Heading to Lawrence to listen to the CLX!!

[raygunn]

Ya, I would love to know if they offer that sexy curvy one that we have seen.

Even in the basic Oak they look pretty cool in a home system-type setting.

Tom, please ask them about custom finishes, like the Aniline Red version. Why is that option (or others) no longer shown anywhere?

 

[raygunn]

Very Cool!!! They do indeed look more like the size of the CLS with the stands!

Thanks for the great pics and comments Tom!!!
I don't think I could have stayed focused on providing this level of reporting to the group if I were in your shoes, LOL..

here are a couple photos..

 

[C.A.P]

Sweet reporting Tom! They are sounding like they do the job right !

Did anybody see the weird panel covers on the top of the CLS IIz in the photo albums ?

 

[raygunn]

Tom, thanks for the fantastic reporting. Again this proves ML's total confidence in..

the CLX design.
The incredible level of access you have received and the modest system set-up, your listening impressions, all sum up to a clear home run for ML.

I for one can't wait for my new local dealer to get these things in their sound room. They may make me pay some crazy high hourly rate just to hear them, but it'll be well worth it, LOL.

Cheers!

Hi all,

I'm uploading the photos to my Kodak account. it'll take awhile, but here's the link:

http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=19e4ui47.53z7maqj&x=0&y=htb4nf&localeid=en_US

 

[FOUNTAIN]

Setup

Hey Tom, excellent job!! I've been checking in over the past couple of days and finally got a chance to see your pictures. Did you happen to take note of how far the CLX's were apart from each other and how far off the back wall they had them? Also, approximately how far were you sitting away from them? I also noticed they absorbed the back wave, at least a little, with the curtains. Did they have other padding behind that as well or just a plain wall? Again, great job in all of your reporting and hard work. :rocker::rocker:

 

[Kaliar]

Thanks !

Thanks for taking the time to report your findings about the CLX ! Your messages and pictures tell a lot.

Kudos,

 

[tonepub]

Hi Tom:

Thanks for all the hard work, I can't wait to get out there to listen myself at the end of the month. Now I'm really excited.

Just two questions for you, and I know you were in a different room, etc.

1: If money were not part of the equation at all, would you trade up for these speakers? Strictly on performance, would you want these speakers?

2: When you heard them, did you just hear the CLX's, or did you also get a chance to hear them with the Descent's too? Curious as to your thoughts there...

Hope you had a blast!

 

[Jungle Jack]

Hello,
That sounds like an awesome experience. I am amazed at how many speaker manufacturers use Parasound amplification for demonstration. If I remember correctly, Wilson Audio, when introducing the Sophia, initially kept the amp driving it hidden. They later revealed the HCA-1000a (125 watt stereo amp). A $650.00 ampliifer driving a 10k speaker!
Cheers,
Mark

 

[jfm]

thanks for all the "hard" work Tom!

interesting that ML is demonstrating them with none-too-stratospheric equipment.

also that the speakers are spaced farther apart than I've seen many CLSes.

 

[amey01]

I thought of this question at 3am lat night - You omitted to mention whether you were listening to the CLX alone, or with the Descent i?

Did you try both?

 

[TomDac]

Hi Tom:

Thanks for all the hard work, I can't wait to get out there to listen myself at the end of the month. Now I'm really excited.

Just two questions for you, and I know you were in a different room, etc.

1: If money were not part of the equation at all, would you trade up for these speakers? Strictly on performance, would you want these speakers?

2: When you heard them, did you just hear the CLX's, or did you also get a chance to hear them with the Descent's too? Curious as to your thoughts there...

Hope you had a blast!

Jeff...

I did not hear the CLX's with a sub. That would've been nice.

If money was not part of the equation, without a doubt, I would've placed my order for a pair before I left on Saturday. They are THAT good.

I will be very interested to hear your impressions.

Be prepared to be blown away.

 

[TomDac]

Hi all,

I made it home safe and sound. I'll be finalizing my report and posting it in the next couple of days and also scheduling a time to call David Allen to go over the questions we had for them, since my plane delay restricted the time I had for the Q&A.

