I am quite happy to roll off the bottom to subs for me what matters more is the mid bass for baritone chest, tympani impact, tuba trombone, etc. So the 55ish Hz with good integration to subs should not be a worrying factor. People will have to decide really on the panel bass slam impact
The marvellous Martin Logan CLX ART – is definitely a work of “ART”
- Thread starter Big Dog RJ
- Start date
Both myself and a friend with very similar Pre - Amp - Transducer configs have been more that impressed with the way CLX's portray natural base, having moved from 150 Watts KT120 per to 250 Watts KT150 per.
Althought I will surely agree that the ML's are optically more transparent, I am not so sure about the sonical transparency in an absolute way. IMHO the Martin Logan's more apparent immediate transparency is in the long term less natural than the Quad's one and the ML does not show as many real details as the Quad - it highlights some detail at the expense of other. For example in the strings, the Quad allows you to easily get more the fine nuances of each instrument or section, something I miss in the ML or even in the Soundlab's.
Yes, I know that "transparency" is a subjective and disputed word in audiophile language!
Althought I will surely agree that the ML's are optically more transparent, I am not so sure about the sonical transparency in an absolute way. IMHO the Martin Logan's more apparent immediate transparency is in the long term less natural than the Quad's one and the ML does not show as many real details as the Quad - it highlights some detail at the expense of other. For example in the strings, the Quad allows you to easily get more the fine nuances of each instrument, something I miss in the ML or even in the Soundlab's.
Yes, I know that "transparency" is a subjective and disputed word in audiophile language!
Sorry micro, I have to disagree with you there, I have run every model of quad's, including 2912's and the only model that I recognise as comparable, more impressive even in midrange nuance than the CLX are my pair of carefully handled original panel 57's , no other Quad model comes close to CLX IMHO.
The nicest things in audio forums is that we disagree a lot, but I think that the ESL63 is even more detailed and nuanced than the ESL57, as its details extends coherently to almost fullrange.
I have owned the the ESL 57 and it has a particular sound "aura" in the midrange, specially when stacked, but lacks detail when asked to more complex music.
IMHO the ESL63 needs particular amplifiers to sound at its best - OTLs and some SS amplifiers, such as Electrocompaniet made it shine. Most SS amplifiers made it sound uninteresting. Many tube amplifiers, such as cj and ARC also sound quite decent with it.
One of the best systems I have heard in a normal size room is a quad MCH. Two 2905, and one 2805 in the centre. Two active ATC at the back. Oppo player, denon processor, modded musical fidelity amps.
Could have sat there watching and listening to Carmen and Mahler forever. It lacked what quads lack, the bass and dynamics, but the tonal realism, imaging, concert hall feeling was excellent. The owner was a retired pensioner strapped for cash, but used to do 3 concerts a week, and had put up an amazing, relatively low cost system
Could have sat there watching and listening to Carmen and Mahler forever. It lacked what quads lack, the bass and dynamics, but the tonal realism, imaging, concert hall feeling was excellent. The owner was a retired pensioner strapped for cash, but used to do 3 concerts a week, and had put up an amazing, relatively low cost system
I have once tried in a previous room four ESL63's in L arrangement as used in the SME listening room. The most believable soundstage I have ever felt with chamber music, being fed by a Forsell CD combo at that time. If my room had an extra 7 feet wideness my future would be simple - I even got the detailed plans to modify the ESL63 from SME!
Last edited:
I have owned several of them long ago - a good friend was a friend of Per Abrahamsen. They are still a mystery for me. Their sound quality depends too much on the whole system and small details. I have listened to an old AW250 it in a friend Soundlab's in an attic sounding exceptional - it sounded like Leonard Cohen and Susanne Vega were singing in the room. Be careful - it can sound great with Apogees.
Great pairing with the SP8 and SP10 preamplifiers - I disliked their amplifiers. In the wrong system they can sound lifeless and thin.
My concern is that I can not fully appreciate midrange without matching well integrated treble. The 57 was lovely, particularly with ECM recordings, but was too incomplete for me.
A friend assembled the HQD, crossing the ESL57 to the Decca ribbon tweeter at 7 KHz- somewhat better, but not perfect.
Ron, a final word not to coerce but rather amplify and complete my own previous comments. Consider the frequency and dynamic range of the instruments prevalent in the types of music that you listen to and apply qualitative criteria: articulation\diction, definition\clarity, naturalness\palpability. Personally, a -6db at 44 Hz in SPL is not a compromise, given the quality of the upper sub-bass ( sub-bass being up to 60 Hz ). Take the standard 4-string double bass and its lowest open string. How often do we hear an open E1 string at 41 Hz! SPLs are merely levels of loudness. Timbral integrity, is for me, far more important.
Listen critically, for example, to Ray Brown's bass ( plucked or bowed ) and compare the articulation and diction of this bass on CLXs with the diffused, cavernous, amorphous bass often rendered by many other speakers ( sub-woofer assisted or not ). It was only last week that I witnessed a presentation of a horn-loaded system with an 18" woofer PLUS a sub-woofer. It was, I must confess, the perfect megaphonic STAGE speaker system!
Within the context of a typical room geometry ( appropriate speaker placement from front wall and first reflection points, seating position, proximity of boundaries to speakers and seating position, room modes, comb filtering and so on ), further complications should be avoided by desiring increased sub-bass SPLs. As much as I love sounds, I really don't want thunder and seismic eruptions in my 53 square meter room!
