The marvellous Martin Logan CLX ART – is definitely a work of “ART”
- Thread starter Big Dog RJ
- Start date
Ok, looks like we're on a good ride with this one. Didn't expect such diversity in conversation, plus graphs and whole lot of interesting views on stats!
Excellent indeed. As being the OP, I have certainly learnt a great deal from all of you, and I thank you for that. After all, I am very interested in new experiences, as it helps me to further determine what exactly I'm looking for down the line. Being in my mid life at the moment, and my hearing is still active, I plan to have my ultimate reference system before using hearing aids. Hopefully, the daughter will marry into a very wealthy family, Ah! I can have all the top line audio gear required...
Re. The Quad midrange on the 57's- I don't think any speaker can match it to date! There are some close ones though.
Re. Extended highs- probably the ribbon tweeter has been the bench mark for my preference.
Re. Bass- although I thought my Quad bass was more than adequate, as I am no fan of excessive bass either, I really prefer the stat bass of the CLX- speed, articulation and resolution are handled extremely well (with the right amplification of course).
Based on the above, there is no perfect speaker available, hence making your own one would be a good project. Since I am no expert nor have the time to do this, plus I certainly don't have the gentle touch (the amount of tries it took me to replace the tweeter ribbon on the MG3.5/r was ridiculous!)
Therefore, taking into consideration from what has been suggested, and what I have experienced personally, I still prefer the CLX ART as my point of reference.
I have no doubt indeed that a full range Apo would be mighty fine but right now I cannot afford that sort of pricing, they are not very affordable in Aus to begin with.
About a week more to go until the CAV45 arrives, I am hoping for some blissful tunes with the Quads once again.
Until such time, have a good one to all, and enjoy the music!
Cheers, RJ
Excellent indeed. As being the OP, I have certainly learnt a great deal from all of you, and I thank you for that. After all, I am very interested in new experiences, as it helps me to further determine what exactly I'm looking for down the line. Being in my mid life at the moment, and my hearing is still active, I plan to have my ultimate reference system before using hearing aids. Hopefully, the daughter will marry into a very wealthy family, Ah! I can have all the top line audio gear required...
Re. The Quad midrange on the 57's- I don't think any speaker can match it to date! There are some close ones though.
Re. Extended highs- probably the ribbon tweeter has been the bench mark for my preference.
Re. Bass- although I thought my Quad bass was more than adequate, as I am no fan of excessive bass either, I really prefer the stat bass of the CLX- speed, articulation and resolution are handled extremely well (with the right amplification of course).
Based on the above, there is no perfect speaker available, hence making your own one would be a good project. Since I am no expert nor have the time to do this, plus I certainly don't have the gentle touch (the amount of tries it took me to replace the tweeter ribbon on the MG3.5/r was ridiculous!)
Therefore, taking into consideration from what has been suggested, and what I have experienced personally, I still prefer the CLX ART as my point of reference.
I have no doubt indeed that a full range Apo would be mighty fine but right now I cannot afford that sort of pricing, they are not very affordable in Aus to begin with.
About a week more to go until the CAV45 arrives, I am hoping for some blissful tunes with the Quads once again.
Until such time, have a good one to all, and enjoy the music!
Cheers, RJ
Dear User211:
Yes, you can use ML subwoofers with the CLXs but......just because you can, it does not mean that you should. The reasons are more than outlined in my two posts. I am fully aware that there is a subwoofer "religious" school ( often of evangelical proportions ) with its many converts \ graduates but, for the reasons mentioned in my posts and for specific speakers ( such as the CLXs ), I remain "atheistic".
As for the "Fourier transform", I openly declare my ignorance in relation to its various applications. As for my point about preferring timbral integrity, quality to higher SPLs of very low bass, coupled with possibly artificial impact, may I reluctantly suggest to you that the huge LF output of the double bass, ( as you claim ) will be more problematic as a function, relationship with conventional multi-driver dynamic speakers in large cabinets! To what extent will non-linearities, distortions and resonances of the different frequencies contribute to the average power of the signal ( spectral analysis of time-series ).
