Stands for the CLS

[MiTT]

Guys, I did say that the glass blocks were only temporary! I was mostly just trying to identify the optimal height (and I'm pretty sure I have it).

I'm actually working on a couple of really cool design ideas that will integrate some more sophisticated methods of coupling the CLS frame to a rigid structure much better than the method used in the Sound Anchor design. Ray, image focus actually did improve quite a bit even though the speakers are on 3 seperate glass blocks. One thing I forgot to mention is that I also put a concrete paver on top of the electronics enclosures, so the additional weight helps bear the spikes down more on the blocks, and I angled the blocks so that they are all directionally aligned so that the weak axis in any direction on any of the blocks is countered by the long axis of the other blocks. It's decently rigid all things considered. I'm a product design guy, I have a pretty good understanding of what I'm doing.

I've actually modeled the speaker in SolidWorks and run it through COSMOS to measure what sort of deflection I might actually see near the top assuming a rigid anchor near the bottom. Even with a force of 120lbs applied at the top the frame will only deflect about .033". If I have a chance I'll take the time to see what it would take to make them deflect the 2" Neil suggests, but I suspect the material would fail well before it actually deflected anywhere near than number.

Once I've finalized some of the solid models I'll post the designs here for some feedback, but I may try to get some design and utility protection prior to that.

 

[raygunn]

Correction

I didn't say they swayed 2". I said they sway A LOT.

Now we are getting out of hand here...2" to OUTRAGEOUS sway.


Mass loading on the electronics does help with the Sequel II's and RabbitHouse did some clamps on his panels which was really a wild looking addition. I also use mass loading on my electronics sections of the CLS from the day I owned them and found benefit from it.


Funny, but when I saw the Summits, I found the panel to have some flex to it and attributed that to little frame around it compared to other ML's. But I am sure ML has done their design and testing on the structure and would not have made them like that if it was detrimental.

That's a shame. I thought they had improved from the Sequel days.

 

[DTB300]

"2" huh - that is a lot. So, at what sound levels did this happen - 70, 80, 90dB, higher? Is this a guess or actual measurement? Not trying to be difficult or confrontational, but if the panels really do move as much as you state, don't you think ML would have been aware of it, and if detrimental, would have done a different design?"

Ever hear of Myestands for Maggies? Why do you think they are being produced?

Sure. I have also heard of a lot of other products and have read their marketing reasons. But does not mean I need or want to use them or if they even produce any benefit. Our hobby is full of such nonsense.

Chill out Sunday....I am asking to find out more. But I see MiTT has actually replied with some testing and statistics for wood and its abilities to withstand force applied to it instead of guessing or assumptions.

 

[DTB300]

I'm actually working on a couple of really cool design ideas that will integrate some more sophisticated methods of coupling the CLS frame to a rigid structure much better than the method used in the Sound Anchor design. Ray, image focus actually did improve quite a bit even though the speakers are on 3 seperate glass blocks. One thing I forgot to mention is that I also put a concrete paver on top of the electronics enclosures, so the additional weight helps bear the spikes down more on the blocks, and I angled the blocks so that they are all directionally aligned so that the weak axis in any direction on any of the blocks is countered by the long axis of the other blocks. It's decently rigid all things considered. I'm a product design guy, I have a pretty good understanding of what I'm doing.

Yeah but people just love to speculate based solely on a picture. Great work MITT

I've actually modeled the speaker in SolidWorks and run it through COSMOS to measure what sort of deflection I might actually see near the top assuming a rigid anchor near the bottom. Even with a force of 120lbs applied at the top the frame will only deflect about .033". If I have a chance I'll take the time to see what it would take to make them deflect the 2" Neil suggests, but I suspect the material would fail well before it actually deflected anywhere near than number

Now we are talking!!! Thanks for taking the time to do some research to really find things out. Many of us appreciate it.

For my panels to move 2" as stated - 1" back and 1" forward - it would easily be seen by the naked eye, and would probably blow out all my wife's candles she likes to have on when we sit, relax, and listen to some tunes. No not really....

 

[DTB300]

I didn't say they swayed 2". I said they sway A LOT.

Well after the 2" and then stated outrageous amounts, it is easy to think larger movement. Sorry about that... Men and measurements....when are we going to learn how long 10" really is

That's a shame. I thought they had improved from the Sequel days.

Again, no scientific testing, no measurements, just an observation of the new panels. What does it mean? Nothing, just an observation.

It is hard to believe ML would design a product, knowing the panels will move due to the nature of the beast, and not take it into account.

 

[nsgarch]

"2" huh - that is a lot. So, at what sound levels did this happen - 70, 80, 90dB, higher? Is this a guess or actual measurement? Not trying to be difficult or confrontational, but if the panels really do move as much as you state, don't you think ML would have been aware of it, and if detrimental, would have done a different design?"

ML was indeed aware of the problem early on, and somewhere in the forums, I transcribed the memo I rerceived around 1993 from MartinLogan recommending everybody buy an Arcici stand

Yes 2", and I did measure it: 1" forward, and 1" backward from resting position -- not really surprising with a 1" thick, 5.5 ft lever arm (the oak frame) fastened to a 3.5" moment resistant joint (that's the vertical distance between the bolts that attach the electonic interface to the back of the frame.

This transient distortion happens at all SPL's, just less perceptibly so at low volumes, Nevertheless, the degree transients get blurred is the same at all SPL's because its all proportionate. Of course, no music signal wll make it move 2" -- are you nuts?! My point was that if it could move that much, it would be easy for it to move the tiny amount necessary to absorb some of the diaphragm's tiny excursions. Certainly no box speaker owner would tolerate that much movement!?

