Anyone listened to ML Vantage?


I have heard very positively of ML Summits, but that is beyong my reach! Wondering if anyone had an encounter with the new Vantage, which is the smaller sibling of the Summit?

ML sent be the brochure and the specs of Vantage and they look good except for the 8" diameter woofer. Ascent, which is being replaced by Vantage had a 10" woofer, so I am wondering if that is a compromise. (However the Vantage has the Aluminium cone woofer, which ML claims is up to the task)

PS: If anyone needs the specs please PM me and I shall email. It appears that the ML website is not yet updated with Vantage.

Oh come on! Surely SOMEBODY has heard these by now??

Am wondering if other than the deep bass response, is there any appreciable difference from the mids & up between these and the Summits?

From the info. I've been able to gather, it looks like an identical stat panel, albeit slightly smaller. Could be an incredible bargain, @ $5k a pair (1/2 the Summit's) if this is the case.


I was thinking the same. Unless everyone who had a chance to listened to them bought and busy listening more, rather than spending time infront of their computers :)

I've got the brochure with pics, but I am not sure if the panel is the same size as the Summit. Atrractive price tag is what inspired my search as well.

Hey guys

I have not listened to the vantages but do own logans. Have either one of you considered the pair of ascent i logans that are for sale here on the gon and then adding a depth sub? The ascent i are listed for 2995 and a new depth is 1800 thats 4795 in my book and believe me you would not be disappointed in that combo. The frequency response on the vantage is 34-23000Hz. The ascent i is 35-22000Hz. Also the panel on the vantage is definetly smaller than the summit, the vantage is about the size of the aeons.
I heard it at a tweeter store.It was hooked up with a cheap denon receiver,a midlevel pioneer cd player and monster cable.I was not impressed at all!
Denf, You got that right!I felt I would pay the $3,295 for the aeon's instead of the $4,995 for the vantages.But you have to look at the was ran by garbage.
i am also thinking of the ML vantage to replace my older Kef reference fours, so would some answer his post "I have heard very positively of ML Summits, but that is beyong my reach! Wondering if anyone had an encounter with the new Vantage, which is the smaller sibling of the Summit ML sent be the brochure and the specs of Vantage and they look good except for the 8" diameter woofer. Ascent, which is being replaced by Vantage had a 10" woofer, so I am wondering if that is a compromise. (However the Vantage has the Aluminium cone woofer, which ML claims is up to the task)" thanks
The Vantage is a great speaker ! I finally got a pair for my own Theater. I own a music store & have 8 other mfg's to choose from.
The Vantages however need to be broker in for at least 200 hours before they shine. I would also play around in setting them up. Your local ML dealer should help you with a pair.
I own a pair of the Vantages and love them. Moved up from a pair of Ascent i's and can definitely hear an improvement. It's amazing how such a relatively small speaker can project such a wide soundstage. These speakers go way deep. Considerably more so than than the Ascents. More transparent, too. I've not heard the Summits, but it's hard to imagine how they could sound 2x better, relative to their cost.
I got a (brief) opportunity to listen in as a customer at a local dealer A-B'd the Vantage vs the Summit. The music wasn't my cup of tea - synth heavy rock- so I can't tell you much about the speakers in the absolute. I can say that, off the one listen - I'd choose the Vantage and pocket the difference. Whatever difference there is in deep bass between the 2 models wasn't really evident, despite music that was chosen (I assume) to allow the listener to discern just that. Ancillary equipment, room acoutics, etc probably didn't help.

FWIW-I had much the same reaction to an A-B of the Vandy 5A and Quattro. I suspect that the differences in ultimate capability of the pricier speakers would be more easily heard in a more carefully constructed demo. However, if your regular listening doesn't include appropriate source material, suitable ancillaries, room acoustics, etc-you may not hear much difference at home either. That's probably true in my case and the less expensive options would suit me just fine. YMMV.

Had the Vantage... now have the Summits.

Both are awesome speakers, the Vantage is obviously a cheaper entry-ticket to the sound of the two. I like the Vantage quite a bit and if it wasnt for a local deal on a pair of Summits, I would've probably stuck with the Vantages.