Using my ears as tools, two double bass player friends and numerous recordings ( Glen Moore, Gary Peacock, Ray Brown, Miroslav Vitous, Eddie Gomez, Charlie Haden and others ), I can assure you that the energy, which is a concern to you, of a properly recorded double bass is naturally and wholesomely reproduced.
Thank you. Cheers, Kostas.
Yes, you can use ML subwoofers with the CLXs but......just because you can, it does not mean that you should. The reasons are more than outlined in my two posts. I am fully aware that there is a subwoofer "religious" school ( often of evangelical proportions ) with its many converts \ graduates but, for the reasons mentioned in my posts and for specific speakers ( such as the CLXs ), I remain "atheistic".
As for the "Fourier transform", I openly declare my ignorance in relation to its various applications. As for my point about preferring timbral integrity, quality to higher SPLs of very low bass, coupled with possibly artificial impact, may I reluctantly suggest to you that the huge LF output of the double bass, ( as you claim ) will be more problematic as a function, relationship with conventional multi-driver dynamic speakers in large cabinets! To what extent will non-linearities, distortions and resonances of the different frequencies contribute to the average power of the signal ( spectral analysis of time-series ).
Using my ears as tools, two double bass player friends and numerous recordings ( Glen Moore, Gary Peacock, Ray Brown, Miroslav Vitous, Eddie Gomez, Charlie Haden and others ), I can assure you that the energy, which is a concern to you, of a properly recorded double bass is naturally and wholesomely reproduced.
Thank you. Cheers, Kostas.
agreed!
as i get older, i too, gravitate away from the church of bass.
no fully-sick subwoofers for me either.
kostas - do you think 30w tube class a would be adequate for clx pleasure?
no roll-off at top end?
as i get older, i too, gravitate away from the church of bass.
no fully-sick subwoofers for me either.
kostas - do you think 30w tube class a would be adequate for clx pleasure?
no roll-off at top end?
Hi
Just trying to get some perspective here. I have lived with Quad ESl57 when i was a kid less than 10 years old. I have owned them and I have heard them in many systems. There is no accounting for what a person like. I do however believe that there is such a thing as objectivity. The Quad 57 bass is far from adequate. it is a weakness of a the design both in reach and in level. A person may like that but it cannot reproduce well many instruments since some of them do go down lower than people would think e.g of the guitar whose FFT were provided earlier. One can laugh all one wants about measurements they have validity in some contexts and in that of High FIdelity reproduction the bass is needed to bring alive that sense of realism. On that the 57 misses. On midrange for a long time it had no peer but I don't think it is the case presently; there, we are dealing with tastes .. and subjective evaluations .. again. A person can still prefer the reproduction of the ESl57, there is no right or wong in preferences ..
Thus when seen in this context, describing the 57 bass as " adequate" frames the issue in a different light with respect to how "adequate"the CLX bass could be... I am not alone in being skeptical , I could be alone in voicing my opinion so frankly. I can understand the enthusiasm and the speaker could be great in other areas.. again when the bass reference is that of the Quad ESL57 ... my perspective is somewhat lost. I could be wrong.
Sorry to be so blunt but I needed to get this off my chest.
Back to this speaker which I haven't heard yet .
Just trying to get some perspective here. I have lived with Quad ESl57 when i was a kid less than 10 years old. I have owned them and I have heard them in many systems. There is no accounting for what a person like. I do however believe that there is such a thing as objectivity. The Quad 57 bass is far from adequate. it is a weakness of a the design both in reach and in level. A person may like that but it cannot reproduce well many instruments since some of them do go down lower than people would think e.g of the guitar whose FFT were provided earlier. One can laugh all one wants about measurements they have validity in some contexts and in that of High FIdelity reproduction the bass is needed to bring alive that sense of realism. On that the 57 misses. On midrange for a long time it had no peer but I don't think it is the case presently; there, we are dealing with tastes .. and subjective evaluations .. again. A person can still prefer the reproduction of the ESl57, there is no right or wong in preferences ..
Thus when seen in this context, describing the 57 bass as " adequate" frames the issue in a different light with respect to how "adequate"the CLX bass could be... I am not alone in being skeptical , I could be alone in voicing my opinion so frankly. I can understand the enthusiasm and the speaker could be great in other areas.. again when the bass reference is that of the Quad ESL57 ... my perspective is somewhat lost. I could be wrong.
Sorry to be so blunt but I needed to get this off my chest.
Back to this speaker which I haven't heard yet .
This has been addressed many times in articles about subwoofers - once you properly integrate a subwoofer you do not get only more bass - you should get air, space and a less mechanical and less artificial sound.
Very seldom I have experienced good integration of subwoofers - but curiously one of the best exercises was with Martin Logan Descent I using Martin Logan panels. When the subs were switched on, even in music without bass content, the room significantly increased in size and the whole music clearly separated from the speakers - even the treble seemed more airy.
The tricky point is adding the subwoofers without making the reverse, that happens most of the time - better low bass, thickening mid/bass, collapsing the soundstage and removing the "magic" of stereo.
BTW, as far as I remember the HQD has very dependent on recordings - with some recordings was great, with others the bass seemed out of proportion.
Very seldom I have experienced good integration of subwoofers - but curiously one of the best exercises was with Martin Logan Descent I using Martin Logan panels. When the subs were switched on, even in music without bass content, the room significantly increased in size and the whole music clearly separated from the speakers - even the treble seemed more airy.
The tricky point is adding the subwoofers without making the reverse, that happens most of the time - better low bass, thickening mid/bass, collapsing the soundstage and removing the "magic" of stereo.
BTW, as far as I remember the HQD has very dependent on recordings - with some recordings was great, with others the bass seemed out of proportion.
I have had QUAD 57s ( concurrently with MAGNEPAN TYMPANI 1Ds ) in the 80s when I began my audio odyssey! The 57s, as full-range speakers, were objectively flawed. They were midrange- centric and beguiling at that but very inadequate for low bass power and articulation, and lacking real extension in the highs. They were the sonic antithesis to the TYMPANI 1Ds! The stacked QUADs, on the other hand, were entirely different.
As for a "30W tube amplifier being adequate for CLX pleasure" ( analog brother ), I will say this without intending to be absolute. An 845-based SET should drive them more than adequately, especially for "pleasure" as you say ( I am assuming you don't, unlike me, listen at high SPLs ). Two such integrated amplifiers drove my QUAD 2912s almost admirably, when I was auditioning power amplifiers for them ( nine amplifiers in all ). By extrapolation, I am assuming that such amplifiers will equally drive the CLXs adequately. However, my final choice was the PASS LABS XA30.8 ( not the XA30.5 ), which achieve an excellent symbiosis - gain structure - with the LEBEN valve line stage and the CLXS, in terms of timbral character, ease of drive and stability, with no power compression.
Ultimately and idealistically, one should audition EVERY component in his own listening room ( perhaps the most vital component ). Audio memory, extrapolations and pre-conceptions can be invariably fallible and even fatal! Playback levels, size and geometry of room, coupled with the CLX's impedance characteristics will influence the performance ( especially the dynamics ) of the 30 W tube amplifier. As I said in my first post, all my micro amplification is valve, with the PASS LABS providing the power.
Thank you. Cheers, Kostas.
