TAS review of the CLX

[tonepub]

Any of you guys get your TAS in the mail yet?

I thought my ex co-worker Jonathan Valin did an outstanding job on the review. Jonathan has great ears and a great system, not to mention he's been exposed to the best of the best, so for him to give the CLX such high praise is quite spectacular.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Not yet Amigo.

I've read his comments on the TAS forum and have a pretty good idea what the review will say.

As you are aware, he made some minor comments about the CLX in his review of the $200K MBL speaker system in the last TAS edition.

For those who have not read the review, he asserts that the MBL system does not have the "transparency" of the CLX.

G

 

[twich54]

I thought my ex co-worker Jonathan Valin did an outstanding job on the review. Jonathan has great ears .

Let see that's the same guy who "slept through the past decade of Martin Logan development" !

hell my ears would perform mighty good too had I missed all of that !! LOL !!

 

[tonepub]

Either way, I think it always strengthens a mfrs position when they get more than one review agreeing on the finer points of a piece of gear.

What I did find interesting about JV's review, that would lead me to wonder what size his room is (I'll have to read it again to see if I missed it) was the comment about depth.

I moved my speakers back to the short wall in my 16 x 24 room just to make sure I hadn't missed anything during the review and honestly the sound lost all of it's great width and some depth on the short wall, only two feet from the side wall.

Back on the long wall, with each speaker about 7 feet from the side wall transforms the presentation.

This isn't unique to ML, with all of the big speakers I've heard from Wilson, Avalon, Verity, Gamut and JM Labs, the further you could get the speakers from the side walls the more spacious the sound.

 

[David Matz]

I have not read it yet. On the avguide site Jonathan says something to this effect: "CLX will be less suited to more people's taste than the 2905 is, even though the CLX is definitely more suited to mine."

Does anyone know what this is all about?

Also, in his blog, Jon has picked up on a few weaknesses of the CLX. Of course he has heard the best of the best.


....
At the moment, the chief limitations in what I hear are those built into the CLX: a steep roll-off in the very low bass, a slight flattening of three-dimensionality, a slight constriction of soundstage width and depth, and a definite limit on ultimate SPLs. OTOH, what these truly marvelous speakers bring to the table so far outweighs what they leave in the tool chest that I am a little afraid that every other transducer I’ll try from here on out may—in spite of any superiorities—end up being a bit less faithful to sources. The CLXes are simply SO transparent and colorless that they sound..."

Anyone have any thoughts about these, other than the bass?

 

[tonepub]

If you ask anyone who's heard the CLX's at my house, they certainly did not have any trouble playing incredibly loud!

And again, I think the ultimate depth of the presentation is limited by the room, not the CLX. He also mentions the CLS sounding etched and analytical. I don't remember my CLS's sounding analytical and when I visited Rich's CLS's during the review period, I would not call the sound he had going etched either...

So what this proves is that we all perceive sound a little bit differently, and the CLX is such a revealing speaker that the differences in sound might be more chalked up to the associated components than with some other speakers.

Again, the Wilson X-2 is a perfect example. I've heard that speaker sound absolutely dreadful at more than one hifi show, and the combination that Dave Wilson has in his house (along with a 30 x 40 listening room) with VTL Zigrfrieds and an ARC Ref preamp was wonderful, some of the best sound I've ever heard in my life.

The CLX will be no different. The better your room, equipment and software, the more you will get out of them.

 

[DrJRapp]

Reviewing the reviewers

So what this proves is that we all perceive sound a little bit differently, and the CLX is such a revealing speaker that the differences in sound might be more chalked up to the associated components than with some other speakers.

The CLX project is a remarkable excersize by ML and should be applauded. I am sure that much of what they learned will show up sooner or later in the balance of the product line.

Producing a meaningful review is no walk in the park. It's clear that the CLX is not the "Swiss Army Knife" of high end speakers. They are highly room dependent and like every other ultra high resolution speaker they are sooo revealing of defects in the electronics chain and source media. Once that is factored in one then needs to be able to move past the fact that they look like a pair of barn doors. It is therefore understandable why they sound better with the lights down low, which has a secondary purpose in preventing light reflected off the LF panels from flashing like the lights on a Christmas tree. Since there are so many variables both positive and negative that enter into anyone's opinion of what makes a speaker great, the fact that they have received so much consistent praise from the reviewing professionals speaks volumes.

