Quantcast

Double CLS 11Z

MartinLogan Owners (MLO)

Help Support MartinLogan Owners (MLO):

Chuck Lee

Active member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
After seeing pictures of the SoundLabs that Kimber had set up at RMAF I decided to forget about stacking my CLS's and see what they sound like side by side.I wire them series-parallel,that is positive out from amp to positive of first cls,then the neg of the first cls to the pos of the second cls, and the neg of the second cls to the neg of the amp.The amp sees the same impedence as 1 speaker( I used to wire stacked Quad57 this way).
So how do they sound?Well I should have tried this years ago.Everything about the cls improves most notably the bass, and there is more fullness and the room is awash in sound but it is not loud.There are no phase or time differences to my ears by running them side by side and that was my initial fear,and the reason I felt stacking would be the only way to run 2 pair.Thank you Mr. Kimber and the sites that posted your set up.It gave me the push top do what I have done and there is no turning back to one pair of speakers.I should add that I do have a rather large listening room,but I can't see the doulble pair not working better than a single pair even in a small room.Again it is not a loudness thing, but the room is filled with more sound.
If anyone has a single pair,seek out another and double them up.You will be impressed,and quite pleased.
 

enilsen

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
102
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Sweden
I'm also looking for another pair of CLS's. Your findings are very interesting and the fact that they fill the room with more sound is what I would have expected. There is no substitute for displacement IMO and in your case this is what you’re experiencing with the bass. I suspect you could also experiment with a 5.1 solution but only use the 4 channels.

I would like to know what your room layout is and estimated distances from the walls. I have also noticed how room size (volume) can influence the overall impression on these full range CLS speakers. :rolleyes:
 

Peter Hogan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
294
Reaction score
0
Location
Fitchburg, MA
Chuck Lee said:
I wire them series-parallel,that is positive out from amp to positive of first cls,then the neg of the first cls to the pos of the second cls, and the neg of the second cls to the neg of the amp.The amp sees the same impedence as 1 speaker( I used to wire stacked Quad57 this way).
Hi,
Just to clarify, you are describing a series connection. This will cause the impedance to be doubled, i.e. with 4 ohm speakers, the amp will now see an 8 ohm load.

HTH,
Peter
 

risabet

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
1,318
Reaction score
0
Location
SoCal
Peter Hogan said:
Hi,
Just to clarify, you are describing a series connection. This will cause the impedance to be doubled, i.e. with 4 ohm speakers, the amp will now see an 8 ohm load.

HTH,
Peter
Also the second speaker is denied the benefit of the amplifier's damping factor. I have no idea but it seems to me that the CLS would not have much of a problem here as there are no reactive cones to be controlled.
 

Chuck Lee

Active member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Double CLS

Silly me, I thought the way that I had them wired retained the same impedence as one pair.I use 3 wires per 2 speakers 0ne from the positive to positive of 1 speaker, a jumper then negative of last speaker to neg of amp.I thought this kept them both at 4 ohms.All the better then at 8.
I never run out of power which ever impedence this set up is. I run a pair of Classe DR 8 amps run in balanced mono. My room is-31 ft x 24 ft-8 ft ceiling,on carpeted concrete floor.The difference in the bass is easily noticed and of far better quality than when I used the very good Depth sub with the single CLS. In my opinion forget to sub woof the CLS and go for a second pair of speakers,this is the best sound I have ever had in my room,and I have had a few contenders over the years. The double CLS fills the void that a single pair leaves. You do not feel that anything is lacking anywhere in the sound now. A friend who has Quad 63 and had heard the single set up didn't want to leave after hearing the double.He says it is about the best sound he has heard anywhere.So for a paultry sum of money that I see used CLS going for,snap up another pair and really get ready for a pleasant surprise.
You maybe wondering why I had 2 pair of CLS. I had them in a Home theatre system as main and rear channels,with a Depth sub and Theatre centre.I have pics of my system elswhere on this site.These speakers were wasted in the HT system, not because they weren't good that way.It's just that they are a really serious 2 channel set up this way.I hope that more will catch on,and maybe double CLS will be as popular as double Quads.
 

Peter Hogan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
294
Reaction score
0
Location
Fitchburg, MA
risabet said:
Also the second speaker is denied the benefit of the amplifier's damping factor. I have no idea but it seems to me that the CLS would not have much of a problem here as there are no reactive cones to be controlled.
Again to clarify, both speakers will have the benefit of the amps damping factor. The damping factor is obtained by dividing the speakers impedance, by the amplifiers. For example, if the speakers are 4 ohms, and the amp is .1 ohm, then you have 4/.1 or a damping factor of 40. If we than double up the speakers in series, that now gives us a speaker impedance of 8 ohms, with the same amp impedance of .1 ohm. This raises the damping factor to 80, but it is divided between the two speakers, so each speaker has a factor of 40, i.e. it remains the same.

Peter
 

quickk9

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Location
MA
Has anyone tried doing this with two different pairs of M-Ls? (I realize that the impedences would vary.)
What about two different pairs of M-Ls powered by separate amps?
Just when I thought that the WAF (wife accepatance factor) of one pair of ML's was low, ChuckLee suggests this ...
 

MiTT

Super User
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
2,959
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, Colorado
OH GREAT, Thanks Chuck! Newbie comes in here talking all crazy about doubling up CLS's and how great it sounds. Now he's got me wondering if I can score a second pair of ReQuests on the cheap. Or even worse, do I freakin' need to save up for 2 pairs of CLX's. Damnit Man! Have you no shame? You know how impresionable we are around here.

Quick, somebody distract Joey or he'll be selling his blood (and God only knows what else) between rounds. He's a freakin' doctor, I can picture him extracting and selling his own kidney on the black market in trade for a second pair of Summits.

Seriously Chuck, after hearing the IsoMike setup at the RMAF with the multi-panel Soundlab arangement, you may be on to something here.

You sick bast@rd!
 

enilsen

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
102
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Sweden
quickk9 said:
Has anyone tried doing this with two different pairs of M-Ls? (I realize that the impedences would vary.)
What about two different pairs of M-Ls powered by separate amps?
Just when I thought that the WAF (wife accepatance factor) of one pair of ML's was low, ChuckLee suggests this ...
I think the key element here is that this configuration is using the full-range CLS speaker (no crossover frequencies). They are very fast and open sounding in the bass.

I can only imagine how clear and solid that bass must be.

If you were to try the same configuration with a hybrid speaker it might not be as successful due to their design. In a 4 way setup (for the hybrid) I think you would spread the image better. :)
 

JonFo

Super Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
4,148
Reaction score
50
Location
Big Canoe, GA
Interesting, I'm sure this allows or much better SPL's out of the CLS.

However, I still maintain that if what you want is more slam in the bass, build a mid-bass line array.

A CLS + an array of 8 or so mid-bass drivers would be absolutely magical, and I would believe, sound better than doubled CLS's.

Either way, would love to hear a doubled pair :cool:
 

robertawillisjr

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
556
Reaction score
0
This would be an ideal time for someone from ML to step in and comment. The only thing lacking from this site is some participation from ML. The good thing is that they are very receptive and helpful when directly contacted.
 

enilsen

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
102
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Sweden
JonFo said:
Interesting, I'm sure this allows or much better SPL's out of the CLS.
I think many of us underestimate the SPL's of the full-range CLS when they’re working optimal. Unlike a dynamic speaker which gets it energy from a smaller focus point and the punch is very directional. The large diaphragm of the CLS opens up the bass so it is heard more than felt. IMO this makes a truly unique experience in sound and gives the perception that there is more distance between you and the speakers. The use of a line array with mid-range bass speakers should emulate the large CLS diaphragm with a similar sensation and spread the bass out rather than having it focused. Also the fact that it can move more air without pushing the limits of the dynamic speakers (less distortion).
 

enilsen

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
102
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Sweden
robertawillisjr said:
This would be an ideal time for someone from ML to step in and comment. The only thing lacking from this site is some participation from ML. The good thing is that they are very receptive and helpful when directly contacted.
Yes. Hint. Hint. Bring back the full-range CLS and make it a little taller this time (7 '). :)
 

attyonline

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
350
Reaction score
1
The more things change the more they remain the same. This doubling of panels was done forty years or so ago with the KLH panels with great affect, so it is not surprising it would work well with the CLS panels. Would not work as well IMO with ML hybrid speakers.
 

Rich

Super Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
2
Location
Huntsville, Alabama
OK, let's dream a little. . .

How about a pair of Prodigy panels (just the panels, not the woofers) mounted together on a base stand with one of JonFo's mid-bass arrays between them. So the panels would be separated by about two feet, with the mid-bass array taking up that middle ground. It would all have to be mounted to some integrated base to hold it all together.

This would be an absolutely huge setup with very low WAF, but I'm thinking if done right it could give the Statements a run for their money. What do you guys think?
 

enilsen

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
102
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Sweden
Rich said:
How about a pair of Prodigy panels (just the panels, not the woofers) mounted together on a base stand with one of JonFo's mid-bass arrays between them.
Line arrays will need a crossover to work and although can produce some impressive SPL's I think the idea of doubling up on full-range electro-stats is what makes this concept interesting (no crossovers).

If a custom bass driver was to be added to the prodigy panels it should be another large electrostatic panel (preferably flat) to handle the bass only. In theory I suspect this could be a cheaper solution than using line arrays and quite possibly a better match for the already fast responding prodigy's. Food for thought IMO. :cool:
 

Chuck Lee

Active member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Double CLS

I am continuing to be impressed by my system as configured this way.
I don't think doubling up the hybrids would yield the same results. You are dealing with crossovers and woofers and a lot more variables.
And though I maybe a newbie to some on this site, I can remember hearing the stacked KLH or Advents in some retailer and picking up the paper print out from a magazine I had never heard of,TAS.So I've been at this for over 30 years.I have owned the Acoustat 111 partnered with a Janus sub back in 1985,owned the Sequel,Quad 63, Stacked Quad 57, and had one pair of CLS paired with the Depth,and only the stacked Quad 57 had a bass launch that was in tune with the speaker until now. All the sub added systems did not create bass that is launched from one place and from one uniform material.The extra panel area is the secret here and I have sent a little post to ML expressing the need for a real full range speaker without being a hybrid and damn the notion that all that consumers want today are speakers that have a small footprint.The sound should be the priority shouidn't it?
 

MiTT

Super User
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
2,959
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, Colorado
Chuck Lee said:
I am continuing to be impressed by my system as configured this way.
I don't think doubling up the hybrids would yield the same results. You are dealing with crossovers and woofers and a lot more variables.
And though I maybe a newbie to some on this site, I can remember hearing the stacked KLH or Advents in some retailer and picking up the paper print out from a magazine I had never heard of,TAS.So I've been at this for over 30 years.I have owned the Acoustat 111 partnered with a Janus sub back in 1985,owned the Sequel,Quad 63, Stacked Quad 57, and had one pair of CLS paired with the Depth,and only the stacked Quad 57 had a bass launch that was in tune with the speaker until now. All the sub added systems did not create bass that is launched from one place and from one uniform material.The extra panel area is the secret here and I have sent a little post to ML expressing the need for a real full range speaker without being a hybrid and damn the notion that all that consumers want today are speakers that have a small footprint.The sound should be the priority shouidn't it?
Chuck, don't take any offence to my "newbie" comments, I was just trying to be funny. To be honest I'd love to hear your set-up, especially as I said, after hearing the IsoMike setup with 12 Soundlab Prostats into 4 channels at the recent Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. I am very intrigued.
 

Chuck Lee

Active member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Double CLS

I should clarify before this becomes just a matter of bass response.
It is not really more bass as it is more of everything.This is why I feel sub woofing with cone drivers and crossovers while creating more bass brings with it more problems than simply running an extra pair of CLS does.
Because the line arrays etc are not CLS's if you catch my drift.They do nothing to enhance the qualities that made you buy the CLS,and in the end obscure some of those same qualities by becoming too much of a pusuit of bass, the CLS 's only major shortcoming.The doubling adds to what you already enjoy, it doesn't degrade, it improves what was inefficient by just increasing the panel area that provides the bass. The ESL 57 had one tweeter panel and two bass panels per side.You always felt the bass was it's only shortfall.When I read about stacked Quad 57, and did it, I discovered that the extra panels increased the fullness of the speaker to the point that you never felt anything was lacking.Hence a post on this site about a year ago about how one would go about stacking or if anyone had done this.I guess no has until now because I didn't get any "I did it too" responses.The idea is not new,but until I saw(pictures) of the KImber Soundlabs set up I thought the only way to do it was by stacking. I know you don't have to,the height remains the same, you don't need to build special frames and they only take up a total of 14 feet of my room,this is about 5 feet for each pair of speakers, 4 feet between them in the centre.
 

IWalker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
576
Reaction score
0
Location
Charlotte, NC
At the same time, by putting two CLS panels next to each other, you're creating other issues as well. While you might not need to have a crossover, you have two panels with overlapping sound fields, which I would think would create an uneven horizontal dispersion pattern, and could have cancellation effects that would harm, rather than help, the radiating pattern of the speaker. (a big reason why a lot of people I have read recommend having a vertical center channel over a horizontal one, if you can make the form factor work)

While adding a whole other set of CLSs are going to reduce your distortion and improve your headroom across the board (which is certainly a nice thing, and if that is your goal, then this is certainly a great way to go, if you have the space) the improvement in the lacking bass area probably would be better suited using an approach that doesn't have the inherent limitations of an electrostatic bass system, as you are theoretically only adding 3db of headroom (or is it 6?) by adding an entire other speaker (which in this case uses a lot of real estate) when you could achieve just as good a sound by going with a line array...with a much greater amount of headroom, and a much smaller footprint. A lot of the supposed qualities of electrostatic bass are actually a result of the dipolar nature of it (so I've read), as any decent cone woofer should be able to "keep up" with any bass frequencies being produced, so making a dipolar line array should match well with electrostatics, while cutting down on the overall size of the system, and improving the bass headroom and extension significanly above what even a double CLS system has.

I'll let you know what I think about my dipolar bass array matched to Quest Z panels once I get it finished (thanks in advance to Jason for selling me the Quests) and I'll try to get some locals here in Charlotte to come and give me their opinions (and maybe bring some better equipment...since I'm still working towards getting a few important pieces of the system) after Thanksgiving once it's done! I wish I could come hear the double CLS system to have something to compare it to, though!
 
Top