As for a "30W tube amplifier being adequate for CLX pleasure" ( analog brother ), I will say this without intending to be absolute. An 845-based SET should drive them more than adequately, especially for "pleasure" as you say ( I am assuming you don't, unlike me, listen at high SPLs ). Two such integrated amplifiers drove my QUAD 2912s almost admirably, when I was auditioning power amplifiers for them ( nine amplifiers in all ). By extrapolation, I am assuming that such amplifiers will equally drive the CLXs adequately. However, my final choice was the PASS LABS XA30.8 ( not the XA30.5 ), which achieve an excellent symbiosis - gain structure - with the LEBEN valve line stage and the CLXS, in terms of timbral character, ease of drive and stability, with no power compression.
Ultimately and idealistically, one should audition EVERY component in his own listening room ( perhaps the most vital component ). Audio memory, extrapolations and pre-conceptions can be invariably fallible and even fatal! Playback levels, size and geometry of room, coupled with the CLX's impedance characteristics will influence the performance ( especially the dynamics ) of the 30 W tube amplifier. As I said in my first post, all my micro amplification is valve, with the PASS LABS providing the power.
Thank you. Cheers, Kostas.
Thanks for the feedback Micro. Much appreciated. I'll continue my quest to give them a listen at some point.
thank you kostas, for your thoughts and extrapolations.
my amps are kt-88 based, ja-30 jadis.
have driven ml vantages and summit x with them previously, and they were quite nice. of course, these models have the active bass unit though.
one day i will try full-range electrostatic. they look so fascinating!!!
my amps are kt-88 based, ja-30 jadis.
have driven ml vantages and summit x with them previously, and they were quite nice. of course, these models have the active bass unit though.
one day i will try full-range electrostatic. they look so fascinating!!!
I was just showing you that the CLX will miss quite a bit of the low grequency content of an acoustic guitar, and therefore more so a double bass. It doesn't matter what the fundamental frequency of the note being play is. The instrument's body will produce a load of LF way below the CLX's reach.
I'm sure replay sounds fine to you and friends, but the fact is the CLX is missing the LF content.
Dipoles panels are bass shy because of back wave cancellation in low frequencies - in some rooms with a lot of structural bass absorption in the back , some L configurations or open areas they can play frequencies lower than expected.
Mainly but not always though. In fact excess bass can be found in planar magnetic designs at really quite low frequencies e.g. 30Hz in the Duetta. But TBH when I measured that in my original refurbs, much of it depends how close you put the mic to the rear wall.
User211, I respect the point that you are making but please reconsider the TOTALITY of what I said. As a final and valid arbitrator on this matter, do this: Listen very closely to the low frequencies of the two instruments, then record them well and appropriately, play them back on a number of different speakers and then judge which speaker approximates ( none will duplicate ) more naturally their overall sound. This, by the way, may not be your preferred or most impressive rendition. I, as an amateur recordist, have found that the CLXs replicate recorded music more faithfully than other speakers.
We all know that many speakers can destruct music. The CLXs " destructure" ( excuse my neologism ) music as it almost is, given what occurs in the recording chain before the music reaches them!
Thank you again, Kostas.
We all know that many speakers can destruct music. The CLXs " destructure" ( excuse my neologism ) music as it almost is, given what occurs in the recording chain before the music reaches them!
Thank you again, Kostas.
Agree completely about more air and space and added harmonics with a well integrated sub. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I like to designate the difference between a conventional "sub woofer" set up and a "sub bass" set up. I'm a big believer of the "sub bass" set up which means crossing over the sub woofer at around the natural low end of the main speaker's frequency range. Right now I've got Maggie 3.7is with REL G2's and the subs are crossed at 37 hz. The frequency range for the 3.7i's is listed as 35hz-40khz. I settled at 37hz by tuning the REL's by ear. That's the sweet spot.
Of course the cross over frequency has to be integrated with volume setting on the subs but from experience with lots of speakers and these subs, I've always been able to find a magical setting where it all comes into seamless integration. This has happened with 2905's, ESL 63's, PK Quads, the 3.7i's, a pair of Peter Gunn MMG's, and even a pair of Acoustic Zen Crescendos. For each of these speakers the settings were different but all were around the natural low end of the main speakers frequency range in the high 30's or low 40's. I ended up crossing the AZ Crescendos at 25hz because the AZ's naturally go pretty low. Even at that low crossover there was a fantastic improvement in the overall presentation of the sound.
In contrast, a conventional "sub woofer" may cross over at say around 60hz-80hz, In this case the subwoofer captures the sound from the main speakers and replaces it with the sound of the sub for part of the main speaker's frequency range. In the case of my 3.7i's crossed at 37hz, if I set the sub woofer crossover at 80hz, the subs would essentially replace the Maggies from 37hz to 80hz so I'd lose part of the Maggie's wonderful bass and may have integration issues.
Greetings!
Just a quick update for those keen to know, and the advise seeked from fellow experts and music lovers;
the CAV45 arrives tomorrow! Finally, something decent to listen to on the Quads.
I plan to use the CAV45 later on with the ML Ethos, rather than the Theos. Mainly due to the active bass drivers on the Ethos. Since bass is taken care of with a 200w Class D amp, all the CAV45 has to focus on is the panels, which I believe will work extremely well. I have always loved the sound and awesome midrange of the EL34, so when taxed less and allowed to drive just that, it should be more than adequate for the Ethos. The other factor is the Ethos pricing is very reasonable for what it delivers and still retails far less than the Quads.
With what has been said about the CLX's bass, if any of you can possibly listen to the CLX being driven with an outstanding tube preamp and the Pass Labs XA30.8 then you will know what I'm talking about and what Kostas is referring to. There are equally good ss Class A amplifiers out there but none that I have come across that are comparable to the superb Pass XA30.8. I have listened and tried other Pass amps on my Quads, they were all good in the areas of what they can do. However, the XA series takes this level of performance to a different league altogether. The way in which it can control and drive a pair of full range stats is just remarkable. I really wasn't expecting it to be much of anything compared to what I have experienced before, also having previously owned massive 400 watt tube monoblocks.
This simple and elegant 30w pure Class A amplifier beats everything I have ever listened to on any system to date! I have heard the Naim Statements (AUD$250k) driving Analysis ribbons and I thought those were the ultimate but again the XA30.8 puts this massive behemoth to shame...
What's more surprising was the price factor, it was nothing that I had expected, and I have paid so much more for tube amps, not even knowing that this kind of ss gear ever existed. The other Pass Labs amps are far more costly in Aus and they retail in the upper echelons of wealth but this new XA series of Class A is something too good to be true. I only hope that by the time I get to it, the price would still be reasonable. To have partnered the XA30.8 with my ACT2 would have been one hec of a combination. I could only compare it to the CJ Premier 350 but with more refinement and quality power. not so much of just brute force. The Premier 350 with the ACT2 was one killer combination of pre-power at its best that could drive any load but it was way overkill for the Quads, and doesn't require that kind of power nor can the Quads even handle that kind of level.
With very high SPL's and startling transients and superb dynamics that can out class even the best dynamic drivers, the CLX Art handles all these areas with ease. No strain on the panels whatsoever, it is just the performance right there in front of you, and once again I state this was all possible with just 30w of ss Class A! Listening to those massive systems with huge monoblocks, multiple driver arrays and massive towers with racks of amplification- simply makes me laugh.
As I said before, perhaps the CLX's is not everyone's cup of tea but when dialled in correctly with the "right" amplification, which is not an easy task to achieve, as far as my ears are concerned, this system still remains the best I have ever heard.
To those who love your panels of whatever brand they maybe, just sit back and enjoy your music, and don't change anything!
That's my humble advise, cheers RJ
Just a quick update for those keen to know, and the advise seeked from fellow experts and music lovers;
the CAV45 arrives tomorrow! Finally, something decent to listen to on the Quads.
