Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: JWB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: logan CLS versus sequel
Message-ID: <12823@uwm.edu>
Date: 6 Jun 91 12:53:18 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 23
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


In article <12782@uwm.edu>, lrb@alex.ctrg.rri.uwo.ca (3787 x4108) says:
>
>i've been very happy with the CLS's for the last few years, but hear
>mostly on the net about people's sequels.
>

If you're happy, why change?

>why are people seemingly prefering the sequels over the cls, or is it
>that cls owners are just too busy listening....
>

For me, I was going from MGIIB's, which I felt had no bass, to the
Sequel II's because of their bass among other things. They were in
the price range I felt I could afford, fit my room well, and I must
admit, reviewed well. The CLS's, from what I read, lacked bass. I
confess that I didn't take the time to compare the two since the CLS's
were more money and I perferred the looks of the Sequel's.

just my 2 cents worth...

John Beach