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

[microstrip]

He was a huge CJ premier 350 fan on CLX for a good while if I remember correctly. Lost track of him since he left MLOC and don't read the mag.

He just published an enthusiastic review of the new Sonus Faber Il Cremonese using the Pass XS300. Probably he will review it and compare it with the Burmester 911 mk3.

 

[bonzo75]

One key difference between electrostatics and magnetic planars is the difference between the variation of the electrical and the magnetic field - the electric field is uniform and the magnetic field of of dipoles is not exactly uniform, particularly if the magnets are placed on only one side. This results in a different type of sound - people used to pure electrostatic as me would considered it colored.

Although I have no experience with modern Apogee rebuilts, from my experience with old types I would say that Apogees had fantastic slam and good bass extension, but no way the capability of "playing tunes in the bass" or recreating the movement of air in a large auditorium the way the Infinity Beta did.

BTW, I am only addressing magnetostatic Apogees - not pure ribbons.

Graz's bass panels are known to be much better than originals. In fact it's with his bass panels where the difference is. A cone is not capable of creating as much air movement as an Apogee. This is only if Apogee is well set up though. This is because 7 ft long, 3 ft wide panels create a top to bottom, side to side wall that moves the air towards the listener while simultaneously causing decay. Bass on cones is usually hit on a dime, which is not realistic bass. Bass in a concert hall, of tympanis and bass drums, exists in space, in a vertical plane, slammed towards the audience with a decay. Perfectly done by the vertical plane created by the Apogees. Ron and I both found Apogees to be the best speaker in the 80hz to 250hz range (roughly).

I don't know Infinity Betas. I am sure you will find some favorable comments on Betas compared to Apogees. A quick search also shows the other way comments as on the Gon below:

"About 5 years ago a friend had both a set of Infinity IRS Beta's and a set of Apogee Diva's. This Diva's killed the IRS Beta's. It was not even close. Perhaps the other componets up stream could have been a better match with the Apogee's. What I observed was that the Diva's were way more coherent. The bass timing was way off on the IRS compared to the Diva's. No matter where we moved the bass cabinets or the ribbons on the IRS we could not get the same performance as we did with the Diva's. The midrange and the highs were much better with the Diva's as well. the timing of the driver complement on the apogee was far superior. In addition the control module for the IRS also induced alot of noise into the other componets. The IRS Beta's are a fun speaker to listen to but the Diva's are far better."

"I know of a friend of a friend that picked up a pair of Divas while owning the Betas, and the Betas went up for sale afterward. As I understand, it wasn't a completely obvious decision, but unfortunately I don't know the particulars that swayed him. If I can find out more, I'll post again.

As you may already know, the Divas will have somewhat faster bass, but you'll have the dipole cancellation that should probably make for some unevenness in the response down there, while the Betas will be very flat except for any room modes that both speakers will exhibit."

I also do agree that Justin's older Apogees, I never found tuneful

 

[Zero000]

The bass performance depends on:

1) Very accurate magnet alignment.
2) Field strength.
3) Panel/magnet spacing.
4) Tuning (panel tension).
5) The foil itself and alignment of that with the magnet spacing.
6) The adhesives used.
7) The suspension mechanism.
8) Frame rigidity.

Given good scores on 1 to 7, 8 is super important.

Bass is tighter again with spikes, which I hadn't put in when I shot the video. So the speaker is moving on the carpet, which is thick pile. Not good.

Spikes in now

 

[bonzo75]

Most of those factors Justin mentions will be covered by very good restorers, hence a restore.

Regarding color and lack of color, the density of the ribbon and the full bodiness in the baritone chest is much more real. Stats and transparent and real within a certain midrange. And with some SS actually sound plastic. It requires good set up to get a real tone and body in them too

 

[Zero000]

To be fair you have to go above a standard restoration and use far better that original bits to get great performance.

You really want to do what Graz has done and make the speaker from super rigid materials and get wood out of the equation IMHO. That's expensive, though. More than I am prepared to pay.

 

[microstrip]

Graz's bass panels are known to be much better than originals. In fact it's with his bass panels where the difference is. A cone is not capable of creating as much air movement as an Apogee. This is only if Apogee is well set up though. This is because 7 ft long, 3 ft wide panels create a top to bottom, side to side wall that moves the air towards the listener while simultaneously causing decay. Bass on cones is usually hit on a dime, which is not realistic bass. Bass in a concert hall, of tympanis and bass drums, exists in space, in a vertical plane, slammed towards the audience with a decay. Perfectly done by the vertical plane created by the Apogees. Ron and I both found Apogees to be the best speaker in the 80hz to 250hz range (roughly).

I don't know Infinity Betas. I am sure you will find some favorable comments on Betas compared to Apogees. A quick search also shows the other way comments as on the Gon below:

"About 5 years ago a friend had both a set of Infinity IRS Beta's and a set of Apogee Diva's. This Diva's killed the IRS Beta's. It was not even close. Perhaps the other componets up stream could have been a better match with the Apogee's. What I observed was that the Diva's were way more coherent. The bass timing was way off on the IRS compared to the Diva's. No matter where we moved the bass cabinets or the ribbons on the IRS we could not get the same performance as we did with the Diva's. The midrange and the highs were much better with the Diva's as well. the timing of the driver complement on the apogee was far superior. In addition the control module for the IRS also induced alot of noise into the other componets. The IRS Beta's are a fun speaker to listen to but the Diva's are far better."

"I know of a friend of a friend that picked up a pair of Divas while owning the Betas, and the Betas went up for sale afterward. As I understand, it wasn't a completely obvious decision, but unfortunately I don't know the particulars that swayed him. If I can find out more, I'll post again.

As you may already know, the Divas will have somewhat faster bass, but you'll have the dipole cancellation that should probably make for some unevenness in the response down there, while the Betas will be very flat except for any room modes that both speakers will exhibit."

I also do agree that Justin's older Apogees, I never found tuneful

IMHO googling to find people who support our arguments can be gratifying but unless it is exceptionally well grounded and detailed does not add value to debates, particularly when they just refer it was much better and I have sold something and I am in love with the replacement. I am much more interested in your direct opinion and arguments.

The argument of the moving more air because of the larger surface is simplistic and misleading - you are moving much more air, but front wall can be sending as much air in opposite phase that cancels the bass. And yes, over 80 Hz you are in the micro-monitor zone - are you sure you wanted to refer just to this zone?

Columnar bass can have real vantages due to progressive variation of distance of source from the floor/ceiling boundary - both for panels or box speakers. Not because it mimics real auditoriums. We can not compare delays and decays in very large auditoriums with delays and decays in our rooms!

BTW1 - some one who acknowledges that "In addition the control module for the IRS also induced a lot of noise into the other componets" only shows he had no ability to set such a complex system. I have experience with two pairs of Beta's and they did not induce any noise when the whole system was properly connected and grounded.

BTW2, the Soundlab A1's are 0dB at 35Hz in my room - but from there on they fall like a cliff due to cancellation.

 

[bonzo75]

IMHO googling to find people who support our arguments can be gratifying but unless it is exceptionally well grounded and detailed does not add value to debates, particularly when they just refer it was much better and I have sold something and I am in love with the replacement. I am much more interested in your direct opinion and arguments.

The argument of the moving more air because of the larger surface is simplistic and misleading - you are moving much more air, but front wall can be sending as much air in opposite phase that cancels the bass. And yes, over 80 Hz you are in the micro-monitor zone - are you sure you wanted to refer just to this zone?

Columnar bass can have real vantages due to progressive variation of distance of source from the floor/ceiling boundary - both for panels or box speakers. Not because it mimics real auditoriums. We can not compare delays and decays in very large auditoriums with delays and decays in our rooms!

BTW1 - some one who acknowledges that "In addition the control module for the IRS also induced a lot of noise into the other componets" only shows he had no ability to set such a complex system. I have experience with two pairs of Beta's and they did not induce any noise when the whole system was properly connected and grounded.

