AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here's the thing, I really love Martin Logan hybrids for music. Since I'm starting to plan for a new house w/ dedicated theater I ponder what to use for the theater. 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.


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.


I would love to here from other ML lovers that faced this "problem" and how they've solved it. Except for getting secondhand Stylos I don't see how I could work in the sidespeakers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
fred,


Yes - MLs work very nicely in theaters. Your current 2 channel MLs can become the front mains.


For center channel - you have a choice of ML "Theater" or ML "Cinema".


For the surrounds - the ML "Scripts".


Martin Logan has the models you need to have a full ML theater system. Check out the "speaker gallery" on their

website:

http://www.martinlogan.com/


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
937 Posts
Fred, I auditioned for my ht speakers and was overwhelmed by the ML cinema --it was easily the best center channel speaker I auditioned (among KEF reference, ProAc, Vienna Acoustics, Dynaudio, B&W Nautilus, M&K) and now, a couple of years along, only feel more strongly about the importance of the center channel. I chose another solution (KEF) after finding the ML ReQuest fatiguing, but still feel that anchored by the cinema, ML speakers would make a fantastic theatre.


Regards, Michael
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
Fred,


Take a look at Martin Logan's HT lab - go to:

http://www.martinlogan.com/room_design.html#none


Scroll down to the paragraph in red which starts:

"Since it's completion..." and click on the picture

to the right to see an overview of the Lab.


The mains are ML "Statements" which are ML's flagship

product - but the other components are affordable.


The center is an ML "Theater" [just below the screen]

and 2 pairs of ML "Scripts" flank the room on the walls.


If the Theater and Scripts are good enough for their "reference" system....


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,714 Posts
Definitely go for the ML’s. If you are currently designing the room, then you can perfectly match their requirements, like being further into the room than regular speakers.


I did just that three years ago for my system. Check it out at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~jonfoulke...m%20intro.html


I’ll never go back to distortion laden ‘dynamic’ speakers ever again.


If you pay close attention to room acoustics, these speakers will blow away anything else.

I’ve audition plenty of other people’s six figure HT’s and none comes close to the sound I get in mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
jonfo,


"IÕll never go back to distortion laden ÔdynamicÕ speakers ever again."


While I think Martin Logans sound really good, they are very far from flat speakers. You can buy far cheaper dynamic cone/dome speakers than have far less distortion (Axioms would be a great exampl.)

ML's are very open and airy, but accurate they ain't. And that one's a matter of measured freq. response which is beyond opinion/debate.


For flat response w/ ML's open, effortless sound buy Newform Research. Cheaper and higher quality components too. Proprietary ribbon uppermid/highs, and Scan-Speak lowermid/bass cone drivers. Higher eff., and you don't have to plug them in either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
azyan: I've just gotten back from work so bear with me if I'm somewhat dim in my responses, this has been a long week.


Of course I meant apart from the Theta/Krell/Wilson/Transparent (they called it "This is Hometheater"I found the M&K/Lex setup the most convincing _Home Theatre_ setup.


I do have a pair of SL3 which I currently use for 2ch, the question was whether to use them in my upcoming dedicated HT (completed with a ML center and perhaps surrounds) or to seek an alternate solution because of space issues. Even though I have pretty much free hands w/ regards to the design of the room I don't see how I could give a full setup of ML:s (for surrounds aswell) the air they deserve.


If I put my ML fronts in the dedicated HT I will have a ML center, the question is what to use for surround and sides. Anybody have a suggestion of speakers that might fit the bill?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,335 Posts
Ryan,


Jonfo's point was that as a class, planar speakers (ESLs, Planar Magnetics, Ribbons) have very low harmonic distortion -- this is usually well below 1%. Dynamic speakers as a general rule, have distortions between 1 and 3%, excepting very low frequency reproduction, where harmonic distortions between 5 and 10% aren't at all uncommon.


Frequency response is another story.


