CLS Built-In Equalization; A question

[karma]

HI Folks,
I have question and a theory about the CLSIIA's. Being a dipolar radiator, it is a law of physics that the in phase front and back waves will cancel at a certain frequency. The cancellation frequency is determined by the outside of the speaker frame. As the wavelength of the reproduced sound approaches the dimensions of the speaker frame, front to rear cancellation starts. Further, the cancellation effect will start at a significantly higher frequency than where total cancellation occurs. I assume the upper frequency where cancellation starts is about an octave above. Please correct me if I don't have that right. Right or wrong, the issue does not change; just the frequencies.

For discussion sake, let’s assume total cancellation occurs at 35 Hz. With our numbers, the cancellation effect would start at 70 Hz, up one octave. From 70 Hz down more and more cancellation will occur. This adds up to bass roll off starting at 70 Hz. Can the CLS claim to be full range with bass rolling off from 70 Hz down especially when it is specified down to 35 Hz?? I don't think so.

Here's my question. Does the CLS have bass equalization built into the electronics module to counteract this natural bass roll off? I believe it does. If so, the lower bass frequencies are significantly boosted. In a stat panel the result is the diaphragm excursions must be greater in order to obey the equalization. Nothing wrong yet. But, what happens to the dynamic range? Since dynamic range is limited by the stator spacing, the diaphragm will run out of room and start hitting the stators. Serious distortion and sparks, maybe. This is very bad as you know. The result is a significant reduction of dynamic range in the low bass. If I have this figured right, this is another argument for subwoofers and high pass filters in a biamped configuration.

So, that's my question and theory. I would very much like to hear your thoughts on this. Inquiring minds want to know.

Sparky

Edited to correct for my poor memory: Walker corrected my incorrect use of the term Bipolar. I meant Dipolar. Thank's Walker. I've always had a hard time keeping the two terms straight. I also changed the phase reference.

 

[karma]

HI All,
Well, which is it? Is my question completely off the map? Or, did I state the issue so badly that no one can understand it?

Or does no one know the answer? Given the level of knowledge on this site, I have a hard time believing that conclusion.

So, I will bump this post and hope that it is found by some one with the answers.

BTW, the cancillation effect applies to all speakers that have a bipolar radiating pattern, not just the CLS's. What makes the CLS unique is it is full range. The other electrostatic speakers in the ML lineup all have hybred woofers. This means that low bass cancillation does not occur in the panels because they do not reproduce bass low enough for the process to be seen. That's taken care of by the cone woofer.

Thanks, Sparky

 

[roberto]

HI All,
Well, which is it? Is my question completely off the map? Or, did I state the issue so badly that no one can understand it?

Or does no one know the answer? Given the level of knowledge on this site, I have a hard time believing that conclusion.

So, I will bump this post and hope that it is found by some one with the answers.

BTW, the cancillation effect applies to all speakers that have a bipolar radiating pattern, not just the CLS's. What makes the CLS unique is it is full range. The other electrostatic speakers in the ML lineup all have hybred woofers. This means that low bass cancillation does not occur in the panels because they do not reproduce bass low enough for the process to be seen. That's taken care of by the cone woofer.

Thanks, Sparky

Hola Sparky...if you take off the top plate of your CLSs electronice metal cover, you will find first the power supply and next to it, the tone shape circuit board that you are talking about...happy listening,
Roberto.

 

[IWalker]

I would imagine that it would absolutely have to have equalization to accomplish any sort of low bass, and also, another aspect of dipolar radiation is that you have, at certain higher frequencies, complementary waveforms, that would boost the output in that range, while at certain lower frequencies you have cancellation (all this is dependant on the baffle height, width, and distance from side and back walls, etc.) Without equalization, I would think it would be very difficult to get anything approximating a flat response curve.

I believe that the bass cancellation is on the order of an addtional 6db/octive rolloff above and beyond the normal bass roll off found in the bass regions of a monopolar design, so this would require an extra 6db (or whatever the value is) of equalization per octive to remain flat.

 

[karma]

I would imagine that it would absolutely have to have equalization to accomplish any sort of low bass, and also, another aspect of dipolar radiation is that you have, at certain higher frequencies, complementary waveforms, that would boost the output in that range, while at certain lower frequencies you have cancellation (all this is dependant on the baffle height, width, and distance from side and back walls, etc.) Without equalization, I would think it would be very difficult to get anything approximating a flat response curve.

I believe that the bass cancellation is on the order of an addtional 6db/octive rolloff above and beyond the normal bass roll off found in the bass regions of a monopolar design, so this would require an extra 6db (or whatever the value is) of equalization per octive to remain flat.

HI Walker and Roberto,
Thanks for your replies. This thread was getting so little action that I called ML and talked to Jim about the issue. He confirmed my suspicians about the bass being significantly boosted to offset cancillation. He was unable (or unwilling) to give specific values of boost or where the boost started. All he said was "we boost the crap out of the bass". I think that means a lot of boost, maybe more than we have been speculating about.

I don't have the theoretical knowledge to determine the exact details of the equalization without knowing much more. I asked him to send me a schematic of the electronics module. He agreed to do so.

Folks, this may be significant information. Any CLS owner who has subwoofers should be interested. After I learn more I will post again in order to carry these ideas to their logical conclusion. It could be very dramatic.

Sparky

 

[IWalker]

Just a question ... what makes this significant?

I would say that it might suggest that crossing the sub over higher would make the cls an easier load on an amp...but I would trust my ears on that.

 

[karma]

HI Walker,
A fair question but one I’m not fully prepared to deal with.

The most difficult problem the CLSIIA's have is dynamic range in the low bass. I define low bass as below 40 Hz. Being a full range speaker, it is expected to go below 40 Hz (specified to 35 Hz + or - 2 dB) and it does - just not real loud. With chamber music or jazz vocalists it is not usually a problem. However, with hard rock, symphonic, or electronic music (music that I listen to and love), the speaker just flat runs out of volume and clips during loud passages when bass is present. In my view the most important improvement one could make is to better that area of performance. BTW, I don't usually listen to my system super loud. I like to scale the volume according to the music type and venue.

It can be done by using subwoofers to remove low bass from the panel’s responsibilities. My system is subwoofed (is that a word?). In my set up the CLS's are about 5 dB (power) down at 35 Hz by using a passive high pass filter in series with the CLS amp input. Consequently, the CLS's can handle louder passages with more grace with the help of the subs. From the mid bass starting at, say, 50 Hz on up, the CLS's have plenty of dynamic range. Overall, my system has good, but not great, dynamic range. I want great. I assume other CLS owners do too. This is the one area where I feel my system must take a back seat to the large floorstanding cone driver based speaker systems on the market.

I think this level of dynamic performance may be do-able by modifying the built-in equalization. The equalization just gets in the way of a subwoofed system if the system crossover frequencies are set up properly. I won't know how do-able this idea is until I get a look at the schematic of the equalization network and do some experimenting.

Of course, there is another up side we have not talked about. And that is (drum roll please) the subs add subterranean bass. My subs go to sub 20 Hz with power. For a bass lover like me, this is adequate performance as long as a price is not paid higher in the frequency range. We certainly do not want to subtract from what the CLS's do best. Right now, I have not hurt the CLS’s natural performance. Can everything be even better? Now, that’s a question that needs an answer.

BTW, an electrostatic speaker presents largely a capacitive load to the amplifier. From an electronics point of view, the load impedance decreases as frequency increases - just the opposite of a magnetic speaker. Raising the crossover frequency will not help the amp but it could help the speakers. As with many things, it depends.

Sparky

 

[roberto]

HI Walker,
A fair question but one I’m not fully prepared to deal with.

The most difficult problem the CLSIIA's have is dynamic range in the low bass. I define low bass as below 40 Hz. Being a full range speaker, it is expected to go below 40 Hz (specified to 35 Hz + or - 2 dB) and it does - just not real loud. With chamber music or jazz vocalists it is not usually a problem. However, with hard rock, symphonic, or electronic music (music that I listen to and love), the speaker just flat runs out of volume and clips during loud passages when bass is present. In my view the most important improvement one could make is to better that area of performance. BTW, I don't usually listen to my system super loud. I like to scale the volume according to the music type and venue.

It can be done by using subwoofers to remove low bass from the panel’s responsibilities. My system is subwoofed (is that a word?). In my set up the CLS's are about 5 dB (power) down at 35 Hz by using a passive high pass filter in series with the CLS amp input. Consequently, the CLS's can handle louder passages with more grace with the help of the subs. From the mid bass starting at, say, 50 Hz on up, the CLS's have plenty of dynamic range. Overall, my system has good, but not great, dynamic range. I want great. I assume other CLS owners do too. This is the one area where I feel my system must take a back seat to the large floorstanding cone driver based speaker systems on the market.

