Why do Martin Logans sound lean/ thin (transparent) compared to other stats?

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
Comparing Logans to Quads or Soundlabs, Logans sound like they are missing some flesh from the bones to many listeners. This is especially true with the older models like the CLS, but it is still true with the newer models like the CLX. I guess it appeals to some listeners who like "transparency", but many find the speakers thin and bright. Other owners overcome this by coloring the speaker with tubes.


What is it about the design that makes the speaker sound like that? How have other electrostat designers overcome this?
 

kach22i

WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
1,591
210
1,635
Ann Arbor, Michigan
www.kachadoorian.com
Quads or Soundlabs
I have not heard those two speakers myself but have heard Acoustats and a few M/L's "missing some flesh from the bones" at times.

I think it is generaly agreed that misplacement in a room causes some lower midrange and upper bass cancellation due to the back wave. Everything has to be darn near perfect, hard to do in a store or after just a few weeks of ownership.

Tubes in general have more body and tone and in my opinion help "flesh out" the sound. I don't really consider it coloration, just truer to live music.
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
I have not heard those two speakers myself but have heard Acoustats and a few M/L's "missing some flesh from the bones" at times.

I think it is generaly agreed that misplacement in a room causes some lower midrange and upper bass cancellation due to the back wave. Everything has to be darn near perfect, hard to do in a store or after just a few weeks of ownership.

Tubes in general have more body and tone and in my opinion help "flesh out" the sound. I don't really consider it coloration, just truer to live music.

Thanks. Compared to the Quads and Soundlabs, Logans do sound thin/ lean/ transparent. I have heard Logans in good rooms and in bad rooms, and they are very transparent. (Nothing wrong with that by the way, as we all like different things.)

Anyone know why?
 

kach22i

WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
1,591
210
1,635
Ann Arbor, Michigan
www.kachadoorian.com
Anyone know why?
Are you saying you have heard Quads, Soundlabs and Logans in the same room with the same equipment?

That is the only way you can honestly stray from room acoustics and set-up and still maintain your theory/opinion.

You will have to fight and battle the "thinness" issue/perception once formed - no doubt, but it is battle which can be won.

Tell me about your system, so I can see what you like.

M/L's may not be to everyone's taste.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,515
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
Myles Astor:
Know there's a few lurking on the site. Stand up and tell us about your speakers and what you're using with your MLs!!!

Anyone still using CLSs? Actually they were never really intended to be a viable product-more a lab experiment. But they certainly in some ways, in those days, did things that other speakers couldn't dream of doing. Problems and there were a few. One was the impedance curve, esp. the series 2 that drove almost all tube amplifier I knew crazy -- and weren't a viable combo. The other was the low end extension-and trying to match to a sub only caused more problems than it solved. I really think that the thinness/edginess of the CLS was in part the impedance curve and no lows to really balance the musical spectrum (and yes, we can talk about diaghram issues too).
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
Are you saying you have heard Quads, Soundlabs and Logans in the same room with the same equipment?

That is the only way you can honestly stray from room acoustics and set-up and still maintain your theory/opinion.

You will have to fight and battle the "thinness" issue/perception once formed - no doubt, but it is battle which can be won.

Tell me about your system, so I can see what you like.

M/L's may not be to everyone's taste.

Read Valin's review of the CLX, if you don't trust me. He says the same thing. And yes, I have heard logans and SL's in the same sytsem.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,515
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
NSGARCH :

Anyone still using CLSs? Actually they were never really intended to be a viable product-more a lab experiment.
But they certainly in some ways, in those days, did things that other speakers couldn't dream of doing. STILL?!!? Is there even an alternate?? An experiment?? Five, count 'em, five models?? Some experiment! Oh and you seem to have forgotten the CLS led to the first model of the Statement -- CLS on steroids (just like 'Fabio' one of the first owners ;-)
Problems and there were a few. One was the impedance curve, esp. the series 2 that drove almost all tube amplifier I knew crazy -- and weren't a viable combo. The other was the low end extension-and trying to match to a sub only caused more problems than it solved.
No. No problems. No arc-ing like Quad 57's. No thinness or edginess, unless you were dumb enough to use a current-poor SS amp that ran out of gas at 1 ohm. Remember, a Quad 57's impedance curve drops to nothing a 600Hz, a much nastier place to have that happen (than at 15KHz like a CLS) and yet Peter Walker had no trouble driving them with a 15W tube amp! C'mon, I really don't think you know what you're talking about! You just never heard one with a proper amp. I had a pair of ARC M300 140W triode monoblocks driving my CLS's when I got them (in 1990.) and it was total majik! Finding a sub with really great transient response (Entec's claim to fame, regardless of build quality) was tough. And Entec had just gone belly-up anyway. Did I let that stop me? Hell no! I was just a few bucks away from the best system Chris Hansen ever sold! No good subs? Right! How about a pair of Wilson Puppies, a Mark Levinson 23.5, and a Bryston 10B electronic crossover?
How about that Mr. Thin and Edgy?I really think that the thinness/edginess of the CLS was in part the impedance curve and no lows to really balance the musical spectrum (and yes, we can talk about diaghram issues too). Oh bullpucky!!
 

kach22i

WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
1,591
210
1,635
Ann Arbor, Michigan
www.kachadoorian.com
I'm not 100% sold that the thinness which I've already said exists under certain conditions falls all upon the amp choice alone, even for the CLS. The room acoustics and physical placement of the speakers are very touchy.

I'm not a fan of the middle line up of Martin Logan hybrids, mostly going back 20 years when I was shopping around waiting for something like the original Aerius to show up and sweep me away.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/312/index10.html
There are some other changes, too, from the original Aerius. The crossover frequency is now set at 450Hz instead of 500Hz. Now, virtually all of the midrange is handled by the electrostatic panel.

From the quote above you can see that the original Aerius uses part of the conventional mid-woofer smack in the middle of the midrange, which in my opinion gives it a meatier sound than any other speaker Martin Logan has ever made - at least up to that point in time. I'm far from being an expert and have not heard the full and current M/L line up, so weigh my comments as you will.

Caesar, were the Soundlabs put up against a CLX or a CLS? What was the amp? I need much more information to under stand your experience.

My experience which biased me forever against the 20 year old line up of Martin Logan's middle hybrids is simple. First impressions are lasting ones, and I walked into a store which did really stupid things. For instance they put a Quest a foot or so from the wall, at the end of a hallway which had listening rooms on each side. The display goal/thinking was that you would walk towards the source of the sound like a moth to a flame, and not just pop your head in the store to see what they carried, not hear any music and leave for fear of being accosted by a pushy sales person.

I never fully freed myself from that wrongful first impression, try as I may.
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
I'm not 100% sold that the thinness which I've already said exists under certain conditions falls all upon the amp choice alone, even for the CLS. The room acoustics and physical placement of the speakers are very touchy.

I'm not a fan of the middle line up of Martin Logan hybrids, mostly going back 20 years when I was shopping around waiting for something like the original Aerius to show up and sweep me away.

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/312/index10.html


From the quote above you can see that the original Aerius uses part of the conventional mid-woofer smack in the middle of the midrange, which in my opinion gives it a meatier sound than any other speaker Martin Logan has ever made - at least up to that point in time. I'm far from being an expert and have not heard the full and current M/L line up, so weigh my comments as you will.

Caesar, were the Soundlabs put up against a CLX or a CLS? What was the amp? I need much more information to under stand your experience.

My experience which biased me forever against the 20 year old line up of Martin Logan's middle hybrids is simple. First impressions are lasting ones, and I walked into a store which did really stupid things. For instance they put a Quest a foot or so from the wall, at the end of a hallway which had listening rooms on each side. The display goal/thinking was that you would walk towards the source of the sound like a moth to a flame, and not just pop your head in the store to see what they carried, not hear any music and leave for fear of being accosted by a pushy sales person.

I never fully freed myself from that wrongful first impression, try as I may.

Kach22i,

I am surprised that you are so surprised. What I am saying is not news, it has been documented by many guys who do this for a living. Please read Valin's review of the CLX from about a year and half ago, and he really goes through the CLX's sonic signature and compares it to the CLS. I am looking to understand why this is.