I know it's hard for somebody to belive but I've just sold my Wilson Sophia (owned pair of wilson watt puppy 6's) for a pair of Vantage. I know people are comparing older model martin logans to new ones but I've heard the panels are now lot tighter than before. Panel sizes do not play big factors like before. Having owned several logan lines, Quest z's, Odysseys and CLSiiz's, I'm here to let music lovers know, vantages are heck of a deal. Don't get me wrong, there are certain things Wilsons did better than Logans.....dynamics, certain highs were better, bigger sweet spots, play louder....but the speed and coherency of the logans are hard to beat. With high power tube amps, these speakers are very competitive in highend speaker markets. Guitar instruments, female vocals are absolutely stunning. As far as comparison to the summits, summits were bigger and deeper sounding due to bigger woofer size....and the panel cross over is different. Again, I don't think it's the panel size. Happy listening......
I personally think panel size does matter. The reason I used to love my magenpans and ascent's had alot to do with the wall of a sound they threw. If tradition speakers could match this wall of sound and keep the benifits of dynamics, etc, nobody would even consider panels. I think its that wall of sound that really takes them to another level. I do agree the logans have other advantages, but that wall of sound makes the speakers disapear. And while the term wall of sound may or may not be a audiophile term or something that may or may not be good, It makes music listening very real and definately makes you feel like the musicians are in front of you, which is more important to me, then how transparent, or how much detail is pulled from the recording. Panel speakers just make good music, you got to love them for that.

Ive owned ascent, ascent i's, aeon i's. My experience was the bigger the better, same with magnepan. If ml has managed to create as big of a sound out of a aeon size speaker as the ascent i's, I got to hear them! aeon i's had the famous microperf by the way, which is the way they claim to be able to downsize and keep same usable surface area, x stat is the only difference(crossovers).)
The new ML Spire, which uses the SAME panel as the Summit, but only ONE 10" front-firing woofer, seems to hit the sweet spot for performance and value.
The spire looks nice. I just think the price/performance ratio of the martin logans has gotten worse with every model. Think about it the requests were the same or less the the ascents, the ascents less then the vantage. Its hard to truely say ml is developing smaller products that are better, or just speakers that dont cost as much to produce for larger somes of money with catchy names like micro perf and x-stat. Im not bad mouthing Logans, I love them. I do personally think the downsizing of the panels has serious negative effect. If this was true what would be the need to make the summitts panels bigger then the vantage to sound better? Because panel size makes a huge difference. I say give us ascent i size speakers with the newer technologies for $1k more then the $4300 ascent i MSRP, and a prodigy size panel with the new technologies with 1.5k-2k rize in price, then I could see ML is definately moving forward with performance with a fair mark up. Just my opinion. And I do need to got here the new logans for more time then Ive heard to have a valid opinion, but this sure seams fishy and a way from the popular martin logan company to make some profit. I will say since there new line of speakers you dont hear as much "buzz" as you used to. And little to no reviews, seams interesting.
Well, since initially I was the '1st responder' to this thread, I feel obligated to add my .02...

I once owned the Summits (a GREAT speaker) but needed some cash for other home projects - so went down a step to the Vantages. I have owned these now for about 6 mos. and can honestly say I don't feel like I am giving up ANYTHING to the Summits. The Vantages are fabulous speakers. From the mids on up, I really don't think there is much of a discernable difference between the two - with one possible caveat. If you are in a huge room (say bigger than 20'x 30') the Summits WILL play a bit louder, with more ease. But considering that the Summits are TWICE the price, the law of diminishing returns really rears it's head pretty quickly here. There obviously isn't any where near a 50% improvement in sound.

Regarding panel size - yes, I think prior to the new 'X-Stat' models, the larger you went, the better they tended to sound, but the newer panels are MUCH more efficient, play louder, and as advertised, actually have a larger radiating area per sq. inch than the older, larger panels. I speak from some experience as I have owned Sequel II's, Aerius I's, ReQuests, Odysseys, Prodigys, Summits and now the Vantages. In fact, I actually feel that the narrower panel images better, with less 'venetian blind' effect and freq. changes with-slight-head-movements that used to occur with the larger panels.

Getting back to the Summits vs. Vantage - as an added bonus, the Vantages actually 'gel' better in the bass (in MY room) than the Summits did. Despite more controls on the bass units on the Summits, I could never completely eliminate a bass hump in the 80 hz-ish range, no matter what I tried. The Vantages might not go ultimately as deep, but they are faster and cleaner, again, in my room - go figure.
The new Vantage and Summits are really bass heavy. The mids have a lot less body than the older Logans. I personally loved my Aerius i, but didn't like my Vantage much, and could never get them to sound right, in two different rooms (one pretty large), a couple different tube amps, different high quality sources + preamps... just never sounded natural to me. I'm guess if you love serious low end bass or are into home theatre, you'll love these. Resale was pretty easy tho, so that's a plus, and of course, they look amazing. Just my two cents.
When I sold my Ascent i's to a gentleman who owned vantages. he said he wasnt sure which he preferred. he ended up moving the vantages to the rear and left the ascent i's as the mains. I found this interesting and helped me move out of the martin logan era I was in.
Ive been emailing people who have there vantage/vista's up for sale to find out how they stacked up to previous Logans in the same price. The response's I got were incredible. So many of them said the new Logan line sounds like home theater mass produced speakers. I found this interesting as Ive read this elsewhere as well.

I was interested in the clx, till I saw what they looked like, and how over priced they are. This showed me Martin Logan is not the same company they once were. I will say there service(jim powers) is the best out there. Nobody even comes close to this guy!
I wouldn't knock the CLX until you've heard it. At the 2008 Munich High End show, it won a "Best of Show" award. Those who HAVE heard it (I've not) say it's jaw-dropping good. Getting OPTIMAL sound from ML's (whether new or older models) takes a fair bit of effort, and MANY owners (even some dealers) don't know how to properly set them up. If you slap them up against a wall, with an underpowered amp, you'll definitely get "mid-fi" sound. In the right room, with the right components, you get MAGIC!
Thats the whole problem, setting them up. not only was I never happy with where they were placed, and I tried everything from 2 ft to 9ft!!! Who in the world wants a speaker like this? There is no optimal positions with a logan. You set it for one area, you loose in another. No thanks. Also, regardless what the clx sounds like, my eyes dont fail me, they are about as ugly as Ive ever seen, and they look like they were put together from spare parts from past logans, and the frame is even worse!

Also, do you honestly think since the cls was made, the price ratio for making them has gone up more then 4 times. This is typical Martin Logan lately. They once made great speakers at there price points, then the new versions came out. They have offered less and almost double the price. Buy into marketing if you wish, but there is one constant with panel speakers, the bigger the better. I have heard the vista,vantage,summitt, not impressed at all. Sure, the summitts sounded nice, but at 10k? Give me some Legacy Audio whispers any day of the week. Both are around the same price used. Save yourself from placement issue's, amp issue's, and all out better sound from the Legacy Whispers.

I will say Martin Logans service is out of this world! Jim Powers is the man. Martin Logan should pay this man anything he asks, because he is simply amazing at quick responses and following through! Nobody, I mean nobody can top this guy in my experience.
I think you have to be careful about taking comments on any dipole speaker without seeing how the responder had them set up. I have seen absolutely rediculous positions with apogee, logans, and mags such as the speakers being 2 feet from the rear wall with an equipment rack (5 feet wide) between the speakers with only a foot between the rack and the edge of the speaker in the same plane.

Dipoles are critical with the rear wave. It's as important as the front wave. You need an 8 milisecond delay for the rear wave in order for it to be perceived as added depth otherwise it detracts from the effect. Sound moves about 1 foot per milisecond so thats a minimum of 4 feet to the rear wall and there can be nothing between the speakers or its interfering with the rear wave. Instructions often say shorter distances to such boundaries are ok but thats to open up the market to people who wouldnt otherwise buy. Couple this with people adding in their own opinion as to what tolerances can be applied to the recommended distances and you get ideas like,"Well it says 2-5 feet to the rear wall is optimum, so 1 1/2 feet is passable". The result is that short distances result in early reflections which actually decrease depth illusion and confuse central images. The speaker also loses the 'blat' in horns and hollows out female voices.

Once prperly set up a true dipole effect will blow away any other direct radiating speaker. If you cant optimize these things then you cant give a true opinion of how they sound. You can only comment on a compromised set-up with a compromised opinion. Dipoles are not for small rooms. 4 feet to the rear wall, 4 feet from the speaker to listener, and 4 feet behind them suggests 12x12 as the smallest rooms. If you dont have this, a high resolution minimonitor with a good servo sub will outperform a poorly set up dipole.