing reason to prefer a fullish range stat. When you hear it, you instantly know it is right or "righter".
TBH though I never really had a problem with the hybrid approach with my Ascents. Damn fine speaker. I preferred tube driven Ascents + Descent to a Krell driven Summit setup in a dealer dem.
The complaint runs along the line of "that instrument sounds as if it is coming from the bottom of the speaker - why?". This usually refers to some stringed instrument with substantial LF content.
Logically, it is not hard to understand this - all LF emanates from the bottom of the speaker. This is more of an issue than bass/panel integration IMHO.
Of course the CLX doesn't have this problem and it is a convincing reason to prefer a fullish range stat. When you hear it, you instantly know it is right or "righter".
TBH though I never really had a problem with the hybrid approach with my Ascents. Damn fine speaker. I preferred tube driven Ascents + Descent to a Krell driven Summit setup in a dealer dem.
Foregive me my ignorance....
....but...
I've been reading here on the forum people complaining about panel/woofer integration or rather lack of such for a long time but I've never had anybody explaining what it actually is? how is it manifesting itself? what to look/listen for trying to find potential problem?
For me every ML speaker I've owned sounded phenomenal, every one kinda different but all had "magic" within.
....but...
I've been reading here on the forum people complaining about panel/woofer integration or rather lack of such for a long time but I've never had anybody explaining what it actually is? how is it manifesting itself? what to look/listen for trying to find potential problem?
For me every ML speaker I've owned sounded phenomenal, every one kinda different but all had "magic" within.
for me quite simply it began back in the 80's, when I fell in love with Magnepan over M/L..........the easiest way I can describe it is to say that M/L sounded as if it had a poorly designed cross-over whereby one could discern and or easily seperate the bass driver from the panel, there simply was not the seamless integration that there is today. Keep in mind that I'm making this statement as a comparison to Magnepan which does/ did not incorporate a dynamic bass driver.
While my description may sound extreme it is my belief that along with cross-over design improvements, the panel re-design that were introduced in the past decade has done more to improve the overall 'consistency' of the finished product which in turn helps to minimize panel / bass driver integration issues.
MrBT - In technical terms, the problem over the years has been rooted in the fact that engineering a passive crossover that met all the conflicting criteria for a high-end speaker were really hard to deliver. Such as creating steep enough crossover slope from panel to woofer would require a high number of parts (expensive) and have poor power handling (need bigger amps) and possibly have worse impedance curves (on top of already severe ELS demands here) so yet bigger AND better amp required.
Then there is the time-alignment of the impulse responses of the woofer and the panel. Simply put, near impossible to do with passive designs.
Having the impulses aligned is what leads people to characterize a speaker as 'cohesive', and to hear much deeper and wider soundstages in a stereo pair.
So while passive designs did improve over time with better design tools, more data from R&D and better topologies for the passives, they eventually realized that an active crossover is the optimal way to go.
Actives let you do things passives only dream of, so finally, critical things like delay, steep crossover slopes and even EQ are all at your fingertips and can be put to great use as demonstrated by the Theos and Montis.
Note that those two are still not 100% actives, the crossover to the panel is still a passive and suffers from many of the problems of that design. But since the bass component is active and includes it's own, known and modeled amp, they can optimize the design in that crossover region to compensate for known weakness in the high-pass crossover and make the blending very, very smooth.
Now, I have been advocating full active crossover designs for over a decade, and I believe I'm one of the first ML consumers on this forum to do so with his own rig. I've documented my journey down that path in numerous posts over the years, and can confidently say that a single set of Monoliths can sound vastly different over the years just due to crossovers. When done right (as I believe my current config is), they are magical. Not even a pair of CLX could sway me. Tempted yes, but put down the cash, no.
So while the Montis is amazing, I do believe there is room for improvement from the factory if they were to deliver a full active solution, including all amplification as a 'speaker system'.
But thanks to Luddite audiophiles who think they can do a better job picking amps than the R&D team, and that using magical wire as tone controls will get the 'synergy' right, the world will probably miss out on true high-performance speakers. But for those who are willing to trust that a speaker designer can actually do better, then maybe a full-active setup will show just how much better it can truly be.
A good example of the later is the Sanders Sound Systems 10c, with a full active setup and amps designed for ESL duty. Even though it uses a 'cheap' active crossover, it sounds amazing. Can't image what it would be like with a top-notch speaker processor like my DBX.
Then there is the time-alignment of the impulse responses of the woofer and the panel. Simply put, near impossible to do with passive designs.
Having the impulses aligned is what leads people to characterize a speaker as 'cohesive', and to hear much deeper and wider soundstages in a stereo pair.
So while passive designs did improve over time with better design tools, more data from R&D and better topologies for the passives, they eventually realized that an active crossover is the optimal way to go.