Thanks for all your support!!

Tom.

 

[tonepub]

Tom:

Thanks for all the hard work! I know if we at least get them in for review or if I end up buying them, I will add a 2nd Descent i and go for broke. If that ends up being the case, you should come up to Portland for a Saturday and rock out. That way we will have some vinyl on tap as well. I can get the local ML rep to stop by too.

You are always invited!

 

[longhorn]

Tom,was the sweetspot larger than normal? Or did you notice?

 

[TomDac]

Sweet spot seemed larger than my reQuests... Not sure why, since the reQuest panels are much wider.

 

[C.A.P]

I would think it has to do with the newer clear spars and the micro perf panels . The Summits have a narrow panel but are capable of wide sound stage and a big sweet spot !

 

[nsgarch]

Sweet spot seemed larger than my reQuests... Not sure why, since the reQuest panels are much wider.

The narrower the panels, the stronger the SPL off-axis (or at wide dispersion angles) and therefore the bigger the sweet spot. A tall line array (Pipedreams or Infinity IRS) or a ribbon driver like Dali Megaline or the big Apogee, provide big 3 or 4 person sweet spots.

 

[Rich]

The narrower the panels, the stronger the SPL off-axis (or at wide dispersion angles) and therefore the bigger the sweet spot. A tall line array (Pipedreams or Infinity IRS) or a ribbon driver like Dali Megaline or the big Apogee, provide big 3 or 4 person sweet spots.

A larger panel is going to move more air than a narrower panel, all other things being equal. How then, do you expect that a narrower panel is going to give you stronger off-axis spl's and how exactly is this related to a larger sweetspot?

I expect Tom's experience is related to the micro-perf panels, which allow more air movement from a narrower speaker and also from the room acoustics (a large, treated room).

 

[nsgarch]

A larger panel is going to move more air than a narrower panel, all other things being equal. How then, do you expect that a narrower panel is going to give you stronger off-axis spl's and how exactly is this related to a larger sweetspot?

I don't know about the "all other things being equal" part. Just what did you have in mind? It's well-known physics that as the radiating area approaches a point (or in this case a line) the output in all directions becomes uniform. When you have two (stereo) tranducers providing such a uniform (in strength) output in all directions, the interaction of their waves produces the widest possible holographic image.

OTOH, the wider and/or flatter the radiating surface, the more it "beams" a strong wave straight out perpendicular to itself (except for bass frequencies.) The most recent example of this is the flat-panel Innersound line of stats (Eros, Isis, etc.) which are well known for their tiny sweet-spot.

There is really no "all things being equal" in this regard. The closer a device approaches a line (ribbon) or a point (dome) the harder it is to produce output. There have been some brilliant solutions to this problem which I'll skip for now, but MartinLogan's mission from the very beginning has been to design an electrostatic speaker with strong output over a wide radiatiing angle. The CLS was the closest they came until now -- basically it was the same design idea (a curved, full-range radiating surface) as the SoundLab, except with a one-piece diaphragm.

Their decision (with the CLX) to take the bass-radiating section out of the curved part of the panel, thus enabling a tighter curve (closer to a line) is a no-brainer (interesting how much the CLX resembles Jon Fo's center channel!) The real engineering secret (which is why they asked Tom remove the electronics picture ;-) has to do with getting the two sections to operate as a crossover-less single panel!!

 

[Rich]

I don't know about the "all other things being equal" part. Just what did you have in mind?

I was referring to the specific example we were discussing, the difference between Tom's Requests and the CLX. "All other things" wouldn't be equal, because the technology of the panels is different -- one has the old style panels, and one has the newer x-stat panels.

I'm still not sure I buy your explanation, but I will admit to not knowing enough about the physics to dispute the issue. I know from my own experience that I have never had a problem with beaming from the larger ML panels (monolith, prodigy) and I have never heard of it being a problem with all you CLS lovers, so I just don't buy into your argument. I expect room acoustics have much more to do with the size of the sweet spot than width of the panel.