Finally, it all depends on one's personal judgement, definition, priorities and appreciation of what good and proper bass is. I do not find the CLXs a compromise at all.Most of the bass below 60 Hz is more than covered by them.
Cheers, Kostas Papazoglou.
Listen critically, for example, to Ray Brown's bass ( plucked or bowed ) and compare the articulation and diction of this bass on CLXs with the diffused, cavernous, amorphous bass often rendered by many other speakers ( sub-woofer assisted or not ). It was only last week that I witnessed a presentation of a horn-loaded system with an 18" woofer PLUS a sub-woofer. It was, I must confess, the perfect megaphonic STAGE speaker system!
Within the context of a typical room geometry ( appropriate speaker placement from front wall and first reflection points, seating position, proximity of boundaries to speakers and seating position, room modes, comb filtering and so on ), further complications should be avoided by desiring increased sub-bass SPLs. As much as I love sounds, I really don't want thunder and seismic eruptions in my 53 square meter room!
Finally, it all depends on one's personal judgement, definition, priorities and appreciation of what good and proper bass is. I do not find the CLXs a compromise at all.Most of the bass below 60 Hz is more than covered by them.
Cheers, Kostas Papazoglou.
Good morning Micro. I noticed you have a pair of Soundlabs, and being mostly a planar speaker guy, I've always been fascinated by Soundlabs but have never heard a pair. Any chance you could comment on how they perform compared to other planar speakers you have listened to? In particular, Quads, Maggies, and ML's? In the past I've made some efforts to locate a dealer or even an individual who had a well set up Soundlabs system, but its not that easy in the states from my experience, without traveling to their factory. Thanks.
microstrip
I am with you there. Often we come to be very nostalgic about a product which does one thing particularly well but .. just one thing. And to me that is the best way to define non-stacked ESL57, they had a great midrange and not much else. They were incomplete speakers, stacked and properly so , the combination is better .. Back in the days I dreamed about the HQD somewhat better is the best way to put this combo... but feel the HQDs have been surpassed by various present-day speakers.
I want to listen to Wayne Piquets Quad restores, available in Florida
Check his photo gallery
http://www.quadsunlimited.us/#/photo-gallery/4534267353
Check his photo gallery
http://www.quadsunlimited.us/#/photo-gallery/4534267353
Soundlabs are physically dipolar and subjectively bipolar speakers - most people who listened to them will say they sound the best or miserable. In non optimum conditions they can sound aggressive, colored and even edgy, with a small central image. When optimally set, with the proper equipment, they are full bodied, seamless, and image like few other speakers, with a lifelike layering and a very large, but realistic soundstage. Fantastic transients in the bass - you fell the attack of the bass, something that most box speakers. They are so fast elsewhere that sometimes that make you close your eyes.
As all Mylar diaphragm panel speakers they have the typical rustling coloration of films, even more than the ESL63 - perhaps at the same level as the CLS or CLX, less than Maggie's. However proper choice of equipment and setup can eliminate it to non perceptible levels.
They lack the pin point imaging of many modern box speakers - they are row H, not row A speakers, as people often say. They are very clean - full bodied, but not bloated.
Curiously the most astonishing sounds I listened from Soundlabs were in unexpected very different conditions - LP with big Atmasphere's, CD with Jeff Rowlands, CD with Electrocompaniet. I have successfully used them with Atmasphere, VTL's, ARC and currently conrad johnson monoblocks. I can imagine that they would be a great match with the big DartZeel's - they sound really beautiful with the NH108b, but would need more power and slam in the bass - latest versions of Soundlab's can play loud, except in the low bass zone.
Just to end they are very, very sensitive to speaker and power cables and power quality. Probably their industrial ultrasonic high voltage box generates a lot of RF noise that goes back in the mains.
In spite of what we have experienced long ago, I feel that a fine tuned HQD system using SOTA crossovers and current electronics could be a great system, comparable with current best systems. Can you imagine a JQD (JLAudio-Quad-Decca)?
Anyway, fortunately it is collection only and I live far from UK - otherwise I could not resist getting this mint pair of working Quad ESL57 for GBP495 ...
Attachments
-
a1.jpg
Here's a pic of what I heard. Actually, it was quite interesting in that it has a ribbon tweeter bolted on the top. I am not sure what frequency it cuts in at. So it was a ribbon/stat hybrid in effect.
It sounded glorious, with one caveat. And that was a big caveat. As you changed position, the frequency response altered. But it was bizarre, it would recover, then dip, then recover, then dip, over distances of a few inches as you walked across the room laterally.
No real bass, but fantastic nonetheless, despite the above imperfection. If you sat still in the right place, all was fine.
Attachments
-
SDC12812.jpg
Er.. this isn't quite right. Below is a temporal fast Fourier transform I took of me playing an acoustic guitar. The vertical bars are the guitar chords (Karma Police by Radiohead I think if I remember correctly).
The level of white represents the level of energy the guitar is producing. The y scale is 0 to 20KHz. Just LOOK at the amount of LF the humble acoustic (Gibson SJ200 Custom Cutaway) is producing! I was amazed when I saw it. It is all body resonance from the acoustic's body. A double bass is huge and will produce FAR MORE.
The bottom pic is simply a zoom in to show the bass region. The y scale is 0 to 4K.
Attachments
-
guitarall.jpg -
guitarlow.jpg
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |