Super Summits

[Robin]

Audioquest "Pig Tailed" Interconnections...

Four CLX’s! That would be an interesting setup.


You could either get a “Y” connector to split the R & L channels from the pre-amp to the mono amps or Audioquest has an interconnect option called “pig tailed”, it’s a single ended interconnect at the pre-amp and at the amp end is a 2nd run of cable coming out of the connecter for the 2nd amp, No “Y” connector needed.

Joe,

Thank you for the wonderful information. It really helps me.

Now you've got me thinking of two pairs of CLX's ~ powered by four Class "A" mono blocks controlled by a tube preamp like the ARC Ref III or ARC LS-26 with a Descent i, of course... OK, now if I can do it, plus a SACD / CD source like the Esoteric 03 ~ all for under $30K will be the key...

 

[IWalker]

While the Summits are indeed fantastic...I think some of the concepts behind the statements, as mentioned, would improve upon them even more. (misbass array, seperate sub arrays) I agree, too, though, that in some ways the CLX is also a step up. You're getting more of what you want (the panel) with the ability to crossover to whatever subs you want...placed wherever you want...and you can add a midbass array to that as well if you want (see JonFo's center channel). The integration work isn't done for you...but I imagine it has greater potential than the summit, just out of pure flexibility.

The comment about higher cost not meaning better product is true, though generally within a product line, higher cost does reflect a better product, even in this crazy high-end world.

Also, the statement had 2 giant sub ARRAYS... not two giant subs. I think there were 8 subs in each array, aligned to cancel out mechanical distortion, each of 10" or 12" size. So, lots of small subs

 

[Pcar928fan]

Also, the statement had 2 giant sub ARRAYS... not two giant subs. I think there were 8 subs in each array, aligned to cancel out mechanical distortion, each of 10" or 12" size. So, lots of small subs

I remember reading about the E2's when I bought my first pair of ML's! I was BLOWN AWAY! 8 subs on each array and a HUGE panel! That was just one channel! The whole system has a weight listed at I think it was 1800#! Of course the cost was equally impressive at $80k! YEOW!

 

[Reverb2009]

Joe,

Thank you for the wonderful information. It really helps me.

Now you've got me thinking of two pairs of CLX's ~ powered by four Class "A" mono blocks controlled by a tube preamp like the ARC Ref III or ARC LS-26 with a Descent i, of course... OK, now if I can do it, plus a SACD / CD source like the Esoteric 03 ~ all for under $30K will be the key...

Robin,

You have got me thinking too, with the recent price increase of the Summits, I think I will hold off from replacing my Ascents till the CLX comes out. I am wondering if the CLX/Descent i combination would better the summits. One thing about the CLSIIz that turned me off was the very larger door like look, I hope ML can narrow them a little and stream line the look and get rid of that square wood frame. If I did go CLX I would probably do like you and run a mono black amp for each CLX speaker.

Hope you have a Merry Christmas,

 

[Joey_V]

While the Summits are indeed fantastic...I think some of the concepts behind the statements, as mentioned, would improve upon them even more. (misbass array, seperate sub arrays) .

The comment about higher cost not meaning better product is true, though generally within a product line, higher cost does reflect a better product, even in this crazy high-end world.

Exactly what I'm saying....

Joey :rocker:

PS
I want to hear this CLX guy.... seems like a solid speaker. Though I dont know what kind of room issues one would be faced with if you go with 2 pairs of CLXs. Especially with the way the MLs are curvlinear, there is going to be some problems IMO.

Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[Brad225]

The talk of the new CLX has peaked by interest. Do any of you know if there is any information out about them yet?

Thanks

 

[Reverb2009]

The talk of the new CLX has peaked by interest. Do any of you know if there is any information out about them yet?

Thanks

No,

It’s all speculation right now.

 

[jfm]

Instead of super Summits, what would better - mini-Statements!

There was such a beast before (CLSes with SW800 line array subs); would be good to see and hear a modern version.

 

[JonFo]

My speculation on the CLX:

It is a smaller version of the CLS, maybe using the panel width of 18”w (Same as a Monolith as they already have forms and such for that width), but make it taller, maybe a full 5’ long, or even better a full 66” tall to cover seated through standing positions very clearly. With the X-stat technology, it will be able to play louder than a CLS.
Electronics are the usual ESL drive and EQ setup with two types of inputs: full-range, and external crossover.
The full-range will have EQ compensation for the low bass. External x-over will let the panel play flat, or maybe have mild boost from 80 to 160hz.