BTW2, the Soundlab A1's are 0dB at 35Hz in my room - but from there on they fall like a cliff due to cancellation.

Again, I give my own examples, then share other examples for a speaker that I do not know about.

I mentioned 80Hz specifically, because a lot of mid bass is very poorly integrated in most speakers where bottom bass might be powerful. There is leanness and lack of integration in that region, and I find that region more crucial, because you cannot do anything about it once you have the speaker. With below 80 Hz, you have a choice to stay with your speaker's bass, or cross it over to subs. I would stay with Apogee bass all the way down. Lissnr has REL crossing over on Duettas at 24 Hz. Henk had Velodynes on FRs at 50. Another who got Henk's FRs does not have any. Marty had woofers on his pipedreams at 80. The 80 to 200 range is far more crucial as the only option to correct it once you have settled with your demo is to sell the speakers off.

 

[microstrip]

The bass performance depends on:

1) Very accurate magnet alignment.
2) Field strength.
3) Panel/magnet spacing.
4) Tuning (panel tension).
5) The foil itself and alignment of that with the magnet spacing.
6) The adhesives used.
7) The suspension mechanism.
8) Frame rigidity.

Given good scores on 1 to 7, 8 is super important.

Bass is tighter again with spikes, which I hadn't put in when I shot the video. So the speaker is moving on the carpet, which is thick pile. Not good.

Spikes in now

Surely. But you should also add the magnets magnetization uniformity - they should all have the same value - something that can not be taken for granted.

 

[Zero000]

Surely. But you should also add the magnets magnetization uniformity - they should all have the same value - something that can not be taken for granted.

Yup. And other factors.

The panel is plus/minus 0DB at 21Hz in that room. The bass panels go lower than Ron heard in the Grand.

They are SPL constrained compared to cones. But the LF articulation is superior. Notice cancellation is not being used as an excuse for lacking LF extension here.

 

[Argonaut]

I have not tried CLX's on 16 Ohm taps, only 4 & 8 preferring 8 Ohm. What amps are you running them on Harlequin?

Did you try the 16 Ohm tap Brad?

 

[brad225]

I have not, but based on the results of other recommendations you have made, I will give it a go this afternoon.

Thanks

 

[Argonaut]

I have not, but based on the results of other recommendations you have made, I will give it a go this afternoon.

Thanks

Oh! no pressure then Brad lol

For my part I rather like that particular combination with the genre type I mentioned. I like to create, and to be enveloped within, a huge sphere of Sound, literally present at that Jazz club performance with audible cues all around me , recording dependant of course.

 

[brad225]

That is interesting description.

When someone is listening to music in my room, often they will ask how I came upon the sound I have. My description is that I want to be about 5 tables back from the band in a Jazz Club. Close enough to have the, you are there feeling, but far enough away so the voices and instruments develop into one cohesive but separate sounds. Not 1 or 2 loud parts with the rest muffled in the back ground.

 

[Argonaut]

That is interesting description.

When someone is listening to music in my room, often they will ask how I came upon the sound I have. My description is that I want to be about 5 tables back from the band in a Jazz Club. Close enough to have the, you are there feeling, but far enough away so the voices and instruments develop into one cohesive but separate sounds. Not 1 or 2 loud parts with the rest muffled in the back ground.

I utilize a combination of Foo Zilplex room correction and Foo Shun Mook's that enables me to really crank the Ref10 up to 96 o n the Richter scale, a spooky effect with the right recordings.

 

[KostasP.]

Very strange post.

All I have done is said I think it is a great speaker, within the constraints of a full range stat design.

The two other things I have done is complain about the Pass Labs specification, as it quite plainly isn't true. Also, I have tried to prove to you that it doesn't do low bass and it will not capture the true nature of many instruments because it cannot reproduce the LF content. Why do you think they sell matching subs?

Bear in mind you are talking to someone who used MLs for 17 years. But that doesn't stop facts from being facts.

Read my impressions of the speaker here.

User211, what actually remains strange is your refusal to respond specifically to my posts . Once again it is your prerogative but a reflection and a blemish on your credibility. Harlequin's posts ( #111, #114 ), quoting Noel Kenwood's and Jeff Dorgay's findings\ measurements and interpretations collectively vindicate my own experiences as recounted in my posts.

As for this post. Take up your complaint directly with Pass Labs. Your Fourier Transform graphs did not "prove" anything and you failed to respond to my points raised in relation to these graphs. And as for ..." it doesn't do low bass and it will not capture the true nature of many instruments because it will not reproduce the LF content", for the very last time: identify the actual RECOREDED bass content (frequency and dB level ), NOT what you hear through subwoofers and then judge. Secondly, what are these ...MANY instruments that the CLXs cannot reproduce? In your previous posts, you were mentioning the double bass as one such instrument. Despite my very specific examples and facts about this instrument, you conveniently chose not to respond.

I do not masochistically listen to below 40 Hertz test tones nor to solos of pipe organ or piano confined to their lowest octaves. For me ( and everyone who has listened to them ), the QUALITY of the bass content - detail, definition, articulation, attack, agility and integration \ balance with the other spectrum ), constitutes one of their many attributes.

As for ML selling subs, I suggest that one reason may be to satisfy the "bass freaks" ( akin to "bass heads" preferring Beats cans or " drums" should I say ). Many crave extra SUB-produced ( pun intended! ) bass, in ADDITION to the recorded level of bass. This is, once again, their prerogative and I totally respect their preferences. If people wish to use ML subwoofers with CLXs, they can. It is NOT a prerequisite. A further suggestion may be audio-culturally related. I don't, for a minute, profess to be an audio Freud but it just may have something to do with "obsessive subwoofer behaviour". After all, we all have our own FETISHES!.

Finally, you had been a ML owner but, conveniently, you don't mention which model. I doubt that you've lived with the CLXs. And yes, I did read your impressions of the CLXs, not as an owner but a HI-FI show attendant, admitting that you were ..." elated because the CLX is fantastic" and that ... "because the CLX is a rich sounding speaker, you don't instantly think ( that ) they need a sub. They sound full and balanced. But when you think about it ( and here your Freudian subwoofer SUB- conscience takes over ) you realise that you aren't hearing any truly deep bass". Oh really! The expectations! The insecurity! And where has Freud hidden this truly deep bass?,,,,,,In the subwoofers!

Enjoy your system and your chosen music to their fullest and let us remind ourselves that intelligent people discuss, NOT argue! Very difficult to discuss in fora as our posts are invariably monologues.
Kind regards, Kostas.

PS: This will hopefully be my last post on this topic, as the "horse" has been flogged to death multiple times and the "inner sanctum" has highjacked it with its own Apogee agenda. The poor CLXs were just the excuse.

 

[Big Dog RJ]

Hey Kostas, thanks for your last post. It was extremely educational and certainly makes a lot of valid points, including some major food for thought, which I hope the right mind set would take well and be willing to learn.

back in the hay day, as I grew up around high-end audio and music (mom was a jazz pianist, dad played drums, bro was a baritone maestro, and humble me was in the jazz miniband playng tuba), not only does music run through our family but REAL music in its most natural form.

Therefore, when it came to hifi, either of us new straight away what could be produced naturally vs artificial and excessive. hence the reason why pops still thinks his old (repaired multiple times) Diva's were the ultimate. and so yes perhaps they were...

another reason why I'm holding onto my Quads because of this natural tone. apart from the reliability factor, it does have its flaws of dynamic limits, power constraints and so... but what it can do is reproduce music in its most natural form, and now with the new Cav45, the musicality is superb!

having said that, taking this performance of naturalness of reproduction of every musical nuance to celestial heights, my reference point will remain with the CLX'S because to me whatever I will use up the chain, perhaps the Ethos or the new Renaissance, they will not be a match when it comes to music being reproduced on a full range stat.

speaker systems are so very personal that many spend thousands of dollars just to achieve a spec! others who I happen to know (in a different country) buy the biggest or most expensive systems for display purposes and to proclaim there expensiveness... Therefore, surely these are supposed to be the best sounding...

then there are those who live around actual music having played an instrument whiles growing up and learning about the absolute sound without the artificial add ons.

to me, these people have been the most enjoyable to meet in person and learn from because you do actually learn a great deal from them. Not just the audio system but also their culture and way of life, and how they achieved their lifestyles by adding the passion of music! and I'll tell you what, some of them have the most simplest of systems I have ever seen and heard and they all reproduce music in its most natural form.

Therefore, as an end note as the OP, I shall loudly proclaim- the CLX'S are the best I have heard to date. and driven with the Pass Labs XA30.8 is something truly astastonishing such that it reproduces music in its most natural form! afterall isn't that what we're after may I ask?

I hope to sell off my Quads by Jan 2017 the least, before embarking on the ML journey once again (reminds me of those CLS days, utterly enjoyable but a pain in the butt to control). for now, the music is good and gives me that total satisfaction of naturalness in every form. I plan to hold onto them for as long as they work! I guess that's like a candle in the wind, ha!

Cheers to all and many thanks for making this post one of my most enjoyable ones, I have learnt a hell of lot here and still learning... RJ

 

[brad225]

I utilize a combination of Foo Zilplex room correction and Foo Shun Mook's that enables me to really crank the Ref10 up to 96 o n the Richter scale, a spooky effect with the right recordings.

Holy Cow, that level sounds like bleeding ear zone. Though I don't listen as loud as the majority of others.

I switched to 16 Ohm taps for 2 days and was surprised at what I heard. The mid bass and bass did have some improvement, more than I had imagined by moving to the connection. It had a bit more dynamics and depth to it. The image and stage was slightly larger that I was use to and I would say an improvement.

Now for the "but". Female vocals when they would sing full loud notes in as the chorus of the song would have a course edge to them. This was with singers like, Melody Gardot, Adele and Andra Day, though not the case for Diana Krall. Different type of music and voice is the issue here.

Changing back to 8 Ohm brought back the crisp clear vocals but I could tell it was slight loss in bass and stage.

It was enough of an improvement I will certainly try it again. Improving 2 out of 3 things and only for a specific know point it would have been 2 out of 2.

Interesting hobby, always finding something new.

Thanks, Harlequin

 

[Argonaut]

Sounds like you have been having some fun with your system Brad. You have identified one of the main reason why I, for the most part, run with the 16 Ohm tap, in creating a huge envelope of sound surrounding my listening position. I am quite aware tho that a larger than life presentation of a recording isn't for everyone.

Unfortunate that you are experiencing a hard edge on certain vocals, shall have a think about that as my own presentation on recordings where the artist belts it out somewhat, such as 'Stormy Monday' Live at Blue's Alley, remains smooth and stable.

 

[Big Dog RJ]

yes, I have found changing output taps does alter the sound since the transformers will work with a slight output adjustment. hence the reason why certain designers offer multi taps on their amps.

Unfortunately cj doesn't offer this, and probably the reason for keeping things simple. You can pre-order the amp for a particular ohm setting but that's about it!

another thing is that the CLX'S are so transparent they will relieve every single detail out there and that can be found to be utterly revealing or something that requires further adjustments.

not sure why the vocals change and the LF's improve. Perhaps s mismatch of some sorts, don't know... but if all else is fine with the 8 ohm taps and LF is slightly less then perhaps this is the nature of amps. specially tubes driving the CLX'S will not produce the same bass as ss class A.

now, I'm not saying that the ss bass is superior to tube bass, it's a different sound which depends on personal preferences. I certainly prefer tube bass with my Quads. However, I do like the bass from the CLX'S with that Pass amp! superb in every aspect and equally enjoyable as compared to valve musicality.

hope you continue to discover further aspects of finding the perfect match for output choice. Cheers, RJ

 

[brad225]

Can one of you CLX owners tell me how to remove the top covering the crossover/interface network. I tried to figure it out yesterday but no luck. I haven't contacted ML, I just thought someone here would know.