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


Could anyone in these forums share any Pros and/or Cons in why you would choose one of these fine speakers over other.

With the Monolith's - I would either add a Sub or Update the Woofers.
With the CLS's - I would use my existing Two (2) ML Depth's.

My Room is 16' x 18' x 8.5' high
Amps would be the Parasound JC1's and an A21 as Monoliths have the ML Active X-over.
Parasound JC1s for the CLS's
I am not making any amp changes at this time, thank you.

I listen to Jazz, Classical and some rock.
I have owned both for these speakers in the past but it has been to long to remember the specific plusses and minuses of each. Please advise if you can and thanks.

Anyone out there who could re-state them, it would great and and much appreciated.
1985tqc
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.
Still owning 3 pair of CLS first generation that are stored away. I can say that the CLS with a Depth was some of the most beautiful music that I ever experienced, especially with vocals. While the original CLS and the CLSIIz are different animals, I would not hesitate to go with the Zs.
I would recommend that you run them full range and bring the subs in from below. I used a Classe CA400 amp, that the impedance of the CLS turned into a 100 watt amp on a 83dB sensitive stat. It was difficult to get any real volume from them. The impedance and sensitivity of the Zs should work much better with the JC1s.
CLS's with subs is a way better setup. All the hybrid ML have issues with how high they cross over the woofers. Not in that the crossover is obvious but it is that the tonality between the two is so different.. Remember they crossover the panel in the lower midrange. CLS's with fast subs crossed over below 80hz is a way more coherent and timbrely correct setup.
costly to replace panel and most are in need of it due to age