The downloaded pdf tech sheet says it leaves Class A at 61 watts peak...does this mean (if that is at 8ohms), then it has a LOT of headroom in Class A...and i guess 30 watts Class A into 4ohms?
The marvellous Martin Logan CLX ART – is definitely a work of “ART”
- Thread starter Big Dog RJ
- Start date
The downloaded pdf tech sheet says it leaves Class A at 61 watts peak...does this mean (if that is at 8ohms), then it has a LOT of headroom in Class A...and i guess 30 watts Class A into 4ohms?
With crooner , singer songwriter, type genre I generally prefer to run CLX's from the 16Ohm tap.
I have not tried CLX's on 16 Ohm taps, only 4 & 8 preferring 8 Ohm. What amps are you running them on Harlequin?
User211, your insinuations are sadly smeared with malice and poison. You are becoming paranoid and obsessive. Firstly, you doubted, almost denigrated the ability of the CLXs in relation to their quality of bass reproduction and now you have turned on PASS LABS! Whilst it is your prerogative to be dismissive of my direct responses to your spurious comments ( see posts #63, #73 and #87 ), why not put an end to your innuendo by LISTENING to the CLX \ XA 30.8 combination. Six distributors who have brought gear for auditioning ( amongst others ) all concur about the quality of the CLX's bass with the XA 30.8. Your comments offend their collective judgement as well. Acquire some further indirect knowledge through reviews perhaps, but ultimately, DIRECT KNOWLEDGE through your own audition.
Let us all here read your findings. Test all your prejudgements and preconceptions hands-on and....please list all ancillary equipment. And by the way, take some of the discs that I recommended, since you so much doubt their ability to produce the double bass. You may also like to re-read my posts as a check list.
Thank you and all in good faith for the love of music. Cheers, Kostas Papazoglou.
Let us all here read your findings. Test all your prejudgements and preconceptions hands-on and....please list all ancillary equipment. And by the way, take some of the discs that I recommended, since you so much doubt their ability to produce the double bass. You may also like to re-read my posts as a check list.
Thank you and all in good faith for the love of music. Cheers, Kostas Papazoglou.
Very strange post.
All I have done is said I think it is a great speaker, within the constraints of a full range stat design.
The two other things I have done is complain about the Pass Labs specification, as it quite plainly isn't true. Also, I have tried to prove to you that it doesn't do low bass and it will not capture the true nature of many instruments because it cannot reproduce the LF content. Why do you think they sell matching subs?
Bear in mind you are talking to someone who used MLs for 17 years. But that doesn't stop facts from being facts.
Read my impressions of the speaker here.
Was curious about this discussion. i went to the ML website...it says the CLX has a lower end range of 56db 3+/-. By contrast, the double bass instrument products its lowest note at 41hz, and apparently in some cases at 31hz when 5 strings are used (See Wiki for description of the construction./design of double bass). Perhaps this is what you are referring to in terms of not being full range? FWIW, i have heard the CLX a few times when i was trying to figure out which direction i wanted to take...much to like there but did wish it had greater bass wallop. Of course, we have Wilson X1s now and a Velodyne DD18+ (which even cut off with 36db slope above 40hz) still produces nice bass on the music we play (when the X1s are muted via amp). so that's me being a bass freak.
Was curious about this discussion. i went to the ML website...it says the CLX has a lower end range of 56db 3+/-. By contrast, the double bass instrument products its lowest note at 41hz, and apparently in some cases at 31hz when 5 strings are used (See Wiki for description of the construction./design of double bass). Perhaps this is what you are referring to in terms of not being full range? FWIW, i have heard the CLX a few times when i was trying to figure out which direction i wanted to take...much to like there but did wish it had greater bass wallop. Of course, we have Wilson X1s now and a Velodyne DD18+ (which even cut off with 36db slope above 40hz) still produces nice bass on the music we play (when the X1s are muted via amp). so that's me being a bass freak.
Yeah see the graphs I provided earlier in the thread.
Three real problems with an otherwise great sounding speaker is lack of bass extension, lack of ability to sound really strong and dynamic (but it isn't too bad if that isn't a priority), and not great at low volumes. Otherwise fabulous.
I have observed the first two, and it was not for me despite its other magical qualities. did not get into the audition so deeply as to have tested the last observation about not being great at low volume. I wonder if that's noise floor in the system or speaker or whether it is a design-related characteristic.
I thought the low volume thing same was an issue with the Apogees, but it is a case of being underpowered (could be other noise floor issues as well). Because, when I heard the Duettas at Henk's they had no issues with lower volumes, but he had tons of current and power going through. To get a low sensitivity speaker to float its sound out like a horn and SET, it needs to be driven really well
From Noel Keywood's hifi-World review of the CLX.
http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/loudspeakers/65-reviews/252-martin-logan-clx.html
"Our measurements show the CLXs go very low, down to 40Hz (-6dB), which is lower than most box loudspeakers, and their dipole radiation pattern little excited our listening room's main mode at 24Hz, something I also noticed in use. Wherever I listened in the room, even against a wall (which is a high pressure point) there was no bass boom, or 'room boom'. So the CLX has strong bass that runs deep, but it does not excite room boom"
http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/loudspeakers/65-reviews/252-martin-logan-clx.html
"Our measurements show the CLXs go very low, down to 40Hz (-6dB), which is lower than most box loudspeakers, and their dipole radiation pattern little excited our listening room's main mode at 24Hz, something I also noticed in use. Wherever I listened in the room, even against a wall (which is a high pressure point) there was no bass boom, or 'room boom'. So the CLX has strong bass that runs deep, but it does not excite room boom"
The standard Duetta Sig even in refurb form wasn't/isn't great at low volumes. ML Ascents were worse. Jon and my revamps in the form of Interstella are a lot better. I think it is the super rigid frame of the Interstella that makes it work at low volumes. It isn't amp power related as any amp worth its Apogee driving salt will have huge overhead at low volume.
From the HFW graph/review you just posted it is well down at 40Hz... hence the 56DB spec. At least ML are honest about it. Big plus in my book
From Jeff Dorgay's review
"MartinLogan specifi es the frequency response to be 56- 23,000hz, +/- 3db. From the time I spent in their test chamber and here in my room with test tones,
I would call this spec slightly op- timistic (on the good side, actu- ally) as I was getting pretty solid response playing 50hz tones, but defi nitely a solid drop in output at 40hz, though there was still use- able bass information"
"Though it’s not in the owners’ manual, there is an internal setting for the CLX to slightly tip up the mid bass response by a db or two to further adjust the speakers to your room, with the default setting being flat. I’ve found most people to be highly opinionated about their bass presentation, so if you do not take the subwoofer option, this can give the CLX a bit more bump in the lower mid bass and be all that you need."
"MartinLogan specifi es the frequency response to be 56- 23,000hz, +/- 3db. From the time I spent in their test chamber and here in my room with test tones,
I would call this spec slightly op- timistic (on the good side, actu- ally) as I was getting pretty solid response playing 50hz tones, but defi nitely a solid drop in output at 40hz, though there was still use- able bass information"
"Though it’s not in the owners’ manual, there is an internal setting for the CLX to slightly tip up the mid bass response by a db or two to further adjust the speakers to your room, with the default setting being flat. I’ve found most people to be highly opinionated about their bass presentation, so if you do not take the subwoofer option, this can give the CLX a bit more bump in the lower mid bass and be all that you need."
From his review of Burmester 911 mk3, "When playing my MartinLogan CLX’s at insane levels, I found my self wishing for a touch more power, but that was really pushing it. Should you find yourself at that point, you can use the 911mk.3 as a mono amplifier and just add a second one "
He was a huge CJ premier 350 fan on CLX for a good while if I remember correctly. Lost track of him since he left MLOC and don't read the mag.
For Kostas.
I shot this to show spiritofmusic that you could get decent levels from Duettas with less than 100 Watts. I didn't post this one, though.
If you look at around 1 minute 50 secs, it really shows how a bass panel needs to behave to produce a good level of extended, deep bass i.e. you can really see the excursion on the right speaker. The left one is doing the same, it is just the way the light is reflecting off the panel that makes it obvious on the right one.
In other words, it needs large surface area and enough force per unit area to fight the Kapton/aluminium tension of the bass panel.
The CLX panel is split into 4 small panels of differing sizes. They simply cannot produce that level of excursion.
That isn't to say CLX bass isn't very good within its scope of operation/bandwidth. The Apogee is tonally quite different to a CLX, though. You might not even like it.
I shot this to show spiritofmusic that you could get decent levels from Duettas with less than 100 Watts. I didn't post this one, though.
If you look at around 1 minute 50 secs, it really shows how a bass panel needs to behave to produce a good level of extended, deep bass i.e. you can really see the excursion on the right speaker. The left one is doing the same, it is just the way the light is reflecting off the panel that makes it obvious on the right one.
In other words, it needs large surface area and enough force per unit area to fight the Kapton/aluminium tension of the bass panel.
The CLX panel is split into 4 small panels of differing sizes. They simply cannot produce that level of excursion.
That isn't to say CLX bass isn't very good within its scope of operation/bandwidth. The Apogee is tonally quite different to a CLX, though. You might not even like it.
Last edited:
One key difference between electrostatics and magnetic planars is the difference between the variation of the electrical and the magnetic field - the electric field is uniform and the magnetic field of of dipoles is not exactly uniform, particularly if the magnets are placed on only one side. This results in a different type of sound - people used to pure electrostatic as me would considered it colored.
Although I have no experience with modern Apogee rebuilts, from my experience with old types I would say that Apogees had fantastic slam and good bass extension, but no way the capability of "playing tunes in the bass" or recreating the movement of air in a large auditorium the way the Infinity Beta did.
BTW, I am only addressing magnetostatic Apogees - not pure ribbons.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |