DDzCLX
Well-known member
Question about the CLS ( and I guess the CLX) What makes the bass panels produce lower frequency? It seems the whole panel gets the same signal and there is no XO. Thanks
The CLX have a x-over, not sure about the CLS.
Question about the CLS ( and I guess the CLX) What makes the bass panels produce lower frequency? It seems the whole panel gets the same signal and there is no XO. Thanks
Yes, not exactly a crossover, but it has a network as a tone shape...
I asked long time ago to Mr. Jim Power, one of the designer of the CLSs and that was his response. A crossover will cut +- 6dB dB at certain frequency. What he explained to me was that the circuit was a tone shape. The speaker at the sides still have high frequencies, so the tone shape acts as a filter to bring the whole speaker to have the best frequency response possible. Some CLS model have an internal switch where you can add mid range about +3dB as I do recall. It is not a crossover.On the CLX, please clarify your comment. I have rebuilt the network and recreated the schematic, there is filtering that directs the signal to either the low or mid/high frequency panels. How is this not a cross over?
Here is a link that has some interesting mods for the CLX including a sketch of the x-over (#34).
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/martin-logan-clx-mods.179196/
I'm referring to the CLX (not CLS). CLX has a cross-over with slope of 6dB per octave for the bass panel, there are also switches (not in the manual) which reduce bass panel output by 0,1 or 2 dB dependant upon which position(s). As I'm sure you are aware there is also an add on filter for the Descent I subwoofers that roll off the the high frequencies fed to the sub for enhanced integration with the CLX (tone shaping?), the newer Balanced Force subs do this with software/room correction.I asked long time ago to Mr. Jim Power, one of the designer of the CLSs and that was his response. A crossover will cut +- 6dB dB at certain frequency. What he explained to me was that the circuit was a tone shape. The speaker at the sides still have high frequencies, so the tone shape acts as a filter to bring the whole speaker to have the best frequency response possible. Some CLS model have an internal switch where you can add mid range about +3dB as I do recall. It is not a crossover.
You must be very excited to build new! We've had 2 homes built and it's my favorite way to buy a home. Will you be building a home theater or dedicated listening room?Yes, the switches in standard position are set for flat response, then you can add 1 dB or 2 dB at the mid range. I had tried it, but my ears are not that good to find any substancial difference, so I went back to the standard position. Perhaps could be a more room dependant. My room is small...I am building soon a new house away from the city. It is too noise now, so I am moving to the country side. I chose a neighbour where is quiet and no big trucks around. I have a small river at the back of the property and the water sound is very relaxing.
That's great. I hope you post up a picture once it is all done.Yes, at last I’m going to build a dedicated room. I wiil add one foot wider at my front wall. Kind of isosceles trapezoid shape. Also the ceiling at the wider side is going to have a foot taller. This shape will help to break the low frequency resonances inherent in all rooms. The standing waves are sometimes difficult to cure. I have a friend who has this room. He does not has a ML speakers. He owns Focal JM Labs. I can listen to the music there. He has a nice balanced sound. The size that I’m thinking would be 22’x18’x8’. I can change all this. I like small rooms. Not too big. Intimacy sound is what I like. Of course, I am very open for suggestions!!!
happy listening!
sure I will...thanks namesake... my eyes are open to read your thoughts for a two or three persons enjoying the system. A big hug from Costa Rica!That's great. I hope you post up a picture once it is all done.
I'm not disagreeing with anything Roberto is saying about CLS, I've never owned them nor have I taken them apart.DDzCLX I would agree with everything that Roberto is saying.
Try the switch and see what you think. I have not heard anyone that has commented on it say that they liked it better. That doesn't mean you won't or others don't just what has been commented on.
As for the circuit upgrade for subs. I added them to my 4 depth i and was very happy with the control I have in blending them with the CLX's.
Did you do the crossover changes to you CLX? If you did, what were the changes in the sound?
Incase you were not aware Roberto is a ML dealer and is well respected for his knowledge and wisdom.
I am not in any way suggesting you were conveying that just letting you know his credential relating to his information.
Let us know how your system is going forward. We all love to hear each others stories.
Brad
I have used a lot different type of amplifiers to drive them, SS and tubes and now I have 5 years using a Conrad Johnson Classic One SE driving them.
That is strange indeed....I was unaware the CLX incorporated an actual crossover and a separate bass panel. I only heard them once or twice, at audio shows in NYC. They certainly had prodigious bass, though I never got to test them with my own choice of program material. But one thing always perplexed me: The CLX was speced as 55-23,000 hz +/- 3dB, whereas the CLS II at 35-20,000 hz +/- 2dB. I realize frequency response figures for speakers, without any regard for the room they're in, are to be taken with a grain of salt (my CLSII's, for example, have a peak at around 40hz in my listening room, and drop off sharply below that). But if the bass performance of the CLX is so far superior why are the manufacturers own specs inferior regarding bass performance?
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...Nice to hear, I like good tube gear....
But the Conrad Johnson Classic One SE is a Pre amp isnt it?.. Which Power amps do you use then? Also CJ?
Exactly right?I was unaware the CLX incorporated an actual crossover and a separate bass panel. I only heard them once or twice, at audio shows in NYC. They certainly had prodigious bass, though I never got to test them with my own choice of program material. But one thing always perplexed me: The CLX was speced as 55-23,000 hz +/- 3dB, whereas the CLS II at 35-20,000 hz +/- 2dB. I realize frequency response figures for speakers, without any regard for the room they're in, are to be taken with a grain of salt (my CLSII's, for example, have a peak at around 40hz in my listening room, and drop off sharply below that). But if the bass performance of the CLX is so far superior why are the manufacturers own specs inferior regarding bass performance?
Enter your email address to join: