Review: Martin Logan CLS IIZ Speaker

I agree with META. Correct amplification is a must with the CLS. Mine are the original CLS. There is plenty of debate waiting for which design is better. There is no debate, however, that the CLS demands an amplifier that is correct in timbre, pace and texture. It has been my experience that Krell is ruled out of the appropriate setting (for use with such a fine speaker as the CLS). I use a Rowland 112. For my tastes and perfered volume setting (within my given listing area), the 150 watts per channel (of the Rowland) is just fine. The CLS lock onto the room like a vice and project the feel, pacing and wieght of the instruments and the purity of voicing. If you wish to rock hard, there are other speakers and amps (ie: the Krell and perhaps Cerwin Vega) for that. This (the CLS) is a "fine wine" taste. It is not for children of the head slamming, Lear Jet "loud" crowd. It (the CLS) is smooth, refined and delicate in it's ability to move you (like the emotional art of music should). Disrespect this speaker and it will disrespect you... and everything else that is not worthy of its reproductive ablilities.

Meta didnt you notice the Audio Research vt100mk3 tube amp .still the cls2z is a nice speaker dont get me wrong and also I am not a head banger .Tried many amp preamp combinations and rooms ,also helped my friend set up his 2 pair, so its not like I have no experance with logans .I have been a owner for 12 years many models .And all logans have the same sound and problems witch you mention about amps very picky and placement.Compared to the sound I have been getting out of my tube s.e.t. amps and horns, makes the logans sound so unmusical though they are still better than most designs at this . I am not alone in this opinion most of my audio buddies are ex logan owners including the owner of the local dealer .I realy did love my cls2zs but after hearing sets and sensitive speakers , I am glad they are gone.,just my opinion .Johnk

I owned the CLS IIZ's for 8 years and found them to be supremely musical on small-scale acoustic jazz. Placement is crucial (at least 4 feet from the back wall) as is amplification (I used ARC Classic 120's). Finally, I got a REL subwoofer which mated very well with the CLS's. After many, many hours tweaking, including the addition of Synergistic Research Master Couplers for the CLS power supply, I found that the sound was really superb. Imaging is state of the art. Two weaknesses eventually led me to sell the CLS's and search for audio nirvana elsewhere. First was the relatively light-weight sound through the midrange. Almost as if the instruments were a bit ghostly. Second, the subwoofer never compensated for the lack of impact in the upper bass. Still, I sometimes regret the decision to sell the CLS's and miss them often. They rank as one of the best speakers I have ever heard.

I've owned the cls for over 4 years and use them in an audio-home theater mix. I tend to agree with johnk when he says they lack the rock dynamism i want when its time to go loud and raucous. However, I feel norfish's sadness when he reflects on them. They have a clarity and detail that few speakers can duplicate and to replace them with anything else will constantly bring reminders of those features. I am curious as to how they sound as pairs in a home theater sound. I have sl3s in the rear and would move them to the sides and purchase antoher pair of cls for the rear channels. so, johnk, how do they perform in multiples?

I had CLSes of one incarnation or another for 16 years. I bought a pair of model 1s and followed the upgrade path to the IIZs. I loved them all for the breath of life they imparted to the music I loved. This may have something to do with a kind of microdynamic finesse that allowed them to not sound mechanical, and more like real music. They were, however, challenging. Changes in the weather deleteriously affected their sound. Optimal speaker placement and the choice of associated components could be problematic, and required much more care than with other speakers. Dynamic limitations rendered a less than convincing presentation of music that demanded power at the frequency extremes (rock, big band, orchestral, opera). Well matched subwoofers (I liked Kinergetics and Entec) ameliorated some of this, but could not totally banish the CLSes reticence. Despite these flaws, and having moved on to another means of musical communion, I still regard the CLS as one of the finest examples of the art of audio reproduction.