Bring Back the CLS
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
Heard this with the Kinergistic (?) woofer tower that was made specifically IIRC for the CLS.. Very good sounding for me then things may have changed since 
. I would cross it even higher 80 Hz would make a lot of a difference for the CLS. They may need to widen the listening windows as well as tame up the brightness and threadbare sonic signature of the original. Interesting idea.. Why haven't they?
. I would cross it even higher 80 Hz would make a lot of a difference for the CLS. They may need to widen the listening windows as well as tame up the brightness and threadbare sonic signature of the original. Interesting idea.. Why haven't they?
Thank you for the information. I think the CLX isdiffers from the CLS because it is a two way design croossing over at 350HZ.The CLS is a full range driver.
With that design brief are you sure you would not miss dynamics, impact and oomph in the 80 Hz to 200 Hz (or in the 80 Hz to 400 Hz) range?
(I'm being somewhat rhetorical because that is my personal issue with that design brief. I wish it weren't so, but it is. This is why I find the Neolith attractive.)
Greg
I understand the Love and everything but AUthorty will never be something one associates with CLS with subs and esecially without.. There is from the CLS a lack of information in the important mid-bass region from <80 to 400 Hz it is lean and however much you move it around it would sound lean putting the emphasis on the lower treble on a psycho-acouystic level .. I had it and did everything possible to bring back these .. to no avail it is simply not there... SO we may bneed to have a larger radiating surface to bring some oomph in the critical 80 to 400 .. subwoofers crossed in under 80 Hz will not help in this department ... So it could be a super CLS with a larger diaphragm ... for those frequencies .. this seems to be the recipe for the CLX
I understand the Love and everything but AUthorty will never be something one associates with CLS with subs and esecially without.. There is from the CLS a lack of information in the important mid-bass region from <80 to 400 Hz it is lean and however much you move it around it would sound lean putting the emphasis on the lower treble on a psycho-acouystic level .. I had it and did everything possible to bring back these .. to no avail it is simply not there... SO we may bneed to have a larger radiating surface to bring some oomph in the critical 80 to 400 .. subwoofers crossed in under 80 Hz will not help in this department ... So it could be a super CLS with a larger diaphragm ... for those frequencies .. this seems to be the recipe for the CLX
I, obviously, agree with Frantz. More importantly, ML agrees with Frantz; hence ML's focus on the 60 Hz to 400 Hz range with the Neolith and the newer hybrids.
I absolutely accept that as your impression. I promise that when I write (or say) "personal preference" I am not using it as code for something negative or sarcastic.
I truly think much of this hobby is subjective and is personal preference. I write (and say) frequently that this or that is my own personal preference.
It certainly shouldn't be, since listening is subjective by nature. While objective measurements can give you an indication of certain technical aspects that a system may have, the best systems are those that bring you an emotional connection to the music. I don't know of any objective measurements that can reflect a piece of gear's ability to achieve that goal.
Has anyone compared the CLS/CLX to the big Soundlabs? I think those are the only "mainstream" full-range ESL competition? Quads are not really full-range, Sanders are hybrids, as is the rest of the ML line. IIRC the original Monolith was a hybrid, and that was ML's genesis -- blending ESL panels with a dynamic woofer.
Alright Don, mea culpa. Full range to me means top to body without a crossover. I concede Soundlab goes deeper.
Gregadd
What is clear is that one driver can't do all that. Full range seems to equate different drivers: You need at least two and more often 3: .. One small for the highs .. one medium for the ... mids, and one large for the lows... You know, Physics and all that.
What is clear is that one driver can't do all that. Full range seems to equate different drivers: You need at least two and more often 3: .. One small for the highs .. one medium for the ... mids
, and one large for the lows... You know, Physics and all that.Multiple drivers bring in their own set of problems. Lack of Coherence is at the top of the list. Certainly bass requires movement of substantial amounts of air. I think CLS suffered from amplifiers and preamp designed for dynamic speakers. For example switching from the CJ P V 5 to the ARC SP9 was quite a revelation. Real bass is tight and coherent. Dynamic go low but they are boomy and sluggish.
As for what ML knows there is pre and post Gayle Sanders. Gayle abandoned the CLS in favor of the Sequel. The Monolith never had the success of the CLS. It never had the CLS coherence.
With amplification like the ARC SP9 and VTL the CLS was capable of excellent bass. It still only went so low.
As for what ML knows there is pre and post Gayle Sanders. Gayle abandoned the CLS in favor of the Sequel. The Monolith never had the success of the CLS. It never had the CLS coherence.
With amplification like the ARC SP9 and VTL the CLS was capable of excellent bass. It still only went so low.
Deeper, maybe, but "better"? I have not been a fan of the big Soundlabs, as I have stated before, and am really curious what you and others think of them today. Last time I brought it up, I was dismissed because I have not heard Soundlab in many years (still true, no dealers around). Nor have I spent any time recently with ML speakers, although the little I have indicated (to me and perhaps nobody else) that the issues they (at least that I felt they) had ten-plus years ago integrating the woofer and panels had been much improved. Still think they cross a little high, but years ago I thought the integration was really poor and it seems much better today. Probably just me. One reason I like Magnepan is they generally provide a more seamless image to me from top to bottom than most of the ESLs I have heard. In any event, the call for a return of the CLS begs (to me anyway) the comparison to Soundlab designs, and I am curious.
Frantz, I do not think the multiple drivers issue is cut and dry. Too many variables at play, and as Gregg said they do have their own set of problems. It's all a compromise among a myriad of design trades, natch.
Similar threads
