I have the CLSZ2s...I am not a fan of Stereophile but their original review years ago on the CLS was pretty telling of some of their sonic issues IMHO. Their highs can be "phasey" making them just a tiny less precise.Its room Dependant! and source dependent. I think the New panel technology allowed them to make a smaller more efficiant design. It has its faults too. Why do you think the STATEMENT needed mid woofers to help it out. Smaller panels will not produce bass. The CLS was and is still a combination of maximum and minimum design that works. ! ML solved this with narrower panels in the Statement E2 and you can see the trickle down in the CLX. The CLX is a different beast than the Statement that used Mid woofers. The CLX has Very large open panels that use tripple stator design that has dual mylar bass sections effectively doubling the output of that area. If you have the right room they are amazing but I would not own them without a subwoofer.I 100% agree there. However I could listen to them with out one and still get great enjoyment ! Once you get it in and sorted out you will not want to do without it. I have heard the Summit and mourn its passing. The newer panels have the last% of resolution( yes ...better than the CLS)Resolution , I think not ! Detail and precision maybe, but at the sacrifice of staging and depth of image ! and if I had one wish for my CLSZ2s...that for the replacement panels they use the newest/best technology they have available (but leave the dark spars in this design)....even if they were to cost more $ or require some crossover/electronic adjustments.
New panels are not made with clear spars and micro perf technology. Its not posible with the older X-overs and the space required in between the stators.