Dudley's comments on CLX...

Did anyone see Art Dudley's comments on the CLX at the Montreal Salon Son et Image? It is in the July Stereophile.

He mentions the combination as the most disappointing sound: CLX + Descent + Bryston. He doesn't say what Bryston or the sources. "I took a seat in the second row and was immediately turned off by the congested and downright fuzzy upper mids and highs - in addition to which, deep-bass sounds were overcooked and annoying." He goes on to say he loves stats...but he left the room "thinking that something was amiss."

I was surprised to read his comments, having heard the CLX's properly set up and with great electronics...anything but fuzzy and congested. Just got me to thinking how important set up and matching electronics can be to overall sound.

I heard the same set up at the show and I can only conclude poor ol' Dudley has wax in his ears - hence the congestion - and needs a tune up ASAP!

Now, I am not going to get embroiled again in the debate about using Bryston amps, but this was a great sound, very open dynamic and how could you not lust after a pair of CLX's after hearing them in Montreal. Not the best sound in the show, I admit. That was coupdefoudre's room with the Wilson's and mega expensive Pathos electronic driven by a master tape source.

Interesting comments on CLX's by Valin here: http://www.avguide.com/blog/the-best-stereo-system-ive-ever-heard?src=Playback

The CLX's still remain top of my most wanted list.

Yeah Dave, I saw that as well. To me at least it just further proves why I take MOST EVERYTHING that the audio media has to say with a grain of salt.

I still enjoy getting my periodicals but truthfully the amount of BS, waxing poetically , call it what you want, does make me laugh at times !

Well no matter what you like there are gonna be others who don't like it. It's that simple.

Irishtom said:

Well no matter what you like there are gonna be others who don't like it. It's that simple.

Click to expand...

Bingo !

I have found that I get along just fine -- hell, let's make that "better" -- without Stereophile or Absolute Sound. It has been quite a few years since I last purused either of them.

An online Stereopile sub can now be had for less than $5. Can't give it away

User211 said:

An online Stereopile sub can now be had for less than $5. Can't give it away

Click to expand...

Although I take everything I read in S'phile, and other audio mags (including the online one's), with a grain of salt, there is certainly $5 or $10 worth of useful information in virtually every issue.

I wouldn't be so quick to wish for S'phile's demise, as it's probably the best barometer of the current state of the (domestic) high-end universe. And it's not a promising outlook!

sleepysurf said:

Although I take everything I read in S'phile, and other audio mags (including the online one's), with a grain of salt, there is certainly $5 or $10 worth of useful information in virtually every issue.

I wouldn't be so quick to wish for S'phile's demise, as it's probably the best barometer of the current state of the (domestic) high-end universe. And it's not a promising outlook!

Click to expand...

Yes, these mags can be very useful and I would hate not to have them around. At the very least they expose me to new equipment which I don't have the opportunity to see in my area.

In Dudley's defense, just like any audio reviewer (myself included) he has his own set of personal preferences. If you read SP regularly, you know he really prefers the old Quad sound, and single driver/SET combos as well.

Kind of a "romantic sound" guy if you will. While I might find the Bryston/CLX combo somewhat thin, anyone who prefers the sound of a more classic tube amp is going to have the reaction he did.

It's just like when I went through the SET phase. I really enjoyed it a lot, but overall it was too warm and gooey without enough dynamics for the music I like to listen to.

All a matter of perspective. That's why it's so important to find the gear YOU like.

User211 said:

An online Stereopile sub can now be had for less than $5. Can't give it away

Click to expand...

Considering that they don't have to print it and the work has already been done for the print edition, I think it's just smart business to offer the online edition very inexpensively. I've been getting my Stereophile digitally for about six years now.

You may not be aware of it, but it probably costs them about $1.50 - $2.00 each to print an issue and about another $1 or $2 to ship it. They make a lot more money selling an online subscription for $5 a year than a paper version for $20....

I wouldn't be surprised that if Stereophile goes to strictly digital, they do better financially than they are right now.

I subscribe to the digital edition. And I quite enjoy it. But they do recommend everything, which is kind of annoying.

SETs - there are SETs, and there are SETs with power that can deliver plenty of dynamics... I know where you are coming from, though, in the former's case. But the former, hooked up to very efficient speakers, can rock pretty well, sounding full, big, natural, easy and very "unforced". To be honest, I like SETs a lot, as you might have guessed.

One of the best SET configs I have ever heard is the best from http://www.livingvoice.co.uk/ powered by http://www.borderpatrol.net/amplifiers.htm. Absolutely outstanding, IMHO.

tonepub said:

In Dudley's defense, just like any audio reviewer (myself included) he has his own set of personal preferences. If you read SP regularly, you know he really prefers the old Quad sound, and single driver/SET combos as well.

Kind of a "romantic sound" guy if you will. While I might find the Bryston/CLX combo somewhat thin, anyone who prefers the sound of a more classic tube amp is going to have the reaction he did.

All a matter of perspective. That's why it's so important to find the gear YOU like.

Click to expand...

Good points - Dudley is the guy who always raves about Cary in Stereophile. I don't see him liking Bryston.

What I would like to see is the reviewers state their preferences and biases so people know where they are coming from. The only reviewer who does this that I am aware of is JV who is very active on the avguide site. I am not sure if he does it in every review. (Of course, I know your preferences, Jeff, from your many posts and reviews.) This is impractical for a quick snippet from a show, but Stereophile really should have a bio section with preferences.

As for most people, they really don't know what they like since they don't get out to hear enough gear, for a variety of reasons. My impression is that most people in this hobby trust their friends and listen to "authorities", monthly magazine "best" declarations, charismatic posters, and loud mouths via internet sites and blogs. As seriously as some people take this hobby, a lot of money and anguish could be saved by trusting one's own ears.

David Matz said:

What I would like to see is the reviewers state their preferences and biases so people know where they are coming from......(some text edited out)......As for most people, they really don't know what they like since they don't get out to hear enough gear, for a variety of reasons. My impression is that most people in this hobby trust their friends and listen to "authorities", monthly magazine "best" declarations, charismatic posters, and loud mouths via internet sites and blogs. As seriously as some people take this hobby, a lot of money and anguish could be saved by trusting one's own ears.

Click to expand...

If one reads the rags or E-Zines, over time you will get to know a reviewer and what their likes or preferences are. This is KEY for attempting to use these people or articles in helping you with a purchase. A reviewer is just another opinion, but we would like to think they are a more educated and experienced opinion - but not always true.

David, you make a great point that each of us has to get out and hear equipment to develop our likes and preferences. Once we know what we like and we have the background on a reviewer only then can a review help us down the path for a purchase. Otherwise it is just a crap shoot on who you believe.

Excellent point.

User211 said:

I subscribe to the digital edition. And I quite enjoy it. But they do recommend everything, which is kind of annoying.

SETs - there are SETs, and there are SETs with power that can deliver plenty of dynamics... I know where you are coming from, though, in the former's case. But the former, hooked up to very efficient speakers, can rock pretty well, sounding full, big, natural, easy and very "unforced". To be honest, I like SETs a lot, as you might have guessed.

One of the best SET configs I have ever heard is the best from http://www.livingvoice.co.uk/ powered by http://www.borderpatrol.net/amplifiers.htm. Absolutely outstanding, IMHO.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on the SET thing as well. I used to have a Wavac that matched with a pair of 101db Zu Druids would really work well.

I used to have a pair of Lowther based Rethms as well that I really liked. With the Wavac and relatively small scale music it was wonderful, but on complex music (rock or classical) they kind of lost their edge.

However with a solo vocalist, or one person and a guitar (with no major frequency extremes), the SET/Single driver thing can really give you a slice of heaven. I'd definitely have an SET system if I had the room!

David Matz said:

As for most people, they really don't know what they like since they don't get out to hear enough gear, for a variety of reasons. My impression is that most people in this hobby trust their friends and listen to "authorities", monthly magazine "best" declarations, charismatic posters, and loud mouths via internet sites and blogs. As seriously as some people take this hobby, a lot of money and anguish could be saved by trusting one's own ears.

Click to expand...

Now there's some refreshing insight. Great post, David.

Son et Image "Review"

daveneumann said:

Did anyone see Art Dudley's comments on the CLX at the Montreal Salon Son et Image? It is in the July Stereophile.

He mentions the combination as the most disappointing sound: CLX + Descent + Bryston. He doesn't say what Bryston or the sources. "I took a seat in the second row and was immediately turned off by the congested and downright fuzzy upper mids and highs - in addition to which, deep-bass sounds were overcooked and annoying." He goes on to say he loves stats...but he left the room "thinking that something was amiss."

I was surprised to read his comments, having heard the CLX's properly set up and with great electronics...anything but fuzzy and congested. Just got me to thinking how important set up and matching electronics can be to overall sound.

Click to expand...

I also read this "review."Having been to a few shows in my life, I usually don't take show "reviews" all that seriously. The rooms or display areas are rarely ideal locations to hear equipment as it would sound in demonstration room. Equipment mating might be more expedient than by design. Source material may not be what you would listen to. In short, a real review puts equipment in your room, tries a number of different sources, and tries to give the reader a sense of what he or she might hear in their home or at least how it sounded with the reviewers reference equipment. I have not had problems with Art Dudley's reviews since they are entirely subjective. He may not have a significant auditory problem; he simply prefers equipment like vintage Quads (a nightmare to own IMO unless you liked arcing and shut-down at reasonable volumes). The CLXs have been reviewed in several magazines including Absolute Sound and ToneAudio. I would go to those sources first if one considering the CLXs. I have had these speakers for two months. In my system (308), they are the best M-Ls I have ever owned let alone the best speakers that I have ever heard short of the Statements.

Considering how difficult it is to get even passable sound at a hifi show, I'm amazed any of the mfrs even bother. That's why we never write show reports...

I'm always much more interested in just seeing what's new, talking to people in the industry and lining up reviews. So many manufacturers get crucified by show reports and I've heard the same mfr. have great sound one year and terrible sound the next, with the only difference being the room.

I wouldn't want to be in their shoes!

Jeff , while I tend to agree with you and good Lord knows you have been to many more shows than myself I do feel though that there is an ounce or two of 'laziness' involved........case in point....last years RMAF, Bobby Palkovic, took the time to acousticaly treat his Merlin room. His efforts payed off with beautifull sound with the Merlin / Joule Elctra combo.