AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am currently constructing a dedicated HT/2 Channel room in my basement(12x21). A retailer is suggesting that I get a pair of Watt Puppy 2/1s, a Martin Logan Cinema Center plus a pair of ML Scripts for the surrounds. He states that the Cinema center is quite neutral and will integrate quite nicely with the Wilsons. I plan on using the room for a 50-50 mix of HT/2 channel. The rest of the system is based around EAD (Theater Vision P, Ovation and PM1000). Also, I am leaning towards the REL Stadium III as the sub.

Does anyone have any experience with this combination or any suggestions pro or con? Any advice will be welcome. Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
i have the watt puppy mains and a rel stadium sub and can attest to the suitability of that combo. when moving to HT, i considered the exact ML combo you are suggesting, but was advised the timbre matching would be off. went to a wilson cub center and thiel powerpoint rears. the older watpuppies are agreat buy, but you should inisist on a home audition with the ML gear. try runnng the pink noise test sound to the speakers sequentially and listen for the character of the noise. (a standard avia and video essentials test tone sequence.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
John


Thanks very much for your input. I am concerned about the timbre matching in front and your suggestion of an in home demo is a very good one. Also, the idea of using a Cub a a center channel hadn't occured to me. A quick scan of Audiogon is in order.


Regarding your REL, are you using it just for HT or in 2 Channel as well? I have listened to several setups and am extremely impressed by how it just disappears into the room when properly set up.


Again thanks very much for the input.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
for 2 ch only, i used the high level input on the rel by picling up both + signals from the L and R mains speakers and one of the -. when i went to HT and 5.1, i kept the above and also sent the LFE low level tot eh rel low input.


now I have a lexicon MC-12 processor, so i let the the Lex separate the lows with its digital crossover, mixing in the LFE material and sending only the resultant mix to the Rel low level channel, having disconnected the high feed entirely. works great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by errbus
I am currently constructing a dedicated HT/2 Channel room in my basement(12x21). A retailer is suggesting that I get a pair of Watt Puppy 2/1s, a Martin Logan Cinema Center plus a pair of ML Scripts for the surrounds. He states that the Cinema center is quite neutral and will integrate quite nicely with the Wilsons. I plan on using the room for a 50-50 mix of HT/2 channel. The rest of the system is based around EAD (Theater Vision P, Ovation and PM1000). Also, I am leaning towards the REL Stadium III as the sub.

Does anyone have any experience with this combination or any suggestions pro or con? Any advice will be welcome. Thanks
errbus,


I would echo the concerns of the others with respect to timbre matching.


If you choose Wilson Watt/Puppy for the mains; then I would think that Wilson's center channel offering - the "Watch"

would probably be a better match. Wilson probably has speakers that are suitable as surrounds.


If you wanted to go the electrostatic route - then you could get of pair of Martin Logan Prodigy, Odyssey, or the Ascents

to go with the Cinema center and Script surrounds.


The Martin Logans work well with EAD electronics - in fact EAD uses Martin Logans as testbeds in the lab.


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
Hi Errbus,


From what you've said it looks like you're going from scratch here as far as the speakers are concerned. I would be more than just a little worried about the timbre match of the ML Cinema and the Watt/Puppy's across the front together with the Scripts at the rear. In your shoes I'd personally look to make a decision to go either Wilson or ML.


I have been in your shoes with these two fabulous, though very different, speaker manufacturers when I was deciding which way to jump with my combined HT/listening room. I was auditioning the WITT MK1's and a Wilson System 5. They were both fabulous speakers, though the system 5 was somewhat out of my price range. I heard at that time the ML SL-3's which gave a stunning account of themselves and at that point I decided to go with ML, not only due to cost, but also because in my room I have to move my speakers from their optimal position for 2 channel to a less than ideal position for theater purposes. I've since acquired a pair of Aerius i's and am hoping to get a center channel by the end of the Summer. A combination you could look at would be a couple of pair of WITT's for your FL/FR/RR/RL locations and a CUB for centre duties. The WITT's just don't seem to hold their price yet they are an excellent speaker. The one item I would not argue with is the REL, probably the most musical subwoofer I've ever heard (Aerial & Revel subs are also said to be fabulous but I've heard neither) and is very versatile allowing you to run them from your speaker outputs for pure 2 channel operation and as a line level device for HT where your processor handles the sub crossover frequencies.


If I were going HT with ML I'd suggest that the SL-3 / Aerius i's / ML center channel combo to be incredibly difficult to beat in terms of value for money if the EAD amps are happy with hostile loads (The SL-3's can go down to just over 2 Ohms at points in their frequency range).


I hope this helps and if there is anything I can do to assist furhter then please don't hesitate to drop me a line.


Regards and best wishes,


Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Thanks very much for the input gents, it is very appreciated. I knew all along that timbre matching would be a problem. My current setup has PMC LB1s and an NHT Audio Center One in the front and NHT Super Zeroes in the rear. Timbre matching is definately an issue.

I had the chance to audition a ML setup recently (Ascents, Cinema and Scripts) and was impressed by their 2 channel performance but felt that the HT side was lacking a little impact. I am also not sure how they would react to my smallish theater room (12x21). I am planning a 100" Greyhawk and that would mean that the speaker center would be a max of 20 inches from the side wall.

I hadn't considered Wilsons prior to this weekend as I thought that that they would be well beyond my budget. However after listening to an older used pair I was quite impressed. However. the matching center and surrounds, new, are upwards of C$20,000. So Iwas looking for a compromise that would fit the budget and minimize and timbre issues. The idea of using a Wilson Cub intriques me, however there does not appear to be many of them on the used market.

The other option I am currently looking at is a Sonus Faber package(Grand Piano Home, Solo Center and Wall surrounds) with a REL Stadium in front and perhaps a Strata in the rear. In fact. this was my first choice until I stumbled upon the Wilsons.

Once again, I do appreciate the advice. I'll take another look at the Martin Logans (I do like their sound) and try to find a Wilson Witt to audition. Fortunately, I travel for a living and get to visit a wide variety of shops. Unfortunately that tends to complicate the final decision.

Thanks again.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,607 Posts
The WITT wasn't a very successful loudspeaker for Wilson as it found stiff competition at a lower price point (the early ones were also recalled for problems with the finish). The Watt 3/ Puppy 2 is very analytical sounding and the puppy has very little bass extension. The Watt 3 /Puppy 2 always gave me listener fatigue after a short listening session.


The Watt 5/Puppy 5 was a much more musical sounding speaker but still somewhat analytical. The latest rendition with the upgraded spikes and tail are your best bet on the 5 (5.1). There is a tremendous difference between the Watt 3/Puppy 2 and the 5. Even though they look alike, the differences should not be discounted. I have listened extensively to Watt/Puppy 5's (the owner had 3/2 before that) and they are also used in conjunction with a CUB in the surround system and does fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
I would opt for either an all Martin Logan or an all Wilson speaker system, and I would NOT mix and match.


First, what is your budget? That's the main thing.


If you like the sound of Martin Logans, I'd recommend the Odyssey for mains (this is the best value in their line-up), the Theater for a center (the Cinema is too small), and one of their lesser speakers for the rear (whatever you can afford). The front three are the most critical, however, so don't skimp here.


Personally, the Wilson WATT/Puppy 6 is the first Wilson WATT/Puppy I'd consider, as the previous ones were not my cup of tea. Keep in mind, however, that Wilson just announced the WATT/Puppy 7, which by all accounts is a significant improvement, just as the WATT/Puppy 6 was a huge improvement over the WATT/Puppy 5.1. At $22,500 pr., however, the WATT/Puppy 7 is not cheap.


I'm not a fan of the Wilson CUB and find it to be a poor value. I also think Sonus Fabers are vastly overpriced for the sound you get.