I plan to use the CAV45 later on with the ML Ethos, rather than the Theos. Mainly due to the active bass drivers on the Ethos. Since bass is taken care of with a 200w Class D amp, all the CAV45 has to focus on is the panels, which I believe will work extremely well. I have always loved the sound and awesome midrange of the EL34, so when taxed less and allowed to drive just that, it should be more than adequate for the Ethos. The other factor is the Ethos pricing is very reasonable for what it delivers and still retails far less than the Quads.
With what has been said about the CLX's bass, if any of you can possibly listen to the CLX being driven with an outstanding tube preamp and the Pass Labs XA30.8 then you will know what I'm talking about and what Kostas is referring to. There are equally good ss Class A amplifiers out there but none that I have come across that are comparable to the superb Pass XA30.8. I have listened and tried other Pass amps on my Quads, they were all good in the areas of what they can do. However, the XA series takes this level of performance to a different league altogether. The way in which it can control and drive a pair of full range stats is just remarkable. I really wasn't expecting it to be much of anything compared to what I have experienced before, also having previously owned massive 400 watt tube monoblocks.
This simple and elegant 30w pure Class A amplifier beats everything I have ever listened to on any system to date! I have heard the Naim Statements (AUD$250k) driving Analysis ribbons and I thought those were the ultimate but again the XA30.8 puts this massive behemoth to shame...
What's more surprising was the price factor, it was nothing that I had expected, and I have paid so much more for tube amps, not even knowing that this kind of ss gear ever existed. The other Pass Labs amps are far more costly in Aus and they retail in the upper echelons of wealth but this new XA series of Class A is something too good to be true. I only hope that by the time I get to it, the price would still be reasonable. To have partnered the XA30.8 with my ACT2 would have been one hec of a combination. I could only compare it to the CJ Premier 350 but with more refinement and quality power. not so much of just brute force. The Premier 350 with the ACT2 was one killer combination of pre-power at its best that could drive any load but it was way overkill for the Quads, and doesn't require that kind of power nor can the Quads even handle that kind of level.
With very high SPL's and startling transients and superb dynamics that can out class even the best dynamic drivers, the CLX Art handles all these areas with ease. No strain on the panels whatsoever, it is just the performance right there in front of you, and once again I state this was all possible with just 30w of ss Class A! Listening to those massive systems with huge monoblocks, multiple driver arrays and massive towers with racks of amplification- simply makes me laugh.
As I said before, perhaps the CLX's is not everyone's cup of tea but when dialled in correctly with the "right" amplification, which is not an easy task to achieve, as far as my ears are concerned, this system still remains the best I have ever heard.
To those who love your panels of whatever brand they maybe, just sit back and enjoy your music, and don't change anything!
That's my humble advise, cheers RJ
Hey Big Dog. I have a pair of CLX's that still have only about 60 hours on them. I have heard a number of good speakers though not some that have been talked about here.
I will say that they are the most amazing speakers I have heard. I am running them with ARC pre and mono blocks and 4 Martin Logan Depth i subs in a dedicated room.
I can't imaging that anything is missing in the low frequency's, but if it, is my ears don't know the difference apparently.
Any of the people I know with good systems have different opinions of what good low end should sound like. It is for the most part, what you are interested in having the sound in front of you convey.
Most systems I hear, for me, have to much low end volume. Every one hears things differently and have different preferences.
Good luck with your system.
I will say that they are the most amazing speakers I have heard. I am running them with ARC pre and mono blocks and 4 Martin Logan Depth i subs in a dedicated room.
I can't imaging that anything is missing in the low frequency's, but if it, is my ears don't know the difference apparently.
Any of the people I know with good systems have different opinions of what good low end should sound like. It is for the most part, what you are interested in having the sound in front of you convey.
Most systems I hear, for me, have to much low end volume. Every one hears things differently and have different preferences.
Good luck with your system.
I've been taking your advice since before you gave it...
I have a pair of reQuests, with a 48 x 15 panel crossed at 180Hz to the sealed 12" woofer. I don't quite get that last bit of panel-bass, maybe someday. No complaints with what they do here, especially now with a little DSP to banish some of the low frequency room problems. I like a flat to almost-flat response, and they do that to below 20hz (as measured here).
I've had them for 18 years, and keep the panels covered with a stretchy cotton jersey body pillow case, so they haven't aged much visually (or measurably).
They perform well for me. I usually listen at 70-80dB average with 95-105dB peaks.
Recently, threw caution to the wind for a few seconds of a drum solo, from Mario Martinez's Truthful Recordings, at a calculated calibrated level to match what was hitting the mic in his studio, and saw 116.9dB on the peak meter...
Mario's work and offer: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...TRT-v2-0-master-file-giveaway-for-WBF-members
Last edited:
You shouldn't be missing any bass extension running the CLX with 4 ML Depth i subs! The issue raised about limited bass extension of the CLX was referring to running them on their own. I wouldn't ever question how satisfied and delighted RJ is with the quality of the bass that the CLX provides with his preferred Pass amps either. However it's a fact that the CLX running on their own regardless of amplification cannot reproduce much significant output below 50 Hz. They are rated by their manufacturer as down 3 dB at 56 Hz, so truly full range performance (generally considered to be 20 Hz extension) requires the use of a subwoofer by design. That doesn't mean that some users won't be completely satisfied with their bass performance due to the quality of their reproduction in the range they do support. Also to be clear we are discussing the CLX Art here, since some earlier versions of the CLX had significantly more bass extension by design.
Last edited:
Enjoy reading of your enthusiasm for CLX's RJ, I must admit to a degree of amazment at the results you have experienced with a 30 Watt amplifier, class A or otherwise.
For my part I recently moved from an ARc Ref150se to Ref250 SE's as on my system I had been pushing 130-140 Watts draw on peak transients .
Of course Watts do not directly equate to the type of current delivery desirest by CLX's owners , however I can attest to the singular improvement across the whole spectrum that this move has delivered. Mightily impressive, to the point that a friend and fellow CLX/Ref150se owner, with no plans to spend more money on amplification heard the new rig, experienced an Oh F**k moment, And is now very happy with his depleted bank balance.
For the most part, and genre dependant, I also prefer to run my CLX's au naturel !
For my part I recently moved from an ARc Ref150se to Ref250 SE's as on my system I had been pushing 130-140 Watts draw on peak transients .
Of course Watts do not directly equate to the type of current delivery desirest by CLX's owners , however I can attest to the singular improvement across the whole spectrum that this move has delivered. Mightily impressive, to the point that a friend and fellow CLX/Ref150se owner, with no plans to spend more money on amplification heard the new rig, experienced an Oh F**k moment, And is now very happy with his depleted bank balance.
For the most part, and genre dependant, I also prefer to run my CLX's au naturel !
Last edited:
Similar threads
Staff online
-
treitz3Super Moderator
Members online
- morricab
- Young Skywalker
- iain
- bonzo75
- kimurastanley
- the sound of Tao
- kodomo
- Ferris010
- Argonaut
- Barry823
- mtemur
- b345t
- trinley
- KidTurbo
- thekong
- Tremayne
- Erikl
- The Prof
- andromedaaudio
- Anthony Ho
- Mcsnare
- nicoludio
- lordcloud
- MOTU
- matthias
- wbfhet
- ciro69
- Phantom-Audio
- EuroDriver
- Raker24
- MarkusBarkus
- orrman
- Puma Cat
- treitz3
- Sablon Audio
- Johan K
- Lucas Domansky LDMS
- christensenleif@msn.com
- Lazz
- Nataraja
- takacs75
- kasin
- VinylSavor
- hopkins
- Michael S.
- Golum
- Armsan
- tom539
- rt662
- Chpray
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |