CLS IIz upgrade

[nsgarch]

I just ordered a set of new panels for my CLS IIz's, which incorporate the latest diaphragm improvements (mylar and coating), high(er) current hookup wire, and "Clear-Spar" section dividers.

My current panels are 17 years old. They sound great and look perfect. Yet Dana Brown at ML told me to be prepared for a big surprise! They'll be here in a few days. Stay tuned

[mgard]

I'll bet that will knock your socks off. I also want to mention I appreciate your insightful comments here on AA. Let us know when you are up and running on the new panels.

[jdandy]

Neil.......This is exciting news. Looking forward to your impressions of what the upgrade delivers.

[mgard]

Dan,

This is off topic but seeing your latest Santa's helper reminded me of your UPS driver. Has she showed up at your house with any new gear? My driver doesn't look like that.

[nsgarch]

Hi Rick,

Let's see. OK, I got the first panel swapped on Saturday and the first thing I did was to A--B it with the remaining old panel. Frankly, I wasn't hearing much difference between them, when I realized the new panel had zero break-in time. (I later asked Dana where the "100 hour break-in" figure came from, and he said, "that's what the engineers told him"; and so I decided to reserve judgment on that issue! As you also reported, I sensed no harshness/brightness 'out of the box' as with the earlier CLS panels. In fact, I decided to restore the 'softening' switch to its default position (no 'softening'.) As it turned out, the new panels did change, after the first 20 - 30 hours. but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Sunday, I completed the swap, and the first thing I noticed was a cleaner more robust bass. I'd forgotten you mentioned the same thing in a previous email, so I was completely unprepared for it. Having discovered four years ago, the amazing bass integration possible when combining electrostats with just a single phase-matched (omnidirectional) subwoofer placed right between the (dipole) panels, the overall bass performance took a real leap forward! The lower mid-range was also rendered clean and solid, despite weakness in that area being a criticism (for some ;--) of the CLS's overall performance in the past.

For the next 5 -- 10 hours, I was looking for any improvements in soundstage, instrument/soloist location, and frankly I didn't hear anything noteworthy. I wasn't disappointed though, because my decision to replace the panels was based principally on extending the longevity of the speakers; which, like you, I had concluded were worth keeping, based solely on their previous superior performance -- so I wasn't really looking for remarkable performance improvements, per se.

But then things started happening -- around 24 hours -- beginning Monday morning. First, a noticeable increase in low level detail (like hearing the fingers sliding on guitar strings, or lifelike rustlings in the orchestra and/or the audience, and a true "breath of life" in the vocals; these all had to be the result of improved transient response in the movement of the diaphragm itself. Or to put it another way, the diaphragm was following the music signal with even greater precision than that we ordinarily expect from electrostats (and ribbons.) The only scientific explanation for such 'improved control' of the stators over the motion of the diaphragm, would have to be the new generation of diaphragm material which, as stated in the current MartinLogan literature, has an improved conductive coating; that combined with the very likely possibility that 20 year old diaphragm coating may have lost some conductivity over time -- due to dirt build-up and/or oxidation of the coating itself -- and something longtime owners like us would not have noticed over such an extended period.

The last important characteristic to emerge, as I continue listening 50 hours and beyond, is an increased sense of shimmer or electricity surrounding the performance; some refer to this as air, or ambience, often confusing it with reverberation which is actually an acoustical characteristic of the performance space (when it's not artificially added ;--) The effect of sheer novelty makes it easy to be unduly stimulated or impressed when listening to most good loudspeakers for the first time; and I try to guard against it. However, the totality of the improvements obtained after installing this "second--generation" technology were startling, and impossible to simply write off to short term novelty ;--)

I know it may sound "overzealous" (if that's even the 'right' word ;--) but I would be very curious to compare my "new" CLS IIz's with the CLX! For now, I'm absolutely thrilled!!

Best regards,

Neil

[mgard]

Neil,

Nice write up. It is really cool how your new CLS panels starting radically changing after getting some hours on them. I was told my 1.7's need a lot of hours to break in also. I'll bet right about now those CLS's are sounding really transparent and open. What amp and preamp are you using with them?

~Mike

[nsgarch]

Originally Posted by mgard

Neil,

Nice write up. It is really cool how your new CLS panels starting radically changing after getting some hours on them. I was told my 1.7's need a lot of hours to break in also. I'll bet right about now those CLS's are sounding really transparent and open. What amp and preamp are you using with them?~Mike

Thanks for your comments Mike. Someone else misunderstood me and thought I'd said "no burn-in" was required -- I just meant I didn't think 100 hours was necessary. They'd really changed a lot by the second day

Here is a link to my system:

AudiogoN Forums: MartinLogan CLSIIz+Depth+MC275 McToobie

Neil

[mgard]

Wow Neil,

Beautiful system. You are sure not the casual listener!! That is one high end list of equipment you have. Thanks for the link. I like your vinyl collection. Looks like you have a few choices there....

[nsgarch]

Hey everyone;

I see it's been 2 months since my original post, so enough time has passed, I think for me to provide a fair assessment of the new panels' performance (over the old ones.)

As I indicated earlier, I wasn't expecting earth-shattering differences/improvements with the new panels; and that my main reason for changing them was to hedge against MartinLogan's eventual discontinuance of replacement parts for all their legacy products.

Well, I turned out to be wrong on both counts First, MartinLogan completely reversed themselves about the support issue, making a happy liar out of me now saying they'll be supporting ALL legacy products "to Infinity and beyond!" See Post #4 on this page: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showth...Logan-Products

As for the performance of the new panels, after a least 100 hours of use at various volume levels, my assessment is this:

1.) Almost all aspects of CLS performance improved by small but noticeable increments. That means things like a (little bit) smoother top end; (a little bit) more efficiency; (a little bit) less time to fully charge (after the signal-sensing circuit applies full wall power; (a little bit) tighter/lower bass extension; etc.

2.) Then came a pleasant, and very audible surprise, and it didn't happen (or I didn't notice it ) until after that first hundred (or so) hours: a much fuller/stronger lower midrange/upper mid-bass. This was the one area that always drew criticism for the CLS's, and one which couldn't be fixed without applying some kind of equalization. And these days, that means digital, so no thanks Instead, (up until now) I used the "softening" switch to mildly attenuate the upper frequency range, thus giving the lower midrange a little more weight/presence -- unfortunately at the cost of a couple dB in speaker efficiency; but as an added bonus, attenuating the top end a bit made the speaker's notorious hi-frequency impedance drop less of an issue for amplifiers. The changes in the replacement panels were few, but apparently significant. And so I have to assume that the improved lower-mid/upper-bass has to be due to better diaphragm and coating materials, and a little bit higher tensioning. And now, with a stronger lower mid-range, I'm able to run the top end wide open (i.e., no "softening" switch) which of course has the (reverse) effect of improving the speaker's overall efficiency! So it's all good

As it turned out, there was really no reason for me to panic about replacing them; although in my defense, my CC was already in "mid--swipe" when ML reversed their policy!! All things considered, I'm very pleased with the results, and with the sands of time now running low, glad I did it for the few years of better performance I will enjoy
.

[Mlfan]

Originally Posted by nsgarch

Hi Rick,

Let's see. OK, I got the first panel swapped on Saturday and the first thing I did was to A--B it with the remaining old panel. Frankly, I wasn't hearing much difference between them, when I realized the new panel had zero break-in time. (I later asked Dana where the "100 hour break-in" figure came from, and he said, "that's what the engineers told him"; and so I decided to reserve judgment on that issue! As you also reported, I sensed no harshness/brightness 'out of the box' as with the earlier CLS panels. In fact, I decided to restore the 'softening' switch to its default position (no 'softening'.) As it turned out, the new panels did change, after the first 20 - 30 hours. but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Sunday, I completed the swap, and the first thing I noticed was a cleaner more robust bass. I'd forgotten you mentioned the same thing in a previous email, so I was completely unprepared for it. Having discovered four years ago, the amazing bass integration possible when combining electrostats with just a single phase-matched (omnidirectional) subwoofer placed right between the (dipole) panels, the overall bass performance took a real leap forward! The lower mid-range was also rendered clean and solid, despite weakness in that area being a criticism (for some ;--) of the CLS's overall performance in the past.

For the next 5 -- 10 hours, I was looking for any improvements in soundstage, instrument/soloist location, and frankly I didn't hear anything noteworthy. I wasn't disappointed though, because my decision to replace the panels was based principally on extending the longevity of the speakers; which, like you, I had concluded were worth keeping, based solely on their previous superior performance -- so I wasn't really looking for remarkable performance improvements, per se.

But then things started happening -- around 24 hours -- beginning Monday morning. First, a noticeable increase in low level detail (like hearing the fingers sliding on guitar strings, or lifelike rustlings in the orchestra and/or the audience, and a true "breath of life" in the vocals; these all had to be the result of improved transient response in the movement of the diaphragm itself. Or to put it another way, the diaphragm was following the music signal with even greater precision than that we ordinarily expect from electrostats (and ribbons.) The only scientific explanation for such 'improved control' of the stators over the motion of the diaphragm, would have to be the new generation of diaphragm material which, as stated in the current MartinLogan literature, has an improved conductive coating; that combined with the very likely possibility that 20 year old diaphragm coating may have lost some conductivity over time -- due to dirt build-up and/or oxidation of the coating itself -- and something longtime owners like us would not have noticed over such an extended period.

The last important characteristic to emerge, as I continue listening 50 hours and beyond, is an increased sense of shimmer or electricity surrounding the performance; some refer to this as air, or ambience, often confusing it with reverberation which is actually an acoustical characteristic of the performance space (when it's not artificially added ;--) The effect of sheer novelty makes it easy to be unduly stimulated or impressed when listening to most good loudspeakers for the first time; and I try to guard against it. However, the totality of the improvements obtained after installing this "second--generation" technology were startling, and impossible to simply write off to short term novelty ;--)

I know it may sound "overzealous" (if that's even the 'right' word ;--) but I would be very curious to compare my "new" CLS IIz's with the CLX! For now, I'm absolutely thrilled!!

Best regards,

Neil

Hi, Neil,

Glad I found your thread, I am new to AA, hence very limited access to the threads. I have the CLSiiA, believed to be originally from the late 80s' and time to replace with new panels. I was at the ML factory early this year, talked to Melody about ordering new panels. In fact my old panels are still singing only with very minor hiss when music is not playing. I meant the hissss came from the panels when the amp is off.

My question is mine is not the CLSiiz, just not sure if all CLS models panels are in fact the same in term of their structural design except there may be a different circuitry in the electronic box. I have not had a chance to talk to ML. Until now I saw your thread here. My purpose for the replacement is to extend their life, of course to seek for better sound effect there after. Thanks,

Pat~~