Amp for Martin logan CLS Originals

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 ;--)
.

Nsgarch, The topic here is the original CLS. I purchased Arici stands direct from Ray Shab before the stands were discontinued and my experience with the original CLS includes time spent with and without the stands. Associated equipment included Audio Research D-115 MKII, Quicksilver 8417 monos, Quicksilver Silver 90 monos, VTL Ichiban monos, Audio Research SP-8 MKII, Quicksilver full function preamp, Audio Research LS-2B, VTL Ultimate preamp, Ocos, Magnan and Audioquest cables. A Muse Model 18 subwoofer with CLS performance card also spent time in the system.

It should be noted the Arcici stands were recommended after the update to the CLS II and the major change in the CLS II was the increase in bass. As I previously mentioned, the original CLS in a differnet animal from the CLS II. Associated equipment that works well with one may not work with the other and that includes stands.

In associated equipment I did not include the wide variety of solid state amplifiers that spent time in the system because none of those amplifiers came close to the performance of tubes.

The original CLS is an amazing speaker and most amazing speakers are very demanding. Reviewers, dealers and owners struggled with these speakers because they were so sensitive to everything in the system. The change of one wire and the system could fall apart.

In my listening room measuring 15'X20'X8' the original CLS sounded best without stands. They also sounded better without a subwoofer. Because of the speaker's revealing nature the simpler the system the better the sound.

Rrog - just out of curiousity, what SS amps did you try?

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 ;--))
.

I have owned 12 pairs of Logans and three pairs of various CLS
and always felt they sounded much better with tubes. Various trials with Levinson, Perreaux and others always sounded dry in my opinion.

I had great luck with various ARC amps in the day including Classic 120's etc.