Happy owner of CLSIIZ anc CLX ART

[Big Dog RJ]

When I had the Quads, ESL 2905's and 2912's, both were speced to reproduce LF to around 30Hz usable (whatever that means) down to 28Hz... yeah right! What a load of bollocks! The Quads can't do even half of the LF detail that CLX's are capable of. The Quad's bass was adequate, which was quite good but it had a sort of "drum affect..." not a real LF thump or tight solid bass lines like the CLX's can reproduce so effortlessly. There's just no comparison and I have owned all three of these types of full range stats. Sorry! Make that four! Including the CLSIIz's.

If it's on the recording, the CLX's will reproduce exactly that! If it's not on the recording, it simply won't be there, hence there are no artificial enhancements...

Cheers, and enjoy those fine tunes!
RJ

 

[Don Camillo]

Our Robbo mate is using the CJ Classic 120se power amp and ET7 preamp. Both are CJ design. When he mentioned Classic One SE, he forgot the 20...
Cheers matey, RJ

Ah now I understand, thanks!
That isnt a cheap amp... must sound very nice!

 

[Big Dog RJ]

Oh yes it is! The pics of the Classic 120se are not justifiable on their website... you really have to see this amplifier in person, it's pretty big and heavy, thanks to its rock solid power supplies and highly stable trannys. It's a force to reckon with.
When you see the Classic 120 in person and be amazed at what Jeff F and his team at CJ have accomplished, wait till you see the ART300's in person. Now that's some serious levels in amplification. It makes most other amplifiers look like toys..

Cheers to CJ and ML! It's one marvellous combination indeed! Truly special.
Woof! RJ

 

[Don Camillo]

Oh nice!
I whish I could hear something like that here. But its not so common here in our country as like in the Usa.

But I will keep it in mind and look out for ut. Thanks.

 

[roberto]

Hola,
I had all the CLSs models, I bought my first CLS in 1987. Until 2014, I ended with my CLXs and these are a totally different beasts. Even that the specs says that the CLSs goes down to 30Hz, the quality and intensity bass from the CLXs smokes the CLSs bass performance. In the CLXs are eight dedicated bass panels acting in a certain way as Bi-polar type, again 8 bass panels. It is unfair to do a comparison between them. The naturalness of the double bass is impecable form the CLXs. Yes, the specs says 56Hz +-3dB but they do down to 30 Hz +4dB...in other words, there is much bass energy coming from the CLXs than the CLSs.

Also remember that previously I mention that switches inside the CLXs. Here is what they do:

 

[Robert D]

Does anyone know why Martin Logan rates the CLX as only going down to 56 HZ? Maybe even just a theory? It doesnt make any sense if it isnt true. Youd think they would want to rate it for what it truly is, since 30 HZ is better.

 

[roberto]

Regarding the power amplifier, I am using a robust 75 pounds Conrad Johnson Classic One Twenty SE model. It delivers high power through 4 KT-120s power output tubes per channel. These tubes deliver pure, clean, transparent bass with an outstanding midrange.
The stage is wide open and has a truly sense of 3D. The cymbals are played where the drummer is located at our virtual stage. The metal timbre of them is stunning. The voices are projected to the air with a delicious mellow richness sound of a non sore throats, I do really enjoy more female voices than males, but both are well balanced and a truly sense to have them here, in my room.
The soloist instrument has the dynamics and a palpable definition of it. The quality sounds exhibit the real harmonic texture of the strings instruments. The cello has a body that it is very difficult to get from another speakers. You also feel the direction of the bow while playing the strings. On the guitar, it is very easy to understand the fingering at the fret board.
On the piano, the left hand vs the right hand is so evident. If one hand is playing softer than the other, you get this. The wind instruments, on the sax, you hear the air through the mouth piece vibrating. The clarinet you hear the ebony wood singing. The flute is dynamic with an outstanding definition. the harp has an incredible bass notes. I never heard this before.

 

[Big Dog RJ]

Does anyone know why Martin Logan rates the CLX as only going down to 56 HZ? Maybe even just a theory? It doesnt make any sense if it isnt true. Youd think they would want to rate it for what it truly is, since 30 HZ is better.

That is the golden question !
At one point, fellow CLX owners around my town all got together and pondered about this over some light refreshments... whiles listening to music through a CLX based system of course. After a few drinks, the wine & cheese started to kick in, we were truly enjoying the presentation and forgot about the whole question, so why bother! Just sit back, pour that scotch and light that cigar, we all agreed on that!

