A Sincere From My Heart Question Regarding the Future of ML ESL

[christopherf]

Yes I know the current ML ESL "employ crossovers." In fact it was only until we came across the new series that I feel they achieved a kind of seamlessness not before achieved.

When I was referring to there is no crossover like no crossover I was referring specifically to the CLS IIZ and wishing they would release something akin to it.

Make no mistake we LOVE our speakers and were fortunate to have them set up perfectly.

Yes I keep hearing that crossovers are better than ever as are drivers. A manufacturer in Germany told Jay's Audio Lab that the reason the music from his speakers seemed to arrive at the ears at the same time was his use of first order crossovers so the drivers where in phase. Jim Thiel used to use first order crossovers and yet:

First-Order Filters: Panacea or Pain?

As mentioned, the Thiel CS 2 2's crossover features first-order, 6dB/octave slopes. Many audiophiles state, without specifying why, that first-order slopes are "the best." A first-order crossover is unique in that it offers the minimum phase error through the crossover region between the two drive-units, hence the best time-domain behavior (least ringing and overshoot). The drive-units also work in phase outside of the crossover region in a time-coherent manner; ie, they are both in phase and in time-step with the input signal. More complicated crossover filters, such as the popular fourth-order Linkwitz-Riley, allow the drive-units to be in phase in the crossover region, but at the expense of the overall time coherency: the drive-units may have the same acoustic polarity, but only because one has had its phase rotated through 360°; it therefore lags the input signal by that amount of phase shift. The downside of first-order crossover filters is that they offer the lowest out-of-band rejection of any. An octave above or below the nominal crossover frequency, the driver's output has only been halved (reduced by 6dB), compared with a fourth-order filter's reduction in output to just 1/16 (reduced by 24dB). Any drive-unit problems that are nominally out of its passband—a tweeter's fundamental resonance, a woofer's cone breakup modes—will therefore still affect the sound quality of a speaker using a first-order crossover. The drive-units must therefore be much better behaved overall than normal. Second, what matters is the ultimate acoustic slope of the crossover filter after being transduced by the drive-unit. Merely driving a woofer through a series inductor will not in itself result in a first-order rollout if the driver itself inherently rolls out with a 6dB/octave slope above the crossover region, which is often the case. The ultimate slope in this case will be 12dB/octave, and the design will no longer be time-coherent. In a speaker using a true first-order crossover, the drive-units must therefore maintain their flat response well beyond their nominal passband. In addition, the drive-units' impedance must not vary too much with frequency from its nominal value, as this, too, will, affect the ultimate slope. Third, because of the shallow rollout slopes and the fact that the drivers are, of necessity, vertically separated in space, a speaker using first-order slopes will have an overall frequency response critically dependent on listening axis, due to the very broad overlap between adjacent drivers. The distance from the listener's ear to each of the drivers must be equal for their outputs to add up in a time-coherent and flat-amplitude manner; if not, there will be nulls in the amplitude response at the frequencies where the difference in distance equals one half-wavelength. Another way of looking at this is that two drive-units used one above the other on a flat baffle, crossed over with first-order filters and connected with the same electrical polarity, will have a listening axis downtilted from the horizontal (by about 15° for a typical two-way design). Reversing the electrical polarity of the tweeter will tilt the main response lobe up by the same amount, implying that the speaker would then sound and measure okay on a shorter-than-normal stand. The time-coherent nature of the first-order crossover would, however, be compromised. A designer intending to use first-order slopes must therefore choose the listening axis, then carefully slope or step the speaker's front baffle (or place the tweeter below the woofer) so that the outputs of the drivers do indeed sum correctly in both time and frequency domains on that axis. I hope it is obvious that deciding to design a speaker with a first-order crossover is not the simple business that many audiophiles feel it to be of just using a single series element in the feed to each drive-unit. Nevertheless, in the hands of a talented, careful designer—Jim Thiel, Richard Vandersteen, and Robin Marshall of Epos are probably the leading practitioners—such a speaker can be arranged to have flat frequency response and time-coherent performance.—John Atkinson

 

[Rascal]

I really didn't intend on giving you or anyone else a lecture about crossovers, anymore than I believe you intended to lecture me by quoting John Atkinson, circuit and system theory that I've known for a great while.

