CLS's? Not Quite; Kinnergetics SW800 Subwoofers; Any Users?

[karma]

HI All,
My ownership of the CLS IIA's for over 20 years has always involved use of biamped subwoofers. To me, the these speakers absolutely require subs both for deep bass and to relieve them of the strain of reproducing low, powerful bass to increase dynamic range. Without them, the speakers are limited. With good subs, the CLS IIA's become world class, IMO.

When I heard about the Kinnergetics SW800 subs and researched them I was interested. Then after a series of reviews in Stereophile by Jack English where he placed the CLS IIA's in Class A rating when paired with the SW800's, they became must haves. Subsequently, I acquired the SW800's. After careful set up I felt they were not only great subs but a perfect match for the CLS IIA's. You may recall these subs were designed specifically for the CLS II series of ESL's.

Yet, on this wonderful forum, where subs have been discussed at length, the SW800's are never mentioned. I'm wondering if any of you own the Kinnergetic's SW800 and how you feel about them.

It's unfortunate that Kinnergetics went out of business and these subs are no longer being made.

Thanks, Sparky

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Curious about your set-up. Do you have have an active crossover in the chain? Do you use a crossover to limit the amount of bass sent to the CLS? Or do you run the CLS full range and the SW-800 in the mode called "augmentation"? Are the SW-800 powered?

 

[karma]

HI FrantzM,
Here is a picture of the CLS-IIZ and the Kinergetics SB800 subs. This is not my system. I got the image off the web then scanned it. Sorry for the poor picture quality but you get the idea. This poor picture has been through hell. Also, my system is organized with the subs on the inside of the the CLS IIA's.

The SB800 is externally powered by a Levinson NO. 23 power amp (400W/chan into the subs 4 ohm load). It was supplied with a Kinergetics active crossover, quite a nice one. It has an active low pass section with selectable cutoff frequencies and slopes as well several filter architectures. I do not use the high pass section substituting my own design which is passive. I do use the low pass section in the Butterworth mode.

I use a crossover frequency of 67 Hz. This is a critical feature of the set up. I wanted to keep the crossover frequency as far from the mid range as possible (I hate crossovers especially in the midrange!) while still accomplishing my goals. It is not a perfect fit in that the roll off curves are different. But the match is pretty good.

With this set up, I don't believe you would be able to tell is there is a subwoofer in the system. The integration is nearly perfect. However, the sub announces itself when the doors rattle and the ash trays shake when stimulated by a 16 Hz organ note or some other bass monster.

As you see in the picture, the SB800 is a pair of towers. The enclosure alignment is acoustic suspension. Each of the 5 drivers per tower are long throw 10 inch speakers. Grilles are supplied which I use.

Bass performance is impressive. The subs go below 20 Hz with power and low distortion. The Levinson does a fine job of providing lots of power. These subs are fast. They keep up with the panels. I never get a sense that two fundamentally different speaker concepts are at work. This is unusual when integrating subs with ESL's but essential for convincing operation.

As long as I keep my CLS IIA's I will have these subwoofers. I have never heard better.

Sparky

 

[FrantzM]

Sparky

I have heard the Synergistics with the CLS a while back in NY.. Wasn't too pleased, but it was in a store could have been PArk Avenue Audio (not sure) but really that means absolutely nothing since I had at one point the CLS and what I heard in the store did not remind me of the CLS .. so ... There was a review in TAS and this combo was dubbed "The Mini-Statement". A reference to the Martin Logan Statement Speaker System which used two columns subwoofers but with (4?) 12 inches cone subwoofers
. I understand you use the Active crossover of the Synergistics as a Low pass and a high pass for the CLS. For the record I am not adverse to subs. I actually believe subs are necessary. Using subs is the only one can get optimum bass in any system regardless of the bass capability of the mains or technology they employ ... I am however not a believer in the "fast" subwoofer. i call it myth, 18 inch subwoofer with the proper motor will integrate with any main speaker within the rangeof frequency they both cover, within reasons. IOW to me it is a matter of integration once the sub is dequate but I digress.
Youseem satisfied and that is all that counts. Have you thought about integrating your subs with something like the newer CLX or have youthought about using a more powerful amp (not that I tdon't see 400 watts as more than enough) just asking

 

[karma]

HI Frantz,
A couple of things. First, the name of the manufacturer of my sub is Kinergetics not Synergistics as you mistakenly called them. Second, if you go back and reread my post you will find I defined the crossover method. You have it wrong. Third, I have plenty of power with my Levinson NO.23 sub amp. No need for more.