We did think of a few reasons though:
1. The ML design team didn't want to divulge every attribute of the CLX's, rather they wanted the owner to discover its hidden powers.
2. They publipublished those specs encouraging owners to partner their CLX's with subs... hoping that owners would buy ML subs!
3. Some idiot was too drunk to proof-read the actual specs... the CLX's project had to be closed and production commenced... So too late to correct the specs, especially the LF! Oh no!
*Note: these were actual thoughts that we came up with, non of the above is fake.

Cheers, and enjoy those fine tunes!
Best, RJ

 

[Big Dog RJ]

Hola,
I had all the CLSs models, I bought my first CLS in 1987. Until 2014, I ended with my CLXs and these are a totally different beasts. Even that the specs says that the CLSs goes down to 30Hz, the quality and intensity bass from the CLXs smokes the CLSs bass performance. In the CLXs are eight dedicated bass panels acting in a certain way as Bi-polar type, again 8 bass panels. It is unfair to do a comparison between them. The naturalness of the double bass is impecable form the CLXs. Yes, the specs says 56Hz +-3dB but they do down to 30 Hz +4dB...in other words, there is much bass energy coming from the CLXs than the CLSs.

Also remember that previously I mention that switches inside the CLXs. Here is what they do:

That's a definite Robbo mate!

I noticed it straight away, the LF energy, weight, and agility on the CLX's is far greater than the CLSIIz's that I previously owned. Although the CLSIIz's were excellent stats, they didn't quite have the CLX's bass capability. That's because the two are completely a different design. The CLSIIz's are based on the previous ML curved stat technology, where all frequencies are reproduced from one large stat panel.

In the case of the CLX's, it was a complete radical change and a major development phase in full range electrostatic design. They've isolated each section separately into dedicated panels. Separate panels for mids & highs and separate panels for the bass section. Also each of these panels has its dedicated transformers, so nothing is shared in terms of power trannys. By this new approach, it's almost like stacked stats, where the dynamics, speed, power and control is vastly improved, arriving at a higher level of absolute transparency in all frequencies.

The CLX's can handle very high levels of playback without flinching one bit, and best of all, zero distortion! You can play them loud as you wish or soft as you please, either way as long as your amplifiers are up to par. They are a true Master Piece, without a doubt. An absolute work of art!

There's no other speaker I would rather own, regardless of price.
A big WOOF! To you mate
RJ

 

[roberto]

Does anyone know why Martin Logan rates the CLX as only going down to 56 HZ? Maybe even just a theory? It doesnt make any sense if it isnt true. Youd think they would want to rate it for what it truly is, since 30 HZ is better.

Robert, general reading the specs of the CLXs, and you read 56Hz +-3dB, you think that there is nothing below this frequency. This is not true. The bass might have a variation from +-5 dB on the bass frequency depending in the room where they are installed. Room boundaries and standing waves might act as lower notes enhancer too. In other words, specs are meaning less, they are just a guide. You might have an incredible frequency response device and when you listen to it, it might sucks or not. You have to listen and let your ears decide. They are your final judges.

 

[Don Camillo]

Does anyone know why Martin Logan rates the CLX as only going down to 56 HZ? Maybe even just a theory? It doesnt make any sense if it isnt true. Youd think they would want to rate it for what it truly is, since 30 HZ is better.

I think its because of this.
The linearity of speakers are usually measured and given in -3db.
Within the -3b line the CLX's wideband goes from 56hz and up to the highest frequency within -3db.
The -4 db is never given as a measurement, although a speaker could go really low in that (-1db) lesser loud sound pressure level.

Or a lot higher like for instance 26khz in stead of 20khz.

But we use -3db.

Sometimes when a speaker or an amp is extreme linear then they even give a -1db measurement too.

But ML gave a true measurement that is within -3db.

 

[Don Camillo]

Robert, general reading the specs of the CLXs, and you read 56Hz +-3dB, you think that there is nothing below this frequency. This is not true. The bass might have a variation from +-5 dB on the bass frequency depending in the room where they are installed. Room boundaries and standing waves might act as lower notes enhancer too. In other words, specs are meaning less, they are just a guide. You might have an incredible frequency response device and when you listen to it, it might sucks or not. You have to listen and let your ears decide. They are your final judges.