Based upon what you've been writing, I think Wilson might be out of your budget.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
Hello Erbus and fellow enthusiasts,

Quote:
Originally posted by errbus



I had the chance to audition a ML setup recently (Ascents, Cinema and Scripts) and was impressed by their 2 channel performance but felt that the HT side was lacking a little impact. I am also not sure how they would react to my smallish theater room (12x21). I am planning a 100" Greyhawk and that would mean that the speaker center would be a max of 20 inches from the side wall.
I'd suggest a couple of things if the HT side was lacking impact, either the system needed a little tweaking to get it working correctly, or the amps driving the ML's were struggling. Using Bryston amps I have no problems with either impact, dynamic range or volume levels in my 21 X 12.5 theater. Also the room size you have is very similar to mine, now I don't know how much equipment or seating you have, but I have a 3 seater sofa, my equipment down the right hand side of the room with my projector overhead. In HT mode my front L/R speakers on have their centres about 18" from the side walls. I found if I toed the speaker in a little and put thick blankets on the walls to damp the rear wave coming from the panel I had no problems. It's not ideal, but I'm planning on dropping to an 86" wide 4:3 screen in the not too distant future which will alow for better placement (I planned on the room being 4 ft wider but local planning problems stopped me doing this).

Quote:
I hadn't considered Wilsons prior to this weekend as I thought that that they would be well beyond my budget. However after listening to an older used pair I was quite impressed. However. the matching center and surrounds, new, are upwards of C$20,000. So Iwas looking for a compromise that would fit the budget and minimize and timbre issues. The idea of using a Wilson Cub intriques me, however there does not appear to be many of them on the used market.
Quote:
This is your problem, that once you decide to go the Wilson route then getting the center and surround speakers is eithre going to take a while or be very expensive. This is the other thing that scared me away from them.

Quote:
The other option I am currently looking at is a Sonus Faber package(Grand Piano Home, Solo Center and Wall surrounds) with a REL Stadium in front and perhaps a Strata in the rear. In fact. this was my first choice until I stumbled upon the Wilsons.

Once again, I do appreciate the advice. I'll take another look at the Martin Logans (I do like their sound) and try to find a Wilson Witt to audition. Fortunately, I travel for a living and get to visit a wide variety of shops. Unfortunately that tends to complicate the final decision.

Thanks again.....
The Sonus Faber Grand Piano system is a very well thought out system which has elicited highly positive reviews both in the US and UK. I would suggest, however, that it's lower price point would indicate that it's probably not going to serve you as well in 2 CH mode as either the Wilson or ML combination. Having said that, with the Sonus Faber badge you know it's going to be much better than the vast majority of the competition out there.


Regards and best wishes,


Dave
 

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


I had the chance to audition a ML setup recently (Ascents, Cinema and Scripts) and was impressed by their 2 channel performance but felt that the HT side was lacking a little impact. I am also not sure how they would react to my smallish theater room (12x21). I am planning a 100" Greyhawk and that would mean that the speaker center would be a max of 20 inches from the side wall.
errbus,


Martin Logans [ at least the smaller units like the Aeon ] will work in even smaller rooms than yours.


If you have a small room and the speakers are going to be close to the walls - then that would auger for the ML dipoles

over monopoles. Dipoles have a more restricted radiation pattern - so the sonic impact of the close proximity of the

walls will be lessened, vis-a-vis an isotropic radiator like a dynamic monopole.


The setup of the dipoles will be a little trickier than the monopoles - and dipoles as a rule don't have the power and

punch of monopoles. However, for a small room - the dipoles should have plenty power and punch to fill that small volume.


If you had a very large theater - then filling that large volume would require the monopoles or at least the large ML

dipole units.


You just need to audition your choices - preferable in a room that approximates the size of your theater - and let

your ears decide.


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts
Just a thought:


Get 5 identical speakers if you have an fp...it solves so many problems.


Cubs come up frequently on a'gon...i sold my pair with matching Wilson stands there in a week (dark titanium, and beautiful)


Also, definitely get Cub IIs, not Is...the difference is dramatic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I would like to thank everyone for their advice. It has helped quite a bit. I intend to audition the Martin Logan combo again. I tend to agree that the setup which did not impress me may not have been setup properly. I will also look into the ML dipoles (thanks Morbius)

One other alternative is to slowly build a Wilson system one piece at a time. This will mean a great deal of compromise over the short term, but may result in a superior system in the long term. There are a few Watt Puppie 6s listed on Audiogon that seem quite reasonableably priced. Besides if the truth be known, 2 channel performance is slowly becoming more of a priority to me (I hope nobody on this forum brands me as heretic for this).

There are a few other avenues I would like to look at as well. I still like the Sonus Faber package in combination with a REL Stadium and Strata. I have heard it a couple of times and it is quite good for both applications. I am probably about 1 month away from a final decision, so time is on my side.


Again I would like to thank everyone for their input. I'm off to work for the next 6 days or so and will check back then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by errbus
I would like to thank everyone for their advice. It has helped quite a bit. I intend to audition the Martin Logan combo again. I tend to agree that the setup which did not impress me may not have been setup properly. I will also look into the ML dipoles (thanks Morbius)
errbus,


Just to be clear - ALL the Martin Logan speakers are dipoles. The speakers you heard where dipoles.


Most are actually hybrids. The CLS is a dipole over the entire audio range.


All the other Martin Logans have a dynamic woofer - and electrostatic dipole panels for the higher frequencies.


I used the term "dipole" to include these hybrids. It's the higher frequencies which will have problem with room reflections.

[ The bass frequencies also reflect off room boundaries - but their wavelengths are so large you can't do much about it. ]


The higher frequencies reflecting off the side walls at you will smear your soundstage and imaging. The dipole has a

lesser amount of energy aimed sideways - so the reflection off the walls will be less.


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
I used to have Martin Logan Script for my surrounds and Logos for my center and WATT/PUPPY6 for my left/right. I sold all of my Martin Logans and change all to Wilson


The problems are:


1) the timbre does not match. You can feel that the sound from the Wilson is much clearer and detail compared to the Martin Logans. So you will have a clean background with murky center and surround.


2)Martin Logans have less efficiency compared to Wilsons. Therefeore, you need to have a large amps for your center and surrounds. But having said that, you will have to use a smaller amp for your Wilson, which will cause your stereo listening to be unpleasant.


3)I don't like using electrostatic speakers. In some level they sound too brittle, especially when you play your HT real loud.


I hope that helps


mario


OH YEAH ONE MORE THING IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO BUY WATT/PUPPY GO WITH SERIES 7.... it sounds much better than the 6.

I am thinking of selling my 6 and get the 7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
I'm a previous M-L owner (CLS & CLS IIz) and a current Wilson owner (WATT 3).


Both are very good, but certainly not mix and match.


You could, maybe, use M-Ls as side or rear dipols but they sound so different because of the dipole pattern I can't imagine using the combo for fronts.


IMHO, get a set of used WATTs for your fronts. If funds are short, Acoustic Energy AE1s are a very close match for surrounds.



Steve
 

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


2)Martin Logans have less efficiency compared to Wilsons. Therefeore, you need to have a large amps for your center and surrounds. But having said that, you will have to use a smaller amp for your Wilson, which will cause your stereo listening to be unpleasant.
sholei,


The latter part of the above doesn't follow.


The question is do you have enough power for the Wilsons?


If you use a smaller amp amp for the Wilson - but one that can drive the Wilsons to suitable SPLs - that will ensure

the quality of your stereo sound.


The fact that you need larger amps to drive the less efficient MLs - has no effect on the quality of your

stereo listening with the Wilsons.


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
Hi Morbius,


I used to have Krell KAV 500 (5 x100 ch amp) an it is powering the Martin Logans for surrounds and center and also the Wilsons for L/R. Comparing both of them with 100 Watts per channel, Wilsons will be able to produce a suitable SPL but not the ML.


When I measure all speakers with the SPL meter, I have to boost up the ML by increasing the analog level by like 8 pts, to make it equal to the Wilsons. And that is a lot...


I did some experiment later on, I put a Krell FPB 200c for my ML surrounds. Using 200W/pc the ML seems to make produce the same SPL as the Wilsons with 100W without having to boost the analog level too much

BUT... what's the point of having a huge amps for your surrounds...


So what I am trying to say here is that WILSONS WILL REQUIRE LESS POWER THAN THE ML.


I hope I clarify the quote


MT
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top