What will the new CLX do that the Summit does not?

[longhorn]

I am curious about the excitement about the CLX,sonics wise what will the CLX do that you can't get from a Summit? Especially in regards to bass. I have not listened to a CLS,so I curious what improvements are to be expected.

To those who have CLS's does the large panel cause imaging problems or localizing problems? I would think with a panel that big it would be hard for the speaker to disappear sonic wise.

 

[ralflar]

The CLX will need one or two subwoofers. The Summit already has them built in.

The large panel on CLS is not a problem at all. I heard Radu's CLS, and believe me they do disappear. They are also more coherent over the complete frequency range than my Vantages. The Summit crossover between woofer and panel is lower than the Vantage crossover but a lot higher than that between a subwoofer and CLS/CLX. Which will sound better? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[nsgarch]

I am curious about the excitement about the CLX,sonics wise what will the CLX do that you can't get from a Summit? Especially in regards to bass. I have not listened to a CLS,so I curious what improvements are to be expected. To those who have CLS's does the large panel cause imaging problems or localizing problems? I would think with a panel that big it would be hard for the speaker to disappear sonic wise.

There is something about electrostats. But there is something even more about full-range electrostats. Those are electostatic speakers that reproduce the entire audible frequency range electrostatically.

There have been only a few attempts over the years to accomplish this objective. None except for the big Soundlabs unit, satisfy the 'entire audible frequency range' requirement when it came to generating really low frequencies. Technically, this is not a problem, but practically it requires very large panel sizes. This is pretty much true for any panel dipole such as full-range ribbons (Apogee) or full range electrodynamic panels (Magnepan.) The Quad 57, CLS, KLH Model 9 (and a couple others I'm probably forgetting) came close, but still needed low-frequency augmentation to handle all forms of music convincingly.

Although ML continued to produce the CLS for some time, it was their only 'full-range' attempt, and they never tried to develop/improve it beyond its original capability. I don't know why, but if I had to guess, it would be that their hybrids were selling so well; finding a wide market and producing good profits.

A number of third parties developed bass units designed specifically to mate with the CLS: Kinergetics and Muse to name just two, but the introduction of the ML subs, specifically the Depth (IMO) gave new life to the CLS. And even before that, there was a ground swell of demand building for a reintroduced CLS. (Very similar in fact to the demand that resulted in the reintroduction of the Apogee line and the Quad 57 rebuilds.)

I personally think ML could/should have been able to satisfy that new demand by simply building CLS's again -- perhaps using their new membrane/stator/tensioning technology and updating the electronics, with maybe a bit better bass response. But from what I can tell, they've created a high-dollar, extremely complicated 2-panel loudspeaker which may or may not have that special, crossover-free coherence of the single panel CLS. I'd have to echo (reasonably accurately I hope) what Steve Zaret said somewhere in these forums, which was basically that the CLX would have to represent a real cost/benefit improvement (not likely!) over his/my CLS/Depth combo to consider a change. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure I'll like the CLX -- a lot! Especially if it does everything the CLS does + more bass. But meeting that former requirement (while using two panels and a crossover) may be what's causing the delay its release. We'll see

 

[twich54]

Good explanation Neil, I agree. BTW, Mr "Z's" first name is Jeff !

 

[risabet]

All I can imagine is that getting the x-over completely out (the best x-over is no x-over) of the range where instrumental fundamentals lie will add to the coherence and transparency of the speaker. The x-over to any subwoofer (40 Hz to 100 Hz) will be substantially lower than the one in the Summits (270 Hz) and that is all for the good IMO. If the CLX fixes the midbass leanness of the CLS (CLS owners can save the flames) than it may be the speaker to own.

Let me add that if the CLX has a x-over than I don't know what to think.

 

[David Matz]

There is something about electrostats. But there is something even more about full-range electrostats. Those are electostatic speakers that reproduce the entire audible frequency range electrostatically.

There have been only a few attempts over the years to accomplish this objective. None except for the big Soundlabs unit, satisfy the 'entire audible frequency range' requirement when it came to generating really low frequencies. Technically, this is not a problem, but practically it requires very large panel sizes. This is pretty much true for any panel dipole such as full-range ribbons (Apogee) or full range electrodynamic panels (Magnepan.) The Quad 57, CLS, KLH Model 9 (and a couple others I'm probably forgetting) came close, but still needed low-frequency augmentation to handle all forms of music convincingly.

Although ML continued to produce the CLS for some time, it was their only 'full-range' attempt, and they never tried to develop/improve it beyond its original capability. I don't know why, but if I had to guess, it would be that their hybrids were selling so well; finding a wide market and producing good profits.

A number of third parties developed bass units designed specifically to mate with the CLS: Kinergetics and Muse to name just two, but the introduction of the ML subs, specifically the Depth (IMO) gave new life to the CLS. And even before that, there was a ground swell of demand building for a reintroduced CLS. (Very similar in fact to the demand that resulted in the reintroduction of the Apogee line and the Quad 57 rebuilds.)

I personally think ML could/should have been able to satisfy that new demand by simply building CLS's again -- perhaps using their new membrane/stator/tensioning technology and updating the electronics, with maybe a bit better bass response. But from what I can tell, they've created a high-dollar, extremely complicated 2-panel loudspeaker which may or may not have that special, crossover-free coherence of the single panel CLS. I'd have to echo (reasonably accurately I hope) what Steve Zaret said somewhere in these forums, which was basically that the CLX would have to represent a real cost/benefit improvement (not likely!) over his/my CLS/Depth combo to consider a change. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure I'll like the CLX -- a lot! Especially if it does everything the CLS does + more bass. But meeting that former requirement (while using two panels and a crossover) may be what's causing the delay its release. We'll see

Thanks for the thorough description. I am still a bit unclear about the bass production. Is the bass produced by the speaker anemic or muddy that the Depth is required? How do the bass waves produced by the speaker and the Depth converge - is it seamless or is the Depth noticeable? Thanks

 

[Beakman]

I'm going to add to the question(s) above and ask:
How would a single Panel/driver enhance coherence in the sound (signal) to be reproduced? i.e. would not a perfect loudspeaker system have a driver for each frequency of sound/ signal to be reproduced so as not to affect other frequencies that otherwise would be handled by single or limited numbers of drivers?
It seems to me, crossovers nonwithstanding, that 40Hz pulses in a common driver would influence the 200Hz, 2000 Hz, or 20kHz pulses, and visa versa.
Think of what the result would be if a single panel electrostat were allowed the nescessary distance travel to match SPL levels on the aforementioned frequencies. Radical panel design in different materials / thicknesses/ and energising could be an answer wher frequency reproduction could be co-dependant rather that trying to achive independance.

 

[risabet]

I'm going to add to the question(s) above and ask:
How would a single Panel/driver enhance coherence in the sound (signal) to be reproduced? i.e. would not a perfect loudspeaker system have a driver for each frequency of sound/ signal to be reproduced so as not to affect other frequencies that otherwise would be handled by single or limited numbers of drivers?

NIMO, the perfect loudspeaker would generate waves that are coincident, and aligned in both time and space. Clearly very few multidriver speakers are time aligned and none that I am aware of are aligned in space. The best way to do that is to utilize a single driver and the best single driver speakers are electrostatic though they, like any driver will show beaming with increasing frequency, and have issues with bass extension due to:

1. Dipole cancellation, and
2. Limited panel excursion and size (Soundlabs excepted)

It seems to me, crossovers nonwithstanding, that 40Hz pulses in a common driver would influence the 200Hz, 2000 Hz, or 20kHz pulses, and visa versa.
Think of what the result would be if a single panel electrostat were allowed the nescessary distance travel to match SPL levels on the aforementioned frequencies. Radical panel design in different materials / thicknesses/ and energising could be an answer wher frequency reproduction could be co-dependant rather that trying to achive independance.

One would think so but it just doesn't work out that way in real life. ESLs have the lowest levels of THD and IMD (e.g. Quad 2905 @ 100db above 50 Hz= .01%) of any speaker type, ATBE. The large size of the panels helps to limit the distortion products and what is generated is mainly 2nd order and not the noxious higher order products.

 

[TomDac]

Here's what the CLX will do that the Summit won't:

It will make me sell my reQuests and purchase a pair along with a Descent i subwoofer.

SAH-WEEET!!

:rocker:

 

[nsgarch]

Good explanation Neil, I agree. BTW, Mr "Z's" first name is Jeff !

I knew that (sh*t!) sorry Jeff:bowdown:

 

[nsgarch]

But the real problem of x-overs is:

they cause phase shift. And it's unavoidable -- at least with passive crossovers. The single panel stats solve the (absence of a crossover but necessity of having the membrane reproduce all frequencies) problem in various ways. The CLS divides the membrane into sections, and in the two bass sections pieces of (transparent -but you can see it if you look closely) damping material have been glued to the membrane to lower it's natural resonance. The Soundlab panel is actually a composite panel. A mosaic of many little panels each tuned to reproduce a different part of the frequency spectrum. I think it may also use some high and low pass filters but nothing that would cause phase shift. The Quad 57 uses two kinds of diaphragms, one for treble and two for mid/bass, but they're wired together. No crossover.

The CLS as I've explained elsewhere simply runs out of bass reproduction as the frequency goes down. It's all there at say 80 - 100 Hz. That's quite a bit below the 170Hz of the Summit or the 240Hz of the Vantage you'll note -- and those crossover frequencies are set with passive crossover networks BTW, i.e. causing some phase shift, though not a serious problem at those low frequencies. But the CLS goes surprisingly low and doesn't really begin to peter out until 40- 45 Hz and it's definitely all gone at 35 Hz. Those figures are interesting for two reasons. One, the CLS has a natural, clean, coherent and un-phase shifted roll-off which begins below the frequency (~100Hz) where the brain can detect direction -- so there is really no reason for "stereo subs". And second, only a little bit of additional bass (basically from 20Hz up to and rolling off at 35Hz) is required to "fill in" the CLS's "dead zone." That's not much really. It's way better bass performance than you'd get from most monitors. And it's such excellent bass (great transient response) that in my opinion (and Jim Power's too) it would be criminal to "high pass" a CLS in order to "relieve" it of bass duties. It does its bass duties very nicely thank you very much! However, as Risabet pointed out the 2-panel CLX will presumably need a crossover of some kind. In addition, getting the two panels to launch a single coherent wave is well . . . . . . . . I don't know, but it turned out to be a huge problem with the Statement which has serious imaging problems unless the room is large enough to put the listener at some distance.

I also got a great laugh fron Tom's response, which is as valid as mine or anyone else's

 

[Gordon Gray]

Here's what the CLX will do that the Summit won't:

It will make me sell my reQuests and purchase a pair along with a Descent i subwoofer.

SAH-WEEET!!

:rocker:

Now, now Tom.

As those who own the Summit know, it is a phenomenal speaker and so room / user friendly. Having owned the Aerius, the SL3, and the CLS2A, the new line definitely sounds "different" than the previous models. I, for one, prefer the "new" sound, which is certainly more transparent but more analytical at the same time where the previous models have a warmer, more seductive sound.

In my smallish room, the new CLX, assuming they are the dimensions that I believe they will be, would be visually overwhelming. Given my room size and the performance that the Summit offers, I really can't imagine going for the CLX.

On the other hand, I've been known to change my mind.

Take care,

Gordon

 

[twich54]

On the other hand, I've been known to change my mind.

Now Gordon..... !! spoken like a true audiophile !!

 

[rhd1953]

Hopefully have improvements...just in materials & electronics

I've owned my CLS IIa's since 1989, have replaced the panels once, but updating the electronics would be nice. Point being, ML surely has improved the entire process (and sound of full range electrostatics), such that a 'current' CLX would include all that and ML's years of electrostatic experience.

The full range CLS II's simply do so many things better, that I prefer to just 'help' them in the weaker spots. At low or medium sound levels you can hear more detail, clarity, and yes very low bass. Dipole cancellation (full frequency) is why dipoles really shine with the 1/3 rule. When the listener is in that position the music sound stage is stunning and it's is not pin point wide either (one thing the wider CLS panels eliminate). How do I know, well for years I've used a pair of Stax SRD-4 electrostatic head phones for monitoring while taping records, and they (the Stax head phones) don't have any reflected sound. In fact, I may first hear something with the head phones, and then notice it while listening to the CLS IIa's! The fact is even while reading or even from another room the CLS II's will grab your attention because they sound so stunning.

My best sound check (1982-1993), living 1/2 mile from the Arizona State University's College of Music recital hall and organ hall (14th century church dimensions and acoustics and hugh pipe organ). The student performances are the only thing you hear. Open a gum wrapper and everyone will hear it (so everyone is pretty quiet). A well damped room, absolutely no 'air handler, A/C' sound, just music. Listen to harpsichord in Organ Hall and you know the 14th century composer knew exactly what the acoustics were and composed for it. I.E. got to allow for the reverb time.

 

[TomDac]

I've been told that the CLX will retail for $20K!! YIKES!

Maybe I'll hang on to my reQuests... unless the wonderful folks at ML would cut me some sort of deal! (hint hint)

 

[Rich]

I've been told that the CLX will retail for $20K!! YIKES!

I sure hope that's a false rumor. Otherwise it will be a very short production run, because very few people are going to shell out that kind of dough for it. I'm sorry, but no matter how good a job they do, it is not likely to sound TWICE as good as the Summits. Maybe that price you heard includes a couple of Descent i's in the package.

 

[Jeff Zaret]

What I know of the CLX is basically what has been said so far. Imagine a Summit with a wider panel and very heavy electronics box at the bottom. This is what the CLX will be. The heavy electronics box is for stability and for the electronics. The panel will be wider than the Summit. From what I have gotten it will be like two panels separated where there is a "bass panel" of sorts and then the regular stat panel we are used to in one frame.

My guess is anywhere from $16K to $20K leaning more towards $20K. Now I believe ML knows there will be a small/limited market for this speaker and that "typically" audiophiles in Europe are not the kind of "bass thumpers" that Americans typically represent. A generalization, yes, but look at the difference of European speaker manufacturers and American and the difference in sound they "typically" create/produce.

Now "hint hint hint" the CLX will debut in Germany this April. I would assume (I hate that word) around June/summertime we will see it here in the U.S.

I know I have said this before but one of the compelling reasons why the CLS was discontinued was not so much a technology issue but a business one. The last year it was in production I believe they sold two!! For a business to survive there has to be more. My suggestion all along was the CLS should be a custom order and/or that ML should offer an upgraded electronics package with the new XStat panel. I believe there is a small niche market for that but I also believe this would be a more profitable venture. If this did pan out, I would have then thought about releasing the CLX not the way they are doing it now.

Personally,I think the CLX is a gamble and may fall hard. Lets face it, how many of us can justify and/or afford $20k for a speaker and for one that will be wider than a Summit, harder to place in a room, "tune" in the room and probably, a harder sell to a significant other. Lets just say that 20 of us here bought the CLX over the next two years, I do not think ML will consider this a big seller and then send to the same place the StatementE2 has gone, custom order only where the price will be more.

As I said before, I will not give up my CLS and Depth combo. I believe this is the best overall, compromises included, combination for me. There are others here who have various versions of CLS's with different combinations that work for them too. I believe the CLS is not for everyone or is it the holy grail. I would suggest for those who are lusting over the CLX to listen to a CLS and then decide if it is right for you.

Just some thoughts


Jeff

 

[TomDac]

I sure hope that's a false rumor. Otherwise it will be a very short production run, because very few people are going to shell out that kind of dough for it. I'm sorry, but no matter how good a job they do, it is not likely to sound TWICE as good as the Summits. Maybe that price you heard includes a couple of Descent i's in the package.

Yeah.. I don't know that for a fact, so I'm hoping it's just a rumor and will be lower priced than that. I'd be willing to pay more than a pair of summits, but not $20K.

 

[kwr]

My guess is anywhere from $16K to $20K leaning more towards $20K. Now I believe ML knows there will be a small/limited market for this speaker and that "typically" audiophiles in Europe are not the kind of "bass thumpers" that Americans typically represent. A generalization, yes, but look at the difference of European speaker manufacturers and American and the difference in sound they "typically" create/produce.

I know I have said this before but one of the compelling reasons why the CLS was discontinued was not so much a technology issue but a business one. The last year it was in production I believe they sold two!!

Jeff

The reason that we sold our Quad ESL 63 a decade ago and bought ML was not bass but dynamic compression. If ML was able to achieve a dynamic electrostatic we would be interested. However in Australia the rumoured price will end up being about $Aus 30 - 35,000. I am sure I could swing a deal for stacked Quad 2905 and high grade subwoofers for that price. Awful lot of competition at that price point for what is a pretty esoteric speaker. It also makes rebuilding the Monoliths with new screens, Focal drivers and a DEQX as crossover etc look like a complete bargain.

I do hope the CLX succeeds but the rumoured pricing and crossover are against it I feel.

Kevin

 

[DTB300]

Yeah.. I don't know that for a fact, so I'm hoping it's just a rumor and will be lower priced than that. I'd be willing to pay more than a pair of summits, but not $20K.

I own CLS and I have heard the Summit (many times) and I am just not "itching" or "dying" to go out and replace my CLS with Summits. Yes the Summits are very nice sounding, but are they better than my CLS/Sub combo? Better, no, different, yes.

Jeff Z is right, the CLS died due to supply and demand.

I too believe the CLX will be priced above the Summit.