I think this level of dynamic performance may be do-able by modifying the built-in equalization. The equalization just gets in the way of a subwoofed system if the system crossover frequencies are set up properly. I won't know how do-able this idea is until I get a look at the schematic of the equalization network and do some experimenting.

Of course, there is another up side we have not talked about. And that is (drum roll please) the subs add subterranean bass. My subs go to sub 20 Hz with power. For a bass lover like me, this is adequate performance as long as a price is not paid higher in the frequency range. We certainly do not want to subtract from what the CLS's do best. Right now, I have not hurt the CLS’s natural performance. Can everything be even better? Now, that’s a question that needs an answer.

BTW, an electrostatic speaker presents largely a capacitive load to the amplifier. From an electronics point of view, the load impedance decreases as frequency increases - just the opposite of a magnetic speaker. Raising the crossover frequency will not help the amp but it could help the speakers. As with many things, it depends.

Sparky

Hola Sparky...right with below 40 Hz...but my question is, how many musical instruments notes are below 40 Hz and how often this notes are used?...below 40Hz the notes also are not truly easy to reproduce them by any musical instrument unless big church organ...the piano goes to 28.1 Hz (last A note) but these notes are for effect in music, and generally are not played in the 90% of the music. And when we have these big low notes, are for a fraction of the time...for HT, is a total different history. The low frequency effects are a must in a H T system. I can not use a sub in my CLSIIz because I hear it all the time when I am playing music. I rather have the musican(s) at the stage, than heavy bass energy in my room...it is just my liking...and not necessary yours:cheers: ...what I do like more from my sound and CLS is the coherence over all frequency, the right size of the instruments, and the 3 dimensional stage sound, and life like musician(s) heart, the way that they performance for us!...with HT, is different...the sub is a must!...happy listening,
Roberto.

 

[karma]

Hola Sparky...right with below 40 Hz...but my question is, how many musical instruments notes are below 40 Hz and how often this notes are used?...below 40Hz the notes also are not truly easy to reproduce them by any musical instrument unless big church organ...the piano goes to 28.1 Hz (last A note) but these notes are for effect in music, and generally are not played in the 90% of the music. And when we have these big low notes, are for a fraction of the time...for HT, is a total different history. The low frequency effects are a must in a H T system. I can not use a sub in my CLSIIz because I hear it all the time when I am playing music. I rather have the musican(s) at the stage, than heavy bass energy in my room...it is just my liking...and not necessary yours:cheers: ...what I do like more from my sound and CLS is the coherence over all frequency, the right size of the instruments, and the 3 dimensional stage sound, and life like musician(s) heart, the way that they performance for us!...with HT, is different...the sub is a must!...happy listening,
Roberto.

HI Roberto,
Thanks for chiming in. I appreciate your opinion. But I respectfully disagree with parts of it.

Suppose that the sub set up is so good that you can't hear the sub all the time - only when the music dictates? Suppose you love large pipe organs? Suppose you like rock? Suppose you truly love certain modern composers who use the synthesizer as their medium? What if you cannot do without the impact of a full size symphony orchestra playing Stravinsky? Would you feel the same way? Low, deep, powerful bass is a big part of all these musical idioms. CLS's, unaided, fall apart when trying to reproduce under these conditions at respectable volumes.

I wish to clear up what must be a misunderstanding on your part. Why would you think I would put up with a subwoofer that is as poorly set up as you seem to assume mine is? I have had subs in my various systems, all panel systems, since 1975. I can assure you that I am the most sensitive to a misbehaving sub. I can only assume you have never heard a really good sub set up. Given your experience, I don't blame you for believing the way you do. I have heard very few I could live with. But does that mean it's impossible? No, just difficult.

Roberto, if you listened to my system I do not believe you could tell that very capable subs are there, working full time. I have put a lot of creative effort, using methods no one else uses or has even thought of to my knowledge, to cause the sub to disappear. I know that ML has not thought of the methods I use. I have talked to them in detail about my techniques, which, BTW, work.

I think most folks feel the same as you - it's impossible to make it all sound great. But it's not. The difference between me and you is I refuse to be without great bass while you don't like bass very much so you don't go to the trouble to have subs and get them right. Fair enough but please don't deride my efforts.

