Amp for Martin logan CLS Originals


Hi,

I have been considering a couple of amps to pair with Martin logan CLS originals.

Any thoughts on the Mcintosh 2205(or other 200+ watt Mcintosh Solid states), Mark Levinson 23, Harmon Kardon 7.1 ?

Advice would be greatly appreciated.
dfelkai
Atmasphere's description of the various models is dead-on right. I was an original owner of the first version of CLS stats, and followed the so-called upgrade path step by step to the CLS-Z. The original CLS was a very easy load for tube amps. I used them mostly with an RM-9 Music Reference, which was a great match, but I also tried them with some Dyna mods (Mk. 4 and ST-70) and they worked great as well. The CLS-II was quite a different story. It had a punishingly low impedance at some frequency due to a notch filter in the crossover. Supposedly it made the speakers more compatible with Krells and Mark Levinson amps, but it didn't like tubes at all. Things got better with the CLS-Z. Unfortunately for me, I was fed up with the CLS by that time. I found I was no longer playing music I liked, just because it didn't sound so good on the CLS. I opted instead for cone speakers that are more universal in terms of music playability, but it is true that the CLS has a special magic on the right types of recordings that none of the cone speakers I've used since then can equal.

Dave
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 ;--))
.
Nsgarch thats ok I just thought you weren't familiar with Ralph's products and knowledge of the industry.
The evidence is in:

The ML memo supports Nsgarch 'specs completely. Is it possible Ralph has been misquoted here, for clearly Nsgarch's specs are dead on accurate with ML's memo.

Is this like one of those Bill Clinton definitions where there's more than one definition of IS? :)