And indeed, the room could give a gain at around 30hz from many db's like I have in one room... (all concrete walls and floor).
There when a speaker plays low to below 30hz at -3db it becomes really irritating with certain songs. In that room a speaker that plays down to 50 or 60 hz at -3db (like the CLX) would give a lot of cleaner bass.... because my room enhances the lower hz.

(English isnt my normal language, so I might explain it strange).

 

[Leporello]

That is the golden question !
At one point, fellow CLX owners around my town all got together and pondered about this over some light refreshments... whiles listening to music through a CLX based system of course. After a few drinks, the wine & cheese started to kick in, we were truly enjoying the presentation and forgot about the whole question, so why bother! Just sit back, pour that scotch and light that cigar, we all agreed on that!

We did think of a few reasons though:
1. The ML design team didn't want to divulge every attribute of the CLX's, rather they wanted the owner to discover its hidden powers.
2. They publipublished those specs encouraging owners to partner their CLX's with subs... hoping that owners would buy ML subs!
3. Some idiot was too drunk to proof-read the actual specs... the CLX's project had to be closed and production commenced... So too late to correct the specs, especially the LF! Oh no!
*Note: these were actual thoughts that we came up with, non of the above is fake.

Cheers, and enjoy those fine tunes!
Best, RJ

That's the trouble with a little alcohol and some good music, it stifles the urge to do critical listening. My best guess would be something like 3--a typo that persisted on the Web site and never got corrected. Maybe the webmaster left and nobody knew how to fix it.

When Dennis Chern demoed the CLX's at the NY Audio Show--I think it was the year they had it in Brooklyn--they were cranking out plenty of bass. But given my choice, I would have gone straight to Marcel Dupre playing the organ at St. Sulpice on Mercury Living Presence.

There are certain advantages to using a sub. You want to place the panels for best clarity and imaging, and the bass performance may suffer at those locations. I use the Descent i with my CLS II's (for which there's a special board available for the CLX's, I think for the high pass x-over). I'm still working on optimally placing it, and equalizing it with the Velodyne SMS-1, to get a smooth progression on the organ pedals all the way to the lowest note. A high pass crossover would help with the 40 hz. peak I'm getting from my panels in my room, but I so far can't bring myself to interfere with the pure ESL beauty. Running sweep tones tends to annoy the other residents of the house, so I don't get many chances. Pipe organ music, as well as large orchestral music--which often includes pipe organs, as well as bass drums--are a small but significant part of my musical diet. Rock music with bass guitars, seldom if ever. For piano music, harpsichord and clavichord music, chamber music, small jazz ensembles, medium sized orchestral music, the CLS II's thrill me sans subwoofer.

I have no doubt living with the CLX's would be that much more of a joy, but right now they're too rich for my blood.

 

[Leporello]

I think its because of this.
The linearity of speakers are usually measured and given in -3db.
Within the -3b line the CLX's wideband goes from 56hz and up to the highest frequency within -3db.
The -4 db is never given as a measurement, although a speaker could go really low in that (-1db) lesser loud sound pressure level.

Or a lot higher like for instance 26khz in stead of 20khz.

But we use -3db.

Sometimes when a speaker or an amp is extreme linear then they even give a -1db measurement too.

But ML gave a true measurement that is within -3db.

I thought of that. The CLS II claims 35-20,000=/- 2:CLS II

The CLX claims 56-23,000 +/- 3:CLX No amount of fiddling with amplitude tolerance can explain that. Are these anechoic measurements, for both?

(The CLX Art, which is indeed a work of art, has identical specs).

 

[Don Camillo]

I thought of that. The CLS II claims 35-20,000=/- 2:CLS II

The CLX claims 56-23,000 +/- 3:CLX No amount of fiddling with amplitude tolerance can explain that. Are these anechoic measurements, for both?

(The CLX Art, which is indeed a work of art, has identical specs).

Yes indeed brand speakers are always measured in an anechoic chamber.

 

[roberto]

Here is a test made by Stereophile:
Fig.2 MartinLogan CLS, frame resonance.