 

[C.A.P]

What I did find interesting about JV's review, that would lead me to wonder what size his room is (I'll have to read it again to see if I missed it) was the comment about depth.

I moved my speakers back to the short wall in my 16 x 24 room just to make sure I hadn't missed anything during the review and honestly the sound lost all of it's great width and some depth on the short wall, only two feet from the side wall.

This is probable very true with the CLX. It has a separate bass panel with a separate mid panel. The bass and the mid panel need room to bloom and get out of each others way. Having heard the CLX at 2 diferent locations in two different rooms I can attest to size being a HUGE factor. These babies LIKE to breath and sound best at least 5 feet out from the front wall.

Now having said that , Its amazing JV commented on the CLS . There is no comparison to the latter. I have my CLS about 18 inches from wood edge to the side wall and its damn good. Could it be better with more side room I GUARANTEE it! Being a one panel point source your not as troubled by the side walls. The CLS needs space between them. If its at the cost of being closer to the side walls its a price you will have to pay, but its a wonderful sacrafice that NO other speaker can do.

The CLX project is a remarkable excersize by ML and should be applauded. I am sure that much of what they learned will show up sooner or later in the balance of the product line.

Producing a meaningful review is no walk in the park. It's clear that the CLX is not the "Swiss Army Knife" of high end speakers. They are highly room dependent and like every other ultra high resolution speaker they are sooo revealing of defects in the electronics chain and source media. Once that is factored in one then needs to be able to move past the fact that they look like a pair of barn doors. It is therefore understandable why they sound better with the lights down low, which has a secondary purpose in preventing light reflected off the LF panels from flashing like the lights on a Christmas tree. Since there are so many variables both positive and negative that enter into anyone's opinion of what makes a speaker great, the fact that they have received so much consistent praise from the reviewing professionals speaks volumes.

Dr, Great post. Its as clear and concisce as it needs to be. Spot on!

 

[David Matz]

What I did find interesting about JV's review, that would lead me to wonder what size his room is (I'll have to read it again to see if I missed it) was the comment about depth.

I moved my speakers back to the short wall in my 16 x 24 room just to make sure I hadn't missed anything during the review and honestly the sound lost all of it's great width and some depth on the short wall, only two feet from the side wall.

Back on the long wall, with each speaker about 7 feet from the side wall transforms the presentation.

This isn't unique to ML, with all of the big speakers I've heard from Wilson, Avalon, Verity, Gamut and JM Labs, the further you could get the speakers from the side walls the more spacious the sound.

Jeff, I agree with you about room size. I had my Vantages out of my small room into a large living room. I have experienced what you mention - greater space, more relaxed sound, better width, depth, etc.


For JV, his room size is roughly 16' x 15' x 12'. In the avguide thread he goes on "....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.)" [JV used to own the CLS I, CLS II, CLS IIz over a 10 year period.]

On the other hand, JV has had other stuff in his room. So his statements need to be understood in the context of the room as well as relative to the other equipment. Even if one has a lot of $$$ for electronics, the house footprint is most difficult to control and change.

 

[gregadd]

couldn't wait

I went to the bookstore and read the TAS review of CLX.
JV certainly gushed over it. I think I'll go get a pair of QUADS!

 

[SundayNiagara]

A better, but not great review!

 

[tonepub]

A better, but not great review!

Always getting the snarky little dig in, aren't we....

Just out of curiosity, you always seem to be pretty quick to dismiss things, what would have made
JV or my review "Better"? We both played them with a variety of music and did our best to provide a good description of the sound with said material.

We both went into pretty substantial detail on the amount of setup required to make the speakers sound their best.

We provided more and more interesting photographs of the CLX as well as showing different finish options.

We used the CLX with a much wider variety of amplification than TAS did.

I went back to the factory for a complete tour, discussed the product objectives with the ML staff and even screwed the final bolts into the review pair, TAS did not.

I evaluated the speakers with AND without subwoofers, TAS did not.

I took a day to listen to the CLS as a comparison, TAS referred to the CLS from 15 year old memories.

So, please explain what we failed to address. I've probably spent more time on the CLX review (and certainly more magazine real estate) than any other component we've ever reviewed.


Interestingly though, I think JV, Roy Gregory and I all arrived at the same conclusion, that the CLX is a pretty spectacular speaker (especially at the price point) and were all impressed with the same aspects of the CLX.

Personally, considering how much the various magazines tend to disagree on everything, I think that's quite a testament to what ML has achieved.



But on the other hand, the Quads are on their way here after CES, so I'm anxious to spend some time with them. Really enjoyed them a lot at the show and I've always loved Quad.

A different speaker than the CLX for sure, but certainly a great alternative for someone with different requirements. I'll be curious to see how they respond to different amplification.

We'll keep you posted when they arrive!

 

[Dreamer]

It is therefore understandable why they sound better with the lights down low, which has a secondary purpose in preventing light reflected off the LF panels from flashing like the lights on a Christmas tree.

The "sparking panels" effect is one of the things I always thought was really cool with the CLS's. I wish my Sequels would do that...

 

[gregadd]

Ambivalent about CLX

I think if you read between the lines of all three reviews, it was a consensus that ML failed at its goal of making a full range electrostatic.
JV clearly called the Quad a better full range speaker.
My guess would be the Magnepan MG 20 is still the best full range dipole.
Yet ML has me under a spell I just can't break.:bowdown:
gregadd

 

[DTB300]

Always getting the snarky little dig in, aren't we....

Just out of curiosity, you always seem to be pretty quick to dismiss things, what would have made JV or my review "Better"? We both played them with a variety of music and did our best to provide a good description of the sound with said material.

Jeff...Ah yes, the life of a reviewer - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I would not let these simple little digs at your reviews bother you. And as discussed in threads here, reviewers will always have people agreeing and disagreeing with them no matter what is reviewed. For example, someone already asked why you did not list the music you auditioned the CLX with. I agree with you, it is really irrelevant to the overall review. You did described the type of reproduction you heard throughout your listening process.

For the CLX review, one of the best parts was having the "companion" CLS review. Hearing the CLS gives someone the ability to fully understand how well the CLX performs and how ML has improved on the CLS design. Second part was the ability to visit ML and discuss the CLX design and production process. I believe both of these items helped you write a better overall review.

For the subwoofer aspect. The CLS and now the CLX has always been ragged on for not having sufficient bass reproduction. Most here who own CLS have stated the CLS does bass and does it well, it just does not pound your chest and rattle the pictures off the wall. So if one wants this type of bass reproduction, then add a sub - simple. And again, this is something you addressed very well in your review.

I am sure when the Quad's come in, you will find some positives and negatives with the speaker and there will be the usual positive and negative camps about it.

Overall Tone Audio does a very good job with equipment and music reviews. There is just so much time and so much space to get a publication out and the balancing act is very fine.

Keep up the great work.

 

[roberto]

Hola...I have the TAS CLX review in .pdf format, but the system does not accept it because it is too big, how can I do it? At the end of the review he said that the CLX is the new reference of dipole speakers...Happy listening,
Roberto.

 

[C.A.P]

I think if you read between the lines of all three reviews, it was a consensus that ML failed at its goal of making a full range electrostatic.
JV clearly called the Quad a better full range speaker.
My guess would be the Magnepan MG 20 is still the best full range dipole.
Yet ML has me under a spell I just can't break.:bowdown:
gregadd

You are 100% WRONG. Martin Logan hit a home run with their design, so much it has influenced the new X line from them. Having CLS and a world class system to drive them, I can attest first hand. You speak loudly for someone who has never heard them , Very pretentious I should say.

JV opinion on the Quad is just that, An opinion. The MG 20.1 does not even come close to the CLX in detail sound stage and bass. Yes it may RUMBLE a bit deeper but at a muddy sacrifice. Having owned some big Maggies with the ribbon, Its a great design but has its limitations too. It gets in its own way compared to the open ness of the CLX. The Quad is good but it just lacks the speed and openness the CLX has. Again I have DEMOED ALL of these speakers and have first hand experience with them. Could I live with any of them? Yes. Pending room space was not an issue. However if I had MY choice its the CLX hands down. Even with NO sub. The MG20.1 needs a BIG room to do any justice. The CLX do too. However when the CLX are forced to play in a smaller room they do better than the big panel of the MG20.1 that is in its own way. The Quad's well they were good but just lacked that drawing in chill factor.

Again I say this to anyone who wants to form an opinion about the CLX is to go listen to them set up correctly before passing judgment. Very few have came back with out carrying their jaws in a basket.

 

[tonepub]

Jeff...Ah yes, the life of a reviewer - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I am sure when the Quad's come in, you will find some positives and negatives with the speaker and there will be the usual positive and negative camps about it.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Regardless of how you think the CLX's sound, there will always be someone who prefers the MG20.1 or the Quad and there's nothing wrong with that.

One of the nicest presentations I heard at the show was the Harbeth 40.1's. They just happened to be using them with the Luxman integrated and combination player that I own, so it was pretty familiar. A very different presentation than the CLX's, but still very enjoyable.

Some days you have a hankering for Thai food and some days you want Italian, doesn't mean one is "better".

I feel the same way about a review. Jonathan Valin is a good reviewer that gets the opportunity to put his hands on some pretty outstanding gear and when he says things like "the CLX could be the most transparent speaker I've listened to", that's very high praise.

As I've stated numerous times is that anyone's review should hopefully give you enough info to seek the product out and then you have to make your own decision, regardless of what any of us say.

Writing a review of something like the CLX is always tough, because you have to include enough information for the NON-ML reader in the hope that you might lure them to the speaker, yet there are certain things that we as ML owners want to know about that perhaps are a little different.

Last but not least, as much as I love the CLX, it still has to come across as unbiased, so the skeptics in the audience don't feel that one is being coaxed by the mfr. On one level, I'm probably twice as enthused about the CLX as the review indicated, but balance is always necessary.

 

[gregadd]

You are 100% WRONG. Martin Logan hit a home run with their design, so much it has influenced the new X line from them. Having CLS and a world class system to drive them, I can attest first hand. You speak loudly for someone who has never heard them , Very pretentious I should say.

JV opinion on the Quad is just that, An opinion. The MG 20.1 does not even come close to the CLX in detail sound stage and bass. Yes it may RUMBLE a bit deeper but at a muddy sacrifice. Having owned some big Maggies with the ribbon, Its a great design but has its limitations too. It gets in its own way compared to the open ness of the CLX. The Quad is good but it just lacks the speed and openness the CLX has. Again I have DEMOED ALL of these speakers and have first hand experience with them. Could I live with any of them? Yes. Pending room space was not an issue. However if I had MY choice its the CLX hands down. Even with NO sub. The MG20.1 needs a BIG room to do any justice. The CLX do too. However when the CLX are forced to play in a smaller room they do better than the big panel of the MG20.1 that is in its own way. The Quad's well they were good but just lacked that drawing in chill factor.

Again I say this to anyone who wants to form an opinion about the CLX is to go listen to them set up correctly before passing judgment. Very few have came back with out carrying their jaws in a basket.

100% wrong! What did I say? The CLX is not a full range design. To me that was the consensus Jeff, JV and Roy Gregory. Would you call a speaker that goes to 50hz full range? Most would not. IMO the MG 20 is the best full range dipole design I have heard. Do other speakers do things better? I am sure they do. Does the CLX do some things better than the Quad and Maggie? I am sure it does. I too have found the Quads and Soundlabs too cool for me.

I have not passed judgement on the CLX. In fact I have begun to save my pennies in anticpation of purchase. As for carrying my jaw in a basket, I hope when I do hear it I'll be grinning like the cat who ate the canary.

As for your visceral response to my comment, I think more people should speak their mind.

 

[roberto]

100% wrong! What did I say? The CLX is not a full range design. To me that was the consensus Jeff, JV and Roy Gregory. Would you call a speaker that goes to 50hz full range? Most would not. IMO the MG 20 is the best full range dipole design I have heard. Do other speakers do things better? I am sure they do. Does the CLX do some things better than the Quad and Maggie? I am sure it does. I too have found the Quads and Soundlabs too cool for me.

I have not passed judgement on the CLX. In fact I have begun to save my pennies in anticpation of purchase. As for carrying my jaw in a basket, I hope when I do hear it I'll be grinning like the cat who ate the canary.

As for your visceral response to my comment, I think more people should speak their mind.

Hola...I just want to write the definition of a full range speaker "...A Full-range loudspeaker drive unit is defined as a driver which reproduces as much of the audible frequency range as possible, within the limitations imposed by the physical contraints of a specific design."...with all respect, I think that the CLXs are full range speaker with a tiny limitation at very low frequency...and the TAS review says that from now on, the CLX is their reference dipolar speakers...I am saving too, happy listening,
Roberto.