Hello & Stuff

[lowheat]

Saying hello for the first time. Been lurking for a bit. Owned every version of CLS, including the very first and last. Currently using Quad 989, as I have been for approximately 20 years. Always think about owning a pair of the beautiful CLS one more time. - Jeffrey

 

[Reverb]

Hello and welcome, Jeffrey. Nice to have you.
I'd like to ask if you don't mind, why CLS?
I hope you'll have a wonderful experience here.

 

[lowheat]

I always loved the look--IMHO the best looking hifi speaker ever. Second, and I might be in error here due to distant memory, I always had the sense that the CLS/II/IIA/IIZ were bulletproof, that I could play them as loudly as I liked and they could take it. I love my Quads, in fact I used to think it was the best sounding speaker ever. It may be still. But I have had to have my large ESL-989s rebuilt twice in approximately 20 years. Some people are of the opinion that Quads are more fragile than ML, esp. CLS. What do you think?

 

[Reverb]

I always loved the look--IMHO the best looking hifi speaker ever. Second, and I might be in error here due to distant memory, I always had the sense that the CLS/II/IIA/IIZ were bulletproof, that I could play them as loudly as I liked and they could take it. I love my Quads, in fact I used to think it was the best sounding speaker ever. It may be still. But I have had to have my large ESL-989s rebuilt twice in approximately 20 years. Some people are of the opinion that Quads are more fragile than ML, esp. CLS. What do you think?

Well, that sounds very convincing!
You owned every version of CLS.
I have to agree.

 

[john65b]

I also had many of the CLS (currently have my CLS II) and have the Quad 2805. The CLS are much more bulletproof and can take more power and do higher SPL than the quads...

But the Quad does do the entire sound spectrum better than the CLS (methinks). The caveat is SPL and how much you can push the quads...they say they need 100 watts to sound their best, and 101 watts to kill them...this is true...

I think the CLS has some potential, especially if you unload the CLS of 200hz and lower to a sub (and you would not miss much...)

You can also unload the Quad of 200hz and lower to get some better reliability, but miss out on the good (much better than the CLS) bass it has...

My $.02...

 

[lowheat]

Well, that sounds very convincing!
You owned every version of CLS.
I have to agree.

Actually, I had a CLS or CLS1 (only I don't think it had a number designation), one of the first series. I thought that that iteration of the CLS was the most magical of all, but that could have been simply a newness factor, i.e."first impressions." If I were to pursue it at all, I would probably look for a IIZ now, since M-L went to the trouble to try to ameliorate the low impedance problem--whatever they did.