how much power for the clx ?

dear forum

how much amplifier power is needed to get the optimum performance out of a pair of clx's ? please keep in mind that i am also using a pair of descent i subs ( one on the right and one on the left ) in my listening room slightly behind each clx panel . at the present time i am running the clx's directly from a studio amp and feeding a separate simultaneous signal to the descent i subs . ( the descent i subwoofers special clx crossover is not being employed thus far - see my previous thread ) . i will soon acquire a pair of atma-sphere otl tube monoblocks for the clx's . the atma-sphere ma-1 mark 3.1 is rated at 140 watts per channel . the atma-sphere ma-2 mark 3.1 is rated at 220 watts per channel but is twice the price of the ma-1 . do i need the larger ma-2 or the smaller ma-1 for the clx's ? these amps can also be ordered with a zero former impedance matching transformer to compensate for the clx's rather difficult impedance curve . is a zero former a wise option for such a setup ? thank you for any feedback or insights .

I am using a 400 watt per channel McIntosh solid state amp with a single subwoofer with my CLX's. More than enough power. Not sure how that relates to tube power? I know I have heard the CLX's with 300 watts per channel McIntosh tube power many times. They sound terrific.

In a nutshell, the more power the better to help deal with the funky impedance curves of the stats. Additionally, in the case of Atmasphere, the more you spend on the amp, the better the design and the better the parts used.

Using the MA1 on the Spire was the BEST LOGAN SYSTEM I HAVE EVER HEARD. However, the Spire has a powered woofer, and I think is much easier to drive. I would not use the MA1 on my Soundlab A-1, for example, as it sounds a bit bloated and sluggish.

I have never heard the MA1 on the CLX. However, it is safe to say that MA2 will drive it better and will sound better than the MA1. If you have the dinero, go with the MA2 for a system of most people's wet dreams.

Doggrell,

I want to add that you should probably listen to these amps before you buy them, especially at this price point. I heard the MA1's at Brian Walsh's Essential Audio (essentialaudio.com) just outside of Chicago. He has an outstanding MA1 - Soundlab system. If you are anywhere near the mid-west, you should drop by Brian's for a listen. His MA1's drive the Soundlab U1-px quite well. (The U1 is more efficient than my A1, and the px panels make them even more efficient.)

You will get a taste of these amazing amps, and like I said above, the MA2's are head and shoulders better than the MA1 and will be even more of a great thing.

As power and current requirement for Stats have been discussed in many threads here.........I would think that you could spend an enjoyable afternoon searching through some threads on the subject. You will find the answer to what you seek.

I am using a high current Simaudio Moon Titan 5 channel amp with my CLXs. It is dead silent, dynamic as hell, and can drive the CLXs to the point of damaging the house foundation., but not before turning your brain to mush.

How about considering amps actually designed for Electrostats instead playing amp-roulette?

No risk, in-home testing is available from Sanders Sound Systems.

A pair of their 1KW monoblocs will get a CLX to reveal every ounce of music it is capable of rendering.

For an in-depth, very, very worthwhile read on why matting an amp to an ESL is not a trivial matter, read this post Roger made on the subject.

Matter of fact, anyone who cares an iota about ESL design and performance should read that entire thread. More good info in those 7 pages than in a year of ramblings on any audio forum.

thanks for the information

thanks for the information . david matz you are a soundlab a-1 owner . what made you prefer the sound of the soundlab a-1 over the sound of the ml clx ? do you use one or two subs with the soundlabs ? i agree that the clx's would definitely perform better with the atma-sphere ma-2 240 watt monoblocks as compared to the ma-1 . i have heard that the soundlabs are a better match with the atma-sphere amps ( otl ) than the ml clx . your thoughts ? thank you .

doggrell3000 said:

thanks for the information . david matz you are a soundlab a-1 owner . what made you prefer the sound of the soundlab a-1 over the sound of the ml clx ? do you use one or two subs with the soundlabs ? i agree that the clx's would definitely perform better with the atma-sphere ma-2 240 watt monoblocks as compared to the ma-1 . i have heard that the soundlabs are a better match with the atma-sphere amps ( otl ) than the ml clx . your thoughts ? thank you .

Click to expand...

Doggrell,

You are asking good questions and in the process are trying to get me banned from the site right?

I prefer the Soundlab to the CLX for several reasons. The CLX is very transparent. It's sublime on great recordings, but just ok on other recordings (compared to Soundlabs). Overall, the Logans just throw detail at you. Since I am a music lover more than audiophile, most of my recordings are not audiophile grade, and sound like crap on a highly resolving system like the CLX. Also, the CLX also has a very fast bass, but doesn't go low enough for my tastes.

The Soundlabs have much more nuance and inner detail, presenting the musical whole. You need a quality amp (and source and preamp) to bring it all out. In the right system and the right room, they just sound more real to my ears. Others who care about the details on the recording will prefer the CLX. That, however, is a distraction to me. I would rather focus on the music.

I do not use any subwoofers with the Soundlabs. The Soundlabs go low enough. I have "very expensive ears" - I hear everything. Putting in subwoofers defeats the purpose of full range electrostats! I used to own the Spires, which have a powered woofer. I got rid of them, because I could always hear the woofer lagging behind the panel, and it is the best crossover design Martin Logan has ever had.

I respectfully disagree with whomever told you about Atma-spheres and Logans. I borrowed Brian Walsh's MA1's and ran them with my Spires. That system SMOKED any Logan system I have heard - including the all of the CLX systems I have heard which were driven by very expensive electronics. The sad thing is that other than myself, no one has probably heard Logans and Atma-spheres in the same system. People are just talking out of their butt. Imagine the most transparent speaker paired with the most transparent amp. People figuratively talk about cables removing a layer of grunge or fog from the presentation. Now imagine removing a layer of concrete! I had Ella Fitzgerald and Ray Charles returning from the Dead and walking around in my room as they performed. That is the benefit of the OTL design.

Atmaspheres also have superb speed and liquidity to them that mates them well with Logans. Additionally, the synergy thing also comes into play as some consider Logans a bit bright, while Atma-spheres may be a bit dark- eliminating each others weaknesses.

All of this stuff is experiential, of course. Others may or may not prefer what I like. However, I would encourage you to give Atma-spheres a listen. If you ever want to swing by Chicago, drop me a PM or contact Brian. He has a killer system and knows much more about this stuff than I do.

Enjoy!

JonFo said:

How about considering amps actually designed for Electrostats instead playing amp-roulette?

No risk, in-home testing is available from Sanders Sound Systems.

A pair of their 1KW monoblocs will get a CLX to reveal every ounce of music it is capable of rendering.

For an in-depth, very, very worthwhile read on why matting an amp to an ESL is not a trivial matter, read this post Roger made on the subject.

Matter of fact, anyone who cares an iota about ESL design and performance should read that entire thread. More good info in those 7 pages than in a year of ramblings on any audio forum.

Click to expand...

Sanders says: "When driving an ESL, voltage is everything. So when you drop the impedance of the output transformer, you reduce the output that the amplifier can produce from the ESL. In short, you have to trade output for more linear frequency response. This is a huge problem. It's a battle that you just can't win.

Note that OTL tube amps don't solve this problem. They have no transformer, so must relay on putting many output tubes in parallel to lower the impedance. This quickly results in having an absurd number of tubes with all their heat and power requirements. So OTL amps do not get down to very low impedances.

Most get to just around 10 ohms and the best only get a bit lower. As a result, they have severe impedance mismatch issues and are really quite a poor choice for driving ESLs. They also measure really poorly on a spectrum analyzer compared to transformer-coupled tube amps."


Ralph from Atma-sphere also has some interesting ideas on amp design. He swears by tubes for electrostats, and all speakers actually. Here's a quote from one of his papers:

<center>Voltage vs. Current Amplifiers</center> This leads directly to our second myth about current vs. voltage amps, usually the myth of transistor vs. tubes (tubes being the 'voltage' amps). Ohm's law is still around to help us out. The way this argument is usually heard goes something like this (and sounds a lot like the previous myth): "This amp has lots of current and is good for low impedance speakers..." or "...that amp has lots of voltage and is better for electrostatics".
Again, the power formula saves us. Let's look at some easy examples. Let's start with a common load impedance, four ohms and drive it with a lot of power, say four hundred watts. Now if the above statement is true, a four hundred watt transistor amp will do better than a four hundred watt tube amp, right? With a leading question like that, obviously not. The power formula tells us that 400 watts is just that, tube or transistor not withstanding. But let's look at the actual numbers for a second. By working with Ohm's law and the power formula, we can derive the following (simple) equation: Power = Current squared times Resistance. Plugging in the values we get 400 = current squared times 4. The current is 10 amps. That's all. Suppose an 8 Ohm speaker. The current is roughly 7.071 amps. If the amp produces the power it must produce the current, if the amp produces the current it must produce the power. This fact is inescapable, but it is amazing how much misinformation is spread in its ignorance....


So, despite the fact that smaller OTL amplifiers don't like four ohm speakers, they are quite capable of giving you a more even power characteristic (read: flatter frequency response, all other things being equal), especially on a speaker with a wild impedance curve....


Here are the rest of the white papers:


http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/index.html


Speaking from experience, comparing Sanders amps to Atmaspheres is like comparing a Cesna plane to the Space Shuttle. Subjectively, Sanders amps sound cold and flat and lean. (The ESL amps do sound great, though, for their price point!) Atmaspheres sound like real music, but they are much, much more expensive. Of course, Sanders will talk like an engineer and try to convince me I am hallucinating in what I am hearing. I do trust myself, though. And I do like the Atmasphere design much, much better for the time I take out of my life listening to music.