Please go to my system page and, specifically, read the short history of my system (starting in 1990 when I bought the CLS II's (now IIz).
Since I strongly disagree with about 80% of the previous posts' contents, I'd rather not add to them; however if you have specific questions about my system's evolution, my choices, etc, I'd be happy to respond -- either here or offline.
Neil
. |
Rrog, your information is incorrect. If you'll send me your email, I will scan/attach a copy of a MartinLogan factory memo to CLS owners dated Feb. 12, 1992. Among other things, the factory recommends (and explains the reasons for) the use of Arcici stands, co-developed with ML.
This memo also documents the technical evolution from the CLS-I through the CLS-IIz. I owned all four versions, and the only one with a performance glitch (in the upper midrange) was the CLS-II, quickly remedied with the "a" mod. But it still dipped to .6 ohms at 18KHz. The IIz mod took care of that. You can drive all four at 4 ohms, with 100W (+/--) of tube power, or 200W (+/--) of ss power.
Arcici no longer makes CLS stands; but Sound Anchor currently makes much better ones (IMO), and the current price is ony $575/pr. (I think ;--)
. |
Rrog: You are correct about the CLS-zero (if you want to call it that ;--) which panel was only divided vertically, and the (two) bass sections were in the middle (halfway between the top and bottom of the speaker.) The stand recommendation came after the 'zero', and applied to all subsequent models (starting with the CLS-I)that had the full-height bass sections on the left and right side of the panel, and a full-height high/mid-frequency section.
Indeed, it was quite common for people to 'tilt' their original CLS's back a bit. However, in that case it was in order to get the bottom high-frequency section better pointed at the listener, and with carpeted floors, to keep its HF output from getting soaked up by carpeting! If you recall, the original Statement (the Fabio model ;--) had the same panel layout as the first CLS, however it came with factory stands. When I enquired why the Statement had stands and the CLS didn't, I was told the Statement's greater overall height meant if it was tilted, the HF radiation from the top of the panel would be lost to the listener -- so it was decided to get it off the floor a bit and not tilt it.
But your points are well taken; frankly these days when someone says "CLS", I assume (perhaps wrongly) they mean the CLS-I which had horizontal AND vertical spars like subsequent models; I suppose because it's so rare to find an original CLS-zero, and rarer still to find one with a panel in good condition -- no sags or ripples in the mylar, and a viable conductive coating. Nevertheless, I probably should have asked Dfelkai which one he actually has!
I do know one person who recently had to replace his CLS-zero's panels (no longer available,) with modern panels, and said the improvement was astounding -- although that was likely because the original panels were so far gone at that point ;--))
. |
Unsound, ML used ss amps for shows in order to insure good solid controlled bass. However this meant forfeiting the incredible silky highs and delicate, lifelike mid-range of which almost all stats are capable when driven by tubes. The alternative would have been for ML to drive all their hybrid models bi-amped -- which I bet they rejected fearing it would turn off a lot of customers because of the cost(s) they'd incur.
However, the CLS's, the original Statement, and the CLX are ONLY stats -- no cone woofers! So there is absolutely no reason IMO to drive them with ss amps; none! And if required, the lowest two octaves can be provided by a ss-driven sub.
. |
Atmasphere, you have the impedance thing backwards ;--) The original CLS, CLS I were .5 ohm. The CLS II/IIa were .6 and 1.0 ohm respectively; and the CLS IIz is 1.5 ohm
In all models, this "low impedance" occurred only above 15KHz. Raising it initially resulted from adding a second transformer to the electronics module, starting with the CLS II/IIa. The electronics module for the CLS IIz was a complete re-do and included a more sophisticated crossover network (filter network) and a 'signal sensing' circuit which turned off the high-voltage circuits when the speaker was idle -- a great idea for keeping dust from accumulating on the panels, but a disaster in terms of performance! It takes overnight for an electrostat to fully charge, or "form" -- it's just a big capacitor after all -- so most owners have probably never really heard what a IIz can sound like (unless you keep it playing music 24/7!) People with IIz's who know about this, defeat that function so the speaker is always charged up and ready to go. I never had a dust/smoke problem anyway; and Jim Power at ML said that a dry climate is the most important factor in panel longevity.
The later models were (sligntly ;--) easier on ss amps, but the changes to the electronics module were for the purpose of reducing the high end brightness and improving the upper mid-range. Even with the (1 ohm) impedance increase, you still had to buy an unnecessarily high-powered Krell, Threshold, Bryston, etc. to insure they wouldn't see the low impedance as a short! Tube amps by contrast, can handle shorts, but don't like open outputs (ie, nothing connected to the speaker terminals.)
I actually have a 1992 ML factory memo detailing most of these points, including a recommendation that the CLS be placed on stands.
. |
|
Rleff, yes, I know Ralph Karsten -- and I like his amps. BUT, nevertheless, he still has the impedance history backward. Why would you not give precedent to the MartinLogan factory information? You think I'm pulling your leg? I'll make a note to send Ralph a copy of the ML memo. Anyone else who wants one please send me your email address.
Whatever ;--))
. |
|
If you click on my system, you'll see I have the Sound Anchor stands which are still in production at ~ $575 a pair I think. I like them better than the Arcicis (aesthetically, and structurally) although I think you should ask SA to make your stands about 4" shorter (they're OK the way they come if you are sitting way back; otherwise they're just a bit too tall ;--)
If you like the way the Arcicis look, I can email you the address of a CLS owner who made (much nicer) copies of the originals; you could probably get him to make you a pair for a reasonable price.
. |