Based on the thread title, I believe the central issue for you here has been concern about ML's reduced levels of publicity and what impact if any that might have upon you and your investment.

My intent was simply to express my pleasure in what's been a long relationship with a prior ML ESL model seemingly rendered obsolete by the model you bought, and a high level of satisfaction with the support I've received from the company's support group which seems to be very much intact. I also come across many seasoned audio enthusiasts who are very pleased with the ML ESLs they own.

I sense from your last remark that you're pleased as well, and that's great.

 

[christopherf]

Yes we have always been over the moon about the sound we are getting; the best part is hearing from members their experiences with support even for models well outside the warranty period and that is heartening indeed.

You are correct it was not my intention to be or sound in any way as if I was "schooling" you. It is just I too have been to audio shows and I have not been inside any room where I felt if I hit the lottery this is the room I want to take home. That is not to say some were not outstanding (my wife was smitten by Dynaudio when the demoed their Evidence speakers with Sim Audio Moon amplifiers) and MBL made me stop look and listen. I went because people insisted woofers and tweeters can be made to disappear and they do but not a presentation that i like; sometimes even holographic but still feels artificial; miniaturized; huge soundstage often and yet cardboard ships on a cardboard sea; even the much hyped Vitus room disappointed; my problem is I love tubes especially VAC but i made a promise to my wife no tubes (don't ask). In short I was disappointed; I guess you could say absent the Magico A5 which apparently can fool you into thinking you are listening to stats and which I have not heard, I am still a crossover skeptic; an anti-crossover guy.

Other than Soundlab and Quads can you think of anything else without a crossover in electrostatic speakers?

Perhaps if I heard these today they would not be as great as I remember; all I can tell you is one day I walked into a shop that had the ML CLS IIZ on demo with an all Audio Research system and I was never the same from that day; i had to have that sound.

 

[jimbill]

FWIW, I own a pair of Montis ESLs, which were rendered "older models" when the current line of ML ESLs (including your 13s) was introduced. ML also moved their operating headquarters from the US to Canada. And the dealer who sold them to me dropped the product line.

I suppose, early on, I felt a bit worried that my investment had taken a hit, and I had a modest fear of abandonment. But the fact is, that isn't what happened. My Montis, now ten years old, continue to perform well, they do the job they were intended to do, and when I've run into issues, ML Support has solved the problems effectively and inexpensively. Beyond this, I believe ML continues to attract a healthy following of interested audiophiles. In one group of Hi Fi enthusiasts to which I belong, there are several happy and enthusiastic ML ESL owners, and their pride of ownership is immediately evident based on what they have to say about their listening experiences.

The fact is, an ESL, even a ML ESL, isn't for everyone. Some don't like the size or the looks or the way they sit out in the room. The interaction of this bipolar radiator with the room is particularly complex and not everyone has the patience to deal with this. The ESL is a generally capacitive load from midrange to treble and needs better than the average mill of amplifier and source to bring out the best in it. Despite this, however, there still are a healthy number of individuals who are pleased with the results. The internet also makes the individual owner's experience ever more broadly shared with others, which naturally serves as a form of advertisement.

I'd also like to point out that ML ESLs actually do employ crossovers, so saying "there's no crossover" isn't strictly correct. The bass unit is a separate source from the panel, and the crossover between the two is not only necessary but extremely complex. Sure, there's no crossover from mid range to treble, and that's indeed an asset, but the benefit of this smooth transition can easily be blown by not properly dealing with the impact of the back sound radiation relative to the front and the beaminess of a (nearly) planar radiator. It is also important to realize the panel is driven through a transformer which, of necessity, contributes it's own coloration characteristics.

Beyond this, there are in fact non ESL speakers with multiple drivers whose crossover characteristics effectively disappear, so crossovers, while potentially troublesome, aren't always. I own two sets of them: The Dynaudio Contour S1.4 LE and the Dynaudio Heritage Special. The crossovers, both low pass and high pass, have slopes of 6 dB per octave which inherently have this perfect phase blending property. Now, admittedly, it's hard to find any old loudspeaker with tweeters that will tolerate a high pass cutoff of 6 dB / octave - Normally, this means early death to the tweeter when strong upper midrange signals are encountered that melt its voicecoil. The Dynaudio tweeters in the aforementioned are designed capable of withstanding high out-of-band power which makes this mode of crossover operation possible. What do they sound like? Like they have no crossovers, which is (in part) why I bought them and enjoy them so much.

Just my two cents.

He was referring to CLS IIz's. They were full range, single panel speakers. No crossovers, like Sound Labs. They only went down to 35 Hz.

 

[Big Dog RJ]

Yes, the CLSIIz's were fantastic stats, I drove them supremely well with a single CJ Premier 11A. Just 70w/ch of tube finesse, partnered with a CJ PV12, it was my blissful bliss after hours, leading into the wee hours of the morning. However, one thing I will point out is that the CLSIIz's were limited in certain areas. Extended dynamics, extended transient control and LF detail was a challenge.

Comparing the CLSIIz's to the CLX's, the CLX's are full range stats in a totally different league. There's no comparison at this level and the CLX's offer a whole lot more when it comes to dynamic swings, limitless transients and superb LF detail. It's the very low notes, from about 30- 28Hz and below that the CLX's can benefit from a high quality sub. When I refer to high quality, I'm talking about speed, agility and supreme start-stop acceleration. That's why I prefer the BF210 or the BF212, they are the perfect match for CLX's.

At the time when I had the CLSIIz's, I really enjoyed the music, on all accounts, the presentation and imaging were superb! Whenever I wanted to switch over to a larger presentation with far greater scale and realism, I had the option of changing over to the Apogee Diva's. Driven by CJ's top of the line at the time, the Premier 8A (275w all tube monoblocks), and partnered with CJ's ART preamp, it was a fine combination that I enjoyed until the Diva's required a full refurb. Of course by then, it lasted well over 15yrs, I sold off the entire rig and migrated to Aus. The rest is history!

At the time of owing some of the best ribbon panel types and stats; Apogee Diva, Maggie MG20, Infinity IRS 1B, Quad ESL 63, and ML CLSIIz, my favourite of all time were the CLSIIz's. Even though they were limited in LF heft and slam, they did everything else right. It was just pure pleasure to listen to on CJ tube gear.

Back then ML didn't have the CLX nor was the CLX even considered as a new project. It was not until so many years that a brand new full range stat was being launched, and won speaker of the year 3yrs in a row. All 11 judges were unanimous in their decision that this was the best stat by far!
So owning the CLX's now and driving them with all tube CJ gear, brings back wonderful memories of those glory days.

Looking back at it and going full circle back to stats, I must say there will never be another CLSIIz, it's one of a kind stat!

So cheers to the CLSIIz! A true classic in every sense of the word, electrostat.
Woof! RJ

 

[Brazillnut]

I don't think ESLs are going away anytime soon for ML. It was the tech that the company was founded on and It is still the lifeblood of the brand. The fact that they aren't spending as much on marketing the Electrostatic line most likely has way more to do with the new dynamic architectural and Motion spekers being launched the past two years to strengthen thier position in the home theater and custom install market. The size, design and price of the electrostats has always meant that they were more of a niche product, aimed at hard core audiophiles and music lovers with the room to allow speakers like that to shine. I'm not worried at all about the future of electrostatic speakers in the ML lineup. I actually prefer brands that design a line and stick with it until major improvements dictate upgrades are necessary instead of puting out a new version every other year with only minor cosmetic upgrades for the sake of creating marketing buzz.

 

[Robert D]

Brands have to expand their offerings sometimes in order to thrive. Just look at Porsche. When Porsche first came out with the Cayenne suv many Porsche owners scoffed. Now the Mecan and Cayenne are the best selling models and make up more than 1/2 their sales.
https://www.best-selling-cars.com/brands/2022-full-year-usa-porsche-sales-by-model/I'd compare the ML box speakers to these suvs.
I love my Porsche 911 turbo, but find myself wanting a Macan now too as my daily driver. Can't we like both? I bet there are a good number of ML owners that have both ESL and traditional driver models.

 

[jimbill]

Yes, the CLSIIz's were fantastic stats, I drove them supremely well with a single CJ Premier 11A. Just 70w/ch of tube finesse, partnered with a CJ PV12, it was my blissful bliss after hours, leading into the wee hours of the morning. However, one thing I will point out is that the CLSIIz's were limited in certain areas. Extended dynamics, extended transient control and LF detail was a challenge.

Comparing the CLSIIz's to the CLX's, the CLX's are full range stats in a totally different league. There's no comparison at this level and the CLX's offer a whole lot more when it comes to dynamic swings, limitless transients and superb LF detail. It's the very low notes, from about 30- 28Hz and below that the CLX's can benefit from a high quality sub. When I refer to high quality, I'm talking about speed, agility and supreme start-stop acceleration. That's why I prefer the BF210 or the BF212, they are the perfect match for CLX's.

At the time when I had the CLSIIz's, I really enjoyed the music, on all accounts, the presentation and imaging were superb! Whenever I wanted to switch over to a larger presentation with far greater scale and realism, I had the option of changing over to the Apogee Diva's. Driven by CJ's top of the line at the time, the Premier 8A (275w all tube monoblocks), and partnered with CJ's ART preamp, it was a fine combination that I enjoyed until the Diva's required a full refurb. Of course by then, it lasted well over 15yrs, I sold off the entire rig and migrated to Aus. The rest is history!

At the time of owing some of the best ribbon panel types and stats; Apogee Diva, Maggie MG20, Infinity IRS 1B, Quad ESL 63, and ML CLSIIz, my favourite of all time were the CLSIIz's. Even though they were limited in LF heft and slam, they did everything else right. It was just pure pleasure to listen to on CJ tube gear.

Back then ML didn't have the CLX nor was the CLX even considered as a new project. It was not until so many years that a brand new full range stat was being launched, and won speaker of the year 3yrs in a row. All 11 judges were unanimous in their decision that this was the best stat by far!
So owning the CLX's now and driving them with all tube CJ gear, brings back wonderful memories of those glory days.

Looking back at it and going full circle back to stats, I must say there will never be another CLSIIz, it's one of a kind stat!

So cheers to the CLSIIz! A true classic in every sense of the word, electrostat.
Woof! RJand

So, the CLS IIz with an excellent sub would be better than the CLX with an excellent sub?

 

[Robert D]

So, the CLS IIz with an excellent sub would be better than the CLX with an excellent sub?

Thats a good question that I've always wondered. I think it might be more fair to compare the CLS IIZ with a good sub to the CLX with no sub. After all, the CLX is supposed to be full range and many purists claim it doesn't need one.

 

[jimbill]

Thats a good question that I've always wondered. I think it might be more fair to compare the CLS IIZ with a good sub to the CLX with no sub. After all, the CLX is supposed to be full range and many purists claim it doesn't need one.

But the CLS IIz supposedly goes down to 35Hz, while the CLX only goes down to 56Hz. Plus, the CLX has a crossover. Maybe the lower range is more impactful with the CLX?

 

[ejspain]

Link is not working for me.”page can not be found “

Same here

 

[Rich]

I totally get what you guys are saying about comparing the 15A to the Summit. I was comparing top of the line when I bought to top of the line now (excluding the Uber-expensive Neolith). But you’re right that it’s not really apples to apples since the 15A has a lot more panel surface area and larger woofers. I agree that the Summits are really more comparable to the 13A’s, so the price jump for equivalent performance is not as extravagant as I was thinking.

Edit: I also agree with you guys that a full range electrostat is the bomb! Which is why I love my KLH Model Nine’s so much. And I got that pair and had them restored to better than new condition for less than the cost of a pair of 13A’s!

 

[Rascal]

Remark about no crossover bearing on full-range ESL duly noted. My Bad for assuming the target of discussion was the model 13 purchased and in use.

About demos at audio shows: The vendors rarely get more than a day to setup and tune their systems in often rather hostile rooms, and often without an adequate supply of room treatment stuff. Just last year I was at a show where I heard probably 50 or more different brand speakers and setups, and only one of them IMHO deserved further listening and attention. Shows are, IMHO, a tough place to evaluate equipment.

About no-crossover speakers and ESLs vs. other designs: IMHO, I think it's important to consider speaker designs that work well as a system in the owner's listening space without presuming what will work best at the onset. Useful guidance in this and other matters is Floyd Toole's book, Sound Reproduction, which explains the results of many listeners evaluating an enormous number of speakers. Toole explains that, after hundreds or maybe thousands of experiments, evenness of response turns out to be a fundamental goal, but he also points out that spatial patterns play a role in this, for these affect how the speaker interacts with the room and is ultimately perceived by the listener in the home. For me, ESLs offer exceptionally even response on axis, but the off axis story (including the back emissions) complicate matters. And, of course, there's the matter of achieving a convincing three dimensional image without locking the head in a vice with is yet another aspect of this story. It's my opinion that enthusiasts can benefit greatly by pursuing room treatment options -- for any speaker. Especially so for ESLs which inherently create complex off axis responses.

Just my two cents.

 

[jimbill]

Remark about no crossover bearing on full-range ESL duly noted. My Bad for assuming the target of discussion was the model 13 purchased and in use.

About demos at audio shows: The vendors rarely get more than a day to setup and tune their systems in often rather hostile rooms, and often without an adequate supply of room treatment stuff. Just last year I was at a show where I heard probably 50 or more different brand speakers and setups, and only one of them IMHO deserved further listening and attention. Shows are, IMHO, a tough place to evaluate equipment.

About no-crossover speakers and ESLs vs. other designs: IMHO, I think it's important to consider speaker designs that work well as a system in the owner's listening space without presuming what will work best at the onset. Useful guidance in this and other matters is Floyd Toole's book, Sound Reproduction, which explains the results of many listeners evaluating an enormous number of speakers. Toole explains that, after hundreds or maybe thousands of experiments, evenness of response turns out to be a fundamental goal, but he also points out that spatial patterns play a role in this, for these affect how the speaker interacts with the room and is ultimately perceived by the listener in the home. For me, ESLs offer exceptionally even response on axis, but the off axis story (including the back emissions) complicate matters. And, of course, there's the matter of achieving a convincing three dimensional image without locking the head in a vice with is yet another aspect of this story. It's my opinion that enthusiasts can benefit greatly by pursuing room treatment options -- for any speaker. Especially so for ESLs which inherently create complex off axis responses.

Just my two cents.

Or BACCH4mac.

 

[Rascal]

Or BACCH4mac.

i know what BACCH4mac is, but I don’t understand how this ties into what I said. Can you elaborate?

 

[JonFo]

For me, ESLs offer exceptionally even response on axis, but the off axis story (including the back emissions) complicate matters. And, of course, there's the matter of achieving a convincing three dimensional image without locking the head in a vice with is yet another aspect of this story. It's my opinion that enthusiasts can benefit greatly by pursuing room treatment options -- for any speaker. Especially so for ESLs which inherently create complex off axis responses.

Bingo, the room interaction so vastly overshadows ALL other factors that it's crazy that more people don't focus FIRST on this angle, but sweat cables, amps, etc. The room, where and how the speakers are placed, and where the listener sits have the most impact on the response one hears.

