Am I the only one who doesn't understand Fred's comments??
Fred, you wrote...
"I've listened to many setups including a Theta/Wilson/Krell/Transparent setup (which is out of my reach $$$ wise), the best experience sofar has been with a MC-1 / M&K THX 150 7.1 system."
Are you saying that the Lexicon/M&K set up sounded better to you than the other set up??
The very high end set up should have easily bested the otherwise very good Lex/M&K set up. Your preference is stunning to say the least. Maybe it was the room set ups and/or diff. CD's that shifted the 'not as good system' into sounding better?. It's really not better though.
Are you maybe saying that your favorite set up 'that you can afford' is the Lex/M&K set up? Sorry, you didn't word it like that if that's what you meant?
If M&K's are in your 'favorite set up' then why do you want Martin Logan's anyway (I'd prefer ML's myself)??
Then you write, "Should I keep the ML's in the listening room and go with M&K in the theatre? Logisticly this makes more sense since a full ML 7.1 setup would integrate better into a dedicated room."
Are you saying here that you already own a pair of Martin Logan's??
And if you're saying "-a full ML 7.1 set up would integrate better into a dedicated room" ...
1) better than what? Than the M&K's would? That doesn't make sense as to why you'd think that??
2) IF the Martin Logan's would integrate better.., then why are you saying it makes more sense to have ML's in the listening room, and a 7.1 M&K set up in the theater??
This whole thing makes no sense. Sorry, but I can't imagine anybody here knows what you really mean unless they're guessing.
If you already own Martin Logan's (which seems like you might, but very hard to tell)...
Sell them since you said you like M&K's better.
If you didn't really mean that and you do like M&K's better, then build a 7.1 system off of Martin Logan's mains.
IMO you don't need ML's for the surrounds. You only need to find speakers that are basically timbre matched to the Main front ML's.
Many would say -"Well, then that means you HAVE to get matching ML's!", but you don't hear nearly as well behind you -which both side and rear surrounds should be (side being ~110-120 degrees behind you, not 90 degrees directly at your side).
Your ears cut off the highs a great deal, which keeps so-called 'matching speakers' from EVER matching. Even identical main speakers in the rear won't match the front ones. And the type of sounds that pass from front to back almost never need to match perfectly anyway. For exampl.-- A plane passes over head front to back. The recording changes the sound of the plane far more than the speakers will.
And it's a waste to spend so much money for the fast, open airy, effortless high end that Martin Logan's have -when you won't hear them correctly when they're placed behind you.
ML, like every speaker company there is wants you to buy all of their speakers, so they make small ones and call them surrounds, and a center speaker that's totally unlike their whole rest of thier line.
You'll probably be better off w/ far cheaper side dipoles and rear dipoles of monopoles from a company like Axiom or Swan, and not getting the ML center chan. at all.
While the ML center models sound very good, they're a rip off and a marketing ploy of a design.
ML's are electrostatic panel (and need a cone driver to augment the low bass which is fine at those low frequencies).
The panels need to be vertical.
Horizontally like the centers are, the output is VERY weak above/below the panel. That's why it has conventional dome and cone drivers in it!! It looks cool, sounds very good, but it doesn't match ML main speakers, and it's way too costly for what can be done for much cheaper.
Put all the saving of not getting ML rears and center into getting more expencive ML main speakers than you would have bought. If they're set up properly (and you should be making sure they are -most people have their mains too far apart when they have a center chan. inbetween. That's just bad set-up and ruins their 2-channel sound big time!) then you'll have a more open and perfectly matching phantom center than any center speaker you could buy (incl. ML themselves).
You'll also be getting the very nice bonus of not needing a center chan. amp either, and faaar better 2 channel sound.
Some might say that you need a center chan. if you're quite a bit off center seating, or the dialouge will sound like it's coming out of the left or right speaker.
While this is true...
1) Why would you be sitting way off center? Those seats are for your friends/children who don't know any better. -heh
2) If you're way off center then you're seeing the screen on a sharp angle too, and the sound will still match up very well-to-perfectly, and it won't be as bad as how imbalanced the surrounds will sound for that off-centered person too.
At least think about it. Don't just go 7.1 because that's what the current electronics marketing says to do. Will your set up be wrong when 10.1 comes out? No... It won't.
The # of speakers you need is the minimum to have a 360 degree soundfield (as limited by current DVD soundtracks). The magic numer depends on your room, and speakers you choose.
Dang, I didn't mean to write so much. Just bored on a Sat. I guess...
Let the flames begin.