The CLX panel will be used several ways:

1. - As a stand-alone driver, able to cover all the way down to 35hz at SPL limited levels.
2. - As part of a 2.1 system with a Descent sub.
3. - As part of a mini-statement, with companion mid-bass arrays of equal height and paired with two Descent subs. A full active electronic crossover and Class-D amps for the Mid-Bass will be bundled as well. Maybe we can hope for room correction as it is almost 2007. Would they license a DEQX system? Maybe an Audyssey based approach?

Personally, a pair of xStat panels of these dimensions would look like a nice upgrade to me. I’d then add my own mid-bass arrays and roll-my-own crossovers using DBX DriveRacks (a 4800 would do the trick for the front channels nicely).

It should sell well as a stand-alone, and a mini-statement under $20K would be a better deal for more people in terms of space requirements and in terms of cost. Performance would be astounding.

 

[Pcar928fan]

It should sell well as a stand-alone, and a mini-statement under $20K would be a better deal for more people in terms of space requirements and in terms of cost. Performance would be astounding.

I agree totally. The space requirements for the SE2's is extreme! That is one HUGE speaker set up there! My Prodigy are big enough! It would be interesting to see what they could/will come up with at the high end.

 

[Joey_V]

Definitely love the Mini-Statement idea... that's what I'm after!

Joey

 

[Reverb2009]

Definitely love the Mini-Statement idea... that's what I'm after!

Joey

It's been done.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vdone&1109799786&read&keyw&zzmartin logan

 

[JonFo]

It's been done.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vdone&1109799786&read&keyw&zzmartin logan

...

Not really, that's a 2.1 system with a low crossover to the sub.

In my mind, a mini-statement would have a mid-bass array AND a sub.

The mid-bass array is the critical component.
Don't think for a minute that if ML could get the power-curve of a large panel to keep up with a sub that it would not have done so in their e2 System.

I think one of the reasons why they abandoned the humongous panel approach (from the original Statement) is that besides spaces issues, it's just is not as effective in the mid-bass.

After all my experiments with a line array, I'd have to say that just taking the panels from SL3's and paring them with mid-bass arrays like I did would definitely make for an awesome mini, or maybe call that one a ‘nano-statement’ to not confuse it with the CLX-based mini.

 

[Joey_V]

Not really, that's a 2.1 system with a low crossover to the sub.

In my mind, a mini-statement would have a mid-bass array AND a sub.

The mid-bass array is the critical component.
Don't think for a minute that if ML could get the power-curve of a large panel to keep up with a sub that it would not have done so in their e2 System.

Midbass tower is definitely different from a bass tower, Joe.

But, that system does look cool!

Joey

 

[Reverb2009]

Midbass tower is definitely different from a bass tower, Joe.

But, that system does look cool!

Joey

You said mini Statement, their you go.

What you want is mini statment E2.

http://www.us.martinlogan.com/pdf/brochures/brochure_statement.pdf

http://www.us.martinlogan.com/pdf/brochures/brochure_statement_e2_2color.pdf

 

[Joey_V]

You said mini Statement, their you go.

What you want is mini statment E2.

http://www.us.martinlogan.com/pdf/brochures/brochure_statement.pdf

http://www.us.martinlogan.com/pdf/brochures/brochure_statement_e2_2color.pdf

Ahh touche, my friend... you got me there.

 

[Reverb2009]

Ahh touche, my friend... you got me there.

Don't question me.

 

[Joey_V]

Don't question me.

Never again!

 

[Beat_Dominator]

Joey -

Until I hear it from ML, I just don't believe it will happen. I'm sure the "bean counters" over there are very careful about how they allocate resources. How may 20-30k loudspeakers do you think are sold, world-wide?

I used to think the same thing, until a rather rude letter to a magazine in which the writer accused the magazine of only reviewing the most expensive gear. This happens often in the letters sections of the HiFi press, but being that this gentleman was particularly rude, and asked something like "how many $14,000 Mark Levinson no.30 DACs could possibly be sold in a year, 5?". (This was back in the early 90's so $14k was a little more than it is today).

The editor then in his reply, said he called up the Levinson director of sales and said that in just over a year, they had sold more than 400 of them with 5 alone going to Portugal. :haha1:

Long story short, there are A LOT more wealthy HiFi nuts out there then we would like to think. :cheers: