Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: chu@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Eugene Chu)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: logan CLS versus sequel
Message-ID: <12886@uwm.edu>
Date: 7 Jun 91 12:59:44 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 56
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

In article <12823@uwm.edu> JWB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>
>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


In my listening tests, the CLS, as most electrostatic speakers, do indeed
lack bass response.  This is due to the fact that these types of speakers
are bipolar, with radiation patterns behind the speakers exactly out of
phase with those of the front.  For medium to high frequencies, this is not
a problem, as these acuostic energies have fairly short wavelenghts, and when
the front and back waves meet, they have less of a tendency to cancel each
other.  This could cause interference that could upset imaging, so what one
usually does is to place sound absorbant materials behind them and to their
sides.  At lower frequencies, the front and back waves meet while still close
to their maximal out of phase relationship, and would tend to cancel each
other.  This is why they appear to have less response at lower frequencies.
I once saw an audio shop do something very interesting to enhance the bass
response of the CLS:  they built a bass trap against one of the walls and
set the CLS in front of them. That was the only time I've ever heard a set of
CLS with decent bass response.

The Sequel on the other hand, has an enclosed and baffled bass driver to 
provide bass response.  It works quite well, I think.  BTW, for those who have
the Sequel, are the top rear edges of the side panels straight, or is there a
triangular cut into them?  When the Sequels first came out, they had the
straight edge.  But that design tended to add a resonance to the overall
sound, and they later came out with the same panel with the cut in it.

In general, ES speakers are fantastic for mid to high frequency response and
imaging for a carefully situated listener.  But they're all too pricy for me.

eyc

My opinnions only.