"The forward response set is shown in fig.3. Taking the solid axial line first, the speaker output was high in the midrange, partly due to proximity. Above 1kHz, the output was even and well-extended, suggesting a basically good tonal balance. No loss was seen by 20kHz. The low frequencies also deserve some comment. As predicted by Gayle Sanders of MartinLogan, the main resonance was precisely at 50Hz, and, in my view, showed excessive amplitude. The bands above 50Hz were deficient, while a steep rolloff held below 50Hz, the output already -8dB by 40Hz, and -18dB by 30Hz."

https://www.stereophile.com/content/martinlogan-cls-loudspeaker-1987-measurements

 

[Big Dog RJ]

That's the trouble with a little alcohol and some good music, it stifles the urge to do critical listening. My best guess would be something like 3--a typo that persisted on the Web site and never got corrected. Maybe the webmaster left and nobody knew how to fix it.

When Dennis Chern demoed the CLX's at the NY Audio Show--I think it was the year they had it in Brooklyn--they were cranking out plenty of bass. But given my choice, I would have gone straight to Marcel Dupre playing the organ at St. Sulpice on Mercury Living Presence.

There are certain advantages to using a sub. You want to place the panels for best clarity and imaging, and the bass performance may suffer at those locations. I use the Descent i with my CLS II's (for which there's a special board available for the CLX's, I think for the high pass x-over). I'm still working on optimally placing it, and equalizing it with the Velodyne SMS-1, to get a smooth progression on the organ pedals all the way to the lowest note. A high pass crossover would help with the 40 hz. peak I'm getting from my panels in my room, but I so far can't bring myself to interfere with the pure ESL beauty. Running sweep tones tends to annoy the other residents of the house, so I don't get many chances. Pipe organ music, as well as large orchestral music--which often includes pipe organs, as well as bass drums--are a small but significant part of my musical diet. Rock music with bass guitars, seldom if ever. For piano music, harpsichord and clavichord music, chamber music, small jazz ensembles, medium sized orchestral music, the CLS II's thrill me sans subwoofer.

I have no doubt living with the CLX's would be that much more of a joy, but right now they're too rich for my blood.

Back in the day... previously going through various Maggie's, Apogee's and Quads, there was nothing quite like ML's CLS. It was an awe-inspiring experience when I first heard them but I was a student then and couldn't afford it, although I managed to acquire a very nice pair of SL3's at the time. Soon as I graduated and started earning better the years passed on and it wasn't until I was back in tropical climes when I finally got the CLSIIz's.

They were the most beautiful full range stats I'd ever seen! I had what was called the "honey blonde" finish, custom finished in Spore and specially order from my long time trusted Spore dealer. So basically, these particular versions were supposed to be "tropicalised..." yeah right! Unfortunately, just like the Quads, Jan Zen's and other panel types, they just didn't last. Within the first 4-5 months of use, the panels started their usual problems. I got in touch with ML's tech dept and according to them it was the timber frame and internal construction that was tropicalised not the panels! Uh?

I was so furious with my trusted dealer and had several conversations over the phone but it turned out that even he wasn't aware that it had nothing to do with the actual stat panels, it was only the wood and structure... so we both learned that the hard way. At the end, you can't tropicalise a stat! There's no way of doing this but what you can do is treat the wooden frame with special coatings so that they don't warp over a period time in harsh tropical climates. That was what ML Spore had done for me.

Anyway, after a few trials and errors, we managed to get the CLSIIz's upto spec, and they were absolutely glorious! In the meantime, I used Maggie’s and Quad's ESL 63's as standbys... none of them could deliver that sheer brilliance of what the CLSIIz's could.

So, overall if I still had a pair of perfectly working CLS or CLSIIz's, I'd be happy as!
This was back in 98/99... only after a few years went by... in Sept 2018, I finally managed to get the CLX Art's. Of course I'm absolutely thrilled but who would've know that this new stat existed after a few decades... I certainly didn't expect it! Now, sadly they're discontinued, what a bummer.

Just enjoy those fine tunes! ML stats are marvellous!
Cheers & a mighty WOOF!!! RJ

 

[roberto]

Here is the frequency response of the CLXs, note that still at -7dB, the 30Hz info is there...

Happy listening¡

 

[Brad225]

This is what my CLX's showed in my room when my EE friend ran frequently response test on mine. This is with my depth i subs in the mix though.

 

[DaVinci Media]

View attachment 22847

This is what my CLX's showed in my room when my EE friend ran frequently response test on mine. This is with my depth i subs in the mix though.

Do you have any room treatment?