Ok ML CLS and SET amp owners - interesting ?


I own Wright 3.5 SET tube monoblock amps. They put out 4 watts and up to 8 peak. I love the way they sound. I want to try some Martin Logan CLS and while it seems crazy to think they both could work together I ask this question.

The CLS's are 86 db effecient and have a 4 ohm nominal impedience. They drop down to as low 1.5 - 2 ohms. OK, no way my Wright would work as it, but what if I purchased the Paul Speltz Zero Autoformers. I understand it raises the speaker impedience the amps see up to 2X, 3X or 4X.

How does increasing the CLS's from their nominal 2-4 ohms to 8-16 ohms increase the functional effeciency of the speaker? Does this even ring true?

Would my wonderful Wright amps then "work" well with the CLS's. Think this would be a match made in heaven if possible.

Grannyring
128x128grannyring
My understanding is the autoformers actually lower the efficiency of the speaker. I would contact Mr Speltz for an accurate answer.

I own CLS IIz's with a SFI Power 2. I also biamp. I think what you are attempting is an interesting experiment, but I would not bet the farm on it. A lot does come down to how loud you listen (I really like the CLS's at low levels).
You are correct in that the autoformers alter the impedance of the speaker, making them easier to drive. At least that's how it as explained to me by a friend who was using an Audio Note SET amp with his ML's. That is, until he moved to the Cain & Cain Single Ben, which sounds much more transparent, with a spaciousness & immediacy to the music that to both of us made the ML's sound distant and frankly, boring. Unless you're absolutely in love with the ML's, I'd recommend sticking with your Cain & Cain IM-Ben speakers. Otherwise, you could end up finding your match to be moving further away from heaven than you had expected.
Just my two cents.
Thanks Boa2. Love my Cain IM Bens, but want to just try the CLS's to compare. May not bother after your post here. I have not heard the CLS's, but find the speaker interesting.