MartinLogan CLX
Jonathan Valin -- Thu, 05/22/2008 - 22:46
I just learned that i will be getting the MartinLogan CLX for review. This is exciting! I owned and used CLSes (CLS I, CLS II, CLS IIz) for ten years and I still look back on them as one of the high points of my audio life. They were irritating in some ways (the unfixable suckout in the upper-midbass-to-lower-midrange power range of the original CLS, especially), but their much-remarked-upon transparency and virtual colorlessness (on a par with that of the Symposium Panoramas) still haunt me. They really did sound like they looked--"see through." No other 'stats that I've heard (and I've heard most of 'em) were so amazingly and finely detailed and so low in "'stat" and enclosure coloration. (OTOH, no other stats were quite as anemic in the power range.)
I will be visiting ML in Lawrence, KS, where I will take photos of the construction of the CLX and talk to the designers behind the project. As soon as I have them in house, I will discuss the history of the design, my experiences with earlier iterations, and the differences in the new version in detail.
FYI, even though I missed hearing them when I was in Munich, I found out that the CLX not only won "Best of Show" but won the award unanimously, which is a first in Munich High End Show history!
Jon,
The original CLS is still my reference for purity and transparency from the midrange upwards.
Whilst not hearing them myself, their mutation to the CLSII was not greeted with much approval?
What were your impressions?
Jon,
I just read your description here of the original CLS and couldn't agree more.
I heard them in my friend's living room powered by Audio Research SP9 and D115.....good God.... it must be 20 years ago?!
I wondered why Gayle Sanders never re-introduced them and then read an interview with him where he said it would NEVER be re-introduced and that the CLSII was a giant mistake that he allowed to be fabricated by someone he trusted....and shouldn't have?
Halcro,
I liked the CLS IIz better than the CLS II, but for sheer transparency, speed, detail, and (at least where they played well, which was in the heart of the heart midrange) immediacy, it wasn't as shockingly realistic as the original CLS. For all its flaws (not much power in the treble, the suckout in the power range that I've already mentioned, a tendency toward the so-called "Venetian Blind" and "head in the vice" effects, limitations on how loud they could play, driveability problems, lack of dynamic pop in the midbass, etc.), that was still some magical speaker! Particularly on voice or small ensemble the original CLSes were so damn lifelike they rivaled the Pans and the great Maggie I-Us, albeit without all of the Pans' dynamic or frequency range on the bottom and the very top.
Jon
Jon,
Which version are you getting?
When?
I've been hoping for the day when ML would reintroduce the CLS.
One of the best systems I've ever heard featured the original CLS. Mind you, this was a properly driven pair, and I can't emphasize that enough (otherwise, you can get more upper midrange forwardness than I can take---it destroys the illusion for me).
In the sweet spot, it had wonderful transparency, transient speed, and inner detail, as well as a degree of layered soundstaging that was breathtaking. Unforutnately, my wife was sitting next to me (out of the sweet spot) and was NOT at all impressed. When we changed seats, we both got to see what the other was talking about.
Do you have an idea what the MSRP is projected to be?
Thanks!
Jim
$22,000.00
Dear Jim,
Base cosmetics are 20k a pair. There will be a 25th anniversary item with special al aluminum chasis for 25 K.
E
25k version is limited production run they say only 100 pairs
Thanks, Elliott.
While I'm pleased they are coming back, the pricing is a major disappointment, considering the originals retailed for $2490 per pair in 1986!
Yes, one could make an argument for inflation, but using the BLS conversion calculator, $2490 in 1986 dollars should equal $4880 in 2008 dollars. Using the cost-of-living calculator, it would be $4,709 in 2007 dollars.
To be fair, a pair in teak cost $4030 in 1994 (probably wasn't the original CLS). In 2008 dollars, that would be $5,841 according to the BLS calculator.
Given improvements in parts quality, design costs, etc. I could accept a price around $10K, but $20K?
Guess they're using a lot of gold in the new versions?
