Those of you have read The Absolute Sound for some time will be familiar with Jonathan Valin's reviews. Of particular interest to MLOG is that he was a long-time CLS owner. His reviews of the CLS, and the Sound Lab M1, remain one of the best ever that the magazine has produced, in my opinion.
I've been asking him about the CLX, which he is currently reviewing. Here's an excerpt...
You can read the whole thread by clicking on:
http://forums.avguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=3863&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
I've been asking him about the CLX, which he is currently reviewing. Here's an excerpt...
Posted: 28, Sep Sun 2008 2:24 am Post subject:
jfm,
All right. Here's where things stand after considerable night-and-day listening. Even though they are still breaking in, I can already tell you that the CLXes will not be the equals of the $100k Symposium Acoustics Panoramas or the $200k MBL 101 X-Tremes--the two best speakers I've heard in my home--in dynamic range and scale (particularly at the frequency extremes but also in the midrange), three-dimensionality, treble extension and purity and power (the Pans are the best in the first two areas, the Xes in the last), bass/midrange/treble density of tone color (particularly bass), and mid-to-low bass extension and power (both the Pans and especially the X-Tremes are considerably better). They already appear to be at least the equals of the Pans and the Xes in colorless neutrality. (They are the most invisible planars I’ve ever heard—lower in driver/enclosure/crossover coloration than the Quad ESL-2905s and the very-low-in-coloration Pans, though not as low in enclosure coloration as the un-enclosed Xes.) At this point, and it is still very early, they seem to be very close to if not the equals of the Pans in soundstage width/depth/height (though nothing touches the MBLs in soundstaging) and higher in midrange resolution and transparency to sources than any speaker I've yet heard, cone, ribbon, omni, or electrostatic. If you want to hear how well or poorly a recording was engineered (above about 55-60Hz, that is) the CLXes may be impossible to beat. They already sound more “different” from record to record than any other speaker of my experience, literally changing their sound with the sound of the recording, and they already reveal more details of miking and engineering than any other speaker of my experience. (If, for instance, you want to hear what back-up singers are actually singing in a dense mix, the CLXes will be a revelation--not only will you hear every word they sing, assuming that the engineering allows you to hear it; you will also hear the individual timbres of their voices as clearly as you hear that of the lead vocalist.) Minus the low bass and some density (or weight) of tone in the midband, they are also very very realistic sounding from the upper bass through the mid-treble, a little less so in the very top treble and much less so in the bass (although they are very detailed in the mid-to-upper bass and very flat and seamless from the bass through the midband).
Though their lack of bass extension and power, their utter neutrality (which is to say, their lack of artificial warmth, thanks to plumped up upper and midbass), their slight want of density of tone color (particularly in the bass), their pickiness about rooms and setup (for which, see below), and their absolute honesty when it comes to sources (if a recording sucks they'll tell you, albeit without making it unduly unpleasant), they are going to be controversial, just like the original CLSes. They are also, IMO and with only a couple days short of two weeks listening experience, truly great loudspeakers, but then I like a less warmed-up, more neutral, more transparent balance, a wide/deep/tall soundstage, an abundance of detail (as long as it isn’t presented clinically—which is to say without a persuasive amount of natural tone color--and it is not presented clinically by the CLXes), see-into and see-through transparency, lifelike transient speed, and natural air and bloom, all of which the CLXes have in abundance. I'm also not that concerned with low bass, which is a big factor here. (I love it when it's good but I hate it when it isn't and would rather do without it than hear it droning along, muddying up the rest of the sound.) I predict that the CLXes will end up keeping company with the Pans and the Xes in my personal pantheon. Though I don't believe they will end up being fully the match of either, it is only fair to note that they are one-quarter to one-eighth their price.
As for amps…the CLXes, like many other stats, are a difficult load, particularly in the treble where their impedance dips down to 0.7 ohms. Most tube amp can’t cope with this near short-circuit and will markedly roll off the treble. (I tried the superb Air Tight ATM-3 and it did just that, though it sounded gorgeous otherwise.) The Swiss-made-and-engineered Soulution 710 that I am currently using is a solid-state amp that has tremendous buzz going for it. Among other kudos, it was named the reference amplifier of the very picky and very-into-specsmanship German magazine, Stereo, scoring 100% in sound quality (which I believe is a first). While I thought the 710 might be a little on the cool and analytical side at first, I now believe it: a) needed to break in a bit and to warm up more after turn-on (it takes about a half hour to an hour for it to shed a very slight dry, sibilant graininess and start to sound more dead-neutral, finely detailed, and transparent than just about anything I’ve heard in solid-state), and b) is accurately reflecting the sound of what it’s driving (the CLXes also needed to break in—and the room needed treatment). That said, it will never be a luscious, liquid, gorgeous-sounding solid-state amplifier like an MBL 9011 and it will never have the bloom (or action), three-dimensionality, and tonal weight of the pentode-tube ARC 610T (though it has surprisingly good air, bloom, and light for a transistor job). I will, of course, try other amps, but let me go on record to say that the Soulution 710 is pretty goddamn marvelous and may be tough to beat in this application.
curious,
My second room is roughly 16' x 15' x 12'. And, yes, I do plan to try out other room treatment (like most planar dipoles, the CLXes can really light up the walls, especially since they are more "directional" than other dipoles, thanks to the curvilinear mid/treble panel). Like the CLSes, these are among the pickiest speakers I've dealt with. They like to see a certain proportion of soft and hard surfaces which can only be adjudged by trial-and-error; they have to be at least three-to-four feet from rear walls and three or so from sidewalls. They have to be tilted and toed-in precisely the same on either side. They like some weight added to their chassis. And they may benefit from further stabilization (I use to use adjustable curtain rods extending from the ceilings to the tops of the CLSes' frames to really "lock" them in place.)
I don't believe that anything short of one of ML's subwoofers is going to turn the CLXes' bass from anemic to awesome. ML is quite honest about this, unlike some other manufacturers I can think of. They spec the CLX as flat (or within 3dB of flat) from 23kHz to 56Hz, and that seems almost exactly right. While "room boost" is going to fill in the bass a little bit, it can't turn a speaker that is already dropping off 3dB a little below 60Hz into an MBL X-treme. This is something that potential purchasers are going to need to carefully consider. The CLX is not going to deliver what it hasn't promised. What it is going to do, thanks to exceptionally low levels of coloration and high levels of detail, is reproduce the transients of bass-range instruments with extraordinary clarity, meaning that you will hear the attack of a run of notes on, say, a bass fiddle with amazing realism and clarity. What you won't hear quite as fully and realistically (with deep-reaching instruments) is the steady-state tone color that follows the attack. In the mid-to-low bass the CLX is a little like one of those coloring books that restaurants used to give away; you get the outlines of notes with utter clarity, but the shapes could use a little filling in.
I don't want to over-emphasize this. I like the CLXes bass, as far as it goes, and much prefer its slightly desaturated clarity to a one-note thrum or a muddy blur. Once again, low bass is not a deal-breaker for me (or why would I have loved the Mini IIs, which actually have better bass the CLXes). If it is for you, look elsewhere (like the Quad ESL-2905s) or consider a quite reasonably-priced pair of MartinLogan subwoofers, which are outfitted with a custom crossover tailored precisely for the CLX. For under-$30k you will then have a full-range system that may be competitive with systems that cost quite a lot more. (I'm sure I'll find out for myself before the review process is done.)
Jon
You can read the whole thread by clicking on:
http://forums.avguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=3863&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