Actives let you do things passives only dream of, so finally, critical things like delay, steep crossover slopes and even EQ are all at your fingertips and can be put to great use as demonstrated by the Theos and Montis.
Note that those two are still not 100% actives, the crossover to the panel is still a passive and suffers from many of the problems of that design. But since the bass component is active and includes it's own, known and modeled amp, they can optimize the design in that crossover region to compensate for known weakness in the high-pass crossover and make the blending very, very smooth.
Now, I have been advocating full active crossover designs for over a decade, and I believe I'm one of the first ML consumers on this forum to do so with his own rig. I've documented my journey down that path in numerous posts over the years, and can confidently say that a single set of Monoliths can sound vastly different over the years just due to crossovers. When done right (as I believe my current config is), they are magical. Not even a pair of CLX could sway me. Tempted yes, but put down the cash, no.
So while the Montis is amazing, I do believe there is room for improvement from the factory if they were to deliver a full active solution, including all amplification as a 'speaker system'.
But thanks to Luddite audiophiles who think they can do a better job picking amps than the R&D team, and that using magical wire as tone controls will get the 'synergy' right, the world will probably miss out on true high-performance speakers. But for those who are willing to trust that a speaker designer can actually do better, then maybe a full-active setup will show just how much better it can truly be.
A good example of the later is the Sanders Sound Systems 10c, with a full active setup and amps designed for ESL duty. Even though it uses a 'cheap' active crossover, it sounds amazing. Can't image what it would be like with a top-notch speaker processor like my DBX.
Last edited:
I think the bass from the floor problem is a room thing mostly. With the woofer so close to the floor, we will excite room-modes. For the CLX, the bass excites room modes in a different manner. For whatever reason, I don't have the problem with the Vantages in my room. But my house has a very open floor plan, where the sidewalls are 10 meters apart where the speakers stand, but only 5 meters apart where I sit. In short, it means that the bass modes are different in the plane of the speakers and in the plane of my sofa. Speaker-room integration is a dark art 
Last edited:
Thanks guys for clarifying.
However, I still can't find/hear any problems with woofer/panel integration. In my setup woofer doesn't seem to be detached from panel nor do I hear lower frequencies coming out of the bottom of speaker. It sound like a "whole" source of sound.
It looks like I'm one lucky SOB
However, I still can't find/hear any problems with woofer/panel integration. In my setup woofer doesn't seem to be detached from panel nor do I hear lower frequencies coming out of the bottom of speaker. It sound like a "whole" source of sound.
It looks like I'm one lucky SOB
rasmaudio
Well-known member
Integration and coherency
While I agree with using active versus passive crossovers,
that is not the only problem. The electrostatic portion
of Martin Logan is dipole and the cone woofer is not.
My answer is combining Magneplanar Tympani IV bass
panels, which are dipole, along side of my Martin Logan
Summits (woofers disconnected). Putting the bass panels
slightly ahead of the electrostatic elements provides
coherency and integration is superb. Depth, imaging and
the soundstage is huge with superb midbass punch.
Adding a rotary subwoofer to this combo is stunning and
can handle anything (huge pipe organs,16 hz and 8 hz
pipes, and the cannons in the 1812 Overture are just
two examples.
While I agree with using active versus passive crossovers,
that is not the only problem. The electrostatic portion
of Martin Logan is dipole and the cone woofer is not.
My answer is combining Magneplanar Tympani IV bass
panels, which are dipole, along side of my Martin Logan
Summits (woofers disconnected). Putting the bass panels
slightly ahead of the electrostatic elements provides
coherency and integration is superb. Depth, imaging and
the soundstage is huge with superb midbass punch.
Adding a rotary subwoofer to this combo is stunning and
can handle anything (huge pipe organs,16 hz and 8 hz
pipes, and the cannons in the 1812 Overture are just
two examples.
Attachments
Thanks guys for clarifying.
However, I still can't find/hear any problems with woofer/panel integration. In my setup woofer doesn't seem to be detached from panel nor do I hear lower frequencies coming out of the bottom of speaker. It sound like a "whole" source of sound.
It looks like I'm one lucky SOB
As I said above, this was more of a problem with ML's older generation of speakers. Ever since the Summit was introduced, it has not really been an issue, though they continue to claim audible improvements with every new speaker model. I would be willing to bet money that just about anyone could pick out the Prodigy from the Summit in a double blind test; but that no one would be able to reliably pick out the Summit from the Summit X or the Montis in such a test. The differences between the later models are incredibly subtle, as far as panel integration with woofer are concerned. ML needs to move on in their marketing, unless they are ready to do something completely different, along the lines of what JonFo suggests (or perhaps a separate Line Array woofer module similar to what rasmaudio has concocted).