My particular speakers (Soundline Audio) are +/-2dB in room from around 100Hz to over 16kHz on axis.


Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,714 Posts
John, thanks for jumping in with the data on why planars excellent distortion characteristics.


Now, I'll agree with everyone that flat, they are not. But then again, very few systems are. And once placed in a room, even fewer meet that criteria.


Which is why paying attention to room acoustics to eliminate room induced issues, and to correct speaker imbalances is so critical.


Even better yet is the introduction active room correction into the mix. I'm eager to put in a TACT TCS (with mutichannel room correction) in and see what that does.


Also, replacing passive crossovers, which introduce phase errors and other colorations, is key to getting good freq response from the ML's. My Monoliths sound totally different with outboard active crossover and biamping than with the factory supplied passive crossvoer (which was in an external box as big as some some small monitors).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
John K.,

You wrote, "Jonfo's point was that as a class, planar speakers (ESLs, Planar Magnetics, Ribbons) have very low harmonic distortion "


That's NOT the point he made. You're free to make that point, but he DIDN'T.

He said distortion... plain, simple, and without any qualifiers like harmonic dist. or otherwise, so my response didn't need correcting. I understand your point you make about harmonic distortion. It doesn't make me wrong though!

The ML's panel's graphed response is all over the map. That's bigtime distortion, and a lot more than a very flat conventional speaker -let's say... Vandersteens and that's incl. your point about the harmonic dist. advantage the ML's would have (however much that might be).


Anything to add to help the poster, and address the actual thread question??? Not to 'get you back' for your fautly correction, but you seem to play the self appointed role of watchdog, and it's a little overboard. Double check the thread when you decide to correct me again.


And when are you gonna review that PSaudio HCA-2? It's suppose to smoke your current fav the eVo! And for a grand less! I'm gonna get one soon probably.


jonfo,

While that TACT system seems in theory that it should be able to make just about any speakers have a flat response in any room, the flaw (that almost nobody ever thinks of, or mentions -I admit I was told this, and didn't figure it out myself either) is that the only way to flatten an unflat speaker is to EQ it (and better yet IMO -just buy a flatter speaker if you're in this situation). You can't correct the room by adjusting the speakers output. -EVER.


Adjusting the speaker based off of room effects will only make that speaker MORE distorted everywhere except the exact place you 'room corrected' it. In other words -don't you dare move from that sweet spot now!


Also, your brain can tell the diff between the speaker sound and the room effect 'echoes', the room tuning program lumps them together and only adjust the speakers which just doesn't work.


Now 'real world speaking' (which I do think in the end means more than theory and graphs, etc..) take a resonably flat-ish speaker and room correct it w/ the TACT system, it'll probably be a subtle diff, and overall it may sound a little better in the sweet spot, but it's a flawed method that will NEVER be the correct way to fix a room.


Take a perfectly tuned piano, and put it in a bad audio room w/ (obviously) bad room acoustics. It won't sound as good as it could right?

So to fix the problem, you distort the piano's tuning so that it's out of tune but then it 'sort of' corrects for the room effects at one specific point in the room?? NO WAY.


You fix the room w/ acoustic treatments and leave the piano in tune (or flat speakers untouched). You can make a lot of these room treatments for cheap yourself, or you can buy them with the money you didn't spend on the TACT system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,335 Posts
Ryan,


Frequency response in speakers is a seperate issue from distortion.


Sorry you have a problem with me clarifying Jon Fo's point -- one of us got his point (me) and one of us didn't (the person that isn't me). I responded politely to clarify the aspect that was obviously not getting across -- and JonFo later admitted as much.


Frequency response is one parameter of performance. Distortion of drivers vs. input signals is another.


Given that DSP cycles are getting cheaper by the year, I suspect that in the next 2-4 years we will start seeing EQ functions becoming mainstream.


Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
No John,

Freq. response is NOT a sepp. issue from distortion. I don't know where you get this narrow definition of the word distortion, but it's wrong!