 

[DTB300]

Yes 2", and I did measure it: 1" forward, and 1" backward from resting position -- not really surprising with a 1" thick, 5.5 ft lever arm (the oak frame) fastened to a 3.5" moment resistant joint (that's the vertical distance between the bolts that attach the electonic interface to the back of the frame.

Manually moving the frame, sure I can see and have tested it, but as you state below, "no music signal will make it move 2"". So we have to be careful how one posts information here - yes, the biggest problem with forum posting, reading between the lines.

This transient distortion happens at all SPL's, just less perceptibly so at low volumes, Nevertheless, the degree transients get blurred is the same at all SPL's because its all proportionate. Of course, no music signal wll make it move 2" -- are you nuts?! My point was that if it could move that much, it would be easy for it to move the tiny amount necessary to absorb some of the diaphragm's tiny excursions. Certainly no box speaker owner would tolerate such an amount movement!?

Are you nuts?? Misery loves company, I will take the fifth.

Remember, I was replying to your post of... "Yes, and the top of the speaker will deflect at least 2", or a bit more, forward and backward (total)."

 

[nsgarch]

I do apologize for creating that possible confusion. Technical papers these days require so much vetting, and peer review. Oy! :bowdown:

 

[DTB300]

It was easier to move the frame (back and forth) before I put the two heavy pavers on the electronics box, but I know the mass-loading did help the sound - primarily in the bass area.

 

[SundayNiagara]

Sure. I have also heard of a lot of other products and have read their marketing reasons. But does not mean I need or want to use them or if they even produce any benefit. Our hobby is full of such nonsense.

Chill out Sunday....I am asking to find out more. But I see MiTT has actually replied with some testing and statistics for wood and its abilities to withstand force applied to it instead of guessing or assumptions.

And didn't Arcici make stands for Quad ESL-63s and ESL57s? Yes they did. As a matter of fact, I had them on my '57s and the imaging improved dramatically.

Maybe there should be a separate forum for "Doubting Thomases," where they could debate these issues among themselves until their listening skills develop to the point that they realize that truth is spoken here.

 

[raygunn]

Tim, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know what you were doing...

Guys, I did say that the glass blocks were only temporary! I was mostly just trying to identify the optimal height (and I'm pretty sure I have it)..

The CLS is a different animal than the ML hybrids of its day. The height off the floor once you are beyond a couple of inches up only shifts the sweet spot up or down and not much else.

It's interesting that the 3 separate glass blocks improved the imaging. I assumed that all of the flexing and swaying occurred at the top third or so of the ES panel and not at the base.

I'll be real interested in seeing your final design. Panel steadiness issues are a common problem with many ES, ribbons, and other planars.

 

[C.A.P]

Every one have a look see at these see what you think !

http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6374

 

[DTB300]

Maybe there should be a separate forum for "Doubting Thomases," where they could debate these issues among themselves until their listening skills develop to the point that they realize that truth is spoken here.

Thank goodness for Doubting-Thomas people in this world, otherwise everything would be accepted and there would be no advancements. Their input and debates are an invaluable tool, unlike the "and yet another great post" additions

 

[Rich]

Maybe there should be a separate forum for "Doubting Thomases," where they could debate these issues among themselves until their listening skills develop to the point that they realize that truth is spoken here.

Or maybe just a separate forum for pompous jerks with golden ears and inflated egos. This forum is all about reasonable, rational debate and there is nothing wrong with questioning someone's arguments and opinions. And unless you have some white paper to present on the subject, it is all opinion. And you know what they say about opinions -- every a--hole's got one.

 

[SundayNiagara]

Thank goodness for Doubting-Thomas people in this world, otherwise everything would be accepted and there would be no advancements. Their input and debates are an invaluable tool, unlike the "and yet another great post" additions

The research and doubting has already been done for you.

 

[SundayNiagara]

Or maybe just a separate forum for pompous jerks with golden ears and inflated egos. This forum is all about reasonable, rational debate and there is nothing wrong with questioning someone's arguments and opinions. And unless you have some white paper to present on the subject, it is all opinion. And you know what they say about opinions -- every a--hole's got one.

See my post above.

 

[Rich]

The research and doubting has already been done for you.

Really? Why don't you just point us to it, then? Where is this vaunted research that shows empirically the transient smearing caused by CLS panel movement?

Unless you can, then you are just saying that this is your opinion and we should just trust your golden ears without question. Sorry, but I don't have that much faith in you or your ears. Especially when your best argument so far is: well they make stands for them, don't they? Why would they do that if it wasn't necessary? If that's your best argument, then I have a furutech cd demagnetizer, a few cable cookers, and an audio transmogrifier I would like to sell you.

Just for the record, I am not saying whether there is smearing due to panel movement or not. I have never even heard the CLS so I can't say. But what I don't like to see is someone trying to shut down discussion or debate on this or any issue because it questions some opinion they hold dear. If you are going to participate in a discussion (yes, it is a discussion and not a monologue) of this nature, don't expect people to just take your opinion as gospel. If you can't supply some objective facts to back up your assertions then you aren't really giving us much to assess your credibility, are you?

And please don't pretend you somehow have more experience or better ears than the other senior members of this forum. That kind of hubris will only get you scorn, not respect.

 

[SundayNiagara]

There is a place for you guys, it's called http://www.av123.com . You can become lemmings.

 

[zaphod]

There is a place for you guys, it's called http://www.av123.com . You can become lemmings.

i don't know about lemmings, but trolls sure are in season.

 

[Rich]

There is a place for you guys, it's called http://www.av123.com . You can become lemmings.

Gee, let's review. Who is the lemming here:

Post of the day!

And yet another great post!

But as expected, you had no information to impart, no facts to convey, nothing of substance to add to the discussion. Just condescension and name-calling. That pretty much shows what you are made of.