According to the latest hifi magazine review of the CLX, all different versions of the CLS suffer from a degree of edginess to the treble, uneven upper bass as well as a dry bass. I was wondering if anyone here agrees with these observations?
CLS /II/IIz Shortcomings
- Thread starter Dan Osib
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
roberto
Well-known member
To my ears, mine works totally different than those asseverations...happy listening,
Roberto
Perceived CLS shortcomings turn out to be room acoustic problems,shortcomings of equipment,etc.
tonepub
Senior Member
I've been spending a bit of time listening to various peoples CLS's over the year and I keep coming away impressed with HOW GOOD these speakers really are and how ahead of their time they were.
Personally, I think the problems listed are cable and amplifier dependent. The only time I've heard the CLS sound edgy was with an edgy amplifier....
Even though I have CLX's and they have obvious benefits, I could live happily ever after with a pair of CLS's and a pair of Depths or JL F110's.
Still a great speaker in my book!
Personally, I think the problems listed are cable and amplifier dependent. The only time I've heard the CLS sound edgy was with an edgy amplifier....
Even though I have CLX's and they have obvious benefits, I could live happily ever after with a pair of CLS's and a pair of Depths or JL F110's.
Still a great speaker in my book!
What year were those reviews written and what associated equipment was used at the time? Amps, Sources and other associated equipment have come a long way since the CLS was first produced and reviewed. Yet most people still refer to these 20+ year old reviews.
I'd like to read a current review of the CLS with equipment from this decade and modern subwoofers. I have a pair of CLS IIz's and edginess and poor bass is not how I would describe them.
I'd like to read a current review of the CLS with equipment from this decade and modern subwoofers. I have a pair of CLS IIz's and edginess and poor bass is not how I would describe them.
Last edited:
Have a look at the review for yourself http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?p=111131#post111131
Early CD's could be "edgy", maybe that's what they heard?
I agree with the comments that the amp(s) in question and room acoustics could have been at fault. M/L's are anything but edgy compared to any other loudspeaker I've ever been exposed to.
If you want edgy put your source on a glass plate, that will do it.
All good points. CLS were way ahead of its time. Amplifiers of then could not do what today's can. I will put my CLS against any of today's speakers costing $10k. Its amplifier and equipment selection. The biggest single thing to do to them to improve them is get them on stands with braces. Then the ROOM is the next thing. No other speaker plays with the room like a full range ESL !
roberto
Well-known member
100% with you C.A.P...I still have my first CLS model working well, and the one the I use is the CLSIIz. You can listen everything easy with both, like cables or any component that you want to test. They are not perfect. But which speaker is? On the other hand, the minor flaws that they have are very easy to take apart and just listen the good things that they give to you. I love the right size of the instruments, and the air between them. Transparency and coherence are un-matched by any cone speaker costing twice or more. Listen how easy is to understand the left hand of a piano player. Also the left hand of the guitar player or the mouth tricks if you play trumpet or clarinet. Cymbals are just there with the drummer, and not in front of you. And violin? Voice, male or female?...still one the best sounding speakers on earth!!!This is my liking, not necessary yours, happy listening,
Roberto.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
So who / what do you want to believe?
wallacefl
Well-known member
The wide CLS panels can have a bit of treble phasiness which may due to very slightly different arrival times at ones ears...it should not be a problem or as much of a problem with the CLX as it is a 2 way and the higher frequencies are being handled by the narrow panel. I have always thought the upper registers sound better on the "smaller" Logans but the CLS midrange is why I love them. IMHO the room is the most active component concerning their use and they have to have a sub preferably placed between and behind them.
MiTT
Super User
The only problem I've got with my CLS's is that I don't get to spend nearly enough time in front of them. 
Seriously, in my setup I'm very much listening to them nearfield, so many of the annomolies that might come into play simply don't. Someday, when I get them into a larger dedicated space (come on economy, a little more recovery please), I may have to be more critical in my placement, but there are so many guides on this site, plus my own ability to exercise common sense - I'm pretty sure I'll be able to dial them in again. I have never regretted going from my old ReQuests to the CLS's. If I ever swap them out for another Martin Logan I suspect that only the CLX will be able to satisfy me.
Seriously, in my setup I'm very much listening to them nearfield, so many of the annomolies that might come into play simply don't. Someday, when I get them into a larger dedicated space (come on economy, a little more recovery please), I may have to be more critical in my placement, but there are so many guides on this site, plus my own ability to exercise common sense - I'm pretty sure I'll be able to dial them in again. I have never regretted going from my old ReQuests to the CLS's. If I ever swap them out for another Martin Logan I suspect that only the CLX will be able to satisfy me.
Only the center section of the CLS panel produces the higher frequencies and that section is about the same 12" width as the Summit, Ascent, Odyssesy, Vantage and Spire to name a few.
User211
Well-known member
I found this an interesting read, CLS versus Apogee Duetta II versus Magneplanar MG IIIa: CLS vs Duetta II vs MGIIIa
The CLS had phasey treble and one note bass, thinks Martin - he agrees with Alvin Gold's sentiments. But bear in mind these guys knew/know each other pretty well. Also bear in mind that at the time, both were seriously into Apogees.
The Duetta II was too insensitive, overly rich and had rolled off treble to try and cope with CD's problems in this area. These problems were mostly cured with the advent of the Duetta Sig, which could still suffer from a bass peak at around 30Hz. It Sig goes down to around 25Hz, I believe. That kind of destroys the CLS and the CLX, neither of which can get anywhere near as low.
Stereophile is amazingly a good CLS resource. Check CLS reviews over time. But this was before their relationship with ML had gone down the pan.
Hi-Fi history - great, init?
There's no question that both the CLS and the Apogee Duetta were and are landmark hi-fi classics.
The CLS had phasey treble and one note bass, thinks Martin - he agrees with Alvin Gold's sentiments. But bear in mind these guys knew/know each other pretty well. Also bear in mind that at the time, both were seriously into Apogees.
The Duetta II was too insensitive, overly rich and had rolled off treble to try and cope with CD's problems in this area. These problems were mostly cured with the advent of the Duetta Sig, which could still suffer from a bass peak at around 30Hz. It Sig goes down to around 25Hz, I believe. That kind of destroys the CLS and the CLX, neither of which can get anywhere near as low.
Stereophile is amazingly a good CLS resource. Check CLS reviews over time. But this was before their relationship with ML had gone down the pan.
Hi-Fi history - great, init?
There's no question that both the CLS and the Apogee Duetta were and are landmark hi-fi classics.
Last edited:
According to the Hi-Fi Choice review of the CLX it looks like the transparency level of the CLS IIz is in the same league as the CLX. I agree that the bass on the CLS IIz is dry. I'm also starting to get more aware of the light bass on them too and this is starting to bother me a little. Soon this won't be a problem as I'm getting my modified to the hilt Tact RCS 2.2X room correction pre amp back from Aberdeen Components in a couple of weeks. I'll be using them with a subwoofer, so light bass should no longer be an issue. Oh and I don't agree with the edgy treble claim.
Last edited:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
When I owned the 2A's, I never found the bass "light". My feeling was that it was more "accurate" (read less hi-fi) with no bloat or overhang, which is common amongst many transducers.
Some prefer this. Some do not.
You own a great speaker and I hope you enjoy them for many moons to come.
GG
Some prefer this. Some do not.
You own a great speaker and I hope you enjoy them for many moons to come.
GG
Last edited:
Jungle Jack
Well-known member
Hello,
Add a pair of Depths or Descents and any bass shortcomings will vanish while still sounding fantastic. Martin Logan's ESL Series Subwoofer's really are special and mate unbelievably with Martin Logan Speakers.
Cheers,
ML
Add a pair of Depths or Descents and any bass shortcomings will vanish while still sounding fantastic. Martin Logan's ESL Series Subwoofer's really are special and mate unbelievably with Martin Logan Speakers.
Cheers,
ML
Unfortunately adding the subwoofer doesn't cure the thinness in the CLS's upper bass though.
Similar threads