Not only is speaker freq. response a distortion of the original audio recording, but it almost always by far the BIGGEST distortion of the recording.


You also wrote, -"I responded politely to clarify the aspect that was obviously not getting across -- and JonFo later admitted as much."


Where are your reading this?? Not in this thread -that's for sure.


jonfo wrote right after you posted your 'so-called' clarification -"John, thanks for jumping in with the data on why planars excellent distortion characteristics."


This sounds like he didn't know the information that you had just posted, but then maybe he did? Either way it's not clear he did, and I don't see anywhere where he admits he needed your 'claification').


"I responded politely-" you say? Now that's a distortion!

You keep correcting me when I'm not wrong and you've yet to post anything in this thread that's relevent to the thread topic! Who do you think you are to think this is ok for you to do?


This isn't the first time you've mixed up and misinterpreted my comments I've made and then pretended to correct me with your pompous wisdom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
Fred,


I have a ML HT set up with ReQuests as the L/R, Logos C, Aerius i rear and Definitive BPXs for rear center. Sounds great. But you will need some good sub woofer action for punch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,335 Posts
Ryan,


I am responding politely yet again.


I clarified one point, and done so in a very simple, and concise fashion. I can't help that you're taking the point as correcting you.


Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by azryan


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.
azryan,


Your statement above runs counter to the laws of physics.


A dipole has greater dispersion in the direction perpendicular to the long axis of the speaker.


A vertical standing dipole [ like most dipole speakers ] will have a greater dispersion in the horizontal plane

than in the vertical plane - which is what you want for a music system speaker. That's why 2 channel dipoles are

tall and narrow.


The ML horizontal dipole center channel speakers will have GREATER dispersion above and below the panel than they do

from side to side.


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
Dr. Greg:


Isn't that why ML's center speakers are so wide? My Logos is a good speaker but I do notice that the centert channel is a little missing off to the side. Of course I sit in the middle and it is not a problem. There newere model is even wider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
937 Posts
Quote:
While the ML center models sound very good, they're a rip off and a marketing ploy of a design.
Not sure how they are either rip-off or marketing ploy, but they sure are good center speakers. Very good vertical dispersion, hard to localize and with a natural sound that just compliments a video screen better than any cone center speaker I ever heard. I find the ML line a bit harsh at the high end but the centers are something else.


Regards, Michael
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,335 Posts
Greg,


I know at least two of the MLs have utilized dome tweeters to combat issues with beaming above a frequency that relates to the dimensions of the speaker in (I think) the vertical plane.


Bohlender-Graebener uses a dome tweeter to work around the same issues.


Can you relate beaming frequency to dimensions with an equation? I know I saw the equation once, but I'll be damned if I can remember it exactly.


Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
Morbius,


Good catch! Yep, I wrote the exact opposite of what I meant to say. Sorry, glad you caught it!


I meant to explain why the horizontal 'stat panel throws more sound vertically than horizontally, so they augment the tiny panel w/ cones and domes which don't match any Martin Logan main speakers. I forgot how much the 'stat panel covers, but not enough IMO.


Give me two M-L's and I'll give you a better sounding, more solid and open front end soundfield than two next model down M-L's + one of their overpriced center speakers.


I'm anti-horizontal center speakers of the cone/dome only type too because of this narrow width effect. Some people like the effect or think it's correct because (I've heard people say this many times) "It locks the center channel to the screen". There's not suppose to be any chanels, just whatever's best to have a tight imaging front end.


Most conventional centers are MTM designs. MTM's work great for main speakers when placed vertically throwing sound more horizontally, but placed on their side will have the exact wrong effect they were designed for.


It's business more than audio sounfield integration.

It fits better on top of people's tv's (or in front of them), and easier to sell than a vertical bookshelf or floorstanding center channel that would match the mains better, and much better for companies than helping people set up a tight imaging set up w/ their main speakers and not selling them any center channel at all.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top