The marvellous Martin Logan CLX ART – is definitely a work of “ART”

[Big Dog RJ]

Thanks for sharing - I also would never own Quads if I had to rely on their current service departments. Long time has passed from the days when I met and had a nice talk with Peter Walker in person buying inexpensive ELS57 panels directly at the Huntingdon factory ... The main complain nowadays is that they charge for one panel the same other electrostatic manufacturers charge, but in other speakers you replace one panel, in the Quads you have to replace four or six!

As the parts for rebuilding them are easily sourced, there are a lot of experienced people servicing them at low cost. Sometimes I get parts from ERAudio, 2000 miles from you.

IMHO, unless one wants to listen loud, the Quads are not easily replaced. If I managed to solve the problem of integrating a subwoofer with them I would happily take mine out of rest immediately.

BTW, Martin Logan replacement panels used to be very low cost - I remember sometimes DIY people got them to built speakers. As far as I have been told they increased considerably their prices a few years ago.

The prices you quote are really very high - I got my current ELS63 from the UK in mint condition and boxed around GBP 1500!

Hey mate, yes that is correct. In the ESL2905 there are 6 panels and these are not cheap. AVR cannot and do not know how to repair these panels. They are more interested in filling their gross margins & pockets, so they simply replace panels, where as John Hall actually repairs panels. He has the original conductive paint, remakes panels to spec and uses a far more stable glue compared to what's coming out of China. His panels are far more stable than the factory ones that he provides a 5 year warranty! And this is the only other reason I kept my Quads.

People who have had just one panel failure have gotten rid of theirs straight away. Unless Quad/ IAG fixes these issues, they are up a **** creek! with a capital "S".

Also, the price they charged me just for a simple Chinese made toy looking mains transformer was $400 AUD! my last repair came to over $700AUD... ouch is not the word.
AVR also charges around $1000+ for just one dam panel! (hence replace 6 and your gross profit for the financial year is met)

Whereas the Martin Logan service here charges that for the ENTIRE panel- can you beat that? Does this even make any sense?

I probably shouldn't even make this public but I feel honest audiophiles and music lovers should get to know this. For a person like myself, who is so passionate about music, looks after the components so well, doesn't even let a hair or dust settle on anything, covers everything at night- I have been totally let down by the whole organisation representing Quads.

 

[Argonaut]

Hi Big Dog,

IMO, buy restored apogees instead.

Why would he wish to downgrade his Stella upper registers to a 'Hot Zing'

 

[Jazzhead]

Anybody heard these ML Satements ? http://www.martinlogan.com/products/statement

 

[bonzo75]

Why would he wish to downgrade his Stella upper registers to a 'Hot Zing'

Maybe he prefers her bottom end

 

[Zero000]

Why would he wish to downgrade his Stella upper registers to a 'Hot Zing'

Nice answer I'm smiling. But overall they are a better compromise. I know I spent 17 years with Stella upper registers. The only real trouble is they aren't always Stella.

With suitable recordings, both the ML and Apogee mids and highs can be amazing. The ML flaw is to sound too vague, especially at low volume, were, TBH, they are rubbish. The Apogee flaw is to sound too etched. Or so it would seem, but they do work better at lower volume, especially with upgraded frames and other bits.

 

[Argonaut]

Maybe he prefers her bottom end

Hmmmmm , CLX upper, Apogee base panel, Borg fusion stylee

 

[bonzo75]

Justin, The bigger Aps, which, if you keep in touch with me long enough, you will get to hear, have creamier, denser, more body mids

 

[Argonaut]

Nice answer I'm smiling. But overall they are a better compromise. I know I spent 17 years with Stella upper registers. The only real trouble is they aren't always Stella.

With suitable recordings, both the ML and Apogee mids and highs can be amazing. The ML flaw is to sound too vague, especially at low volume, were, TBH, they are rubbish. The Apogee flaw is to sound too etched. Or so it would seem, but they do work better at lower volume, especially with upgraded frames and other bits.

I quite concur that CLX's are not Stella performers performing first/second gear background idling as compared to Apogee's however ! Crank things up with the correct amplification and I could not imagine them to be regarded as anywhere close to vague in the upper's, ribbons subjectively a touch more dense of texture, read coloration, however, again IMHO, to the cost of accuracy and truth to the recording.

Both superb horses for particular courses, and the reason my long term plan is to utilize both CLX and Full Range.

 

[Ron Resnick]

RJ, Thank you for your interesting and enthusiastic report on the CLX Art!

I have owned Martin-Logan hybrids (Monolith Is, then Monolith IIIs, then Prodigys (as well as Sequel IIs and Ascents for smaller systems)). But I was never able to cotton to what I perceive to be thinness and leanness in the upper bass and down frequency range of the full-range electrostatic models. It is interesting to me that you found completely satisfying the low frequency characteristics of the CLX Art, and that they had enough "oomph" for you in the lower registers.

 

[Zero000]

I quite concur that CLX's are not Stella performers performing first/second gear background idling as compared to Apogee's however ! Crank things up with the correct amplification and I could not imagine them to be regarded as anywhere close to vague in the upper's, ribbons subjectively a touch more dense of texture, read coloration, however, again IMHO, to the cost of accuracy and truth to the recording.

Both superb horses for particular courses, and the reason my long term plan is to utilize both CLX and Full Range.

Agreed. I think the CLX sounds fab within its design constraints. I really do. Expecting killer bass out of it is unreasonable.

Loved it with the JA200s. Not a dynamic sound in any way with those. But still that combo produced very euphonic and "nice" sound.

 

[Zero000]

Justin, The bigger Aps, which, if you keep in touch with me long enough, you will get to hear, have creamier, denser, more body mids

I'd be disappointed if they weren't better. Duetta Sig from Caliper is a huge improvement. Stands to reason Diva is better but reading reviews I'm not always convinced. Full Range/Grand should be awesome.

I can't be arsed to go see Henk, though.

 

[Big Dog RJ]

Thanks for all your valuable input gentlemen, and I will look into the Apo's when ready as you have suggested Bonzo.

Ron, yes the bass on the CLX's were more than plenty. I am not a bass freak and I cannot understand why on earth would people want to use multiple subs when "natural bass" doesn't require it.

The CLX bass gave me superb transparency into bass layering that I had not heard before from hi-fi. I have heard and owned very good bass systems but none that could produce the varied shades & resolution in bass that the CLX offers. It just left me in awe, and due to this sound from top to bottom, I can now very easily evaluate other systems, as I refer to these as a reference point.

I just wanted to say something to other Quad owners here, I have vented my frustration in owning these stats, let off quite a lot of steam, mainly because the way their service & reliability factors have responded, which is a total disaster.

I still do LOVE my Quads ever so much, and my dealer mate, Damien has been one of the kindest people to deal with at Sound Reference. He has always supported me when Quad service has dropped the ball, he has time and again requested that they lift their game but they just don't seem to care for passionate stat lovers like us. Hence, a lot of people are moving away from Quads.

I still do love their sound and what they can do, soundwise Quads have always remained faithful to the music and I intend keeping my Quads for as long as I can.
When I get the Cav45, I know that this will improve things immensely and I may continue to keep the Quads, who knows.
However, due to the pains and ridiculous money spent on repairs, plus the attitude shown by the importer, I sincerely feel as a Quad owner there really is no point in being brand loyal here.

Sure the ML's are far more transparent, have superb dynamics, handle soft to loud transients effortlessly and can handle high peaks cleanly with finesse- absolutely no grain, strain or rattle whatsoever. When it comes to Quads, it still allows me to just relax and enjoy my music, regardless of what amplification is behind it.

