and a pair of Statements just listed on the 'Gon today for $55K. Really quite a bargain, if one has a very large room to fill.
Martin Logan CLX ART $ 22,950. is it a price reduction?
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
and a pair of Statements just listed on the 'Gon today for $55K. Really quite a bargain, if one has a very large room to fill.
Greg, there was a brand-new in box pair a couple of days ago for just under $14K. A ridiculous price and I was sorely tempted.....
Hi
With what I have experienced in term of using multi-subs to bring the best in a system (see various threads on multiple subwoofers in the Forum). I would see this speaker as a candidate for such an arrangement. CLX plus three subs could be aa killer-word-beater kind of system and this not much over 30 K .. I would like to see a CLX owner experiment with the Geddes multi-Subwoofer method. No ! I don't call 30 K inexpensive, but think about the level of performance one could reach with such a (in audiophile terms) reasonable amount .... While retaining the attributes of the CLX, amongst them its (to me) stunning looks... I am not sure the Statement and its various iterations were ever that great...
With what I have experienced in term of using multi-subs to bring the best in a system (see various threads on multiple subwoofers in the Forum). I would see this speaker as a candidate for such an arrangement. CLX plus three subs could be aa killer-word-beater kind of system and this not much over 30 K .. I would like to see a CLX owner experiment with the Geddes multi-Subwoofer method. No ! I don't call 30 K inexpensive, but think about the level of performance one could reach with such a (in audiophile terms) reasonable amount .... While retaining the attributes of the CLX, amongst them its (to me) stunning looks... I am not sure the Statement and its various iterations were ever that great...
It is apparent that Overture Audio and Martin Logan have kissed and made up. This is good news because it may mean Martin Logan has strengthened its commitment to the high end. I just placed a phone call to Overture and the CLX is in house and available for demo. Call in advance for an appointment.
Last edited:
Greg
The thread is abiut the CLX unfortunately. I could debate the issue with you if others don't mind... THe inertia concept is correct to a certain extent but truly there are a lot of very good subs out there. The integration problem doesn't stem so much from the transducers themselves but from poor set-up. Having a sub match with mains is never simple, never a simple, set once and ofrget undertaking. The requirements are numerous, patience and some understading of the fundamentals is almost mandatory. it requires some serious re-thinking. Cutting the output of any of the speakers low or high is not always the best solution for example ...a , for most audiophile, a counter-intuitive notion.
To summarize and to leave much needed debate space to the beautiful speaker in the OP, It would benefit most if not all system to experiment with at least 2 subs... with variable crossover, phase and level controls. First position the speakers , the main where they image the best, leave them alone. No filter no nothing , simply place them in the room where the sound they project from say 200 Hz upwardis the best interm of balance and staging/imaging.. then gring up the subs carefully move them around a bit, measure as much as you can (do not equalize), meaasure some more leaving the main alone and doing their things... At the end , believe me you will be more than satisfied.. it won't happen overnight, I can tell you ..more like weeks ... then add a third sub ....
In some ways I can now see a system fullu fullrange with the CLX as mains.. I would have used three subs in dissymetric arrangement ... I would not have cared or a descent.. There are out there some very serious subs, somewhat snubbed by audiophile orhtodoxy that are much better than one would think. One of these are the Rythmik Audioline of subs... Serious, very serious, in this audiophile nonsensical type of pricing, downright inexpensive. ANother brand which somes to mind and whose products would rival anything I have heard from more established names in High End is our very own Mark Seaton's Submersive (and other named ) subs. I would not forget Paradigm which I used inmy experiences .. their top fo the line at half the price of the JL Audio is fully competitive with the Gotham ... and if one only wants to experiment , the fun, small, rather potent and very flexible Sunfire True subs is available to make you understand what you have been missing.. I see them floating around for $500-600 on ebay..
All in all people most people have noidea what cleaner and adequate bass brings to music reproduction... Really no idea ... Even things like Baroque Chamber music reproduction is enhanced with good bass, with better bass ... So for prospective owner of the CLX, its reduced bass output should not be a put-off .... Not at all ...
I've just bought a pair of CLX plus 2 Descent i subs. I already own a Velodyne DD15. In the past I've read a lot about the multiple subs approach but I'm now going to implement it for the first time. I fully expect to get the kind of great result that Frantz describes.
That is very interesting! Please keep us posted on your sonic results!
Are you planning to integrate the Velodyne with both Martin-Logan subwoofers?
Are you planning to integrate the Velodyne with both Martin-Logan subwoofers?
Yes, according to Geddes you can even use 3 different subs when doing the multisub thing provided you follow the methodology
G'day mates, thought I'd add 50cts worth just for those who wish to remain pure with their CLX's.
The multi-sub thing / project is not going to improve the original design of the CLX's as it was intended to sound by the design/engineering team at ML.
I also feel that no sub no matter how many you plan on adding will ever match the speed and articulation of the stat panels driven full range.
If subs are to be added, then why purchase such a design? In which case a hybrid, such as the Ren15a or any of the other series would suit most applications where sub-sonic frequency is "lacking".
There is nothing lacking in the bass of the CLX's driven full range with proper amplification.
Another system, which is superb driven full range and again with proper amplification, are the Maggie's MG 3.7i & the MG20 series. More so the latest iteration of that which is the MG20.7, again absolutely nothing lacking in bass. Speaking of which that full range ribbon bass is/ was also delivered in full affect through Apogee's.
Add subs to any of these full range systems and the sonic purity and naturalness of recorded playback is gone.
Another point I would like to add is simply put, by adding subs to such an amazing transducer, you have simply ruined a very fine high grade single malt whiskey, by adding coke to it. Hence, there are obviously those who prefer that extra sugary taste... So be it.
Regardless of what the experts say or intend on achieving, this is to be debated by the original designer of such full range systems. I think they had a sense of achievement with the "Absolute Sound" in mind and not wanting to add artificial sweeteners...
Anyway, enjoy your music if it makes you happy in this fashion.
Cheers RJ
The multi-sub thing / project is not going to improve the original design of the CLX's as it was intended to sound by the design/engineering team at ML.
I also feel that no sub no matter how many you plan on adding will ever match the speed and articulation of the stat panels driven full range.
If subs are to be added, then why purchase such a design? In which case a hybrid, such as the Ren15a or any of the other series would suit most applications where sub-sonic frequency is "lacking".
There is nothing lacking in the bass of the CLX's driven full range with proper amplification.
Another system, which is superb driven full range and again with proper amplification, are the Maggie's MG 3.7i & the MG20 series. More so the latest iteration of that which is the MG20.7, again absolutely nothing lacking in bass. Speaking of which that full range ribbon bass is/ was also delivered in full affect through Apogee's.
Add subs to any of these full range systems and the sonic purity and naturalness of recorded playback is gone.
Another point I would like to add is simply put, by adding subs to such an amazing transducer, you have simply ruined a very fine high grade single malt whiskey, by adding coke to it. Hence, there are obviously those who prefer that extra sugary taste... So be it.
Regardless of what the experts say or intend on achieving, this is to be debated by the original designer of such full range systems. I think they had a sense of achievement with the "Absolute Sound" in mind and not wanting to add artificial sweeteners...
Anyway, enjoy your music if it makes you happy in this fashion.
Cheers RJ
RJ, I'm not being confrontational so please don't take what I am about to say in the wrong way. It's apparent from your comment that you haven't read any of the papers on the research into the way sound waves behave in a "small" room below the Shroeder frequency and why the multi sub approach is the most practical way of addressing the problem. I recommend you do some relevant reading and you will soon understand why no single pair of speakers can solve the problem of room modes.
Hi there iansr,
Yes I did come across this as well as several other articles way back during the days of Bob Carver and Arnie Nudell's Infinity designs. Bob used to claim that his Amazing ribbons, although very transparent and had all the virtues of a superb ribbon transducer, was a bit flawed in the bass region. Then he developed the ribbon array placed on top of a sub and claimed this sorted out the problem. Although it did, I still preferred the carver Amazing full range.
Arnie Nudell's iterations on Infinity's and their servo bass amps with servo controlled drivers proved to be quite successful. However, there were far too many points to connect and interact with, hence music was colored in one form or the other.
I certainly can see the science behind this and certain aspects of bass to room interaction does make sense, no doubt.
It's just that perfection is going to be an endless project and perfection does not exist, there will always be flaws amongst the various parameters involved to achieve that perfect balance.
In my case, since I hardly have time to get a decent listen these days, I just simply power up the system and enjoy whatever music comes through it, flawed or not, it doesn't bother me anymore as long as a sense of balance is achieved...
I figured out that by the time I would probably reach this so called point of perfect sound, my hearing wouldn't be so perfect in time to come!
Not to worry mate, your response is of no offense, in fact none of anyone's responses has offended me ever.
I think it's the other way round, where some of my posts & responses have always seemed to offend...
Cheers mate, and have a good one. Do let us know how it all goes. Wish I could have been there for a listen, perhaps I would have learned a lot more.
Enjoy mate, RJ
Yes I did come across this as well as several other articles way back during the days of Bob Carver and Arnie Nudell's Infinity designs. Bob used to claim that his Amazing ribbons, although very transparent and had all the virtues of a superb ribbon transducer, was a bit flawed in the bass region. Then he developed the ribbon array placed on top of a sub and claimed this sorted out the problem. Although it did, I still preferred the carver Amazing full range.
Arnie Nudell's iterations on Infinity's and their servo bass amps with servo controlled drivers proved to be quite successful. However, there were far too many points to connect and interact with, hence music was colored in one form or the other.
I certainly can see the science behind this and certain aspects of bass to room interaction does make sense, no doubt.
It's just that perfection is going to be an endless project and perfection does not exist, there will always be flaws amongst the various parameters involved to achieve that perfect balance.
In my case, since I hardly have time to get a decent listen these days, I just simply power up the system and enjoy whatever music comes through it, flawed or not, it doesn't bother me anymore as long as a sense of balance is achieved...
I figured out that by the time I would probably reach this so called point of perfect sound, my hearing wouldn't be so perfect in time to come!
Not to worry mate, your response is of no offense, in fact none of anyone's responses has offended me ever.
I think it's the other way round, where some of my posts & responses have always seemed to offend...
Cheers mate, and have a good one. Do let us know how it all goes. Wish I could have been there for a listen, perhaps I would have learned a lot more.
Enjoy mate, RJ
An unfathomable topic
Hello from Melbourne iansr.
Just as non-confrontationally and without any offence intended, you have every right to ride the "Schroeder and Subs" bandwagon, but you still have to deal with the "Grey Zone\Transition Zone", NOT to mention the most critical zone of frequencies between the routed frequency to the subs (how low \ how high ) and the Schroeder frequency, which in a small room may well be higher than 200 Hz. Actually, the Davis Frequency will most likely be more appropriate in a small room (up to 500 Hz), always remembering that NO room magically behaves differently above a threshold of frequencies.
There are no perfect acoustical solutions, regardless of the acoustical model that we seek to design in our typical listening rooms. There are so many complexities \ variables ( speaker type\radiation behaviour \ placement\ impedance, room dimensions \ shape \ absorption properties, etc.) chaotically creating spectral and temporal \ spatial problematic zones, that should prevent an astute, circumspect (and why not self-deprecating) audiophile advancing prescriptive \ dogmatic "solutions". I somehow sensed this in your post and since I have an ill-disposition to prescriptions, I felt compelled to respond and express some hopefully pertinent views, in the name of mutual understanding of this unfathomable and complicated topic, even though I had vowed not to participate on this forum any more as a writer.
I have no objection with anybody's approach on this or any other topic of our hobby. Use any number of subs to one's heart's content and deal with the associated issues as one pleases. Deal with the non-linearities and box bass output (or any other frequency) as one pleases, as long as one acknowledges and accepts that distortion, defined as the difference between the input signal and its output counterpart (in the form of enhancements and other colourations) are what one prefers and is comfortable with. These, of course, will vary from speaker to speaker and room to room but it will, nevertheless, be a falsification ( relative to the quality level of the playback system ) of the recorded signal.
In my medium-sized room (130 cubic meters ) and the CLXs optimally placed, the acoustic model that I have created is totally compatible with my notions \ values \ preferences of reproduced music, as shaped by my playing and recording passions. I have tailored the strength\gain, arrival times and spatial\temporal dispersion of reflections to create a relatively well-behaved, semi-diffuse sound field, rendering realistic imaging (not etched) and intelligibility of all elements comprising the soundstage.
The problematic frequency region (under the Schroeder Frequency) and the Transition Zone do not appear to be an audible issue. Bass is smooth, defined, articulate, fast, agile and I can walk around the room with no obvious modal issues and SPLs being uniform throughout the room, in front of the speakers ( the CLXs being line-sources). Once again, let us remember the aphorism: no room is perfect!
I hope that your acoustical model reflects and fulfils your notions \ preferences of reproduced music. My comments, non-prescriptive as they are, relate to my types of music at quite high SPLs ( peaks of 105-108 dB, C-weighted, Fast at 3 meters with the SPLnFFT app.
I listen always learning. Cheers, Kostas Papazoglou.
Hello from Melbourne iansr.
Just as non-confrontationally and without any offence intended, you have every right to ride the "Schroeder and Subs" bandwagon, but you still have to deal with the "Grey Zone\Transition Zone", NOT to mention the most critical zone of frequencies between the routed frequency to the subs (how low \ how high ) and the Schroeder frequency, which in a small room may well be higher than 200 Hz. Actually, the Davis Frequency will most likely be more appropriate in a small room (up to 500 Hz), always remembering that NO room magically behaves differently above a threshold of frequencies.
There are no perfect acoustical solutions, regardless of the acoustical model that we seek to design in our typical listening rooms. There are so many complexities \ variables ( speaker type\radiation behaviour \ placement\ impedance, room dimensions \ shape \ absorption properties, etc.) chaotically creating spectral and temporal \ spatial problematic zones, that should prevent an astute, circumspect (and why not self-deprecating) audiophile advancing prescriptive \ dogmatic "solutions". I somehow sensed this in your post and since I have an ill-disposition to prescriptions, I felt compelled to respond and express some hopefully pertinent views, in the name of mutual understanding of this unfathomable and complicated topic, even though I had vowed not to participate on this forum any more as a writer.
I have no objection with anybody's approach on this or any other topic of our hobby. Use any number of subs to one's heart's content and deal with the associated issues as one pleases. Deal with the non-linearities and box bass output (or any other frequency) as one pleases, as long as one acknowledges and accepts that distortion, defined as the difference between the input signal and its output counterpart (in the form of enhancements and other colourations) are what one prefers and is comfortable with. These, of course, will vary from speaker to speaker and room to room but it will, nevertheless, be a falsification ( relative to the quality level of the playback system ) of the recorded signal.
In my medium-sized room (130 cubic meters ) and the CLXs optimally placed, the acoustic model that I have created is totally compatible with my notions \ values \ preferences of reproduced music, as shaped by my playing and recording passions. I have tailored the strength\gain, arrival times and spatial\temporal dispersion of reflections to create a relatively well-behaved, semi-diffuse sound field, rendering realistic imaging (not etched) and intelligibility of all elements comprising the soundstage.
The problematic frequency region (under the Schroeder Frequency) and the Transition Zone do not appear to be an audible issue. Bass is smooth, defined, articulate, fast, agile and I can walk around the room with no obvious modal issues and SPLs being uniform throughout the room, in front of the speakers ( the CLXs being line-sources). Once again, let us remember the aphorism: no room is perfect!
I hope that your acoustical model reflects and fulfils your notions \ preferences of reproduced music. My comments, non-prescriptive as they are, relate to my types of music at quite high SPLs ( peaks of 105-108 dB, C-weighted, Fast at 3 meters with the SPLnFFT app.
I listen always learning. Cheers, Kostas Papazoglou.
Last edited:
Similar threads