Last, I have absolutely no intension to go to the CLX. Why bother?

I agree with your opinion that integration is of primary importance. This is where most subwoofer systems fail. I can assure you that I have great integration and have worked hard to get it that way including some novel and interesting techniques.

Since you are not familiar with some of my other posts, I should tell you and others I have a full ARC system. My preamp is the SP-11 Mk 2 and the power amp is a D250 Mk 2 Servo (250W /chan) with upgraded coupling capacitors. The CLSII A's love my amplification.

As for subwoofer speed, I tend to agree with you but not fully. Most subs I have heard are impossible to properly integrate with the speedy CLS's. They do sound slow. This makes them impractical for me. Now if this is actually a speed issue or not, I'm not sure. I can only tell you what my ears report.

May I say that you are making it difficult to determine where you really stand and what you are willing to spend your money on by not listing a system profile. Because of this, I take your comments on strictly an academic level.

Please don't make me repeat myself. Read more carefully. Check my profile.

Sparky

 

[mep]

Sparky-Frantz deserves more respect than you are showing him. English is not Frantz's first language. Frantz is very knowledgable and has been an audiophile with some outstanding systems over the years. No need to get snarky.

 

[karma]

Sparky-Frantz deserves more respect than you are showing him. English is not Frantz's first language. Frantz is very knowledgable and has been an audiophile with some outstanding systems over the years. No need to get snarky.

HI,
Snarky? How about irritated? It always irritates me when someone does not read attentively whether it's my posts or someone elses. Asking about confusing points or asking for clarification is fair game, but not misquoting or just not getting the facts (multiple facts in this case) straight. Which he did not.

I also have a problem when people pose as experts yet do no have the courtesy to list their system. I don't know Frantz. How could I possibly know that you respect him or if he deserves your respect. Respect from me is born of courtesy from the other. I'm open to further talks with Frantz but I expect better from him.

You read my reaction well. But, honestly, I think you are over reacting. Let us continue with the subject of this thread.

Sparky

 

[audioguy]

Sparky-Frantz deserves more respect than you are showing him. English is not Frantz's first language. Frantz is very knowledgable and has been an audiophile with some outstanding systems over the years. No need to get snarky.

+1

 

[karma]

HI,
OK, I get the idea that you think I attacked one of your favorites. In rereading my posts, I don't see the problem. Yes, I did not kiss Frantz. I save that for others. But I truly don't see the cause of your upset. Would you mind explaining it to me so I won't make the same mistake again? Please try to be specific.

Thanks, Sparky

 

[RBFC]

Let's just move on, please. Karma, could you please explain in a bit more detail how you're implementing crossovers between the Kinergetics and the MLs? I wasn't quite sure exactly what frequencies went where, etc.....

Thanks,

Lee

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

While I will graacefully bow out of this discussion . i find Sparky offensive. I don't hink I meant direspect when I ask the questions I di and phrased the way they were. Let me quote them :

Curious about your set-up. Do you have have an active crossover in the chain? Do you use a crossover to limit the amount of bass sent to the CLS? Or do you run the CLS full range and the SW-800 in the mode called "augmentation"? Are the SW-800 powered?

Second post

Sparky

I have heard the Synergistics with the CLS a while back in NY.. Wasn't too pleased, but it was in a store could have been PArk Avenue Audio (not sure) but really that means absolutely nothing since I had at one point the CLS and what I heard in the store did not remind me of the CLS .. so ... There was a review in TAS and this combo was dubbed "The Mini-Statement". A reference to the Martin Logan Statement Speaker System which used two columns subwoofers but with (4?) 12 inches cone subwoofers
. I understand you use the Active crossover of the Synergistics as a Low pass and a high pass for the CLS. For the record I am not adverse to subs. I actually believe subs are necessary. Using subs is the only one can get optimum bass in any system regardless of the bass capability of the mains or technology they employ ... I am however not a believer in the "fast" subwoofer. i call it myth, 18 inch subwoofer with the proper motor will integrate with any main speaker within the rangeof frequency they both cover, within reasons. IOW to me it is a matter of integration once the sub is dequate but I digress.
You seem satisfied and that is all that counts. Have you thought about integrating your subs with something like the newer CLX or have youthought about using a more powerful amp (not that I tdon't see 400 watts as more than enough) just asking

Where in the world have I been offensive in this post? Your reaction is most puzzling ... There is NO hint of criticsm in my post not one . I said I heard the SW-800 in a store and I quickly added that it meant nothing ... IHowever you dissect my posts they are ot offensive.. it. especially when I say I repeat" You seem satisfied" ... Your attitude is curious... You ask for comment I politely offered mine and the snark came off... I am off yout thread other will certainly contribute, I don't see any reason for me to engaage with you . Such reaction do not speak highly of you.