If I had the means, I would have certainly kept both systems but with family priorities this is a luxury. I will end up with the CLX's no doubt as this is my reference point as of now.
Pricing is hard to beat, especially when just 30 watts of Class A can drive it to its full potential, I don't have to spend big dollars on amplification.

I am certainly going to take my time with this venture and see how it turns out. As of now, just enjoying the entry level ML hybrids, backed up by great customer service sort of gives you that peace of mind.
Cheers to all, RJ

 

[KostasP.]

In view of Ron's frequently expressed perceptions of thinness, leanness and lack of "oomph"of the CLXs, I would like to offer a laconic explanation, as a lover of sound, music and amateur stringed instrument player and recordist utilising purist techniques. My explanation is encapsulated in the words TRANSPARENCY and RESOLUTION with every semantic and acoustic connotation pertained in these two words.

The CLXs, being sonically diaphanous and extraordinarily revealing, allow us to "see" through the soundscape. Every minute, subtle nuance comprising the personality of the musical note reaching the speakers, has a far greater chance of being uninhibitedly and purely reconstructed and reproduced without the "enhancements" and artifices associated with other types of speakers ( no box, no resonances, no driver mass,no time alignment and phase consistency issues,etc ).

Could this "oomph" that you often mention ( I can only conjecture what it may mean ) be a non-linearity, cone speaker related "enhancement " or coloration? Remember that the CLXs are linear, natural and distortion-free in the frequencies where you perceive these sonic traits. They are microscopically revealing and a thin, lean source\recording ( especially digital ) will AND should be revealed as such. They are revealers, not concealers! It is this uninhibited, unhindered vividness ( allowing us to see and not only hear the music ) which gives us more palpable visual \ spatial cues, enabling us to imagine seeing the musician within the recorded space.

The CLXs are not the panacea for everybody's audio "chronic illnesses" but I have found them to offer the most effective natural, holistic cure with the least harmful side-effects! And of course, as always, no-one is obliged to follow this prescription at all. Thank you.

Cheers from Melbourne, Kostas Papazoglou.

PS: Ron, I am certain that I did not tell you anything new and excuse my impertinence.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you for your post. No impertinence taken! ?

I agree with almost every single point you made. I love the transparency and resolution of the CLX Art. I think the CLX is a benchmark in those areas. That is why I have owned and loved ML speakers for almost 20 years.

My oomph point relates to the fact (ML's own spec) that the CLX Art is -3dB at 56Hz. It is amazing in its frequency range of operation but it simply is not a full-range speaker. Benchmark transparency and resolution do not make up for missing SPL in the bass.

 

[audio.bill]

I've also auditioned the CLX Art and find them superb within their range, but I have to agree with Ron that they lack full range bass extension on their own. I can understand how some find the quality and texture of the bass that is reproduced so enjoyable that they may be satisfied with them alone, but they're really designed to be integrated with a quality sub for true full range performance.

 

[microstrip]

Thank you for your post. No impertinence taken! ?

I agree with almost every single point you made. I love the transparency and resolution of the CLX Art. I think the CLX is a benchmark in those areas. That is why I have owned and loved ML speakers for almost 20 years.

My oomph point relates to the fact (ML's own spec) that the CLX Art is -3dB at 56Hz. It is amazing in its frequency range of operation but it simply is not a full-range speaker. Benchmark transparency and resolution do not make up for missing SPL in the bass.

It looks like a great candidate for a subwoofer, as it has an excellent natural rolf-off. One of my problems is that in my room Soundlabs have some excess of bass in the 30-60Hz zone - I have found that in order to integrate a subwoofer I must use an active crossover.

 

[Zero000]

They were designed to make you buy two ML Descent I's with a special CLX setting on the subs.

The bass is really quite articulate on the CLX. At least I think so.

 

[microstrip]

They were designed to make you buy two ML Descent I's with a special CLX setting on the subs.

The bass is really quite articulate on the CLX. At least I think so.

