Are these comments about the CLS accurate?

[David Matz]

These comments are from a review Jonathan Valin did on the ML Source speakers in Absolute Sound a few months ago. Valin did love the Source speakers and considers them one of the best values in its price point. But he also seems to love many of the things he reviews – $25K Magico most recently.

To those who have owned or currently own the CLS, are these fair or controversial comments to you?

“… CLS full-range electrostatic was my reference loudspeaker, and although I’ve since gone on to other things, the CLS remains one of the purest and most transparent transducers I’ve heard. This was a speaker that made the old cliché about opening a window on the orchestra come true— everything in earshot of the CLS was clear and distinct and incredibly finely detailed. The trouble was it was also a bit bleached, thin, and cool. The CLS’s extraordinary transparency came at the cost of suckout in the bass and the power range of the lower mids. Although this balance seemed to increase resolution (rather in the way a spare pen-and-ink drawing can look more
finely detailed than a lush oil painting of the same subject), it also reduced lifelike density of tone color, body, and sock. The problem with timbres, coupled with the CLS’s inability to reproduce powerful dynamics in the low end, is one reason why Martin Logan eventually abandoned its full-range ’stat for the ’stat/cone hybrids that are its specialty…”

The CLX is supposed to have a much more dynamic bass. Like everyone, I am awaiting for someone to do A/B between CLX and CLS.

 

[Jeff Zaret]

I would say these comments are somewhat accurate but not entirely representative of the CLS. A lot of it depends on the room, the acoustic treatment of the room, the equipment driving the CLS and the type of music.

It is true that there is no low end slam to the CLS but there are plenty of low frequencies which are there and very adequate. The CLS was discontinued because of lack of sales not because of the lack of bass frequency.

Jeff

 

[MPS]

Yes, this is quite good definition of CLS's shortcomings. You can always depate the seriousness of these issues but they are there in some degree anyway. One should also consider that CLS was major effort from ML to produce reasonably priced extremely high quality ELS-speaker. No real world speaker is perfect. Everyone needs to deside if benefits overcome shortcomings when selecting their equipments. It all comes down to ones opinions and there generally is as many of those as there are ppl. Mine is based on audition years back with Treshold amplification which may or may not have contributed to these issues.
P.S. I would consider CLS a top range spkr anyday...

 

[Craig]

They're not perfect especially in the bass department but overall they're pretty good. I'll soon have a pair myself and after I've had them awhile I'll let you know what I think.

Check out this list of reviews by CLS owners. They rated a 4.72 out of 5.00 from a total of 29 reviews over the course of 7 years. That's not too bad of a rating.

http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/martin-logan/cls-iiz/PRD_120997_1594crx.aspx

 

[zaphod]

it's funny, i can put collective soul's "simple" on my non-sub CLS and <B>feel</B> the slam of the bass into my chest when it cranks up 30 seconds into the song. i don't want anymore than that. maybe i'm just wussy that way.

i also find it hard to understand any comment on "suckout" in the mids for a speaker that does so very well on vocals, particularily female vocals.

i do agree with the comparison to line drawings vs. brush paintings. but i would compare it to the line drawings of streetscapes by R. Crumb in the lushness and completeness of the every detail presented. this is not a line drawing like a simple sailboat, this is a line drawing that has every piece of wood drawn in, that the more you examine, the more detail you find.

it's not a drawing of a fern leaf - it's a mandlebrot.

 

[jjcarr]

Ditto...at what it does, the CLS is about as good as you can get, but it's bass is lacking. Look at all the hoops ML had to jump through to get the CLX to generate good bass (though I haven't heard it, I'm going soely on Tom's evaluation).

A CLS with a sub would probably be all the music you'll ever need, but as mentioned below on the CLS for home theater post, it's not a do-everything speaker.

But hey, you can get a used CLS for $1300 or so, and in a lot of ways it will stomp $40k speakers...

 

[C.A.P]

Having just listened to the CLX yesterday and owning the CLS I think I have a good grip on this. The review is not that acurate on the CLS. I wil post a detailed compairison in my thred about

heading to listen to the CLX in Seattle when I get home. This phone typing sucks

 

[nsgarch]

There will always be those few speakers

that represtent some kind of sonic pinnacle -- to everyone that hears them. I'd say perhaps a dozen or less. What you'll find if you research any of them throughly enough, is that there are always one or two things that it's generally agreed each one of them doesn't do very well (or maybe not at all!) but the one comment you'll never hear about one of these classics is that "it really screws up the ____________." (you fill in the blank.) Whatever music they do make, they make you believe! And BTW, it's pointless to try and compare them. Choosing one over another (all other things being equal/available/affordable) is a matter of "what part of believe" is most important to you

The CLS is one of those speakers.