The Logans I heard were a recent hybrid model which borrows from CLX technology. The speaker had a plumper bass which makes it even warmer than the CLX. (The CLX has a faster, but thinner bass than the hybrid models.) The system was driven by Atma-sphere, which is as good as it gets in tube amplification. It definitely puts "meat on the bones". Also, the room was huge, with speakers more than 5 feet away from rear and 5 feet away from the side walls, so setup was not an issue.
 

Ron

Member
Jul 2, 2010
31
0
6
Equipment lists

Mitsubishi 82837 DLP
Martin Logan CLX
Martin Logan Stage
Martin Logan Motifs
Jl 113 Subwoofer
McIntosh MX150 room perfect processor
McIntosh MCD500 SACD Player
McIntosh MC402 amp
McIntosh MC205 amp
Denon 3800bdci Blu Ray Player
Parasound Ztuner v.2 am/fm Tuner
Direct tv dvr
Universal MX3000 remote control
Universal MRF 350

This is my equipment list with the CLX speaker. I am using a JL113 subwoofer with the CLX speaker. With the sub, it does not sound thin. My room is very well treated with acoustic panels. You can see pictures under the Members' Gallery. My 2 channel and Home theater system.
 
Last edited:

RUR

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
647
3
0
SoCal
Comparing Logans to Quads or Soundlabs, Logans sound like they are missing some flesh from the bones to many listeners. This is especially true with the older models like the CLS, but it is still true with the newer models like the CLX. I guess it appeals to some listeners who like "transparency", but many find the speakers thin and bright. Other owners overcome this by coloring the speaker with tubes.


What is it about the design that makes the speaker sound like that? How have other electrostat designers overcome this?

Caesar, here's what Valin said in his weblog:

All right. Here's where things stand after considerable night-and-day listening. Even though they are still breaking in, I can already tell you that the CLXes will not be the equals of the $100k Symposium Acoustics Panoramas or the $200k MBL 101 X-Tremes--the two best speakers I've heard in my home--in dynamic range and scale (particularly at the frequency extremes but also in the midrange), three-dimensionality, treble extension and purity and power (the Pans are the best in the first two areas, the Xes in the last), bass/midrange/treble density of tone color (particularly bass), and mid-to-low bass extension and power (both the Pans and especially the X-Tremes are considerably better). They already appear to be competitive with the Pans and the Xes in colorless neutrality. (They are certainly the most invisible planars I’ve ever heard—lower in driver/enclosure/crossover coloration than the Quad ESL-2905s and, as noted, competitive with the standard-settingly-low-in-coloration Pans, though not as low in enclosure coloration as the unenclosed Xes.) At this point, and it is still very early, they seem to be very close to the Pans in soundstage width/depth/height (though nothing touches the MBLs in soundstaging) and higher in midrange resolution and transparency to sources than any speaker I've yet heard, cone, ribbon, omni, or electrostatic. If you want to hear how well or poorly a recording was engineered (above about 55-60Hz, that is) the CLXes may be impossible to beat. They already sound more “different� from record to record than any other speaker of my experience, literally changing their sound with the sound of the recording, and they already reveal more details of miking and engineering than any other speaker of my experience. (If, for instance, you want to hear what back-up singers are actually singing in a dense mix, the CLXes will be a revelation--not only will you hear every word they sing, assuming that the engineering allows you to hear it; you will also hear the individual timbres of their voices as clearly as you hear that of the lead vocalist.) Minus the low bass and some density (or weight) of tone in the midband, they are also very very realistic sounding from the upper bass through the mid-treble, a little less so in the very top treble and much less so in the bass (although they are very detailed in the mid-to-upper bass and very flat and seamless from the bass through the midband).

Though their lack of bass extension and power, their utter neutrality (which is to say, their lack of artificial warmth, thanks to plumped up upper and midbass), their slight want of density of tone color (particularly in the bass), their pickiness about rooms and setup (for which, see below), and their absolute honesty when it comes to sources (if a recording sucks they'll tell you, albeit without making it unduly unpleasant), they are going to be controversial, just like the original CLSes. They are also, IMO and with only a couple days short of two weeks listening experience, truly great loudspeakers, but then I like a less warmed-up, more neutral, more transparent balance, a wide/deep/tall soundstage, an abundance of detail (as long as it isn’t presented clinically—which is to say without a persuasive amount of natural tone color--and it is not presented clinically by the CLXes), see-into and see-through transparency, lifelike transient speed, and natural air and bloom, all of which the CLXes have in abundance. I'm also not that concerned with low bass, which is a big factor here. (I love it when it's good but I hate it when it isn't and would rather do without it than hear it droning along, muddying up the rest of the sound.) I predict that the CLXes will end up keeping company with the Pans and the Xes in my personal pantheon. Though I don't believe they will end up being fully the match of either, it is only fair to note that they are one-quarter to one-eighth their price.

As for amps…the CLXes, like many other stats, are a difficult load, particularly in the treble where their impedance dips down to 0.7 ohms. Most tube amp can’t cope with this near short-circuit and will markedly roll off the treble. (I tried the superb Air Tight ATM-3 and it did just that, though it sounded gorgeous otherwise.) The Swiss-made-and-engineered Soulution 710 that I am currently using is a solid-state amp that has tremendous buzz going for it. Among other kudos, it was named the reference amplifier of the very picky and very-into-specsmanship German magazine, Stereo, scoring 100% in sound quality (which I believe is a first). While I thought the 710 might be a little on the cool and analytical side at first, I now believe it: a) needed to break in a bit and to warm up more after turn-on (it takes about a half hour to an hour for it to shed a very slight dry, sibilant graininess and start to sound more dead-neutral, finely detailed, and transparent than just about anything I’ve heard in solid-state), and b) is accurately reflecting the sound of what it’s driving (the CLXes also needed to break in—and the room needed treatment). That said, it will never be a luscious, liquid, gorgeous-sounding solid-state amplifier like an MBL 9011 and it will never have the bloom (or action), three-dimensionality, and tonal weight of the pentode-tube ARC 610T (though it has surprisingly good air, bloom, and light for a transistor job). I will, of course, try other amps, but let me go on record to say that the Soulution 710 is pretty goddamn marvelous and may be tough to beat in this application.

curious,

My second room is roughly 16' x 15' x 12'. And, yes, I do plan to try out other room treatment (like most planar dipoles, the CLXes can really light up the walls, especially since they are more "directional" than other dipoles, thanks to the curvilinear mid/treble panel). Like the CLSes, these are among the pickiest speakers I've dealt with. They like to see a certain proportion of soft and hard surfaces which can only be adjudged by trial-and-error; they have to be at least three-to-four feet from rear walls and three or so from sidewalls. They have to be tilted and toed-in precisely the same on either side. They like some weight added to their chassis. And they may benefit from further stabilization (I use to use adjustable curtain rods extending from the ceilings to the tops of the CLSes' frames to really "lock" them in place.)

I don't believe that anything short of one of ML's subwoofers is going to turn the CLXes' bass from anemic to awesome. ML is quite honest about this, unlike some other manufacturers I can think of. They spec the CLX as flat (or within 3dB of flat) from 23kHz to 56Hz, and that seems almost exactly right. While "room boost" is going to fill in the bass a little bit, it can't turn a speaker that is already dropping off 3dB a little below 60Hz into an MBL X-treme. This is something that potential purchasers are going to need to carefully consider. The CLX is not going to deliver what it hasn't promised. What it is going to do, thanks to exceptionally low levels of coloration and high levels of detail, is reproduce the transients of bass-range instruments with extraordinary clarity, meaning that you will hear the attack of a run of notes on, say, a bass fiddle with amazing realism and clarity. What you won't hear quite as fully and realistically (with deep-reaching instruments) is the steady-state tone color that follows the attack. In the mid-to-low bass the CLX is a little like one of those coloring books that restaurants used to give away; you get the outlines of notes with utter clarity, but the shapes could use a little filling in.

I don't want to over-emphasize this. I like the CLXes bass, as far as it goes, and much prefer its slightly desaturated clarity to a one-note thrum or a muddy blur. Once again, low bass is not a deal-breaker for me (or why would I have loved the Mini IIs, which actually have better bass the CLXes). If it is for you, look elsewhere (like the Quad ESL-2905s) or consider a quite reasonably-priced pair of MartinLogan subwoofers, which are outfitted with a custom crossover tailored precisely for the CLX. For under-$30k you will then have a full-range system that may be competitive with systems that cost quite a lot more. (I'm sure I'll find out for myself before the review process is done.)
http://www.avguide.com/forums/martinlogan-clx?page=2

There's more, but this appears to be the best summary post. What I read is a description of an utterly neutral speaker from mid-bass upwards, but with a lack of lower bass. Does Valin's ultimate print review make other observations or can you point us to observations in the above which you feel characterize the "thin-ness" you describe?

Ken
 

es347

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
1,577
35
970
Midwest fly over state..
Read Valin's review of the CLX, if you don't trust me. He says the same thing. And yes, I have heard logans and SL's in the same sytsem.

I trust you more than JV :mad: I attended an "unveiling" of the CLX at our local dealer back when it first came out. Interestingly, the ML factory guy present was demo'ing them with one of their subs. This was done without the listeners' knowledge. I pointed it out in front of the group at which point he quickly shut off the sub. The soundstage shrank to nothing. Very revealing. The CLX is one hell of a resolving speaker, probably the best I have ever heard. I have owned a pair of Aerius i's for about 15 years and love them but the CLX is much more resolving. But the Aerius i produces a deeper soundstage than the CLX. I have spend considerable time in the sweetspot of a pair of properly positioned CLXs driven by MAC or Classe electronics. As good as the resolution is, and it is awesome, the image seems to be two-dimensional. To be honest, that may be improved by the addition of a subwoofer(s), don't know.
 
Last edited:

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Caesar, here's what Valin said in his weblog:

http://www.avguide.com/forums/martinlogan-clx?page=2

There's more, but this appears to be the best summary post. What I read is a description of an utterly neutral speaker from mid-bass upwards, but with a lack of lower bass. Does Valin's ultimate print review make other observations or can you point us to observations in the above which you feel characterize the "thin-ness" you describe?

Ken

I could deal with the upper octave issue but it sounds like one has to also invest in a Descent or something to get the lowest frequencies (that I might add are exceedlingly important!).
 

RUR

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
647
3
0
SoCal
I could deal with the upper octave issue but it sounds like one has to also invest in a Descent or something to get the lowest frequencies (that I might add are exceedlingly important!).
Hi Myles! Having heard the CLX several times in different settings, I absolutely agree that one or more properly integrated subs are a must in order to convincingly reproduce necessary lower bass - 56Hz or whatever the CLX reaches isn't near enough!:p To what upper octave issue do you refer? Like you, I've owned several ML models and heard many more and the only instances where I've heard less than stellar HF have been in untreated rooms, where back wave latency was problematic.

Ken
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Hi Myles! Having heard the CLX several times in different settings, I absolutely agree that one or more properly integrated subs are a must in order to convincingly reproduce necessary lower bass - 56Hz or whatever the CLX reaches isn't near enough!:p To what upper octave issue do you refer? Like you, I've owned several ML models and heard many more and the only instances where I've heard less than stellar HF have been in untreated rooms, where back wave latency was problematic.

Ken

I was referring to upper octave ext. with tube amps where the speaker's impedance drops to one ohm. And that is also dependent on the cabling; one doesn't want a "dark" cable here.

OTOH, they're no Maggie in the upper octaves :) But then again, what speaker is?
 

RUR

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
647
3
0
SoCal
OTOH, they're no Maggie in the upper octaves :) But then again, what speaker is?
Pfffft! Maggies.;)

But seriously, the couple of mid-sized Maggies I've heard were nice, but didn't do it for me. Could've been a number of reasons that was so, completely unrelated to the actual speakers. I'd really like to hear a proper 20.1 setup, which, by all accounts, should be pretty fabulous. Ditto big Apogees.
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
There's more, but this appears to be the best summary post. What I read is a description of an utterly neutral speaker from mid-bass upwards, but with a lack of lower bass. Does Valin's ultimate print review make other observations or can you point us to observations in the above which you feel characterize the "thin-ness" you describe?

