Martin Logan 7.1 System

I would make an offer on the Grotto matching the price on the lesser sub. One of the Best Buys will take that deal since the ML/Best Buy marriage is already going sour.

They have enough margin that with the speakers you want, they'll knock some money off the sub.

Anything but Pioneer/Elite...

I would stick(if you have to buy at BB) a Marantz or Denon(the 6005 is a ridiculous deal at the moment)

I personally wouldn't use ML for movie watching. Electrostats just don't have the required dynamics to hit reference volumes without compressing. They're great for music though.

I would look at the CHT SHO 10:

http://www.chasehometheater.com/inde...art&Itemid=122

Compression driver horns have the efficiency and dynamics to be able to handle the big volume swings in movies without compressing or distorting. They're so efficient that they need little power to reach insane volumes. Some people say that horns are fatiguing but those are the cheap ones that aren't done well.

If you wanted to go whole hog you could look into Danley Sound Lab's Synergy Horns. Expensive? Yes. But they can easily go head to head with speakers costing many times what they cost. They're not the prettiest but they are absolutely incredible. You might get close to 4K for five speakers if you did the SH Micro's in the rear.

http://danleysoundlabs.com/synergy_horn.html

The Epik is a great sub, you won't be disappointed.

What's wrong with Pioneer? In late 2009/early 2010, I actually compared a $450 Denon receiver straight up against a cheaper $380 Pioneer VSX-919AH-K and ended up preferring the auto-calibration from Pioneer (MCACC) and it wasn't even a close call. It was Pioneer by a mile. Wider soundstage, cleaner sound, more audible sounds in the mix all while having a "meatier" fullness to the sound while the Denon's Audissey somehow managed to smoosh and conceal sounds in the mix while at the same time giving off an 'empty'/hollow effect to the sound. I was not impressed with Auddessey. I was however blown away by MCACC's calibration.

So, I'm not sure why anyone would knock on Pioneer but I will stick up for them and state plainly, I flat out liked Pioneer's auto-calibration better and it was so lopsided that I can't honestly believe anyone could be so deaf as to think Auddessey's auto-calibration is even 'good', let alone better than what I heard MCACC do.

I ended up buying the VSX-919AH-K and not even going with the "ELITE" model because I have a smallish condo living room and simply didn't need big amplifier power. I am extremely impressed with how incredibly LOW the noise is from this receiver's pre-amp section. I hear ZERO 'hiss' when cranking the volume and the only noise floor I hear is from the source recordings. This inexpensive receiver FAR exceeded my expectations and would recommend it even for a system intended for high fidelity music playback.

Do you have experience with that? I have ML's and they can his 85dB all day long and are quite dynamic with movies, probably not the same as horns (but hey what is?).

One advantage with ESL's is they only lose 3dB of output per doubling of distance instead of 6dB like conventional speakers (though I believe this applies to Line Source speakers as well).

The EM ESL & C2 is a FANTASTIC combo for HT performance and equally FANTASTIC in the music department. The ESL have been modified/designed specifically for HT so you won't be disappointed 6 mos down the road.

The EM C2 is just one of the best centers I have heard and can handle about anything you can throw at it.

As for a Rx you want to stick with the beginning of the upper tier as a minimum of whatever brand you choose. I chose Denon to power my ML system and just can't believe the quality. Watching/listening to Chicago, Earth, Wind and Fire as I type this and the sound is nothing short of incredible.

As for the rears, if you can afford it, got for the Motion 10. More comes out of the rears than most people give them credit for.

85 dB isn't anywhere close to reference levels. They can sound nice at the levels you're listening to them at. Just don't expect them to hit 105 db peaks without some sort of compression and distortion, they just aren't capable. Plus, they are seriously power hungry. It takes a lot of power to get them going. I'm not sure if I believe their specs of 91 dB sensitivity. I'm not knocking them, they just aren't good candidates for HT IMHO, regardless of whether ML says they are optimized for HT. The design of the speaker doesn't lend itself to performing well in that arena. They are beautiful speakers, I'll give them that.

Bottom of top end, yes, you understand. I seriously do not care for the motion 4 at ALL. You would be better off (in my opinion) to get a PAIR of ML Encore TF from Audio Advisor (or Amazon) for just under $400 for the pair shipped. And you can wall hang them.

The whole shebang. CrocDoc had the whole setup and he loves it.

I have the ElectroMotion ESL's for my L and R mains, Encore TF for the center (I want to upgrade to one of their ESL centers at some point), and Source for the rears.


I thought reference was louder than 85dB but when I googled it that's what came up. eh oh well. I'd venture though that most people can't take 105dB peaks. My threshold these days starts to get uncomfortable at 85dB for mids and highs. If the goal is 105dB+ peaks then yeah the OP should be looking at horns and wave guides like the CHT speakers. I looked at those before buying ML but I wouldn't be able to integrate the center well with my TV.

I am quite satisfied with my ML speakers for HT other than I want a better center (I'm not saying it's bad but I want the ESL panel).

Just wanted to post my experience as a ML HT system user.

I have Aerius i and Cinema speakers up front using Klipsch SS1 for surrounds, Yam. 667 as pre/pro, Adcom GFA 7000 5 channel amp (using only 3 channels for the stats). I would NOT power the stats with an AVR (maybe flagship model). With my Adcom compression in movies sets in at around -7 to -10 (the cinema is the limiting factor here), music, 2 channel only, is better and can go to 0 depending on the recording. My listening position is 12' from speakers, my room is 2500^3' open to another 1300^3'. If your room is smaller and/or you sit closer, and you listen at less than reference levels ML stats can be a fine choice, also be aware they need to be at out least 2' from the wall behind them (more is better) and 2'(again more is better but not as critical) from side walls to sound their best. I suggest you go to http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/ and read about set up and other info you may want.

No no no...The EM ESL are not to the same requirements as the older/larger Aerius i's are. As stated they have been redesigned with the knowledge most just don't have those space requirements.

Not only that, but electrostats are dipolar by nature, which is NOT recommended for the front L/C/R speakers due to it's effect on sound. Dipolar speakers do not have a controlled directivity/dispersion. It's fine for surround speakers and can be very nice for 2-channel music.

I don't often try to rain on someone's parade but for home theater, you should be using front channels with a controlled dispersion (wide horizontal, narrow vertical). Considering how much money you are going to invest in this, it's best to have someone be completely truthful in their opinion. That's a lot of money to spend, so I figure you will want a textbook design.

So, electrostats pose a problem as front theater speakers for reasons beyond just pure SPL output.

^^^^ -1 (as opposed to the normal +1)...

According to you...nobody should consider anything by these people either...

Definitive Technology (upper tiers)
OHM
Magnepan

Pure hogwash on the "LCR can't be dipolar"

One of the best HT's I've ever heard was a set of Maggie Tympani with some of the newer "smaller" Maggie "on-wall" speakers for center and rear.

Back "in the day" Apogee(right before they went asunder) was developing numerous centers, but try find one today. There are people out there using the Diva/Centaur Major/Grand in HT's with great results making due with a Martin Logan center (there is no way Martin Logan was ever the quality piece that any one of the Apogee were).

And yes. I know the lone person in Chicago with one of the 25 pairs(of which 23 are still known of) of Apogee Grand. His theater is those in front with a pair of Centaur Minor.

First, room treatments are an AFTER THE FACT process.

You don't treat BEFORE you place the speakers. A di/bipolar speaker will need less rear treatment* than directional speakers(by design).

Get the speakers(better yet, get the ML's and "something else" and compare the two) and then treat the room. You may not need much treatment at all.

Second, this is an ever evolving process. I'm sure one day you'll buy a new couch, it will affect the room. You will buy new curtains, they will affect the room.

*caveat. Room PLACEMENT of a di/bipolar is more important than room treatment. No amount of "treatment" makes up for lousy placement. You might have nothing to worry about.

By the way, buy some "uber sized" speakers and then attempt room treatments...

Examples of "uber sized"

McIntosh XR290
Manepan(Magneplanar) Tympani
Apogee Grand/Scintilla (actually darn near all of them)
Infinity Kappa 9
Klipschorn

The panel may have been redesigned (lighter, clearer, more efficient) but it is still a dipolar needing space (the more the better) behind it. I don't know of anyone recommending that these be put up against the wall. As schan1269 has said placement is important, in fact it is critical, inches can
change the sound noticeably, fractions on toe in dramatically. To the OP if you don't have the space you will never get the sound that the ML stats are capable of, they can sound very good for HT within their limits, but just be aware of their limits.

Your best bet is to do as suggested. Buy some speakers, try them in YOUR environment and go with what YOU think is best sounding. Beyond that, not any other advice should be taken. Sound quality is VERY subjective and not what I nor anyone else here says really makes a difference. Now you have actual ML users in this thread, one whom has the EM ESL you are interested in and you have seen his pictures of his setup and you have read his findings, so go from there.

It does if you want to accurately reproduce the sound as the engineers heard it when they mixed it.

Look, this is basic home theater speaker selection 101. Let's go back to basics:

http://www.diyaudioandvideo.com/FAQ/Theater/

Direct quote from the tutorial:
"Speakers perform best when the listener's head is directly in front of the speaker and at the same height as the drivers. The sound response where the driver is pointing directly at the listener is called the on-axis response. When you move off-axis (to either side or a different height), the speaker will not sound as loud.
Normally, stereo speakers have a better off-axis response than home theater speakers. The sound that the listener hears is a mixture of the left and right channels, combined with the reflections of the both channels off the walls, floor, and ceiling. Stereo speakers sound best when the listening area is centered and in front of the two speakers, but they also sound good from either side of the room. For a well recorded soundtrack, both the left and right signals might contain the same music, but they will not be at the same volume levels. Different instruments will be at different levels in the different speakers. If you are directly in front of one of the speakers, you should still be able to hear some parts of the music coming from the other speaker.

The front speakers in a home theater system are designed to have just the opposite effect. They have a very short vertical off-axis response that limits the dispersion of the sound in the room. This is done to prevent the reflection of the sound off the floor and the ceiling. The reason for this is simple. In a home theater system, there are 2 rear speakers to provide the sound from the back. The reflection from the front speakers will only interfere with the job of rear speakers."
------------------------------------------------

So, there you have it. Electro-static speakers have always been primarily designed for 2-channel listening. The dipolar design is used for the sole intention to reflect sound to throw up a huge soundstange effect for the listener. Front L/C/R speakers in a home theater are designed to have a very controlled dispersion while the surround speakers are intended for the ambient reflections and simulation of "surround" sound. If you have a wide and tall soundstage from your front, you actually don't require any surround speakers, just the 2 up front will suffice to fill a room with sound. This is precisely why speakers that are great for music don't necessarily sound 'right' for home theater and vice-versa. Especially those electro-statics. Music is what they do best. It's also why they aren't accurate in the reproduction of soundtracks which were mixed with entirely different front speakers, designed to do the total opposite of the electrostats. It's completely OK to use electrostats for rear channel duty.

The CHT would probably be a better choice then. They recommend at least 2' from the back wall and side wall for ESL's to sound their best. You could possibly pull off 6" but you'd need to treat the wall at the first reflection (rear wave) to delay/absorb the reflection.

You wouldn't need an uber receiver for the CHT, if I recall correctly they're have a high efficiency rating. A quality 100 x 7 receiver would get plenty loud.



Have you heard an Electrostat HT? Sound is so subjective, listen to one (if you haven't) then make up your mind. I'm not saying they're end all be all but I got the music and HT rig down pretty damn good at least for me.

Speakers are indeed highly subjective. When it comes to music recordings, I say, make it sound like you want it to and use whatever means you find that enhances the experience because the music business has absolutely NO set standard for recording/mixing/mastering. The results are so mangled and unpredictable from one recording to the next that just use what sounds best because unless the album tells you specifically what playback equipment works best, it's just best then to use what sounds good to YOU.

However, when it comes to movie soundtracks we have a different ballgame totally and "subjective" is not totally applicable in this genre of sound reproduction. Why? Because unlike the music industry, movie soundtracks indeed have a consistent "STANDARD" on how they are recorded, mixed and mastered. Movie soundtracks are produced with very specific and specialized and STANDARDIZED equipment. Movie soundtracks are mixed with the 85db Dolby standard for dynamic range (75db is the recommended setting for non-THX level gear or those sensitive to the loud reference level peaks). The resulting playback from these "standards" is now predictable and the use of very specific equipment becomes a very UNSUBJECTIVE truth. Lucasfilm's THX standard clearly lays out the best designed speakers to use to replicate a theater experience at home for movie soundtracks. To ignore that advice in equipment selection is downright ignorance about what goes into movie sound production and how to play it back PROPERLY.

So, just an FYI, it's not as subjective as you think. Proper speaker design is still a very important part of proper movie soundtrack playback. If the speakers adhere to the basic principles desired in soundtrack playback, THEN it becomes a "subjective" comparison because you are in a position to properly replicate the intended sound.

Your comment fits the music genre because we have no way of knowing how the source was recorded but for movie sountracks, the dipolar electrostats aren't even producing the sound as intended according to it's basic design principles, so by it's very nature, it's not accurate (even if you think it sounds like the bees knees).