I currently own two ML descent I's - I have listened to them sounding great with Martin Logan hybrid panels, such as Odyssey. But I could not integrate them with Soundlab's.

My dealer refers that the new subwoofers integrate very well with the CLX, but he sold his pair of CLX before I could listen to them with the new subs.

 

[tedtag]

Thanks for this thread RJ and I appreciate your venting about Quads; it has saved me the trouble! But I completely agree. They are totally unreliable and hardly worth the effort, especially with so many good planar speaker choices out there. I have an original pair ESL63's (broken panel just keep for posterity), had 989's (panels went bad and traded them), have a pair of broken 2905's sitting in the corner, and own a pretty new pair of hand made PK Quads that are terrific! The PK Quads are waiting patiently to return to the system to try with a couple of new amplifier options I have purchased.

Currently I'm listening to Maggie 3.7i's with REL G2's crossed at 37hz with Neutrik connectors, driven by a pair of new CAT JL7's; 250w KT150's (not sure exactly about all the specs) and a Legend preamp. I am anxiously considering trying the PK's with the JL7s. The PK's are 5 panels each using ESL63 panels, all re-glued, in metal frames wrapped in walnut, with high quality upgraded electronic parts. The PK's totally stomp all the original Quads I've had when used with my CJ electronics; Premier 8's teflon/KT120 upgrades and GAT2. My problem is that the Maggies sound so good with the CATs I just can't muster the effort to move them out and move in the PK's. I'll do it eventually and I'm betting the sound of the PK Quads with the CAT's will be incredible.

My problem for now is the Maggie/REL setup sounds so good with the CATs that I cannot separate them. By good, I don't mean excellent hifi reproduction of sound, although this system has that in spades. I mean the emotional experience of bonding with the music and yes, the artist. It has become very hard lately to even listen to this system because it is so evocative I can barely make it through a record side without having some sort of emotional melt down. On some records, it is impossible to keep a dry eye, no matter what mood I'm in when I drop that needle. Seriously, I wish everyone could just experience this for a few minutes. There is something about the Maggie/CAT combo that is absolutely magical. I'd bet the same on a Quad/CAT combo and plan to try that soon and report back.

Hey mate, yes that is correct. In the ESL2905 there are 6 panels and these are not cheap. AVR cannot and do not know how to repair these panels. They are more interested in filling their gross margins & pockets, so they simply replace panels, where as John Hall actually repairs panels. He has the original conductive paint, remakes panels to spec and uses a far more stable glue compared to what's coming out of China. His panels are far more stable than the factory ones that he provides a 5 year warranty! And this is the only other reason I kept my Quads.

People who have had just one panel failure have gotten rid of theirs straight away. Unless Quad/ IAG fixes these issues, they are up a **** creek! with a capital "S".

Also, the price they charged me just for a simple Chinese made toy looking mains transformer was $400 AUD! my last repair came to over $700AUD... ouch is not the word.
AVR also charges around $1000+ for just one dam panel! (hence replace 6 and your gross profit for the financial year is met)

Whereas the Martin Logan service here charges that for the ENTIRE panel- can you beat that? Does this even make any sense?

I probably shouldn't even make this public but I feel honest audiophiles and music lovers should get to know this. For a person like myself, who is so passionate about music, looks after the components so well, doesn't even let a hair or dust settle on anything, covers everything at night- I have been totally let down by the whole organisation representing Quads.

 

[Argonaut]

RJ, Keep an eye open for a pair of CLX Anniversaries, they occasionally pop up on the grid, one careful owner.
The solid milled aircraft grade Alu frames allow for near zero panel resonance, better than Neolith in that regard.

My own for your perusal.....

http://s6.postimg.org/n3b7drhgx/image.jpg

I have found the base response of CLX's to be quite room dependant, having measured my own system at 52Hz -4dB, another owner claiming 46Hz or was it 48Hz -6dB.