Ken


RUR,

Thanks for doing the research. Here's a hint of what I am talking about from the blog:

"...The CLX is not going to deliver what it hasn't promised. What it is going to do, thanks to exceptionally low levels of coloration and high levels of detail, is reproduce the transients of bass-range instruments with extraordinary clarity, meaning that you will hear the attack of a run of notes on, say, a bass fiddle with amazing realism and clarity. What you won't hear quite as fully and realistically (with deep-reaching instruments) is the steady-state tone color that follows the attack. In the mid-to-low bass the CLX is a little like one of those coloring books that restaurants used to give away; you get the outlines of notes with utter clarity, but the shapes could use a little filling in."

By the way, you have an amazing system! And no your system does not sound thin thanks to the excellent Mac gear. On the other hand, if you plugged in a Quad or an SL in your system, it would sound more fleshed out, IMO.

I will look for the reviews later today as I have to crank something our at work. However, if you go to the avguide.com site and scroll down to "buyer guides", the loudspeaker guide has the CLX and Quad reviews back to back.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I have no experience with the CLS or CLX but have hosted Prodigy's and still own Quad ESL63. Although I currently have the A1 Px I can not part with the speaker that has been a constant in my life for almost 30 years.

All these electrostatics can sound lean if improperly matched or simply inadequately positioned. They are very transparent sounding and a simple speaker cable change can sometimes completely change their subjective balance. If you look at their polar dispersion diagrams you will find that they are very different - I should refer here the excellent topic of Tmallin in Tom's Corner on this subject, although I do not agree with some of his conclusions - meaning that your opinions can be strongly influenced by the surrounding acoustics.
Although I personally consider the ESL63 a very well balanced speaker I have hard it several times sounding worst than a tin fiddler, specially at shows! But properly matched it can sound large scale and full, even powerful.
CLS and CLX need powerful amplifiers with plenty of current and many times are shown with amplifiers having more "weight" than "quality".
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Pfffft! Maggies.;)

But seriously, the couple of mid-sized Maggies I've heard were nice, but didn't do it for me. Could've been a number of reasons that was so, completely unrelated to the actual speakers. I'd really like to hear a proper 20.1 setup, which, by all accounts, should be pretty fabulous. Ditto big Apogees.

Each speaker has its own strengths and weaknesses :) Maggies will never have the midrange of an electrostatic either. BTW, in my experience, the 20.1s really need a big amp to control the bass panel; otoh, they sound marvelous, as do the other Maggie models, with tube amps. Tube amps love the maggies relatively easy load (4 0hms) despite they're being a little inefficient.
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Hi

The 20.1 Maggies are amongst the best speakers I have heard.. Myles is right they require serious amp and in my opinion stout SS make them sing... Moreover they have an odd thing about them ... They need to play a little louder than many other speakers on the same material, which taxes the amplifiers even more...

This applies to ALL maggies. Often what one constructs as the Maggies weakness is the amplifier running out of juice .. Oh the impedance is truly stable at 4 Ohms but to put it in perspective. The MG 20.1 specs for sensitivity is 85 dB .. real world is more like 83 dB /1w/m .. If you are listening at say 12 feet you are dealing with a real world sensitivity of 78~79 dB/w/m .. To reach anything above 100 dB requires at least 300 Watts and the ability to drive 4 Ohms with ease.. Good high power Tubes or SS can drive it but the operative words are "good" and "high Power"..

I had ML CLS and the thinness is real but taking care of the rear wave, careful placement, solid and somewhat matching amplifiers (You don't want a thin sounding amplifier with these) can get them to be very satisfactory .. I used then (early 1990s) a Kinergetics sub and did not like the results.. I must say that this is an experience I would like to re -try .. Now we know much more about subs and their placement... I have no doubt that with the correct subs (insistence on more than one sub a la Gueddes) a CLX may be that kind of a speaker, satisfying full range sound and ELS transparency (not the Audiophile "transparency" the real, the-speakers-are-not-there, through the whole spectrum transparency .. It does not have to be ML subs .. many other good subs will be up to the task, JL Audio amongst many if one is inclined to buy commercial.. Good DIY subs may perform even better at lesser price ... The recipes for a good sub are pretty simple, the execution, not necessarily
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing