Monolith III's or CLS IIZ's Pros and Cons

I think that the biggest difference that I noticed when auditioning these speakers was that the CLS was a bit more coherent throughout the frequency spectrum than the Monolith. While the Monoliths did go lower, I never felt that the bass fully integrated with the stat panels to where I didn't notice the discontinuity between the bass and stat drivers. You may have to work to integrate the subs with the CLS, but the lower crossover point might make that a bit easier. My ultimate gripe with the CLS was that they didn't play loud enough for me at the time (don't know how they'd fare with rock or large scale classical works, for example). They were very nice for small scale classical, chamber music and jazz. Hope this helps refresh your memory.

I was a Martin Logan dealer for many years and have personally owned almost all of their speakers.

I currently have a pair of rosewood CLSIIA's that are wonderful. I swap these out with several other speakers from time to time in my he-man rig.

IMHO, the CLSIIZ with your (2) Depth subs would be AWESOME!

I have no problem with my CLSIIA's playing rock music to pretty loud levels.

If you were talking speaker for speaker, (no subs involved), the Monolith might be the way to go, but since you have Depth's, the CLSIIZ's combo would be killer.

Mofimadness,

Have you ever heard the CLS's with kinergetics Research subs? It used to be a popular combo.

Zd542...yes, I was a KR dealer, (back in the day). That was a very popular combo, but did take up some room.

I think one of the high-end mags at the time raved all about that combo. It was kind of a "Mini Martin Logan Statement" system.

I think the Martin Logan Depths would integrate a little better today, than the KR SW-800 subs. The Depths are way faster and somewhat easier to place.

Might be a tough room, perhaps especially to integrate a sub with.