Jim
I am very content with my Prodigies------ a swap at double the price isn't immediately attractive. Don
Dear Jim,
While I enjoyed the math I hope that this product is significantly better than what they made over 25 years ago. I have a little information that they send to us and it seems that the CLS was the inspiration and more of a launching point for a new reference product from them. I hope that this is the case since making the same thing would not really be very interesting. I don't know about gold however they did mention some green materials. I am certainly curious and it does seem that everything that comes out these days is multiples of 10K. THe U.S. dollar is certainly not what it used to be.
EG
Jim and Elliot,
I do not know at this point which version I will be getting (i.e., whether I'll be getting the souped-up one).
Quote:
I hope that this is the case [that it is significantly better] since making the same thing would not really be very interesting.
I agree with this, Elliot, although it kind of depends on whether by the "same thing" you mean the CLS, the CLS II, or the CLS IIz. I'd settle for the incredible transparency and immediacy,very low coloration, very high resolution,and fool-ya realism of the original CLS in the middle of the midband, with improved frequency response up and down (although I personally don't care that much about really deep bass, so long as the mid and upper bass are filled in accurately), better driveability (as Jim and I pointed out, the original CLS was a bear to drive), much greater dynamic range (particularly on the bottom and the very top), less of a head-in-the-vise effect (or "sweet-spot" effect, although with a stat this is perforce somewhat negotiable), and, above all else, greater power delivery and density of tone color and weight in the midbass and in the critical power range of the upper bass/lower mids.
As for pricing...I agree that this is quite a leap over the very affordable (else I couldn't have owned it) original CLS. But let's see what has been changed and what has been improved before we pass judgment. ML gear has always been very fairly priced for what you get sonically,IMO, which has contributed to ML's success. Not too long ago I reviewed its hybrid $2k Source, and it was a terrific value-for-dollar. In fact, I gave it--dare I say it--a Golden Ear.
Jon
Aren't these speakers still being produced in Kansas?
Admittedly, some of the parts (transformers?) may be sourced outside the US, but it's hard to believe the Bill of Materials has changed that much (adjusted for inflation). There's just not a lot of parts in a stat. If they are coating them differently to increase reliability/output, I can understand a higher labor content in producing the speakers. Also, the previous coating material may have had to have been replaced with a more environmentally friendly (and costlier) material. I would suspect the internal bracing is also improved, yielding a higher cost. Like I said, $10K wouldn't shock me.
However, I suspect the $20K pricing is based on how the speaker compares with others in its class, rather than on some reasonable multiple of actual cost? There's nothing wrong with that as a strategy (many others do it), but it pushes great products out of the reach of many of us, and that's the tragedy.
Jim
Sorry Jon, our posts crossed.
I agree that we should see what it is before passing judgment.
You are right that ML has offered a lot of products that were, dare I say, underpriced.
I'm reacting emotionally (uh-oh) to the fact that these new CLS speakers will be outside my price range. I was so looking forward to snagging a pair.
All the best,
Jim
Quote:I'm reacting emotionally (uh-oh) to the fact that these new CLS speakers will be outside my price range. I was so looking forward to snagging a pair.
Yeah...the CLS was Everyman's dream (or every man who wants a state-of-the-art product for a very affordable price). Alas, it was also Everyman's nightmare. Over and above the sonic issues, I haven't yet mentioned panel-reliability problems, which drove me nuts. All CLSes were hygroscopic and when the humidity went up, the sound levels went down (sometimes very close to inaudibility)! To ML's credit it replaced defective drivers with no questions asked (and this is well before I became a reviewer).
Well if settling for a perfect electrostatic is what you want to do I think the line will form behind you very quickly. I have no idea how the price was arrived at since non of us have seen the product orheard it. Everything is so bloody expensive and the cost of labor, insurance, energy, packaging, advertising etc etc is just going up daily.
If it was my company I would want the price to be at a point that I won't have to start raising it right after it gets reviewed and can remain stable for a significant period of time. As a dealer I know the public really hates reading a good review at one price and then it is available at a siginificantly higher price when they go to buy it.
I would expect for it to be viable at the price that it should solve all the obvious short cummings of the old ones and perhaps break new ground for the catagory.
But what do I know :)
Quote:Aren't these speakers still being produced in Kansas?
At $20-25k, we're not in Kansas anymore, Jim.
Yeah, they are still made in Lawrence. In fact, I'm going to take a factory tour and see just how they're made. It ought to be damn interesting.
My hope is that the CLX does break new ground and solves the problems of the old designs. I also hope that these advances trickle down to new, more affordable ML designs. Elliot, maybe you could suggest this to the powers that be at ML? (Hopefully, they're already hard at work on this)
I'm on the look-out for the next Everyman's dream speaker. Like the CLS and a few others in their day, these products helped bring new people into the hobby, and caused some old hands to get reinvigorated.
I'd suggest the Maggie 3.6 at ~$4K is one of those today?
Others? (The new Quads at $9K are terrific, but perhaps a bit too much of an economic stretch to be classified as Everyman's dream speaker)
Jim
jvalin wrote:Quote:
At $20-25k, we're not in Kansas anymore, Jim.
Now that comment brought a big smile to my face!
Would that I could click my heels and have a pair.
Dear Jim,
I have no weight there. I am just a dealer and one that leans towards the other end of the spectrum. We don't see many entry level clients since we have all these big box movers near us. These places both carry ML products. They are also avalable on amazon these days. I think this impacts on how they are shown and it is very hard to hear them on amazon. Is there really a market there? I wonder.
Quote:it is very hard to hear them on amazon
Droll, very droll indeed! But, at the same time, not so funny for guys like you, me, Jim, and Halcro who, at least in the first three instances (I'm not sure Halcro is as old a fogey as we are), grew up with brick-and-mortar high-end hi-fi stores and the culture of brick-and-mortar high-end stores, of actually and carefully and repeatedly listening to what we were thinking about buying, because the little (and big) differences we heard mattered so greatly--the absolute sound mattered so greatly.
Imagine buying a Magico Mini II or a CLX from an on-line retailer--sound unheard, sight unseen, record unplayed?
Jon,
I am afraid its true. I have two large chains a mile from my old place.
Receivers , switch boxes, and walls full of speakers, including up to ML Summits. Wire off the roll all lined up next to each other like soldiers.
Now this is the High End experience!
We all got old and the younger kids listen to ipods and computers.
The Industry has lost touch to a large part with bringing new people in. Have you ever stopped to wonder where all of this really expensive gear goes? We just had a large debate as to why I care.
EG
The amazon.com "channel" suggests that people are either "stealing" a local dealer's time and resources and then going online and buying on price or using reviews, etc. entirely to make their purchase decisions.
That's a very, very sad state of affairs. We all have stories of how valuable a good local dealer can be. There is no way I would have purchased an MFA Luminescence preamp if I hadn't spent an afternoon with the dealer switching between the Lumie, Audio Research SP-11 and SP10MkII, and a CAT. All were fine preamps, some of the best available at the time, but the Lumie's sound was more to my tastes and I purchased it that afternoon from the dealer. Moreover, I kept it for years and years.
There seem to be several brands that value the dealer channel and keep their products from being sold by direct and/or mass marketers (e.g. Wilson Audio, Magnepan, etc.). They probably deserve more recognition than they get.
Jim
Quote: We just had a large debate as to why I care.
And why I care, my friend--and not just for the big marques but for the little guys who get scanted or overlooked or never noticed at all, in part because the culture has changed so much (and not just in the hi-fi world), and what once, long ago, might have caused a stir of attention paid by the people who paid attention to things that sounded great, regardless of how big or well-established the company that made them--where an unknown like Richard Vandersteen or Jim Winey could go to a trade show a complete unknown and come away with a business--has begun to go the way of $2-a-gallon gasoline.
But this is a different subject, meant for a different thread.
Jon, They all had finished products to show and sell. That is in a nutshell the difference. NOt a one off contraption that will never see the light of day. It will never see the light of day Jon. What kind of company gives a reviewer their only piece that took 1o years to make. Wait POOF froggy plunked his magic twanger and its ready to sell at 60, oops 80, opps 100 k or more.( IS the price right this time master?) This is a big help to all the Industry. You are mistaking your obvious passion with something else. You found a new toy that was cool. I grant you that as far as doing something good , for whom it is it good Jon besides you and PB? I think you should talk to someone that makes speakers and see what it takes from prototype to production. Every single company here in TAS has at least one prototype they are working on right now!! EVERY single one!! Where is this fair, where is this helpful? How are you helping anyone? I have gotten 18 calls this week from manufacturers who all said thanks. Why? think about it? If others have done this then they were wrong as well, however that does not make it right. IS ML asking you to review a contraption? Is Revel? Is Magico? Is Wilson? Is Magnepan? I don't think so!