 

[nsgarch]

mystery pic

Sparky,

I don't know where you got that picture, but it's of the second (SW-800 subwoofer) version of my original 1991 CLS IIz system. Before that, I had a pair of Wilson Puppies for my subs, driven by a Mark Levinson 23.5 amp (waaay better than the 23!) through a Bryston 10B electronic crossover. The CLS's were driven by a pair of ARC M300 MkII monoblocks, trioded at the factory (and reduced to 140W output ;--)

Unfortunately, I let a friend, who also had CLS's, talk me into selling my Puppies; and we got a deal on the last two pair of SW800's. That was, and still is, THE BIGGEST AUDIO MISTAKE I EVER MADE! The SW800s sure looked cool (the famous "Mini Statement" ;--) but sonically, they just SUCKED! Slow and sluggish (even driven with the fabulous ML 23.5) they never really blended with the panels; not compared to the Puppies' fast transients which perfectly matched the CLS's. And that horrid Kinergetics P.O.S. crossover unit! Boy, was I disappointed -- I finally sold them to a guy in Scotland; good riddance!

With a CLS, which is full-range (down to 40Hz, anyway) you only need ONE SUB to fill in that last octave, because the brain can't locate the source of sounds under 100Hz; and so you get all the "stereo bass" you need right from the CLS's! You simply place a single, omnidirectional sub (like the MartinLogan Depth -- which BTW has faster transients than the Descent!) smack between the panels; set it to a 90deg. phase angle (halfway between the front and rear phase of the panels) roll the sub off at around 35Hz and you'll have the most fully integrated, magical, stat+sub system you ever heard! I know, I own one ;--) And to be fair, I make that statement with the following caveats: I haven't heard a CLX + a single Descent sub (which would basically be the same system as mine, but with a couple more zeros after the decimal point ;--) Nor have I heard Roger Sanders' latest, and though I have great respect for Roger, his is not a full-range panel, and so doesn't really qualify in my book (sorry Roger.) And I still think the (big) Soundlabs are the ultimate full range electrostats, but only if you have a big enough room in which to operate them properly. I also think it's important to stop and remember that the CLS, and now the CLX (which actually does go down to 50Hz,) are the only two FULL-RANGE electrostatic panels that MartinLogan ever made! All their other speakers are HYBRIDS -- and use panels that cut off anywhere between 200Hz and 450 Hz depending on the model -- so of course you will need left and right bass drivers. But when you have truly full-range electrostatic panels, you only need one sub, and it will completely disappear! You can see my current system here:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vdone&1109799786&read&keyw&zznsgarch

This was my previous (and very disappointing) SW-800 system. Shoulda kept the Puppies ;--)

 

[karma]

HI Frantz,
Well, neither one of us seems to feel we have offended anyone. I'm going to let it go at that.

I will follow Lee's request that the matter be dropped.

I can only say that I still wish for you to contribute to my discussions.

Sparky

 

[karma]

HI nsgarch,
I found the picture in the Audiogon Forum Archive. NIce to know where it came from. The comments were very positive so I assume they were not from you. If not you, then who?

Well, one of us wrong. You know, I have a lot of experience with subwoofers. I can only think that you simply did not have things set up correctly. What I hear in no way resembles your description. If mine sounded as you describe I would have sold them years ago. And in the bass area, the No. 23 amp is formidable. Otherwise, the No. 23.5 is somewhat better. I do think you are exagerating the differences.

Two subs have many advantages. All of my systems over the years have had dual subs. Bass you know, must move a lot of air. Thus, the subwoofer radiator surface must be large and/or be capable of large excursions. The Kinergetics subs accomplish both with 10, 10 inch long throw drivers which are relatively light (thus responsive) yet the total surface area is large. Let's look at the numbers. The Kinergetics woofers have 785 sq inches of total radiating surface. A single 18 in woofer has only 254.3 sq inches of surface area. The Kinergetics has 3.1 times the surface area. Most people agree that woofer radiator area is a key indicator to bass performance.

If only one sub is used, all the radiation is concentrated into one cone which has to work very hard to move the requisite amount of air. Also, I have a soft spot for acoustic suspension woofers which the Kinergetic subs fulfill. I think they are the most linear of all the available designs. But they are power hungry.

What was your crossover frequency?

As for Soundlabs, how can one not like them? However, I don't think they are any more full range than the CLS's. They do go slighly lower but at a price and they they don't go nearly low enough. Their bass is not clean but rather somewhat bloomey, loose and exagerated. The amp my friend had driving the Soundlabs A1's was Air Tight, a great amp. If I had Soundlabs, they would have a subwoofer on them. I don't like their bass.

By the way, when I say bass, I mean deep (sub 20 Hz), powerful, undistorted bass. The Kinergetics can do that. The Soundlabs can't do that. Neither can the CLS's. No ESL can.

No subwoofer is worth having if the integration between the main speakers and subs is detectable. The objective here is to not be able to detect that a separate speaker is producing the bass frequencies. This is a real problem that is very often not solved. The integration of the Kinergetics subs, in my system, is extremely good, the best I have ever heard. There is no indication that there are two different speakers at work even around the crossover frequency where both speakers are generating sound at the same time.

Not to drop names, but Jack English of Stereophile fame (mentioned in my post above) agrees with me in his Stereophile reviews of the CLS IIA and Kinergetics combo. I'm sure he would be as mystified at your comments as I am.

As for my crossover arrangement, see my post to Lee below. It is one of the keys to my success with the integration problem. I think you will find it interesting.

Sparky

 

[karma]

HI Lee,
I was interrupted tonight. I intended to answer your question but it will have to wait until tomorrow.

Sparky

 

[karma]

HI Lee,
I'm going to spend more than a few words on this because I have never heard my crossover technique discussed before. Before I get into the details, I need to discuss the physical conditions that eventually lead to my technique.

Have you ever noticed that bass in many rooms has a problem with overhang and sounds bloated? I have and have wondered about it. Over the years I have paid attention to this phenomenon. I noticed that it was present no matter the equipment (good to average), room size (large and small), wall dimensions, or room openings (some or none). I wondered why. IOW, I did not see a common denominator that would cause such a similarity.

Then I realized the common factor (others might have seen it sooner!). The rooms where I noticed the issue all had 8 foot ceilings. This constitutes the majority of the listening rooms I have experienced. Those rooms that had varying ceiling to floor dimensions, such as cathedral designs, did not have this problem, I noticed, after I was aware of this possibility. But there is more. The 8 foot ceilings were present all over the house.

The problem seems resolved to the first resonant frequency of the 8 foot dimension. It is 71 Hz. This is right in the frequency range where I was noticing the problem. At resonance, the room gain increases substantially. Furthermore, because the 8 foot dimension is present over the entire structure, this resonant frequency is "high Q" meaning very efficient. A structure design with differing floor to ceiling dimensions may not have a single resonant frequency or multiple frequencies, in the case of stepped ceilings, which puts them in the category of "low Q" or low efficiency. But, think of a whole house with a single 8 foot dimension. It's a huge surface area with no relief. Very high Q.

My house has all 8 foot ceilings. I have a worse case 8 foot resonance problem with no good way of fixing it short of a parametric equalizer. But a equalizer is a cure that is worse than the problem. I refuse to use one. Is there a solution? I think I found one.

I decided to place the cross over frequency between the CLS's and the Kinergetics sub woofer centered at 71 Hz. Actually, through experimentation, I lowered the frequency to 67 Hz. This is because the roll-off rates of the two filters (high and low pass) were different and 67 Hz offered the best compromise.

The filters do not crossover at 0 dB which would be the perfect situation. Filters don't work this way. Rather filters roll off at different rates depending on how far removed from the 3 dB point the subject frequency is. They don't reach their ultimate roll of rate until 3 or 4 octaves away from the 3 dB frequency.

I intended to hide the crossover frequency at the room ceiling to floor resonant frequency. But I offset the filters 3 dB points from one another such that there is a gap between them. This means that a frequency sweep of just the system, leaving out the room, would show a 6dB drop in signal level at the gap. So, one could say the crossover GAP is set to 67 Hz. When you add in the 8 foot resonance of 71 Hz, the overall gain is roughly linear through the crossover point.

By arranging things this way I solved several problems. First, the 67 low pass filter is low enough so the subwoofers do not intrude into the midrange. Second, the 8 foot resonant frequency room gain, because of the built-in gap, is reduced to roughly flat and disappears when combined with the speaker outputs which are down 6 dB at the crossover frequency. Third, the subs have no trouble reproducing this upper end frequency of 67 Hz. Fourth, the CLS's perform just fine at 67 Hz and they are removed from low frequency responsibilities where their dynamic range is limited. Dynamic range has become outstanding.

The remaining issue concerns whether the CLS's are removed far enough from the low bass. Most folks cross the CLS's over at a higher frequency with 100 Hz being common. Success is determined by low bass at high volume and if such a signal causes the CLS's panels to bottom out. Experience has shown that this arrangement works very well. The CLS's do not bottom out even when run very loud.

So, effectively I have used the room gain at resonance as an advantage to hide both the crossover point and the room resonance gain.

Hardware used is the stock Kinergetics supplied electronic crossover. I use only the low pass section in the Butterworth mode. The high pass filter is my custom passive design using audiophile grade capacitors. I felt my design was better than the one supplied by Kinergetics from a sonic point of view.

So, how does all this work? In a word, great! The entire speaker system sounds as if they are one. I cannot detect the subs as being different than the CLS's. I consider this to be the best solution to the system integration problem that I have heard.

Remember, rooms or houses with varying ceiling to floor dimensions will not be candidates for my solution.

Sparky

 

[RBFC]

Interesting. So your frequency response of your speakers looks like a "V" has been carved out of it, and the room support fills in this gap. Cool.

Now, will you describe how you have your speakers and subs hooked up to the crossovers for clarity?

Lee

 

[karma]

Interesting. So your frequency response of your speakers looks like a "V" has been carved out of it, and the room support fills in this gap. Cool.

Now, will you describe how you have your speakers and subs hooked up to the crossovers for clarity?

Lee

HI Lee,
Yes, you have the idea understood. I'm glad. I think the idea is fairly complicated that the average audiophile would have a difficult time understanding. This is one reason I love this forum-lots of knowlegable people here.

The hookups are conventional. The CLS's are connected directly to my D250 ARC amp 4 ohm outputs. The sub woofers (two of them) are connected to my Levinson No. 23 amp outputs, left to left, right to right. One line output, a left and right pair, from my ARC SP-11 preamp drives the external high pass filters, one for each channel, which in turn provides the high frequency signals to the line inputs of the D250. Another line output (separate from the other in the preamp) drives the Kinergetics crossover line input. Here it is split to go to the internal high pass and low pass filters. I have disconnected the path to the high pass filter. It is unused. The low pass section is output to the line inputs of the Levinson sub amp.

The preamp is great in that it is very flexible and has enough output facilities to allow separate signal paths for the high and low pass filters thus eliminating any possible interaction between the two. There is no need to use Y type splitters.

That's it.

Sparky

 

[mep]

Sparky,

I don't know where you got that picture, but it's of the second (SW-800 subwoofer) version of my original 1991 CLS IIz system. Before that, I had a pair of Wilson Puppies for my subs, driven by a Mark Levinson 23.5 amp (waaay better than the 23!) through a Bryston 10B electronic crossover. The CLS's were driven by a pair of ARC M300 MkII monoblocks, trioded at the factory (and reduced to 140W output ;--)

Unfortunately, I let a friend, who also had CLS's, talk me into selling my Puppies; and we got a deal on the last two pair of SW800's. That was, and still is, THE BIGGEST AUDIO MISTAKE I EVER MADE! The SW800s sure looked cool (the famous "Mini Statement" ;--) but sonically, they just SUCKED! Slow and sluggish (even driven with the fabulous ML 23.5) they never really blended with the panels; not compared to the Puppies' fast transients which perfectly matched the CLS's. And that horrid Kinergetics P.O.S. crossover unit! Boy, was I disappointed -- I finally sold them to a guy in Scotland; good riddance!

With a CLS, which is full-range (down to 40Hz, anyway) you only need ONE SUB to fill in that last octave, because the brain can't locate the source of sounds under 100Hz; and so you get all the "stereo bass" you need right from the CLS's! You simply place a single, omnidirectional sub (like the MartinLogan Depth -- which BTW has faster transients than the Descent!) smack between the panels; set it to a 90deg. phase angle (halfway between the front and rear phase of the panels) roll the sub off at around 35Hz and you'll have the most fully integrated, magical, stat+sub system you ever heard! I know, I own one ;--) And to be fair, I make that statement with the following caveats: I haven't heard a CLX + a single Descent sub (which would basically be the same system as mine, but with a couple more zeros after the decimal point ;--) Nor have I heard Roger Sanders' latest, and though I have great respect for Roger, his is not a full-range panel, and so doesn't really qualify in my book (sorry Roger.) And I still think the (big) Soundlabs are the ultimate full range electrostats, but only if you have a big enough room in which to operate them properly. I also think it's important to stop and remember that the CLS, and now the CLX (which actually does go down to 50Hz,) are the only two FULL-RANGE electrostatic panels that MartinLogan ever made! All their other speakers are HYBRIDS -- and use panels that cut off anywhere between 200Hz and 450 Hz depending on the model -- so of course you will need left and right bass drivers. But when you have truly full-range electrostatic panels, you only need one sub, and it will completely disappear! You can see my current system here:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vdone&1109799786&read&keyw&zznsgarch

This was my previous (and very disappointing) SW-800 system. Shoulda kept the Puppies ;--)
View attachment 2096

It looks like you had your MLs in a very narrow room with no more than 3' or so (according to my calibrated eyeball) from inside edge to inside edge of each speaker. That seems incredibly close for speakers the size of MLs. I also see you had them set up on what appears to be a bare tile floor. Was that room bright and ringy?

 

[nsgarch]

. . . . the road not traveled

HI nsgarch,
I found the picture in the Audiogon Forum Archive. NIce to know where it came from. The comments were very positive so I assume they were not from you. If not you, then who?

Well, one of us wrong. You know, I have a lot of experience with subwoofers. I can only think that you simply did not have things set up correctly. What I hear in no way resembles your description. If mine sounded as you describe I would have sold them years ago. And in the bass area, the No. 23 amp is formidable. Otherwise, the No. 23.5 is somewhat better. I do think you are exagerating the differences.

Two subs have many advantages. All of my systems over the years have had dual subs. Bass you know, must move a lot of air. Thus, the subwoofer radiator surface must be large and/or be capable of large excursions. The Kinergetics subs accomplish both with 10, 10 inch long throw drivers which are relatively light (thus responsive) yet the total surface area is large. Let's look at the numbers. The Kinergetics woofers have 785 sq inches of total radiating surface. A single 18 in woofer has only 254.3 sq inches of surface area. The Kinergetics has 3.1 times the surface area. Most people agree that woofer radiator area is a key indicator to bass performance.

If only one sub is used, all the radiation is concentrated into one cone which has to work very hard to move the requisite amount of air. Also, I have a soft spot for acoustic suspension woofers which the Kinergetic subs fulfill. I think they are the most linear of all the available designs. But they are power hungry.

What was your crossover frequency?

As for Soundlabs, how can one not like them? However, I don't think they are any more full range than the CLS's. They do go slighly lower but at a price and they they don't go nearly low enough. Their bass is not clean but rather somewhat bloomey, loose and exagerated. The amp my friend had driving the Soundlabs A1's was Air Tight, a great amp. If I had Soundlabs, they would have a subwoofer on them. I don't like their bass.

By the way, when I say bass, I mean deep (sub 20 Hz), powerful, undistorted bass. The Kinergetics can do that. The Soundlabs can't do that. Neither can the CLS's. No ESL can.

No subwoofer is worth having if the integration between the main speakers and subs is detectable. The objective here is to not be able to detect that a separate speaker is producing the bass frequencies. This is a real problem that is very often not solved. The integration of the Kinergetics subs, in my system, is extremely good, the best I have ever heard. There is no indication that there are two different speakers at work even around the crossover frequency where both speakers are generating sound at the same time.

Not to drop names, but Jack English of Stereophile fame (mentioned in my post above) agrees with me in his Stereophile reviews of the CLS IIA and Kinergetics combo. I'm sure he would be as mystified at your comments as I am.

As for my crossover arrangement, see my post to Lee below. It is one of the keys to my success with the integration problem. I think you will find it interesting.

Sparky

Hi Sparky,

No, no! We are both right! I've been down all those exact same roads you've traveled; I had the very same results/experiences as you have; and I was quite happy with my achievements, and proud of them as you have every right to be. So I'm not going to respond to your comments one by one, simply because I understand each of them; and recognize each of them as places I too visited along the way to my audio here and now.

And if you will have a little courage, and are not content to "rest on your laurels", and if you can embrace the idea that there is always more knowledge and deeper understanding, you too will discover a good deal of so-far unrealized potential still latent in your lovely system. And not only will you enjoy even more realistic performance than you do now, but you will gain further insight and understanding; having connected first-hand with some of the truths that govern the interaction between the physical science of acoustics and the biological science of human auditory perception.

Because I've come directly from where you are now, I can tell you with complete confidence that you are almost there! So good luck and have fun. And I promise here, publicly, never to say "I told you so!"

Neil