Anyone go from Quests to CLS II

[mosttoysrk]

I have a chance to go from Quests to CLS II's. I was planning to use the Descent subwoofer with the pair. How much difference is the setup and the sound of the CLS in comparision to the Quests setup. I am planning to power the CLS with a Krell KSA-250 and KBL preamp. Unfortunately the CLS's are not close enough for me to listen to, so it would be a blind purchase.

 

[nsgarch]

Go for the CLS's

(how much are they asking -- and are they CLS II's or IIz's?) and keep the Quests 'til you decide in case you have any doubts (I wouldn't but decide for yourself ) I prefer the Depth w/ my CLS's because its transient response matches the CLS's so beautifully. If your room is around 15 x 20, you could get away with just one (unless you do HT) and one sub (if properly placed between the panels) matches the panels better than two placed to the sides IMO.

As for amps, go tube with stats. See my system description or my review of the MC275 on the Recommended Components forum for the why's and wherefores. Even the finest of SS amps (such as my Mark Levinson 23.5) can't bring out the subtleties of which all stats are capable -- and believe me, I've tried!!

 

[mosttoysrk]

They are the original CLS speakers with brand new panels with "0" hours. Asking price is 2150.00. States the new replacement panels are easier to drive than then the original panels. How much change was done to the crossovers in the II design?

 

[nsgarch]

Wellllll . . . . .

They are the original CLS speakers with brand new panels with "0" hours. Asking price is 2150.00. States the new replacement panels are easier to drive than then the original panels. How much change was done to the crossovers in the II design?

The panels changed from the original CLS's to the original CLS II's and then remained the same after that. The second (later) version has the two bass sections running vertically on each side of the panel.

The new panels aren't any easier to drive than the originals, It's the newer electronics unit(s) that accomplished that, so these speakers will perform like the original CLS's from that perspective, and I know one person that prefers that combo -- old electronics with new panels. You just need to be careful about amp selection with the original electronics package because the speaker will go down to 1/2 ohm at high frequencies. This is generally not a problem for most tube amps because they're usually fine with (intermittant) near shorts. It's poorly designed SS amps that sometimes blow up at ultra-low impedances

The electronics changed a lot from the CLS to the CLS II (to increase the hi-freq impedance characteristics.) Then very slightly (one wire) from the CLS II to the CLS IIa. And then again completely from the CLS II/IIa to the CLS IIz (to address treble brightness -- really only a problem when using SS amps IMO).

The price is fair if they have no cosmetic issues.

 

[mosttoysrk]

Neil,
Thanks for the info, your system is great! How big of difference did the stands make. The seller has the stands but wants an additional $300 for them. Is it worth it? I am going to try to run them with my Descent sub at first and see how it goes. Am I correct to assume that all of the replacement panels Martin Logan produced for the CLS are the same whether they are CLS I or II's, and just the electronics are different?

 

[nsgarch]

If the stands are Sound Anchors

Neil, Thanks for the info, your system is great! How big of difference did the stands make. The seller has the stands but wants an additional $300 for them. Is it worth it? I am going to try to run them with my Descent sub at first and see how it goes. Am I correct to assume that all of the replacement panels Martin Logan produced for the CLS are the same whether they are CLS I or II's, and just the electronics are different?

they'll make a BIG difference IMO (and in ML's opinion also -- I can send you a factory memo attesting to that fact.) They should be Sound Anchor stands though -- which offer the best rigidity (list $650 now I think + a LOT for freight ;--) If they're not SA's, save your money and order the real thing ;--)

As far as I know, the only replacement panels available for the last 12 years or so are the second version -- but it's easy enough to tell just by looking at them. If you already have a Descent, keep it. Set it smack dab between the panels with the phase set to 90 degrees. Run the panels full range independent of the sub, which you'll only have to crack open a small amount crossed over at around 35 - 45Hz to get that last (but oh so important) little bit of bass fill.

 

[jjcarr]

I went from CLSII's to ReQuests. There are a lot of variables to take into account, but I was never able to get the CLS to mate well with a sub. The CLS required too high a crossover, there always seemed to be a dip in the sound above the sub range that made the CLS less effective for movies and non-vocal music. You might have more luck with a smaller room than I had, but for me the ReQuest was a better speaker. The CLS has a glorious midrange, but didn't have the impact that the ReQuest did. Whenever I wanted to listen to Rock or Electronica music, or watch a movie, the CLS just didn't have the impact. The ReQuests were the first electrostats I had which could finally fill my large room adequately.

 

[nsgarch]

CLS xovr?

The CLS required too high a crossover, there always seemed to be a dip in the sound above the sub range that made the CLS less effective for movies and non-vocal music..

I don't understand what you mean here?

 

[jjcarr]

I don't understand what you mean here?

The CLS didn't go low enough to blend with the subwoofer well. There was a dip in sound from about 100hz to 200hz. Despite the specs that the CLS is supposed to play lower, it just doesn't have any impact down low. I think ML realized this when they designed the Monolith and Request, as they cross the panels over above 200hz.

Listening to vocals it wasn't as noticeable, but on movies the CLS just never had the authority that the ReQuests do.

 

[eknuds01]

I would very interested in hearing Dan's opinion on this matter. No doubt he had to battle room reflections and cross over issues in his basement when he went from hybrid panel speakers to the full panel model he has now.

 

[nsgarch]

I see . . . . . .

The CLS didn't go low enough to blend with the subwoofer well. There was a dip in sound from about 100hz to 200hz. Despite the specs that the CLS is supposed to play lower, it just doesn't have any impact down low. I think ML realized this when they designed the Monolith and Request, as they cross the panels over above 200hz. Listening to vocals it wasn't as noticeable, but on movies the CLS just never had the authority that the ReQuests do.

I don't debate your report, but I honestly think your panel's low freq. fall off was due to something else. The measured response of my CLS IIz's (which I run full range) is pretty flat down to 80Hz, about half at 40Hz and nuthin' at 35Hz, so I can roll my Depth sub off at 35 or 40 Hz (depending on the material) with perfectly seamless results.

It's too late I know, but my guess is it could have been that the the bass sections of the (later?) panels needed re-tightening (using a hair dryer) OR you had room suck-out OR there was some load impedance mis-match between amp and speaker (tube amp or SS?) OR the panels needed to be up on stands, OR the sub(s) needed phase adjusting for their location relative to the panels. What you're describing is not characteristic of CLS performance, assuming all these other items have been checked and addressed if necessary.

The reason the hybrids (including the new Vantage and Summit) cross over at 200 Hz is that their electrostatic panels are not "full range" transducers. Only the CLS was designed to do that, and why it has somewhat of a cult following. It just needed a properly designed sub (the Depth or the Descent) to give it some support in the lowest octave -- not even necessary if you just listen to chamber music, solo acoustic guitar, etc. It's a shame you assumed it was the speakers.

 

[jjcarr]

I don't debate your report, but I honestly think your panel's low freq. fall off was due to something else. The measured response of my CLS IIz's (which I run full range) is pretty flat down to 80Hz, about half at 40Hz and nuthin' at 35Hz, so I can roll my Depth sub off at 35 or 40 Hz (depending on the material) with perfectly seamless results.

Have you listened to ReQuests or Quests in the same environment as your CLS's? I guarantee if you put one of those in the same environment as your CLS's, you'd discover there is a big hole in the current sound. Having owned and lived with both, I have no doubt of this. I thought my CLS were crossed over well and sounded great until I hear the ReQuests.

Here's a Stereophile article that concurs:
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/650/
I think he's overly negative of the speaker, I didn't think they had 'Glare" of any kind, but he hits the nail on the head about mid-bass.

I know that if you put CLS's into smaller rooms, and tweek them, they improve their bass response, but in a large room they won't hold a candle to the ReQuest in terms of impact. No amount of stands, mods, or power will make them sound like a ReQuest, it's not even close. If he's considering moving to CLS's, he needs to know this. Keep in mind even ML knew this, as they released the Monolith which has the exact same panel as the CLS.

The CLS is hands-down one of the best speakers you can buy for jazz and vocals, but they aren't an all-round speaker. The CLS does have a better midrange than the ReQuest, and night-and-day better than the SL3, but they have an upper bass "hole".

 

[nsgarch]

Which panels?

Here's a Stereophile article that concurs:
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/650/
I think he's overly negative of the speaker, I didn't think they had 'Glare" of any kind, but he hits the nail on the head about mid-bass. . Keep in mind even ML knew this, as they released the Monolith which has the exact same panel as the CLS.

Perhaps you're referring to the original CLS panels which resembeled the Monolith (and the original Statement) panels but were not identical to them by any means. The 2nd version CLS panels (with the bass sections) have no mid-bass hole -- I've done many SPL frequency sweeps at different times in the last 17 years as my amps, cables , etc. changed and I know this for a fact. Also, with CLS's right on the floor, there's an unnatural low bass reinforcement which may give the impression of a relative lack of midbass. Putting them on stands removes that low end rise and tightens the response in the lowest octaves.

I was just listening to the Stones' "Tattoo You" and at half throttle, and a 95 W tube amp, the CLS IIz's rock out with the best of them -- especially after I did the hairdryer tweak on the bass sections of the panels. Of course if you had the original panels/electronics, it might have been a whole different experience, I just wouldn't know about that. But the Stereophile boys do point out that the deficiencies you mention were only with respect to the original CLS and not the CLS II's, so maybe that's why we disagree.

As for the ML pre-Summit/Vantage hybrid models, they always left me cold. The woofers were so woefully slow compared to the panels' stunning transient response, it sounded like four speakers instead of two; they never presented the cohesive soundstage my IIz's did. Further, unless one was willing to bi-amp, it was impossible to find a tube amp that would do justice to the panels and control the bass at the same time, or conversely, an SS amp that provided good bass without causing the panels to make my ears bleed. So one section or the other always suffered from poor synergy with the amp. Frankly I thought the Prodigys were the worst of the whole bunch :stop:

 

[jjcarr]

Perhaps you're referring to the original CLS panels which resembeled the Monolith (and the original Statement) panels but were not identical to them by any means. The 2nd version CLS panels (with the bass sections) have no mid-bass hole -- I've done many SPL frequency sweeps at different times in the last 17 years as my amps, cables , etc. changed and I know this for a fact. Also, with CLS's right on the floor, there's an unnatural low bass reinforcement which may give the impression of a relative lack of midbass. Putting them on stands removes that low end rise and tightens the response in the lowest octaves.

So you haven't listened to Quests or ReQuests in your system?

I looked at your system and it's obvious you've gone to great lengths to make the CLS's work with your sub. Not to mention you have them in a small room that's basically shaped like a bass tube. This is not a normal system where you can give this guy objective advice, advice that is applicable outside of that fine-tuned environment you've created.

I've owned both speakers in a large room (20x30) and the CLS isn't even in the ballpark with the the larger hybrid Logans for mid-bass and overall sound impact. I guarantee if I put some ReQuests in that room you'd hear the hole in the CLS's (possibly too much, it looks like that room would be easy to drive). You might not like the woofer integration, but that wasn't the point I was making with my post.

Heck, even ML will admit that the CLS isn't a speaker for everyone.

The CLS's sucked for movies, period. Same with any loud rock, or Industrial/Electronic. Wonderful resolution, no impact. HUGE hole. Throw in some Sarah McLaughlan and they sound great, throw in Tool or Skinny Puppy and you'll wonder WTF? Put them in a small room, and they wouldn't have as big a problem, but mosttoysrk needs to know this in case he wants to use them for movies, rock, or in a normal or large room. If he's thinking about making the move, he needs to know that there is a potential downside. Just because you've been able to tailor your system around the CLS's weaknesses doesn't me he can do that. He needs to know it's possible, but his room might not allow it.

In your environment, it looks like the CLS is a good fit, but I'm sure that's not an accident.

 

[nsgarch]

jj -- if you look at the first pic in my system link, it shows my system in a 15 x 25 foot room, same great response. Didn't like the Kinergetics subs though. Wished I hadn't sold my Wilson Puppies ;-) I don't really like hybrids, as I said. Though I think finally the Summit/Vantage solution is a good one. But if I had the money, I'd definitely own a pair of Soundlab A-1's.

As for adding the Depth sub, it was easy as pie, and impossible to tell there's even a sub in the room unless you turn it off;-) The trick was realizing it had to go right between the panels in the "dead zone" at the panel edges, and adjust the phase of the sub halfway between the front and back phase(es) of the panels -- i.e. 90 degrees.

I actually enjoy listening to Tool on my CLS's, (they're maybe the best band out there IMO) but if I only listened to rock, and I don't, I'd get vintage JBL's or Altecs ;-)

 

[jjcarr]

I actually enjoy listening to Tool on my CLS's, (they're maybe the best band out there IMO) but if I only listened to rock, and I don't, I'd get vintage JBL's or Altecs ;-)

I'm sure you love your CLS's, but having owned both, there's no way the CLS has the mid-bass of the ReQuest. I thought my CLS's were great too until I heard the ReQuests.