This industry is full of little guys that did it the right way, the honest way, the old fashioned way THEY EARNED IT!
For all of them I stand and applaud.
I got a lot of calls and e-mails, too, kiddo, but I truly don't want to start this debate up again here. We've hashed it out on the other thread, at least as much as possible. Let's get back to the MartinLogans!
Judging from the spec sheet for the 25th Anniversary Edition version, which I'm reproducing below, the new CLX does not appear to solve one "problem" of the original speaker--it doesn't go all that deep in the bass (-3dB at 56Hz in an anechoic measurement, which is not quite as low as the original Magico Mini went). However, in Munich, where the speaker debuted and won a unanimous Best of Show, the bass in particular was said to have been phenomenally good (and phenomenally powerful). So...who knows?
The CLX still looks like it may be a bit tricky to drive. Although it has a nominal 6 ohm load with a relatively highish sensitivity of 90dB, there is a sizable impedance dip in the treble (but this is true of a lot of 'stats). It's certainly a good deal sturdier than the original CLS, which I could pick up with two hands back in the day. At 152 pounds a side, I won't be picking the CLX up without some help. The CLX also appears to be taller, wider, and more complex than the CLS. The CLS used the one curvilinear panel for all frequencies; the CLX uses a new-generation CLS membrane down to 360Hz, where it crosses over to a separate "double-diaphragm, triple-stator" electrostatic woofer.
Of course, spec sheets can't tell you what the thing sounds like in room. That remains to be seen, or heard. Having just reviewed the ML Source, I can say for a fact that ML's latest-generation "XStat" CLS panels are sensationally fast and detailed. In fact, outside of a little mid-to-treble forwardness (which was the chief "tell" that the $2k Source was a hybrid with a cone woofer), the Source sounded quite realistic driven by the ARC 610T (overkill, I know), resolving almost-electrostatic-headphone-like inner detail.
Frequency Response: 56–23,000 Hz ± 3dB
Horizontal Dispersion: 30 degrees
Vertical Dispersion: 57" (145cm) line source
High Frequency Transducer: 57" (145cm) CLS" (curvilinear line source) XStat" electrostatic transducer
Low Frequency Transducer: 57" (145cm) DualForce double diaphragm, triple stator dipole low-frequency electrostatic transducer
Sensitivity: 90 dB/2.83 volts/meter
Impedance: 6 ohms, 0.7 at 20kHz
Crossover Frequency: 360 Hz
Components: Thick film on alumina substrate resistors, air core coils, polypropylene capacitors, and custom wound toroidal audio transformers
Controls: Light intensity dimmer controls
Power Handling:225 watts per channel
Signal Inputs: Custom binding posts
Weight (25th Anniversary Edition): 152 lbs./channel (69 kg)
Dimensions (HxWxD): 70.3" × 25.75" × 14.69"
Mr. Valin,
What is the smallest room you would put the CLX in, without greatly diminishing its virtues? Would putting them in a 12x14 room be a waste of money?
Thanks
Mr. Valin,
What is the smallest room you would put the CLX in, without greatly diminishing its virtues? Would putting them in a 12x14 room be a waste of money?
Thanks
Dear Jim,
I certainly agree that a good dealer is valuable. You would expect me to say that but I am also a consumer of other items and I can not imagine buying something important to me without the ability to see it and try it in some way. ( this depends on what it is off course). I do think there are companies and consumers that do exactly as you stated and it is a subject for another thread about the relationship between Customer, dealer, manufacturer and reviewer. They are all related and all effect the pricing and service. Since I do this for a living I try to treat all other sales realted buinesses the way I want to be treated.
Jon,
I agree. We can agree to disagree somewhere else.
Jon---thanks for the detail on the CLX.
I'm a bit surprised it doesn't go lower, but am interested to hear the double diaphram, triple-stator "woofer." I think it's very difficult to get a lot of bass power from a single, full-range membrane (A dedicated subwoofer panel like the SoundLab B-1 is another matter altogether.)
Sounds like ML has really provided a beefy frame for the CLX. Richard Lees/Jerry Crosby demonstrated the importance of the mass of the stat's frame.
Thanks,
Jim
JV--the bass issue is fascinating, and one that, I must confess, I'm feeling rather despondent about when it comes to planars. My sense is that they just won't go down into the nether regions--the Magnepan 20.1 doesn't really go much below 40 hz. It simply peters out. The panel radiating area is simply too small. And even the SoundLab Majestic is sorely wanting in the bass department. It probably takes an enormous panel, dedicate solely to the lower frequencies, to produce the low notes when it comes to planars or electrostats.
Jacob,
Yeah, you're right. Getting deep bass from planars or 'stats has always been problematical (think back to the KLH Nines or the Quad 57s). The trouble isn't so much that they can't go low in an abstract sense; it's that they can't move enough air "down there" to get that bass out into the room or they have drum-head resonances (or provoke room resonances or cancellation effects) that mask their low bass. If you like deep bass, you probably need to think about a subwoofer, although, as I'm sure you already know only too well, most of those things bring their own irremediable sets of problems with them, too, particularly when you try to mate them with a fast planar or 'stat. It's a quandary.
When I get the MBL 101 Xes, why don't you pay me a visit? (I'm assuming you're my pal JH.) Those things may--repeat, may (repeat, may)--be an answer. They have the boxless openness of planars, the airiness and depth of field of dipoles, and simply astonishing transient response and low-level resolution top to bottom. They also have really good deep bass (or, at least, the 101 Es did). Whether they will be smooth and neutral enough in timbre for you (or me) remains to be heard. The 101 Es were actually kind of gorgeous sounding in tone color, but they weren't "neutral" like, say, a Mini II.
Jon
Jim,
Yeah, the 56Hz -3dB point rather shocked me, too. That's almost exactly the same as the original CLS. However, rooms can do good things (and bad) for bass, and it may be that mine (which seems to boost the low end) will fill in the bottom some (at least down into the mid-40s). I would be content with that, provided that the midbass and power range weren't sucked out the way they were with the original CLS.
Paradoxically, reporters from the Munich High End Show said the bass of the CLX was one of its primary glories...odd, eh?
Jon
Jon,
Don't you think that if these newer speakers can get down anywhere around 50 that the newer generation of great subs might be able to work with them? Old school stuff for sure wouldn't but some of the new toys ( i won't mention brand or brands) are really excellent and fast as well.
I won't fight you over the answer :)
Hi Jon,
yup, it's me. When do the new set of MBLs arrive? I would indeed like to visit.
JH
You know, Elliot, I don't know for sure. I can only go on past experience, which has been very mixed. It always seems to me--or almost always--that you trade away a bit of what you bought your main speakers for (the speed, the transparency, the resolution of timbre and texture) when you add a sub. Yeah, you get bass--sometimes very good bass--but you also get a touch of opacity (because, no matter where it crosses over or how steeply, that damn subwoofer still plays or sounds ever-so-faintly, up into the midrange--and this is true whether the sub is a planar or a cone). This slight addition of opacity (which can be very slight, I admit, when everything is just so) doesn't bother some folks as much as it does me. But, speaking strictly for myself, it has always been the case that after initially thrilling to the added bass extension, dynamics, and color (and the salubrious effect that adding "floor" to the soundstage always has), I inevitably begin to miss the "purity" of the main speakers all by their lonesomes. My rule of thumb with subwoofers is the same as my rule of thumb for switching from analog to digital used to be: If you add a sub, never, ever, listen to your main speakers without it again.
On the subject of subs: as Jonathan indicates, it is a vexed one. The problem, I think, is that subs with dynamic cone drivers produce a different "kind" of bass, tonally, for lack of a better word, than that delivered by a planar, which may account for why it is near impossible to integrate them properly. In other words, it isn't simply a matter of timing, though that's a big issue as well. I think Jonathan's review of the Torus subwoofer, by Wilson Benesch, suggested something on these lines; the Torus, which I've not heard, but does seem similar in design to a planar, probably would integrate best, but doesn't deliver the stygian frequencies.
Jacob,
The 101Xs will be here in about two weeks, on June 13th. I'll need some time, of course, to play them in and dial them in to the room. But you are more than welcome to come any time thereafter that suits you. I'd truly love to sit down and listen to music with you, kiddo (as we've done at RMAF and CES). I just hope the 101Xes prove to be worth listening to!
Jon
Jacob,
You should visit a fellow that reviews occasionally for TAS in LA.
I hear the Maggies there are pretty dang good :).
Would solve your bass issues for good.
ah, rupert, those towers of power are indeed something. now fess up and reveal what's behind your cognomen.
Jon--I will figure out a time. It's been on my mind.
Rupert's truly delightful "cognomen" (in case some don't know) is taken from Martin Scorsese's film, The King of Comedy. In it, Robert De Niro's batty character--an amateur comedian who lives with his mom and aspires to "make it" big via a guest shot on a late-night talk show like Tonight with Johnny Carson--is named Rupert Pupkin.
I'll get in touch with you via e-mail, Jacob.
"I inevitably begin to miss the "purity" of the main speakers all by their lonesomes."
Jon, your complete posting on sub-woofers in general really struck a chord with me.
After 20 years of enjoying the utter purity and transparency of my full range custom made speakers, I added a REL Stadium II subwoofer and for 10 years thoroughly enjoyed the added 'foundation' it provided to my sound.
When I bought the Halcro DM58 Monoblock Amps, I found that they were actually able to drive my undamped 12" cross-overless paper woofers, down to 37 Hz which is almost what the REL was giving me in my room anyway.
When I disconnected the REL from the system, I rediscovered the utter joy of the purity and transparency which had drawn me to my original speakers.
Yes....it was only a slight smearing if you will, which wasn't evident until you removed the subwoofer.
Having said that, I have now ordered 2 Vandersteen 2Wq Subwoofers to place in the room corners behind the main speakers to pressurise the room modes and see if I can get below 30 Hz?
The Vandersteens are sealed boxes like my main speakers so the speed and tightness may be a better match than the ported RELs.
If I don't like them, I will remove them.
Thanks Jon,
I still think it depends on how low the mains go before you bring the sub in however I agree I had no luck with any of my stats and subs. It was never close with my Stax, Quads, Acoustats, CLS, or Maggies but that was a long time ago. I agree that there is a different chartacter to the sound and it hasn't seemed to mix well with the aforementioned products. I really like the JL's and I will try it with the ClX if and when I get them, this is not as of yet a sure thing especially if they end up in an online bookstore.
rupert pupkin wrote:Jacob,
You should visit a fellow that reviews occasionally for TAS in LA.
I hear the Maggies there are pretty dang good :).
Would solve your bass issues for good.
I would like to as well, since I live in L.A. I've had a factory rebuilt and highly modded pair of Tympani IVa Maggies in my system for years. I've heard the 20.1's in less than ideal conditions and would like to hear them optimized in a home set-up.
I've been using a Sunfire Signature sub with the Maggies, which I find integrates very well. It was set it up using suggestions from HP when he mated this sub with the 3.6's.
jvalin wrote:Jim,
Yeah, the 56Hz -3dB point rather shocked me, too. That's almost exactly the same as the original CLS. However, rooms can do good things (and bad) for bass, and it may be that mine (which seems to boost the low end) will fill in the bottom some (at least down into the mid-40s). I would be content with that, provided that the midbass and power range weren't sucked out the way they were with the original CLS.
Paradoxically, reporters from the Munich High End Show said the bass of the CLX was one of its primary glories...odd, eh?
Jon
Those speakers must have had quite a lot of room reinforcement at the Munich show!
'Stat midbass articulation and speed can be stunning, and, at least for me, can make up for a lack of the deepest tones (However, I must admit that I'm listening to a lot of Bach organ music, Mahler symphonies, Stravinsky, and even some electronica on the Hyperion HPS-968 with dynamic drivers that I'm reviewing now. They go down into the mid 20s).