The CLX might be one of those speakers, especially if it can be happy without a subwoofer like the Soundlab (but without ten thousand parts!) And of course, the audio world will need a few years to discover just "what it'll do" as they did with the CLS. I'll definitely want to hear a pair when I have to drive no further than Phoenix; but for the time being, no one whose audio ears I understand and trust has heard them

 

[jtwrace]

no one whose audio ears I understand and trust has heard them

you just don't stop.....

 

[David Matz]

that represtent some kind of sonic pinnacle -- to everyone that hears them. I'd say perhaps a dozen or less. What you'll find if you research any of them throughly enough, is that there are always one or two things that it's generally agreed each one of them doesn't do very well (or maybe not at all!) but the one comment you'll never hear about one of these classics is that "it really screws up the ____________." (you fill in the blank.) Whatever music they do make, they make you believe! And BTW, it's pointless to try and compare them. Choosing one over another (all other things being equal/available/affordable) is a matter of "what part of believe" is most important to you

The CLS is one of those speakers.

The CLX might be one of those speakers, especially if it can be happy without a subwoofer like the Soundlab (but without ten thousand parts!) And of course, the audio world will need a few years to discover just "what it'll do" as they did with the CLS. I'll definitely want to hear a pair when I have to drive no further than Phoenix; but for the time being, no one whose audio ears I understand and trust has heard them

Neil,

What constitutes an audio expert for you? Who, for example, has the audio ears you understand and trust?

 

[C.A.P]

http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?p=76552#post76552

Read my review and I consider my self a good EAR ! As I own a set of CLS with reference equipment !

 

[Horchem1972]

CLS review

I used to own a pair of the original CLS's.I believe to my ears that the review has some true aspects.I thought that they were a little thin in the lower midbass to lower bass region.I always augmented what I perceived as thin with a subwoofer.Please remember though what I may consider a little thin,others consider perfect.I think the same is true for people who do not like Martin Logan speakers.They always say that they are sterile sounding, which people who love Logans consider the sound as accurate.Everybody has their own opinion of what sounds right.It is as subjective as buying speakers.Some people love their Logans and others Magnepan or Klipsch.In the end it is your system and what you perceive as right is all that matters.

 

[nsgarch]

Easy guys,

I wasn't referring to particular reviewers or anything like that. What I meant by "audio ears I understand and trust" are just friends with whom I've actually listened to systems, in real time over the years; who seem to pick out the same pos. or neg. things about a system as I would. And who can describe what they hear/heard using certain shorthand comments that friends often develop after years of shared experience.

I must say it wasn't until you guys questioned my remark, that I realized how lucky I am to have friends who, even if we don't always share the same 'sonic preferences', can phone me and describe a system, and I'd know exactly what they'd heard!

 

[tonepub]

I'd be curious to see what Jonathan's reference system and room was like at the time he made the comments about the CLS.

Of all the speakers I've owned and reviewed, the CLS (and maybe the Magnepan Tympani's) were the most critical of setup and associated components. Right room + right gear equalled magic and without your ducks in a row, that great speaker could sound pretty awful.

I would guess that's why ML moved away from the CLS because it was a bit difficult to get right in the customers house.

Still a pretty amazing speaker to this day though!

 

[raygunn]

As a CLS owner I find the JV comments naive and inaccurate...

The conditions and issues that Mr. Valin describes are true of a system where the CLS has been mated with electronics that are not up to the task of the rigors of the CLS's demand on amplifiers.

The comment about the CLS being known as the purest, most accurate, transducer ever made stands on its own. Over the years, the CLS has been a reference standard of many. I have personally heard these words uttered by electronics and source manufacturers that used the CLS as their reference when designing and "voicing" their equipment. For some years, Luke Manley actually had his reference system posted on the VTL website with comments that his amps needed to pass the CLS test, before even taking the design seriously!

My pet peeve has always been that ML makes wonderful speakers.
However, in order for ML to survive as a company, they need to turn a blind eye to how and with which equipment their speakers are sold with at their dealerships. Of course, life is full of compromise, and I would certainly like ML to continue to grow and remain viable.

However, anyone that has bought ML electrostatics mated with a receiver, integrated amp, or even separates that cannot deal with the impedance load, is not really hearing or experiencing the true sonic quality of an ML electrostatic speaker. For people that are in this situation, the great news is that with each improvment made in the electronics end, the ML's will reward with better and better sound. it's like getting a whole new system. I say this from experience.

These comments are from a review Jonathan Valin did on the ML Source speakers in Absolute Sound a few months ago. Valin did love the Source speakers and considers them one of the best values in its price point. But he also seems to love many of the things he reviews – $25K Magico most recently.

To those who have owned or currently own the CLS, are these fair or controversial comments to you?

“… CLS full-range electrostatic was my reference loudspeaker, and although I’ve since gone on to other things, the CLS remains one of the purest and most transparent transducers I’ve heard. This was a speaker that made the old cliché about opening a window on the orchestra come true— everything in earshot of the CLS was clear and distinct and incredibly finely detailed. The trouble was it was also a bit bleached, thin, and cool. The CLS’s extraordinary transparency came at the cost of suckout in the bass and the power range of the lower mids. Although this balance seemed to increase resolution (rather in the way a spare pen-and-ink drawing can look more
finely detailed than a lush oil painting of the same subject), it also reduced lifelike density of tone color, body, and sock. The problem with timbres, coupled with the CLS’s inability to reproduce powerful dynamics in the low end, is one reason why Martin Logan eventually abandoned its full-range ’stat for the ’stat/cone hybrids that are its specialty…”

The CLX is supposed to have a much more dynamic bass. Like everyone, I am awaiting for someone to do A/B between CLX and CLS.

 

[nsgarch]

I would guess that's why ML moved away from the CLS because it was a bit difficult to get right in the customers house.!

I still say it was the advent of the bookshelf speaker!

As for difficulty of setup, yes there were a couple of things one HAD to observe and accept with large panel speakers. And if it was a person's first experience with panel speakers, 90% of the time they failed to get them sufficiently away from the back and side walls (usually placing them where their "old" speakers had stood, or in many cases, because their room was too small in the first place.)

Once they are far enough out into the room (of course the salesperson never mentioned the importance of this!) they are really quite easy to focus, even without room treatments (there is no vertical dispersion to deal with, for instance.) I've had my CLS's in large rooms and small. Large rooms are easy. Small rooms are impossible and you always wind up listening nearfield,

 

[ALTMAN]

Cls

The only reason the CLS is maligned is because it is nearly perfect. I bought mine with input from a guy who writes for Absolute Sound --- when they knew how to review...

I'm setting them up again in a small 26 x 16 x 9 room and they sound fine. I do have the biggest tube traps and some other wall treatment for the first reflection.

As far as the bleached out sound --- that is a function of the recording and the amps that many reviewers think are good --- but arent...

I'm in the process of rolling all of my amps through the system right now and the results have been night and day with the sonic signature of each amp showing through.

A quick note on placement --- All good speakers are sensitive to room placement. It would appear from the pictures I've seen on most forums that most hifi is installed under very compromised situations.

BTW CLS have three charateristics of a perfect loudspeaker:
1. No passive crossover
2. They are dipole
3. They are a line source

 

[raygunn]

Amen! Question about room treatments...

Such perfection only accentuates the flaws in the rest of the audio chain.

Something as minimal as a single poorly designed silver interconnect inserted in the audio chain can cause horrific "bleaching" of the sound.

My CLS set-up is far from ideal, but I have optimized use of the room as much as possible. Do you have any expereince with damping ceiling reflections? The benefits of putting the CLS' on the SA stands greatly outweigh the emergence of a minor reflection problem from the ceiling, but I would love to address it, if there was a way to do it.

TIA.

The only reason the CLS is maligned is because it is nearly perfect. I bought mine with input from a guy who writes for Absolute Sound --- when they knew how to review...

I'm setting them up again in a small 26 x 16 x 9 room and they sound fine. I do have the biggest tube traps and some other wall treatment for the first reflection.

As far as the bleached out sound --- that is a function of the recording and the amps that many reviewers think are good --- but arent...

I'm in the process of rolling all of my amps through the system right now and the results have been night and day with the sonic signature of each amp showing through.

A quick note on placement --- All good speakers are sensitive to room placement. It would appear from the pictures I've seen on most forums that most hifi is installed under very compromised situations.

BTW CLS have three charateristics of a perfect loudspeaker:
1. No passive crossover
2. They are dipole
3. They are a line source

 

[nsgarch]

Don't worry

The benefits of putting the CLS' on the SA stands greatly outweigh the emergence of a minor reflection problem from the ceiling, but I would love to address it, if there was a way to do it.TIA.

there's really nothing to address. The curved panel acts the same as a vertical line-array of small cones: great horizontal dispersion and virtually no vertical dispersion. (Look at some of the ML website owners manuals and specs if you don't have one.)

Stands are a must IMO, and even in a room with the lowest code-legal ceiling (7'-6") you won't get any significant bounce off the ceiling -- and even if you did, those secondary reflections would go right over your head at the listening position -- you'd never hear them.

 

[C.A.P]

CLS are the single most persnickety speaker I have used but they are magical. They can sound like a different speaker with a 1/2 inch move or tilt. Stands are a must ! I made mine and would not change a thing. They look like the CLS is suspended in air. The placement that suites the CLS best is measure the distance from inside edge to edge on the panel and sit your head double that as a starting point. You need to get them out 5 feet from a wall to do justice. Near field is just like big head phones and can sound OK, but its not a true sound stage and your missing the real delay from the rear.