And BTW, real musicians on stage and great bass are not mutually exclusive.

One more thing; I too am an audio professional. I have owned and operated my own high end hi fi repair shop for over 10 years as my only means of income. I have been engaged in electronics engineering in the aerospace industry for over 35 years as a digital communications systems designer. I hate to say that because the vast majority of engineers I know have terrible ears. But somehow I feel a need to establish my credentials with you. I have heard and worked on a huge variety of fine systems and also a huge number of not so fine and poorly set up expensive systems. I do know the difference.

High Fidelity is an ideal. It is not about getting 90% of the notes right. It's about getting 100% of the notes right. We need to embrace and follow that ideal. Otherwise........well. boomboxes are a lot cheaper.

Sparky

 

[DTB300]

And BTW, real musicians on stage and great bass are not mutually exclusive.

Huh? Further explaining is needed for this deep, cerebral comment.

 

[IWalker]

I'm replying here having not read the last two posts (just karma's response to my post) ... if I have anything to add once I go back...I'll add another post. Just wanted to write when it was fresh in my head.

My question to you, karma...was what you just answered...I didn't realize you were thinking about modifying the EQ down low.

What I guess I'm hearing (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you want to adjust the eq down low so that it acts like a natural crossover, so that you can then use built in crossovers in subs to mate the two without additional electronics? If your goal is to minimize the signal path, so you don't want to run an active crossover, or your preamp can't do crossover levels...I guess that makes some sense. It would be much EASIER however (and I can't comment on the sound quality differences yet...give me a month or so) to just use one of the other two methods. it would counteract the boost, and prevent that clipping.

I suggest this, because if you alter the passive crossover, you are stuck with whatever crossover point you choose...and can't adjust and play with it without a lot of headache. A pretty high quality EQ/Crossover box can be had for around $250. (depends on your idea of high quality, I guess....again I'll give my impressions in about a month)

I would also advise against modding your CLS' directly, just for purposes of resale or servicing, when you can achieve a similar response with an active crossover approach.

Am I missing something by suggesting this?

I don't think you're going to increase the overall speaker sensitivity by taking out the bottom end (though you could if you kept the same size panels, but only expected them to go down to 100HZ....but you'd have to change the panel spacing, iirc)

I'm interested in following this though...I'd love to see how/where this goes.

 

[Craig]

BTW, the cancillation effect applies to all speakers that have a bipolar radiating pattern, not just the CLS's.

True, but the cancelation effect is more complex than just an effect of dipolar speakers. It's also so true that the cancelation effect from dipolars happens only at the sides of the speakers. We don't usually listen from the sides so it is a non-issue.

Being a dipolar radiator, it is a law of physics that the in phase front and back waves will cancel at a certain frequency. The cancellation frequency is determined by the outside of the speaker frame.

True, they will cancel at any frequency that is out of phase. But this only happens at the point or area where the waves collide, not necessarily at the listening position or throughout the room. It doesn't happen at the front or rear of the panels, only at the sides.

What is more of an issue are the in-phase/out-of-phase effects that occur within the room. You have sound waves that are reaching your ear directly from the speaker and also after bouncing around in the room. This happens in various areas of a room as the sound waves bounce off of walls and other surfaces in a room. When two waves at the same frequency collide and are out-of-phase with each other it cancels that frequency and causes a "null".

The other extreme is when they collide and are in-phase it amplifies that particular frequency causing a "peak". When this happens at lower frequencies you get boomy one-note bass. When it happens at higher freqs such as the highs bouncing off of hard surfaces such as glass it causes the sound to be more bright or shrill.

My point is that you do not hear any peaks or nulls as a direct result of the speakers being dipolar. However, you will have peaks and nulls as a result of room acoustics.

The ASC website does a good job of explaining all this. See link in my signature below.

If you are going to experiment with crossovers I would suggest doing some test with a Radio Shack sound meter and a test disc that has a broad range of freqs. You can then do a before and after test to see what the difference would be.

 

[IWalker]

*Drool* I love these discussions

That's a great point...it's in room response that matters. One of the primary benefits of dipolar speakers (as I understand it) is that while higher frequencies generally are more directional, lower frequencies are not....dipolar response makes those frequencies more directional (at the cost of some low frequency room reinforcement)

Compared to monopolar speakers, a dipolar speaker will have an in-room response that drops off 6db/octave faster than a monopolar speaker. The point at which this begins has to do with room dimensions, baffle size, etc. There is a spreadsheet I downloaded somewhere that let you put in all those parameters, as well as the qtc of the driver, and it showed you an estimated response. Of course room treatments change this as well! Most of the stuff I read on the subject is over my head, so if I get this stuff wrong, don't think I'm under the impression that I know what I'm talking about

 

[karma]

My question to you, karma...was what you just answered...I didn't realize you were thinking about modifying the EQ down low.

What I guess I'm hearing (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you want to adjust the eq down low so that it acts like a natural crossover, so that you can then use built in crossovers in subs to mate the two without additional electronics? If your goal is to minimize the signal path, so you don't want to run an active crossover, or your preamp can't do crossover levels...I guess that makes some sense. It would be much EASIER however (and I can't comment on the sound quality differences yet...give me a month or so) to just use one of the other two methods. it would counteract the boost, and prevent that clipping.

I suggest this, because if you alter the passive crossover, you are stuck with whatever crossover point you choose...and can't adjust and play with it without a lot of headache. A pretty high quality EQ/Crossover box can be had for around $250. (depends on your idea of high quality, I guess....again I'll give my impressions in about a month)

I would also advise against modding your CLS' directly, just for purposes of resale or servicing, when you can achieve a similar response with an active crossover approach.

I don't think you're going to increase the overall speaker sensitivity by taking out the bottom end (though you could if you kept the same size panels, but only expected them to go down to 100HZ....but you'd have to change the panel spacing, iirc)

HI Walker,
Thanks for you concern for my speakers but I am qualified to do the work in a professional manner (please read my response to Roberto). I have a much more capable electronics shop, including the necessary test equipment (all Tektronix), than is needed. What I do lack are the details of the equalization network. When I get to work, I should find the schematic of the network that Jim Powers sent me. My ISP's spam filter kept me from receiving the document at home.

I think I have not explained my current set up well enough to establish a starting point. Sorry, I thought it was clear but I can see that it was not. I have a pure bi-amped system. None of the amps or crossovers are built into the speakers. There are 2 signal paths that both originate at my preamp outputs. My ARC SP-11 preamp actually has multiple outputs, all with individual buffer amps so the destination loads don't interact with one another.

The CLS path goes from one preamp output to a home made passive hi pass filter (using MIT caps and very high quality Tiffany RCA's) to the D-250 power amp then to the CLS's. This is as simple as I could make it in order to not introduce the nasties caused by active filters and still have an adequate roll off. My goal is for the audio signal to be 5 dB (power) down at 35 Hz.

The other signal path goes from a completely separate preamp output to the Kinnergetics active crossover. I use only the low pass section. The crossover has several selections for filter type (Butterworth selected), slope (18 dB/octave selected) and cutoff frequency. The output of the active crossover drives the Levinson No. 23 power amp which in turn drives the dual subwoofers.

You are right when you say that my desire to alter the CLS equalization will cause a type of high pass crossover effect. If I could completely eliminate my home made high pass crossover by changing the CLS equalization I would do it. There are several reasons why this may not be possible from an electrical point of view. I need to know more. Hopefully, the schematic will answer some of these questions.

I think you have one misunderstanding and it’s important. My purpose is to increase the dynamic range of the panels in the low bass range, not sensitivity. Conceptually, these are two completely different things though it may appear they are the same. Minimizing the signal path, while desirable, is not the goal.

My original question in this thread was asking if anybody knows, for sure, if the CLS's had equalization built in for bass frequencies. This was speculation on my part. But knowing the cancellation effect, it seemed logical and necessary. If true, I had never heard of it before. Not in the specs, not in the reviews, not in the commentaries for any dipolar speaker. Since I am fairly well read on the subject, I found it odd that I had not seen it. Now, I believe it is not common knowledge. Really, if no one on this forum knows, except Roberto, who would? Well, bass equalization is now established as fact as my conversation with ML confirms. So, we can add this to our stock of interesting trivia. Hopefully, by manipulating the equalization, the performance of the speaker can be improved in a biamped subwoofer situation such as mine.

Sparky

 

[karma]

Huh? Further explaining is needed for this deep, cerebral comment.

HI DTB,
This was in reponse to Roberto's comment where he was trying to make a case for the futility of subwoofing. Of course, he did not succeed. Check his reply.

Sparky

 

[karma]

True, but the cancelation effect is more complex than just an effect of dipolar speakers. It's also so true that the cancelation effect from dipolars happens only at the sides of the speakers. We don't usually listen from the sides so it is a non-issue.

True, they will cancel at any frequency that is out of phase. But this only happens at the point or area where the waves collide, not necessarily at the listening position or throughout the room. It doesn't happen at the front or rear of the panels, only at the sides.

What is more of an issue are the in-phase/out-of-phase effects that occur within the room. You have sound waves that are reaching your ear directly from the speaker and also after bouncing around in the room. This happens in various areas of a room as the sound waves bounce off of walls and other surfaces in a room. When two waves at the same frequency collide and are out-of-phase with each other it cancels that frequency and causes a "null".

The other extreme is when they collide and are in-phase it amplifies that particular frequency causing a "peak". When this happens at lower frequencies you get boomy one-note bass. When it happens at higher freqs such as the highs bouncing off of hard surfaces such as glass it causes the sound to be more bright or shrill.

My point is that you do not hear any peaks or nulls as a direct result of the speakers being dipolar. However, you will have peaks and nulls as a result of room acoustics.

The ASC website does a good job of explaining all this. See link in my signature below.

If you are going to experiment with crossovers I would suggest doing some test with a Radio Shack sound meter and a test disc that has a broad range of freqs. You can then do a before and after test to see what the difference would be.

HI Craig,
All of what you say has some truth attached. But these are second order effects. The first order effects, the ones that determine the panels basic low frequency performance, concern front to back wave cancillation. This is fact. ALL dipolar radiators suffer from this whether they are electrostatic or magnetic panels. While I was speculating before about the necessity for low bass equalization, ML has confirmed that, indeed, they "boost the crap out of the bass". So, don't argue with me. Talk to GOD, who makes the physical rules.

BTW, thanks to all of you who have contributed ideas to this thread so far. It turned out much better than I expected mostly because this is a highly technical question. These don't usually do well in a forum setting. But you folks are not "usual".

Sparky

 

[DTB300]

HI DTB,
This was in reponse to Roberto's comment where he was trying to make a case for the futility of subwoofing. Of course, he did not succeed. Check his reply.

My reply was not directed at Roberto, but at YOU to explain your statement. If I wanted to know more about what Roberto stated, I would have asked him. Re-read the statement I quoted (simple to do) and let us all know what you mean by your statement.

 

[karma]

I can not use a sub in my CLSIIz because I hear it all the time when I am playing music. I rather have the musican(s) at the stage, than heavy bass energy in my room...it is just my liking...and not necessary yours:cheers: ...
Roberto.

HI DTB,
What is your problem? Are you trying to make this confrontational? Well, I'm not going to bite. The above quote is what I was refering to.

Sparky

 

[roberto]

HI DTB,
What is your problem? Are you trying to make this confrontational? Well, I'm not going to bite. The above quote is what I was refering to.

Sparky

Hola Sparty...I think all is matter of taste. I am also an electronic eng. and studied for over 14 years classical guitar, and played bass at a rock band some time ago...it is good to know that you could make a cone sub working ok with your CLS...when I use my subs with music, I start to bring down their level at a point when I say there...and look at their volume control to find out that they are at 7 o`clock position...in other words, almost not working. I don´t want to start any confront or saying that I am right and you are wrong...or vice versa...just my point of wiew of what I do like and what I do hear in my system. I have being representing Martin Logan in Costa Rica for over 19 years too, so I can asure too some experience with them too. I just love their sound and what they do in my room. I don´t need anything else but music...and right now, that´s what I am doing...listening music or better say, listening the musicians in my own room, making the music...it does not matter if I have succed or not with your liking. The good thing is that here we can share our results, and liking whitout saying who is right or wrong. By the way, do you play any musical instrument?...happy listening,
Roberto.

 

[karma]

HI Roberto,
I was not refering to you. You are far too much of a gentleman to do so.

Yes, I play, I'm sure not as well as you, the classical guitar and the sitar. Of the two, the sitar is my favorite. I love Indian Classical music in general. My fingers have lost some of their mobility due to a joint problem so the classical guitar has become difficult. The music, however, is a joy. I'm a big fan of John Williams and Julian Bream and Sor.

Just out of curiosity, how do you deal with music that has strong bass content such as the pipe organ? I know the CLS's are out of their league in that case.

Sparky