I have been unable to get subs to really mate well with any type of Quad (e.g., I ended up removing my modified Entec SW-1s and storing them away because they impinged on the purity of the Crosby Quads I owned at the time), but I haven't tried some of the new ones.
The WB Torus subs might be an interesting pairing with the CLX, although the differences in wave form launch characteristics may cause a problem?
(I have absolutely NO experience with the Torus subs). Are you planning on trying that combo, Jon?
Thanks,
Jim
Jacob wrote:JV--the bass issue is fascinating, and one that, I must confess, I'm feeling rather despondent about when it comes to planars. My sense is that they just won't go down into the nether regions--the Magnepan 20.1 doesn't really go much below 40 hz. It simply peters out. The panel radiating area is simply too small. And even the SoundLab Majestic is sorely wanting in the bass department. It probably takes an enormous panel, dedicate solely to the lower frequencies, to produce the low notes when it comes to planars or electrostats.
Jacob, I fear you may be right about this.
The only stat that I have heard that produced prodigious (and incredible) bass was a pair of SoundLab A-1s with a pair (yes, a pair) of B-1 subwoofer panels. The B-1s are "enormous panels dedicated solely to the lower frequencies." Besides the high price tag, I don't believe SoundLab is making them anymore (?) and they have "divorce" written all over them.
Let me know if you find a great (and smaller) solution,
Jim
Jim,
The Toruses were taken away after I wrote a negative review of another product handled by the same distribution outfit. So, no, I'm not planning to try the Torus with the CLXes.
I would imagine, in any event, that ML would prefer it if I used its Descent sub with the CLX, if, indeed, I opt for a sub. (Which I probably won't.) As you said, Jim, if I can squeeze an honest 40Hz out of the CLX, and the midbass is right, and the power range isn't sucked out, I'm not that concerned about the bottom octave. I mean I'd love to have it, all things being equal, but all things usually aren't. Heck, I lived with the Mini and the Mini II for several years sans sub and didn't really miss the low bass. OTOH, I also lived with the 101 Es for several years and really enjoyed their low bass. Go figure.
On the subject of 'stats with really deep bass, I had a pair of Sound Lab M-1s that went very, very low (low enough to cause the cushions of the couch I sat on to flex in and out). But, unfortunately, the bass wasn't well controlled and the midbass was also rather too much of a good thing. I solved the midbass problem eventually with a Krell FPB650, which wasn't at all impressive with speakers that had a stable load but was fantastic with speakers that were a difficult load. The more difficult, the better those amps sounded.
Jon
I am told that Martin Logan is having some type of Event in Paris on Sunday at a famous hotel. I am trying to get an invitation to go and listen for myself since I will be arriving in Paris on Sunday from the JM Labs introduction.
I look foward to hearing them with a little mazel!
Elliot Goldman wrote:I am told that Martin Logan is having some type of Event in Paris on Sunday at a famous hotel. I am trying to get an invitation to go and listen for myself since I will be arriving in Paris on Sunday from the JM Labs introduction.
Elliot,
I hope you get an invitation and can hear the new M-Ls. It will be interesting to see whether ML augments the bass with a sub(s).
Have a great trip!
Jim
jvalin wrote:As you said, Jim, if I can squeeze an honest 40Hz out of the CLX, and the midbass is right, and the power range isn't sucked out, I'm not that concerned about the bottom octave. I mean I'd love to have it, all things being equal, but all things usually aren't. Heck, I lived with the Mini and the Mini II for several years sans sub and didn't really miss the low bass. OTOH, I also lived with the 101 Es for several years and really enjoyed their low bass. Go figure. . . Jon
Jon,
I know what you mean. While I can live quite comfortably with speakers that get things right from 40 Hz up, I do enjoy low bass---when it is coherent with the rest of the sonc spectrum. I'm listening to "Die Musik" speakers that skillfully integrate what one might call subs with a remarkable flat (planar?) coincident midrange driver. The extra octave gives a foundation to music that is exciting and provides spatial cues that fill out the entire stage (particularly the corners at the back). I'm having a lot of fun with them.
Jim
Post new comment