Anyone listened to ML Vantage?

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!