Large dipole planars are some of the most challenging speaker topologies to deal with acoustically. Partially it's because they output so much energy in the mid to high frequencies in unusual patterns they easily can make a room ring. My Monoliths easily caused my custom room to ring before I put in sufficient treatments. It was painful, I could hardly turn up the volume.

The anechoic response of a speaker can be ruler flat, but if the in-room response goes crazy due to reflections, then it can suck.
This also relates to power response, most speakers have changing FR based on output levels. Unlike Tweeters, a well-powered ESL output remains strong as the levels rise. And with multiple square feet of radiating surfaces, energizes the room to levels dynamic speakers only dream of. It's part of their magic but also a challenge that needs to be managed.

 

[Big Dog RJ]

So, the CLS IIz with an excellent sub would be better than the CLX with an excellent sub?

Oh no way, no chance mate. I've elaborated this very topic at great lengths, given the specs of the CLX's, which are very misleading. Hence, the reason why I simply don't take specs as the holy grail... only as guidelines.

Just to reiterate for you:
1. The CLSIIz's are great on their own and when partnered with a sub, it adds LF detail and more heft but it's not an ideal match or a seamless combination, mainly due to the lack of dsp and ARC capabilities.

2. The CLSIIz's are limited in certain areas as I've already mentioned, otherwise they're very enjoyable on soft to moderate levels. Especially late night listening, very relaxed and well balanced, similar to Quads.

3. The CLX's are a totally radical design in full range stats. Using X-stat tech, micro-perf stators, special alloy frames, high grade parts and the most radical change of all, the incorporation of triple stators with dual Mylars for the bass section. (This type of tech has never been used in any stats to date)!
This triple stator- dual force in bass is phenomenal! It can reproduce all the bass that's required, except the very very low notes reproduced from organ music or heavy synthesised bass. Other than that, and these are frequencies going well below the 30Hz region, the CLX's are fine as full range stats.

4. During my listening sessions, based on the music I listen to, about 80% of the time, the sub is in standby mode. It only kicks in when required, which means only when the recording has such low frequencies. If those low frequencies are not on the recording then the CLX's won't reproduce them. Simple as that!

5. They will reproduce exactly what's on the recording, without any artifices or artificial enhancements. The key to reproducing this kind of articulate bass all depends on the capabilities of the power amplifiers. Since I use an all tube design array of amps from Conrad johnson, I don't want to unnecessarily stress the output tubes... thus with the help of high quality subs, this stress is greatly reduced.

6. Using subs, especially the BF series from ML, are the perfect match for CLX's, simply because they have dsp engines and ARC capability. This matching can be used to create the most seamless process between stat panels and subs. I've yet to come across a two part set-up, where the subs integrate supremely well with the rest of the speakers. In such installations, I can usually hear two different systems playing...

7. There are only a handful of systems that get it right; Genesis Dragons, Gryphon Pendragon's, ML Statements Evo-II's, Infinity's IRSV'S, Avant Garde Trio's etc., and Of Course other owners who have carefully chosen the right type of active-crossovers on their stats to integrate well with multiple subs. So in such cases, this seamless integration is well planned out but in a majority of cases, it's a disaster! And matching subs with the CLSIIz's is not recommended. It's extremely difficult to form a seamless process. I tried it several times, my tech crew gave it a few attempts to no avail. So I ended up enjoying the CLSIIz's full range.

8. As I've said before, the CLSIIz's are true classic electrostats of their time. Their beautiful speakers that are capable of reproducing a beautiful sound, however within limits. Once you have compared the CLX's with the CLSIIz's side by side, you'll begin to appreciate the vast difference from the first note onwards.

BTW Have you auditioned both?
If you have auditioned the CLX's and have directly compared it to the CLSIIz's on any particular highend system, you'll know exactly what I'm referring to. I highly doubt you have.
After all, what's the point for ML to have introduced the CLX's if the CLS line was good enough? I highly doubt they just wanted to launch another Stat just to keep themselves occupied. There was a real significance in the CLX project and it was very well received! It's a crying shame that ML decided to discontinue it, including the Statement Evo-II's. But I guess ML had their reasons.

Hope that clarifies my earlier post.
Cheers, RJ

PS; I don't want to hijack this thread and make it a CLX vs CLSIIz comparo, not going there.

 

[jimbill]

i know what BACCH4mac is, but I don’t understand how this ties into what I said. Can you elaborate?

It basically eliminates the room's effect. The reverberations are those of the recording. You're hearing what the microphones heard. Crosstalk and comb filtering are all but eliminated. The sound stage is no longer just between the speakers, but outside them. Some recordings have almost a 180 degree effect.

With the ear microphones, the sweet spot is much wider. If you sit in a chair to listen to your system, the program will run sweeps from your normal sitting position, then have you lean right and left as much as is comfortable. The head tracking camera will then follow your head, moving the sweet spot with you. If you sit on a sofa, you can actually widen the coverage to the ends of the sofa. You may lose some highs sitting at the ends of the sofa because you will be slightly off axis with the speakers. It is recommended that you aim your speakers directly at your ears for the best sound. You no longer need to toe them to activate the room.

 

[jimbill]

Oh no way, no chance mate. I've elaborated this very topic at great lengths, given the specs of the CLX's, which are very misleading. Hence, the reason why I simply don't take specs as the holy grail... only as guidelines.

Just to reiterate for you:
1. The CLSIIz's are great on their own and when partnered with a sub, it adds LF detail and more heft but it's not an ideal match or a seamless combination, mainly due to the lack of dsp and ARC capabilities.

2. The CLSIIz's are limited in certain areas as I've already mentioned, otherwise they're very enjoyable on soft to moderate levels. Especially late night listening, very relaxed and well balanced, similar to Quads.

3. The CLX's are a totally radical design in full range stats. Using X-stat tech, micro-perf stators, special alloy frames, high grade parts and the most radical change of all, the incorporation of triple stators with dual Mylars for the bass section. (This type of tech has never been used in any stats to date)!
This triple stator- dual force in bass is phenomenal! It can reproduce all the bass that's required, except the very very low notes reproduced from organ music or heavy synthesised bass. Other than that, and these are frequencies going well below the 30Hz region, the CLX's are fine as full range stats.

4. During my listening sessions, based on the music I listen to, about 80% of the time, the sub is in standby mode. It only kicks in when required, which means only when the recording has such low frequencies. If those low frequencies are not on the recording then the CLX's won't reproduce them. Simple as that!

5. They will reproduce exactly what's on the recording, without any artifices or artificial enhancements. The key to reproducing this kind of articulate bass all depends on the capabilities of the power amplifiers. Since I use an all tube design array of amps from Conrad johnson, I don't want to unnecessarily stress the output tubes... thus with the help of high quality subs, this stress is greatly reduced.

6. Using subs, especially the BF series from ML, are the perfect match for CLX's, simply because they have dsp engines and ARC capability. This matching can be used to create the most seamless process between stat panels and subs. I've yet to come across a two part set-up, where the subs integrate supremely well with the rest of the speakers. In such installations, I can usually hear two different systems playing...

7. There are only a handful of systems that get it right; Genesis Dragons, Gryphon Pendragon's, ML Statements Evo-II's, Infinity's IRSV'S, Avant Garde Trio's etc., and Of Course other owners who have carefully chosen the right type of active-crossovers on their stats to integrate well with multiple subs. So in such cases, this seamless integration is well planned out but in a majority of cases, it's a disaster! And matching subs with the CLSIIz's is not recommended. It's extremely difficult to form a seamless process. I tried it several times, my tech crew gave it a few attempts to no avail. So I ended up enjoying the CLSIIz's full range.

8. As I've said before, the CLSIIz's are true classic electrostats of their time. Their beautiful speakers that are capable of reproducing a beautiful sound, however within limits. Once you have compared the CLX's with the CLSIIz's side by side, you'll begin to appreciate the vast difference from the first note onwards.

BTW Have you auditioned both?
If you have auditioned the CLX's and have directly compared it to the CLSIIz's on any particular highend system, you'll know exactly what I'm referring to. I highly doubt you have.
After all, what's the point for ML to have introduced the CLX's if the CLS line was good enough? I highly doubt they just wanted to launch another Stat just to keep themselves occupied. There was a real significance in the CLX project and it was very well received! It's a crying shame that ML decided to discontinue it, including the Statement Evo-II's. But I guess ML had their reasons.

Hope that clarifies my earlier post.
Cheers, RJ

PS; I don't want to hijack this thread and make it a CLX vs CLSIIz comparo, not going there.

Thank you for the lengthy reply! I envy you your systems.

I have not had the chance to hear either speaker. And, sadly, neither would work for me. I don't have a proper listening room and the wife ( as indulgent as she is for my system) couldn't handle speakers that large in our den. The 13a's were a noticeable enough step up in footprint over my Ascents.

I did get to hear Sound Lab 545's. Very nice, but again IMO, you need a dedicated listening room for something that big.

Sorry if my previous post came across as antagonistic. It was in no way my intention.

 

[Big Dog RJ]

Oh yeah, that Bacch software gizmo. I meant to respond to this but forgot about it, simply because it wasn't a game charger for me. Sorry, I didn't report on it earlier in that previous thread... can't even remember which one it was.

Anyway, I went to the demo for what it's worth (this was several months ago) and don't get me wrong, it was pretty darn good! Just as you described, it expands the soundstage depth, horizontal and vertical imaging, the scale seems to expand as well, and you're not stuck in the sweet spot. With what my guys gathered, (three of us attended the demo and we all own CLX's), this is a highly capable software system that enhances the room's negative qualities. Or should I say, fixes the rooms bad parameters to such an affect, once dialed in correctly, it actually does work. The only downside is the price. There are two versions I believe, one's a standard version and the other is an audiophile version, that's not very affordable. It's nearly 20grand in AUD. That's quite a bit of spend. If I was seriously considering any upgrades to my existing rig, I would put that money towards the Esoteric G01-X clock without any hesitation.

Now for the part why I didn't engage much with it and find it unnecessary is: in my particular system and room set-up, I already get full 3D holographic imaging, the soundstage depth is superb and I get an enveloping affect, more from the vinyl rig than the digital rig. I'm not locked in a vice grip, plus 99% of the time, I listen alone. The tiny 1% is when the wifey also sits in to listen to some of her favourite tunes by Tracy Chapman, Adel, Sam Smith or Sting. Even with the two of us, the enveloping affect remains. Early last year, I had the opportunity to engage with a few professional chaps who specialise in room treatments, Acoustics and open plan listening spaces. That project took several months to complete and I paid them for their work, it was well worth it, and didn't cost anything close to the price of Bacch.

Although I do see the benefits of installing such highend software to enhance the listening experience, and from what I auditioned and learned, I do think it's a marvellous product. I guess it's upto the user / buyer to justify whether it's worth for his particular set-up. All those factors need to be considered before spending this kind of money.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not a "must have" item in my particular system and set-up, as compared to a very highend power amp, for example those beautiful Dartzeel monoblocks, now that would be a game changer, for me at least.

Those who haven't demoed what this Bacch software is capable of and are wondering, I highly recommend that you do. There's plenty of snake oil out there and various gadgets that claim to bring out the Genie in a lamp... however, certainly not this one.
BTW the system it was demoed on: ESL11A's, PS Audio DACs, Vitus pre-power amps and other digital interface gear to allow for Bacch to run, plus of course a Mac pc running the tunes via streaming. I may have missed a few other items... anyway thought I'd mention it to those who may be interested.

Cheers, and enjoy those fine tunes!
RJ