2. speakers
  3. 1163375632

Has anyone tried double CLS

I had posed this question before because I had two pair of CLS11Z speakers in a Home theatre set up that I wanted to find a way to stack.I had just been feeling a loss of music after I sold my stacked pair of esl 57, and was curious about stacking the CLS. Would the bass improve as much as it did when the Quads were stacked?The similarity between the two speakers was that each speaker was bass shy and that attempts at sub-woofing never really were sucessful even after trying the Depth.So after seeing coverage of the RMAF and of the Kimber/Soundlab set up I decided that if they could double up the Soundlabs side by side,why couldn't the CLS be run that way?I was also bolstered by the fact that when my friend Tony went from three to four panels per side the sound from his Acoustats really improved.It is a shame that Martin Logan gave up on the CLS and went the hybrid route,because all they needed to do was increase the panel size.If Mr Saunders can get his hands on a couple of pair of CLS and wires them to a good amp in series he will hear that a lot of problems with the original CLS disappear.Maybe it will even change his priorities,so that great uncompromised sound and not floor space rules.
lacee
lacee OP
811 posts
 
The more panels, the more radiating area the more sound.Is this too hard to comprehend?The stacked Quads didn't magically have any different bass than they had before.They did not go lower.The bass just radiated into the room more so that you did not feel the need to augment it in any way.This is what I have found by doubling up on the CLS.My claim is that there is more bass, not deeper or different sounding bass.Just more bass power ,if that is easier to understand.The bass no longer feels like the poor country cousin.There is more bass loading the room.Would you have us believe that an Acoustat 2(2 panels per side) has the same bass energy as an Acoustat 4( 4 panels per side)?Yet this is your argument that an extra set of CLS will make no difference. The basic principal involved is air movement.More panels more air movement.More sound in the room is generated by 4 CLS as there is by 2.This is like saying that the panel sound from a pair of Aerius is no different than the sound generated from the Summit panels. It just isn't so in the real world, or in my listening. Larger panels, more sound.Four panels equates to more sound,and there are no problems.Addition and subtraction nodes?You should get some hands on experience and not postulate wild assumptions.What about the nodes created trying to pair up woofers and stat panels?Why do you think that most stacked or doubled up Quads systems don't have subs? I am sure there were a lot of people who said it was blasphemy and that it just wouldn't work as well.In any event,this set up works for me and it will for those who try it.
lacee OP
811 posts
 
I think you don't know much about the Quad ESL.There is one treble panel in the centre of each ESL 57,flanked by a bass panel to either side. Three panels per speaker only.
So when you stack you get 2 treble panels and four bass panels per stack.You get more of the bass into the room this way and the result is you do not feel the need to add on subwoofers,neither do you need a super tweeter.When you add the subs and super tweeters you change the sound of the Quads and move into territory that is frought with problems,beaming tweeters, booming bass.Talk about room node problems. Doubling up on Quads or doubling up on CLS is not meant to change anything about the sound of either speaker, and I have never claimed it would.It is all about delivering more of the sound you liked about the speaker in the first place.
gregadd
574 posts
 
There is a difference between frequency response, dynamiccs loudness and volume. Frequency reponse will not be corrected by increasing loudness and or volume.

Many speakers bump up the bass to mask thier lack of low frequency extension. While your existing bass may get louder so does everytihng else. You get more volume but the same frequency curve.

la45
238 posts
 
Greg,

You hit it right! That is what I heard. The volume went up 5 fold on the CLS 1. There was no added extension in the bass or in the highs, not possible with this design. The point here is the CLS and any speaker for that matter can be "tweaked" to load a room so there is the "appearance" of more bass or dynamics using tweaks like anchor stands or direct drive amplification or just using a "fast" sub.

By the way in my old set up I used a subwoofer comprised of 2x10" paper cones and 1 passive 12" cone driver. Clever mechanical roll offs, which helped with the integration in that 100hz area.

Fun times with that speaker, the most transparent midrange but not the sweetest, that honor goes to the Stax 81's.
norfish
73 posts
 
I loved my eight years with the CLSIIZ's. I had 'em on Arcici stands and in the last three years, augmented them with a REL Stadium II sub. But I am very dubious that any amount of reenforcement in the bass can aleviate what I considered a major shortcoming: the lack of weight in the lower mids that tended to make instumentalists sound a bit disembodied.

Don't get me wrong, what the CLS does well, it does incredibly well and box speakers cannot match it for transparency and soundstage. But it does not have the instrumental weight and timbre of a good dynamic speaker.

At least, IMO.

Randy
More to discover