What amps go with Martin Logan CLS II's?

I believe Gayle Sanders, the head of ML, uses Krell gear and demos with Krell gear--at least he used too.

I ran ML Prodigy and Aeon speakers at different times with various surrounds/centers, and always liked the sound of the stats with ARC tube gear. Stats like tubes... There is a complex explanation somewhere here on the 'gon about voltage/current differences between tube and solid state amps, and the conclusion that tubes mate well with stats and solid state mates well with conventional drivers. Not universal, obviously, but I liked the tube/stat combination a lot, especially for music with an emphasis on the human voice.

Little edit:

Try this thread, has some good information in it, and the CLS is one of the planars discussed...

[url]http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1024105702&read&keyw&zzplanar+voltage+current[/url]

I basically agree w/ edesilva about tubes, especially for the CLSs which I've owned for 17 years, because there are no woofers to worry about. I get my bass from a Martin Logan Depth.

That said (check out my system) there can be good reasons for going with a solid state -- but it has to ge a GREAT solid state amp! Not a Bryston, Krell, Rotel, Adcom, or any of the oldies -- Threshold, Crown, Carver. It would have to be a very refined amp (ie not harsh) like my ML 23.5, Boulder, Pass, Dartzeel, Roland, Parasound (maybe).

And the reasons might be limitations of space, heat, cost of operation. For equal quality however, SS is generally more expensive watt-for-watt than tubes)

I'm planning a move back to tubes next week (a new Mcintosh MC275 Mk IV and it wasn't terribly expensive. If you want other ideas, check out the Martin Logan Owners Club:

www.martinloganowners.com

Some folks who don't want to deal with tube amps go with a tube preamp and a SS amp, but that's a big compromise IMO.
.

We have owned the ML CLS II's for 8 years now. Wouldn't trade them for the world - unbelievably revealing, but very demanding, especially with the crazy load they present to an amp.

Started with Atma-sphere MA-I tube amps - amazing sound if you have 13K to spend. And the tubes kept going and popping - a high maintenance proposition.

Decided that transistors would be more trouble-free and purchased a $700 Parasound Halo amp as an interim solution. Good reputation, I guess, but sounded like mud - almost impossible to listen to. Very surprised how bad it sounded.

Lived in depression for a while, then finally decided to try again. Borrowed a Carver Sunfire amp and the sound was MUCH better. Nowhere as open as the Atma-sphere's but it was listenable. If you didn't know any better, you'd be impressed.

Encouraged by the Sunfire, I did some research and decide to give Channel Islands D-200 Monoblocks a try. (http://ciaudio.com), especially because they offered a 30 day satisfaction guarantee (and I read such good things about Dusty).

As usual, we waited for the amps to burn in. Initial break in is quick (24 hours), but we're still waiting for the final result (Dusty says the power supply takes longer than usual to break-in (300+ hours) because the amps are so efficient they don't exercise the PS as much.)

In any case, after the intial 10 minutes, these amps left the Sunfires in the dust (pun possibly intended). As the break-in continued, the sound just jumped out of the speakers. Separation of voices and instruments was amazing.
And NO feeling that the speakers were straining the amp.

The amps don't have the typical warmth of tubes, but they also have NONE of the usual problems with transistors - tight/hard/edgy/etc. In fact the amps don't seem to have a sound of their own - which is a good thing, Martha.

I still think the Atma-spheres are better (although we still aren't 100% done with the break-in), but they are also 6 times more expensive. For 2K, (any maybe for any transistor amp) I doubt you can do better than Channel Islands.