No argument on the integration, that's definitely a plus for the CLS, but mid-bass...no way. Everyone who heard the CLS's and ReQuests at my place agreed. If you listen to the CLS only, you wouldn't notice it as much, listen to the ReQuests, then you'll notice a glaring hole in the CLS. But keep in mind, this doesn't mean that the CLS doesn't do other things better than the request, as you mention: woofer integration, wonderful tone and vocals, etc...

The CLS is a wonderful speaker, but anyone who's owned one for a period of time will tell you they aren't a do-everything speaker.

We should get back to mosttoysrk, what do you want out of the speakers that makes you want to get CLS's? Let us know what you're looking for and we'll be able to give you better advice. Are you putting them in a dedicated audio room where you'll be able to tailor the setup to accommodate the speakers quirks? Your amp/preamp definitely sounds more than adequate to drive the CLS.

My advice is: if jazz and vocals, CLS. If you also want to listen to Rock, movies, or have a large room, then stick with the Quests. (though to be honest I can't comment 100% on the Quests, as I am assuming they are relatively comparable to the ReQuests)

 

[mosttoysrk]

Wow, Interesting dialogue between Nsgarch and jjcarr. My room is approximately 15x18. I will be placing the speakers on the 15ft wide wall with a fireplace between them making the subwoofer placement in the middle not an option. It will have to be placed to the side unfortunately. There is a 50" plasma tv above the fireplace.
The back wall has a 5 foot wide staircase leading up to another level approximately 6 ft. The ceilings are 9ft high.
I am not going to replace my Krell KBL and KSA-250 will this be a major factor in switching between the Quests and the CLS's. Will the matching of these electronics with the CLS be a negative in comparision to the Quests?
I listen mainly to Jazz, Classical, and classic Rock. Not extremely loud for sure.
In the same room my HT system is separate from the Martin Logan 2 channel stereo system. I am using Monitor Audio speakers with the Descent sub so HT will not be a factor with the CLS's.
I am a little worried now about the bass integration of the Descent with it off to the side vs in the middle, will this be a large factor?
Thanks again for all who have replied as it is very informative.

 

[jjcarr]

Wow, Interesting dialogue between Nsgarch and jjcarr.

Yeah, sorry if we hijacked the thread, differing opinions...

Given your description I'd actually say go for the CLS. The mid-bass dip is most noticeable on movies, but it sounds like you're really setting the CLS up as a pure 2-channel system, and given the type of music you describe, the wonderful vocals and seamless nature of the CLS might be just the ticket.

On the electronics, don't sweat it, your setup sounds fine. While many people have opinions on tube vs solid state, vinyl vs digital, etc... there are so many variables that you just have to take the leap. You probably like the tone and character of the Krell stuff, so it should be fine with he CLS, plus the Krell stuff is usually stable down to 1ohm so it should drive them fine.

Bass integration is always a tough nut, particularly with the CLS. I'd say that ideally you want 2 subs, but that may not be practical. Integrating subs with the CLS is always a pain, and the only solution is to experiment. While putting the sub in the middle worked for Nsgarch, that doesn't mean it will work in your room, sub integration is very room-dependent.

The CLS is a bit of a religious speaker, people who love them really LOVE them. And you might be one of those people, only one way to find out. They have deficiencies, but what speaker doesn't.

One final recommendation, definitely talk to the owner and make sure that he understands that you won't accept any buzzing in the speakers. Sometimes sections of the panel on the CLS get loose and buzz a little. Long-time owners often don't examine the speaker closely enough to make sure it has no buzzing before they sell it. This isn't a HUGE issue, just something to keep an eye on.

 

[jjcarr]

Oh yeah, one more note, the CLS's really are works of art. They look even better in person than they do in pictures. In terms of pure sex appeal, you get a 66 Jaguar XKE, then you get CLS's...

 

[lugano]

Oh yeah, one more note, the CLS's really are works of art. They look even better in person than they do in pictures. In terms of pure sex appeal, you get a 66 Jaguar XKE, then you get CLS's...

With the CLS II's you're getting a milestone from the Highend history book. They are not a starting point, we're talking about an endpoint here. Add 1-4 subwoofers (and please forget about crossovers, just get real audiophile subs), add anything else, but keep them as a standard for 90% of the audio frequencies you normally listen to. Of course, if your daily musical meal is classical/jazz/vocal and if your room allows them to express themselves.

If your idea of a perfect loudspeaker is something that peels off the paint from the walls while playing Dead Kennedys, then I'm afraid that no ML model will fit.