rower30
Active member
I have a pair of T+A CWT1000-40 carbon's and set of CLX ART. Even though the CWT's have electrostatic panels above 2 KHz, the CLX have a sound quality I have not hear better. The ability of this speaker to extract such edge detail and precision is amazing. Nothing smoothers or interfers with anything else, just a solid and vibrant sound with excellent imaging and unriveled sound stage size. The CLX have an image depth that images inward to infinity.
The CWT 1000-40 didn't get it totally done in the otherwise excellent CWT design. The midranger loses a sense of ease and ultimate transparency to the source where the CLX excell at every sound they do make. No, they don't add anything but that's the point, they don't erase anything either. It is like you have better source material with the CLX. Nope, just the ability to play what's been there all along.
Sure, there is a SLIGHT loss of lower midrange power but to me the advantages to my ear are well past that deficiency all things considered. I set the BF212 subs to the custom to CLX cross-over. I don't use perfect bass kit. The DSP as dulls the transparency in the bass even though this seems unlikely. I set it to my ear. I switch back and fourth between the two designs but the sessions with the CLX keep getting longer.
I do use the ICONOCLAST series II speaker cable as those really help the image specificity on any speaker but that said, the major lifting are the CLX. I've had them awhile and no issues with them. They aren't finiky in my experience compared to the CWT that need very precise seating and toe-in.
Now the bad side, if I ever wear the CLX out are the newer version really as good? The bass/treble panel extends that electrostatic goodness down into the upper bass where the detail is also extrodinary. As of now they run perfectly and I run ~83 dB nominal on them. No they won't go real loud but the richness and solidity (never used that term with electrostatic before the CLX) keeps it entertaining. It seems ML went away from the bass/treble idea. My ear says it was a good one.
The CWT 1000-40 didn't get it totally done in the otherwise excellent CWT design. The midranger loses a sense of ease and ultimate transparency to the source where the CLX excell at every sound they do make. No, they don't add anything but that's the point, they don't erase anything either. It is like you have better source material with the CLX. Nope, just the ability to play what's been there all along.
Sure, there is a SLIGHT loss of lower midrange power but to me the advantages to my ear are well past that deficiency all things considered. I set the BF212 subs to the custom to CLX cross-over. I don't use perfect bass kit. The DSP as dulls the transparency in the bass even though this seems unlikely. I set it to my ear. I switch back and fourth between the two designs but the sessions with the CLX keep getting longer.
I do use the ICONOCLAST series II speaker cable as those really help the image specificity on any speaker but that said, the major lifting are the CLX. I've had them awhile and no issues with them. They aren't finiky in my experience compared to the CWT that need very precise seating and toe-in.
Now the bad side, if I ever wear the CLX out are the newer version really as good? The bass/treble panel extends that electrostatic goodness down into the upper bass where the detail is also extrodinary. As of now they run perfectly and I run ~83 dB nominal on them. No they won't go real loud but the richness and solidity (never used that term with electrostatic before the CLX) keeps it entertaining. It seems ML went away from the bass/treble idea. My ear says it was a good one.
