Where is Martin Logan headed?

[Joey_V]

So, it's been a while and I need a refresher.

What's been going on with Martin Logan and where are they headed?

Last time I read, they were moving to Canada (for production)? What happened to their factory in Kansas (the one we visited)?

What's next in the pipeline? Is there a new line coming out? A new CLX perhaps?

Thanks!

 

[amey01]

A new Statement.......I hope.

 

[edwinr]

I was a little confused by the ML's product lineup last year, but a check of their current product lineup now shows a clearly delineated model choice and a clear upgrade path. ML seems to be consolidating their mid-market position. The new EM ESL is a fantastic bargain. I can see ML utilising improved scales of production to push their products further into mainstream.

I don't know whether a new line of speakers will help, but I can see an opportunity for online sales. I know Klipsch have moved into this area with good results.

What about a line of electronics? Isn't Anthem related to MartinLogan? Now, that might be interesting...

 

[amey01]

What about a line of electronics? Isn't Anthem related to MartinLogan? Now, that might be interesting...

No thanks.......not unless they are thinking of going into making ovens and vacuum cleaners also. There are speaker manufacturers (ML et al), amplifier manufacturers (ARC et al), digital manufacturers (dCS et al) and analague source manufacturers (Clearaudio et al)....... I wouldn't buy an ARC turntable, I wouldn't buy a dCS amplifier, etc. Don't mess with the formula!

 

[edwinr]

A vacuum cleaner with electrostatic properties may have marketing possibilities...

 

[Rich]

It seems to me they are still in a transition period. They have probably completed the move of production to Canada, but haven't really come out with much in the way of new designs or technology (other than the inclusion of DSP in the bass module). I'm not sure we have heard the final word on whether quality control has been maintained since the move to Canada. I don't know how they are faring sales wise, etc. I feel like they have positioned themselves a little too expensive at their high end. I just don't see them getting a good number of sales of the CLX and Summit X at those prices, especially in this economy. Maybe they make up for it with enough sales at the low end of things, which they have really worked on increasing.

It will be interesting to see what their next big move will be. The CLX is getting a little long in the tooth and the "Art" wasn't really much of a refresh. We will see.

 

[tsv_1]

I just don't see them getting a good number of sales of the CLX and Summit X at those prices, especially in this economy.

To this point, I wonder the same thing and am baffled at the insane number of insanly priced speakers (and other audio goodies) at the various large shows. There are either a lot of wealthy audio-wunderkinds out there who just like engineering/tooling up amazing components with no real ROI intent... or the 1% is going gangbusters in terms of purchasing all these products out there. Both seem unlikely... so what gives?

The CLX is getting a little long in the tooth and the "Art" wasn't really much of a refresh. We will see.

As someone said recently in another thread, CLXII with extended bass response would make sense for their next flagship product. If they could figure that one out, and maintain the incredible detail afforded by the current CLX, wow - I'd be quick to audition. I have to imagine there's some area51esque covert engineering going on as we talk/type. Just hope they're not (only) trying to figure out how to use more plastic throughout their line-up to pad their bottom line.

 

[RUR]

As someone said recently in another thread, CLXII with extended bass response would make sense for their next flagship product. If they could figure that one out, and maintain the incredible detail afforded by the current CLX, wow - I'd be quick to audition.

I guess I just don't see that as an improvement, Todd. From either subjective or objective points of view, limiting the placement of the LF transducers isn't something to be desired, though if one is supplementing the mains LF with subs, I s'pose it can be used to advantage as per Geddes.

When I spoke to Peter @ RMAF, I suggested an update to the CLS concept. FWIW and expressing his personal opinion, he said he'd be more interested in a Monolith update.

 

[tsv_1]

I guess I just don't see that as an improvement, Todd. From either subjective or objective points of view, limiting the placement of the LF transducers isn't something to be desired, though if one is supplementing the mains LF with subs, I s'pose it can be used to advantage as per Geddes.

When I spoke to Peter @ RMAF, I suggested an update to the CLS concept. FWIW and expressing his personal opinion, he said he'd be more interested in a Monolith update.

Hi Ken,

But then aren't you effectively saying that any speaker that reaches well into the bottom octave is to be avoided, or at a minimum always augmented with SWs?

I understand your placement arguement, but let's say you have reasonable freedom in your listening environs to position your transducers at will... seems a well designed, highly articulate "single" speaker system that is well integrated from top to bottom would be desirable, no?

Why do I feel as though I just stepped into a bear-trap

 

[RUR]

Todd,

The problem is that the likelihood of having a room where the best placement for specular behavior is the same as that for modal behavior isn't much better than that for winning the lotto. If one wants the best behavior for the full FR, one can either EQ below transition (still stuck with those pesky nulls!) or utilize one or more subs, preferably also with EQ. I understand the seeming attraction for having a single speaker, but in practice, below ~80Hz, we can't localize the sound anyway, so it's simply a question of properly integrating the LF transducers (placement, phase/delay, volume and Xover). I say "simply", though I do understand some may not - Yet! - see it as a simple process and/or may be constrained by a desire for a pure analogue chain.

 

[tsv_1]

Todd,

The problem is that the likelihood of having a room where the best placement for specular behavior is the same as that for modal behavior isn't much better than that for winning the lotto. If one wants the best behavior for the full FR, one can either EQ below transition (still stuck with those pesky nulls!) or utilize one or more subs, preferably also with EQ. I understand the seeming attraction for having a single speaker, but in practice, below ~80Hz, we can't localize the sound anyway, so it's simply a question of properly integrating the LF transducers (placement, phase/delay, volume and Xover). I say "simply", though I do understand some may not - Yet! - see it as a simple process and/or may be constrained by a desire for a pure analogue chain.

Owe... my ankle's bleeding

I guess the thing is, with almost any intertest in life, each individual determines their own point of diminshing returns. (I know, heresy to even breath such words in a high-end audio forum of all places). I 100% appreciate your comprehensive approach to a vernier-level dialing-in of all audio parameters... and I suppose that is the essence of a true audiophile (achieving the best possible sound with a given system). Perhaps someday I will apply an RUR level of scrutiny and redesign to my system to squeeze out the last few fons of fidelity - until then, I'll continue to enjoy my existing (albeit perhaps not ultimately tuned) setup.

Cheers

 

[RUR]

Didn't mean to snap!

Have you ever measured FR linearity and/or bass decay in your system, Todd? If not, you don't know how many fons you're chasing!

You have a PM.

/Ken

 

[tsv_1]

Didn't mean to snap!

Have you ever measured FR linearity and/or bass decay in your system, Todd? If not, you don't know how many fons you're chasing!

You have a PM.

/Ken

Owe Owe Owe...now the rusted old sawtooth clamp is cutting into the bone... blood gushing... a roar of abject terror and agony... "roar"

OK, so I know for a fact that my room is way less than ideal in terms of supporting anything close to a flat FR. Nor do I employ any active EQ (save the xover in my subs). You and I have also chatted quite a lot about best use of SWs... so I know I got me some work to do and I appreciate the prompting. Even though, I'm still very happy with how the CLXs sound currently. Could I be happier? I'm sure I could - on a number of audio and non-audio related fronts

 

[RUR]

Nor do I employ any active EQ

Give yourself to the Dark Side, Todd.