CLS Subwoofer Suggestions?

I'm about to pick up a pair of CLS 1s and am wondering if I'm going to feel that their low end performance is truly inadequate (although they'll be in a relatively small room and I'm not a bass freak). If so, I'd like a few subwoofer suggestions from CLS owners. Is one of the ML subs the best choice here (Depth, etc.) or is there a better option? The person I'm buying the CLSes from has a Muse Model 18 subwoofer with the CLS personality card, but I'm wondering if a more modern sub would be a better choice.

Well I should think that any of the Martin Logan subs would pair well.

I'm not a CLS owner (yet), but if I were to pair them with anything I'd be difficult to part from my REL Stadium III. I believe that the way the REL integrates with your amplifier of choice, and the amazing flexibility of the sub make it among the most "musical" subs I've heard. Good, deep, solid foundation, but certainly not a "one note" type of bass - downright tunefull in fact.

Another response here from a non-CLS owner. ML has a crossover setting on the Descent i for the upcoming (someday in the distant future maybe) CLX, so that at least gives you an idea of their thoughts on the subject. I would think an ideal match for the CLS would be a pair of depths or descents. But even buying used, that is a lot of pocket change.

Here's one very inexpensive solution that might work in your small room...

A pair of Tannoy TS-8's. I've used these with other panels and some single driver speakers with very good luck. Or maybe a pair of Grotto's...

Not that a pair of Descent's wouldn't be fun!

Dan (DTB300) is using, I believe, Paradigm servo based sub with velodyne sms bass management system.

Hopefully he will drop in on this thread and elaborate, but I can tell you from listening to it first hand, it sounds superb !

I ordered a JL Audio Fathom F113. I will let you know how that is and make a recomendation.

a single Depth

The omnidirectional radiation pattern of the ML Depth and Descent make placement and phase matching with dipoles much easier (a down-firing sub also qualifies in this respect.)

The CLS does have limited low frequency but not that limited; it is a full range speaker, not a monitor! And as such, needs only a slight amount of "fill" below 40Hz. I start rolling off the Depth at 35Hz, and it makes a seamless match when added to the CLS's natural low frequency rolloff which begins at around 45Hz and goes to zero around 35Hz. And because the brain can't locate frequencies under 60Hz (at best!) there's no need for two of them unless you have a very large room to fill with bass.

I prefer the Depth over the Descent for use w/ the CLS for a couple of reasons: First, it has (believe it or not) more flexibility for adjusting the frequency contour than the Descent does (don't ask me how that happened!) And second, it seems to have slightly better transient response (more controlled bass) than the Descent (although they beefed up the amplifier power in the new Descent i, so maybe that was the problem.)

You should be able to get a nice used Depth for around $1k and you'll be very happy with the result. (see my system pics)

I have CLS IIz's and have a bit of a different take on this...

First off, Congratulations on buying CLS'!!!!

I have been known to play my CLS's at a pretty aggressive volume and with very dynamic music, so I was especially sensitive to the swaying of the panels. The CLS's are not at all rigid and the louder they play, the more image smear you get. The reason I mention this is because I am using Sound Anchor stands. This means that there is absolutely no swaying but unfortunately it also means that there is no floor-coupling, so audible bass output is even lower than what you are experiencing.

Also, as I mentioned before, I tend to prefer listening to music (mainly rock) at "realistic" levels :rocker: , so this poses another problem for the CLS'. They do not like to play loud in the bass region without the bass panels "pharting". So, I do not run the CLS' full range, I cross them over at 80hz, to two Depth's; one behind each CLS. The integration is outstanding, I can play my system at frightening levels without worry (it pays to have an amp with the cojones at 2 ohms or less), and I get very tuneful, well-integrated bass.

I came upon this combination after trying the same crossover scheme with a single Depth, then later, a single Descent, then finally 2-Depths.
The Depths have amazing flexibility in tuning and with patience and care can reward you with superb integration with the CLS.

See my system pics.

Oh, by the way, Tweeter is getting set to close most of the old Sound Advice stores in Florida, so ML stuff in stock will be aggressively discounted!

Good Luck,

Thanks for the info on the Depth. I have a Depth i coming in Tues. and hope it matches well with the Vistas. Looking forward...

raygunn said:

So, I do not run the CLS' full range, I cross them over at 80hz, to two Depth's; one behind each CLS. The integration is outstanding . . . and I get very tuneful, well-integrated bass.

Click to expand...

This sounds like a fantastic setup and one I would highly recommend that anyone with CLS at least consider trying. I think the dual subwoofers are better because you get a more even bass response overall and if you are able to pick out any directionality, then it is not a problem.

I have heard the argument that you can't hear directionality of low bass waves numerous times and I still do not believe it is absolutely true. I have been testing my Descent in the back of my room and it is very distracting on a kick drum to have the low bass wave hit me from behind. Perhaps it is room-dependent and the room treatments I have make directionality easier to pick out. I don't know. But I have heard too many people say that it is a problem to believe that it isn't. Now if you have one sub placed in the middle between your main speakers, rather than off to one side or the other, I imagine that wouldn't pose a problem.

By the way, Raygunn, where have you been?

I've used the budget method of augmenting my CLS II's bass since 1989. Building 2 ported speaker cabinets (tuned/ported for about 32 HZ) for full range Electro Voice SP-12 speakers and simply covering them with a well folded wool blanket (reducing the mid and hi frequencies, of course).

It's not as ridiculous as you may think.

-First there are no added cross-overs.
-Second, keep the volume (sound level) of the added bass speaker(s) about 3 db lower than the CLS's. I.E. all the sound seems to come from your CLS's.
-Finally, position the added bass speaker(s) against the wall behind the listening position or under/inline with the CLS's. If you're using the 1/3 rule on speaker positions, both speakers with be in phase/same distance at the listening position.

Your ears will 'focus' on the louder and faster sound source. If the added bass speakers are clear and clean they won't degrade or affect the CLS clarity or sound field. The EV SP-12's (and smaller SP-8's I started with) are 'commercial' speakers for larger halls, as such, their projection sound field is a much narrower pattern than home audio speakers. If you want to have a "stereo war" with your neighbors...use these, not your CLS's. They are made to run all day at rated power...the magnets weight about 15 lbs on each EV SP-12.

My 32" LCD TV is located between my CLS II's and watching movie DVD's the sound is simply amazing. Can be just as loud as the theaters, but with clean/clear sound. By the way, the speakers disappear, you just hear the changing sound field (sound stage).

The best way would be double CLS's...need a big room, though.

Rich, bass directionality is not a problem IF the sub rolls ALL THE WAY OFF by 50Hz or so. Raygunn says, "I cross them over at 80hz" which means (if he has the selector set to 80Hz) that the sub is putting out at least 100Hz before it shuts all the way off -- so yes, you would need two locations to spread things out a bit. In my system, you really think, as rhd said, that the bass is all coming from the CLS (of course his "subs" are down below the directionality frequency also.)

Another important thing is phasing the sub(s) to match its/their location relative to the panels. If I were using Raygunn's layout, I'd set the phase to 180 degrees because virtually all frequencies of sound behind the panels are 180 degrees out of phase with the front of the panels (stats don't phase-shift hardly at all with frequency.)

I too play my system quite loud (when the spirit moves me ;-) and I've never had the diaphragm slap during loud bass excursions. I won't speculate why Ray experiences this, because his speaker is relatively new. Whatever, a CLS has such very clean bass response (as far as it goes;-) it's a shame not to be able to let it just do it's thing.

I think the directionality issue is more a function of the environment...

I tried really hard to integrate the CLS' with the single Descent and I just could not make it "disappear".

Location matching is indeed important and in my system, each Depth is precisely in the same spot relative to the CLS panel. Since they are not directly behind them, but are a bit to the left of the panels, I found that the 270 degrees setting was optimal. (the positioning to the left is more a function of cable length requirements, than any actual science, LOL).

My CLS' have always had trouble with loud and dynamic LF energy. Early on after their break-in, I spoke to Jim Power about this and he confirmed that it was to be expected on very loud and dynamic material (>100DB). Having them on the SA stands and off the floor just exacerbated the problem because they sounded much leaner and I would end up trying to play them louder. That was before I bought the subs.

The CLS' are my first full range ESL, so I had no reason to doubt that.
Perhaps my panels are defective. I have not seen or heard CLS' in any other system in the last 20 years to be able to tell. All of my previous ML's were hybrids.

As to where I've been...
Well let's just say that after 8 weeks of being unemployed and a really really lean holiday season, it's great to be back amongst the living again! :rocker:

By the way, I would love to meet up with you all on the west coast of the peninsula sometime when you are having a listening session and likewise, if any of you find yourself in the West Palm area, feel free to stop by for a brew and a listen :music:

Cheers,

Rich said:

This sounds like a fantastic setup and one I would highly recommend that anyone with CLS at least consider trying. I think the dual subwoofers are better because you get a more even bass response overall and if you are able to pick out any directionality, then it is not a problem.

I have heard the argument that you can't hear directionality of low bass waves numerous times and I still do not believe it is absolutely true. I have been testing my Descent in the back of my room and it is very distracting on a kick drum to have the low bass wave hit me from behind. Perhaps it is room-dependent and the room treatments I have make directionality easier to pick out. I don't know. But I have heard too many people say that it is a problem to believe that it isn't. Now if you have one sub placed in the middle between your main speakers, rather than off to one side or the other, I imagine that wouldn't pose a problem.

By the way, Raygunn, where have you been?

Click to expand...

Rich,

What you are detecting is not necessarily the localization of the frequency, but rather the localization of the time (and possible phase) variance between bass from the fronts and the sub.

As I discuss in the 'timing is everything...' thread, one needs to pay close attention to delay management for good integration.

So if you have the sub 5 feet from your back, and fronts 14 feet in front of you, then the sub is delivering information 8ms sooner than it should. This will be noticeable.

This assumes the sub is fed from the L/R crossover (i.e. L/R fed to sub, which does the x-over, and it's outputs feed the L/R amp).

If you are using the processor (the G68 in your case) to manage this, then go into MConfig and set the sub to the exact distance it is from your main listening position. That should allow the processor to decide the right delays and deliver better timing integration.

The point here is, delay and timing really do matter, even for the supposedly non-localizable frequencies.

nsgarch said:

Rich, bass directionality is not a problem IF the sub rolls ALL THE WAY OFF by 50Hz or so. Raygunn says, "I cross them over at 80hz" which means (if he has the selector set to 80Hz) that the sub is putting out at least 100Hz before it shuts all the way off -- so yes, you would need two locations to spread things out a bit. In my system, you really think, as rhd said, that the bass is all coming from the CLS (of course his "subs" are down below the directionality frequency also.)

Another important thing is phasing the sub(s) to match its/their location relative to the panels. If I were using Raygunn's layout, I'd set the phase to 180 degrees because virtually all frequencies of sound behind the panels are 180 degrees out of phase with the front of the panels (stats don't phase-shift hardly at all with frequency.)
...

Click to expand...

Neil, that advice is not necessary applicable in all cases, as the phase variance between subs (and their associated electronics) is all over the map.
I’d test each individual sub with the panels and first establish Polarity (which is different than phase) and then look at tweaking phase as needed to achieve the best timing and Frequency response integration with the panels.

I do agree with you on the crossover frequency, as 60Hz 4th order is about as high as I’d go in crossover points for a CLS.

I have a pair of CLS 1 and a pair of VMPS New Original subs. I have Marchand, Bryston, and Kinergetics electronic crossovers. In my room, the CLS bass does not measure or sound flat, exhibiting a peak around 50 Hz and a broad dip in response above that frequency in the 60-200 Hz region.

In fact, my CLS measures (using pink noise and a Phonic spectrum analyzer) quite similarly to the measurements taken by Martin Colloms in his review of the speaker for Stereophile in 1987 (see Figure 5, 1/3-octave, spatially averaged response in MC listening room). I have found this basic response profile to change surprisingly little as the speaker is moved about the room. Also, in my room, I have never been able to get much response below 40-45 Hz from the CLS.

So my challenge when mating a sub to the CLS has been this: do I try to compensate for the response dip in setting up the sub and crossing it over to the CLS or do I try to preserve the sound of the CLS and just augment the lack of deep bass?

I prefer to compensate for the response dip by using a higher crossover frequency but to do this properly requires that the sub be placed next to or under the CLS. I do not have enough room to put the rather large VMPS subs next to the CLS. Also, placing the CLS on top of the sub raises it too high off the floor. So I have been forced to use a middleground strategy-- I set up the subs along the wall behind the CLS, about 3-4 feet from the main speakers.

I have experimented with a variety of crossover frequencies and slopes but because of the sub placement, I have settled on 80 Hz and high order slopes (18 or 24 dB/octave) for now. However, I am still experimenting!

Unfortunately, experimentation is the order of the day when trying to mate the CLS to subs. If you cannot place the subs close to the speaker (3 feet or less), I think you will have to choose a low crossover and experiment with slope.

By the way, the VMPS subs have extended high frequency response up to 250-300 Hz so it is possible to use a high crossover with these subs in the right room. They also are extended and play with low distortion in the deep bass. However, they are passive and require a separate amp to power.

Good luck!

JonFo said:

Rich,

What you are detecting is not necessarily the localization of the frequency, but rather the localization of the time (and possible phase) variance between bass from the fronts and the sub.

Click to expand...

Great point, Jonathan. That is probably it in a nutshell.