CLS IIz vs Summit/Spire

[c_morse]

Hi all,

I'm still a bit away from beginning to purchase the speakers for my new stereo setup. (Will be used for both 2 channel listening, as well as home theater, as I love both music and movies equally). The stereo system will be placed in my Living Room which is roughly 17x11 or 12. Unfortunately with my current setup, the stereo will have to go on the long wall and suffice. I am contemplating a way to get it on the short wall, but as of now haven't found a way. I have also already purchased my amplifiers, and will be using the Monarchy Audio SE-160 mono-blocks for a while, although I plan to eventually upgrade to Rogue Audio M-150's when the budget allows.

The stereo will be a Yamaha RX-Z11 receiver, Musical Fidelity A3.5 CD Player, used as transport only, Musical Fidelity TriVista 21 DAC, by way of a Monarchy Audio DIP, the Monarchy SE-160's for the front amps, a Monarchy SM-70 for the center amp, and oppo BDP-83/Denon DVD-3930ci for the video side. I'm also planning on using several wall panels, as well as an end table bass trap for room acoustics.

All of that being said, I've been doing a ton of reading concerning my front channel speakers, as they are the most important.

Up until recently, I was fairly set on a pair of Spires or Legacy Summits, whichever I could find at a better price when I had the money. After much reading though, I have also started to really contemplate a set of CLS IIz's. Obviously the price difference is quite a bit, and even if I replaced the panels on the CLS's, I'd still be about $2000 less than a pair of Summits or Spires off the 'gon.

I plan on running one Depth or Depth i powered subwoofer regardless, but if I went with the CLS's, I'd add a second Depth or Depth i and use their internal crossovers coupled with the line level inputs to go with the CLS's. Obviously that almost negates the price difference.

So the question is, which is going to benefit me better in the long run? All the speakers I've considered seem to get really good reviews, and I'm wondering what the differences really are, and which will shine more in my system.

Also, if going with the CLS's, would a Stage or Theater i center channel pair better with them?

I hope that all makes sense, I'm at the end of a 12 hour shift, and playing around with my current list some more. So I've been flip-flopping on these all night, and just really thought it'd be good to get the opinion of the seasoned masses here.

Thanks for your time, and look forward to your insight.

-Charlie

 

[Dan Osib]

I've compared the CLS IIz with the Summit/Spires. The CLS's reveal significantly more musical detail than the Summit/Spires. The bass on the CLS IIz is pretty poor though in terms of quantity and needs a partnering subwoofer. Bear in mind this is coming from a person who is not a bass head. As for center speaker, the bigger the model the better a partner for the CLS's.

 

[DTB300]

Full range ML's, IMO, are the flagship pieces for ML. The others just do not compare. There is just something magical about full range panels.

The IIz's are far easier to drive than other versions too. But like all ML models the speaker will really show how good or how poor your upstream components are. The room and treaments are also very important to get the most out of your CLS.

The Theater will be a better match, sonically, for the CLS than the newer models.

The CLS can do bass...just depends on how much you like??? But overall, running the CLS full range and having a sub fill out the bottom end is probably the prefered setup by most CLS owners.

 

[Dan Osib]

At best the CLS IIz produce a bit of bass. Not a lot though.

 

[David Matz]

Batman,

These are completely different animals. I have heard them a/b and the sounds are so different, you think they were made by different companies. The CLS has a HUGE soundstage and great integration across the frequency range. Summit/ Spire have a much cleaner and faster sound due to the new panel. The music is also more focused and has more detail. The newer hybrid models, however, have a boomier bass. Personally, I prefer the newer Logan models despite the annoying bass issues. However, owning a full range stat, I know exactly where the CLS owners are coming from with their devotion to the model.

Not sure where you live, but if you have a chance, try to listen to the CLS if you get a chance if there are other ML owner members around you. You will know right away.

Good Luck


If you can get yourself over

 

[Dan Osib]

Batman,

These are completely different animals. I have heard them a/b and the sounds are so different, you think they were made by different companies. The CLS has a HUGE soundstage and great integration across the frequency range. Summit/ Spire have a much cleaner and faster sound due to the new panel. The music is also more focused and has more detail. The newer hybrid models, however, have a boomier bass. Personally, I prefer the newer Logan models despite the annoying bass issues. However, owning a full range stat, I know exactly where the CLS owners are coming from with their devotion to the model.

Not sure where you live, but if you have a chance, try to listen to the CLS if you get a chance if there are other ML owner members around you. You will know right away.

Good Luck


If you can get yourself over

Actually I disagree. I had a really good A to B comparison listen to all of these ML models through an AYRE K-1xe preamp and V-1xe power amp which are just about as fast and revealing as it it gets for amplification no matter what the price. I noticed that the CLS IIz is very slightly faster than the Bass 'Moving Coil' Woofer equipped Summit/Spires. The CLS's are state of the art for speed, they stop and start on a dime, you just can't get a faster sound anywhere, you can only match this speed. This is because the whole sound of this speaker (bass through to treble) is produced through an electrostatic panel 'ONLY' which has virtually no weight and so responds instantly to music. No slower/heavier Moving Coil Woofer is present like on the Summit/Spire. However I must admit the Summit came very close to matching the speed of the CLS, not quite though. As for musical detail retrieval the CLS IIz is in a class of it's own, a slight improvement over the Summit/Spire. You just can't get a clearer more detailed sound than the CLS IIz anywhere, you can only again match it, and I don't care how much you spend. The CLS IIz achieves the same clarity and detail retrievement as the CLX which is the current State Of The Art in this regard, even though the CLX has a slightly cleaner and overall more integrated sound than the CLS IIz. However the Summit/Spire did come pretty close again. I do agree that the Summit is definitely a bit cleaner sounding than the CLS IIz though.

 

[David Matz]

No problem - Tastes do differ. Life would be pretty boring if everyone agreed...Nevertheless, I am not the only one who thinks this way.

Here's an interesting quote from Alan Sircom's review of the Sumimit X in Hifi+:

...There the really big guns score over the Summit
X is when the bass gets really deep and the speaker cannot differentiate
those low pedal notes on an organ, for example. That being said,
the 'Holcane Attack' from Apocalypfo moved some serious air in the
opening sections. This is perhaps why the SummitX has got itself a reputation for being the ClS-beater. Those with the older,full-ranges peaker from 20+
years ago still cling to the design because it was the first - and still by
manys tandards, the best- do-it-al ellectrostatic. lt did this by effectively bolstering up the panel with a deliberate 50Hz resonance b, ut the result was extremely effective. Although it had a few running changes and improvements, it took a couple of decades for the basic CLS design to be superseded by the CLX. Unfortunately, for CLS owners,this was a bit of a double whammy, because Martinlogan began to come up
with hybrid loudspeakers that also deliver the goods at the bottom end
with no sign of problems elsewhere. The SummitX only adds to the
ClS-owner's pain. Sorry guys... the Summit X are a better package
in every respect. Still, the fact it's taken 20 years to come up with that
concluslon shows just how good those originael lectrostatics were...

 

[c_morse]

Hi guys,

Thanks for all the replies.

So far what I'm getting from this is that with the CLS you lose a little low end bass, but get a huge soundstage that sounds great.

With the Summit, you gain that lower bass, have a smaller soundstage that is a bit "cleaner."

Does that about sum it up?

It just seems that about everyone that I've seen a review from who owns the CLS's is absolutely in love with them, which is something I haven't seen a lot.

I do plan on running dual ML Depths with the CLS's if I get them, so the low bass shouldn't be much of an issue.

And I guess if I get them, the Theater i will be my center channel of choice.

How do the CLS's work for home theater? In asking this I do realize that the majority of the sound for movies comes from the center, but the fronts do still play a pretty integral role. Also, in movie mode, is there a way to use the subs as LFE without having to completely switch anything on the back?

Finally, music wise, I listen to a ton of alternative (Muse, 311, etc) a ton of rock and roll (Pink Floyd, Bruce Springsteen, Queens of the Stone Age, etc), a bit of old country (Johnny Cash, etc), and then trip hop (Massive Attack, Sneaker Pimps, Morcheeba, Portishead, etc). How will the CLS's hold up to that music? I read one review recently that stated the CLS couldn't hold up with Rock music, which got me worried as that's the base of mostly all the music I listen to.

Thanks,

-Charlie

 

[Dan Osib]

No problem - Tastes do differ. Life would be pretty boring if everyone agreed...Nevertheless, I am not the only one who thinks this way.

Here's an interesting quote from Alan Sircom's review of the Sumimit X in Hifi+:

...There the really big guns score over the Summit
X is when the bass gets really deep and the speaker cannot differentiate
those low pedal notes on an organ, for example. That being said,
the 'Holcane Attack' from Apocalypfo moved some serious air in the
opening sections. This is perhaps why the SummitX has got itself a reputation for being the ClS-beater. Those with the older,full-ranges peaker from 20+
years ago still cling to the design because it was the first - and still by
manys tandards, the best- do-it-al ellectrostatic. lt did this by effectively bolstering up the panel with a deliberate 50Hz resonance b, ut the result was extremely effective. Although it had a few running changes and improvements, it took a couple of decades for the basic CLS design to be superseded by the CLX. Unfortunately, for CLS owners,this was a bit of a double whammy, because Martinlogan began to come up
with hybrid loudspeakers that also deliver the goods at the bottom end
with no sign of problems elsewhere. The SummitX only adds to the
ClS-owner's pain. Sorry guys... the Summit X are a better package
in every respect. Still, the fact it's taken 20 years to come up with that
concluslon shows just how good those originael lectrostatics were...

I've personally met Alan Sircom on two separate occasions in the old Hi-Fi Choice offices in Baker Street London (UK) a number of years ago. He's a very respected and knowledgeable Hi-Fi reviewer, there's no doubt about that. He's listened to the very best equipment available in his time. Everything he has stated in the above review rings true and in no way affects what I have stated in my comparison of the CLS IIz, Summit and Spire. Alan mentions that the low bass is better (i.e DEEPER) on the Summit than the CLS IIz. This is because the CLS doesn't produce deep bass at all, it's pretty much bass light and basically quite thin sounding in the upper bass through to lower midrange. So deeper fuller bass and midrange goes in the Summits favour. The other problem with the CLS he is referring to is a slightly edgy treble which is just evident. The Summit doesn't have this problem with it's treble response which is evenly balanced. So as a basic overall picture this makes the Summit a more accurate and balanced loudspeaker package than the CLS IIz. It doesn't have anywhere as near as many foibles/shortcomings as the CLS IIz does. However the CLS was definitely very slightly clearer and quicker sounding than the Summit on comparison. This is probably due to the thin/dry bass and slight lift in the treble region. There were three of us there carefully listening and we all agreed we definitely heard this so it wasn't my imagination.

 

[Bernard]

No one has touched this yet, but is a 17x11 room large enough for the CLS, especially if they have to go on the long wall?

 

[Brad225]

Batman, This will always come back to the sound you are looking for. The CLSIIz's are very different than the Summit and I can't speak about the Spires as I have not yet heard them. The only way you will be able to decide is to listen to all of them and see which one will moves you the most.

If you can somehow hitch a ride from Shaw to McDill here in Tampa you can listen to CLSIIz's, two different Summit systems and a Summit X system. I am sure all of the owners would give you a listen with no problem.

 

[c_morse]

Thanks for the offer Brad. Unfortunately I'm stationed in Iraq right now. I'm looking to buy one set of speakers or another while I'm here, both because I'll have the money while I'm here and also because I want a nice present waiting on me when I get home!

Hence all the questions.

I guess in the end, I'd like something to compare with my Infinity QLS-1's that are leaving the Living Room in place of the new speakers.

 

[Dan Osib]

Batman,

If I was you I would save thousands and go for the CLS IIz which is capable of connecting you directly to the heart of the music. It has a magic that the Summit can't quite match. According to Jim Power of Martin Logan the CLS IIz has always been a pet favourite of Gayle Sanders, even after it's demise. Trust me, once you listen you'll be hooked. Shortcomings aside it gives a very exciting and attractive sound.

 

[c_morse]

Dan, how do you feel these will perform in a home theater setup when coupled with dual Depths?

 

[Dan Osib]

I've used the CLS IIz in a home theater setup and they worked great, especially with the dual depths.

 

[FISH_MAN]

No one has touched this yet, but is a 17x11 room large enough for the CLS, especially if they have to go on the long wall?

I think the long wall is the only way to make them sound good

 

[c_morse]

Dan,

How did you couple the CLS with the Depths? Were you using line-level?

 

[Dan Osib]

Actually I wasn't using the Depths, I was using a BK Electronics Monolith sub. I connected it to the surround amp via the digital input. It worked just fine.

 

[c_morse]

Dan,

Am I correct in assuming that you weren't using your subwoofer for 2 channel listening then?

What I'm looking for is subwoofer in both 2-channel as well as surround if I choose to go with the CLS. How would I accomplish that with the subs?

 

[Horchem1972]

You could run one sub with your fronts and the other sub through the dedicated subwoofer out put.You could also run one sub with each front speaker and set your processor's front speakers to large and no sub.You should really listen to the speakers before you purchase them.The CLS models sound completely differant from the newer Summits and Spires.If you go with the CLS series,I would also recommend that you find a Logos center channel.IMO I think it matches the older speakers alot better than the newer one.