Home Theater and Electrostats and ribbons !

[C.A.P]

OK ! I know I may get brutally beaten on this but I want some feedback. Remember this is ONLY FOR HT PURPOSES WITH A DOLBY OR DTS DECODER, IN A SURROUND SYSTEM.


Lets say we have a good receiver or decoder with a good sub and cone monitors. The room is properly treated with good room treatment. We have it set up correctly with a software like REW and a HT test disc to make sure timing and delay is all correct.


Whats the advantage of running a Martin Logan or a Planer type speaker in the front rear and sides of a HT system. Is it not a fact that all stats and planners exhibit a rear wave that has some reflective ambiance added to the sound. Thus would this wave or added air of reflection add confusion to the original mastering of the DVD. Unless the DVD was mixed using planer or stats wouldn't the extra ambiance create added confusion to the soundtrack. If I was a recording engineer and I mastered a DVD With Monitors and I added all the reflection and surround ambiance using the Dolby or DTS, why would I need to have my 5.1 or 6.1 or 7.1 speakers adding more confusion to my soundtrack, IN A ATTEMPT TO REWORK WHAT I HAD WORKED SO HARD TO CREATE? Why wouldn't I rely on my receiver or processor to do the decoding as I wanted it?

Now don't get me wrong, I think some Soundtracks are horrible and can benefit from some extra ambiance. However; Lets say for this discussion that we have a great recording that was mastered on studio monitors and Dolby or DTS was used to decode the soundtrack.

DO I WANT MY RECEIVER -PROCESSOR TO DO WHAT I INTENDED? OR DO I WANT MY SPEAKERS TO ADD MORE AIR OR A FALSE SENSE TO THE SOUNDTRACK?

Now this is getting HOT ! ( I just put my flame suit on). This is not a bash on all who use ML or any planer type HT systems. I just don't see the real advantage to a all planer system or all stat system for HT. Most of the soundtracks are mastered in studios with cone speakers in a echo proof room. Any ambiance added is usually mastered in to the rears or side speakers using the Dolby or DTS method.

I have heard a few Ht systems in my day ! I have heard a few ML Ht systems. They have sounded good. However I have heard a few that were way to.....well just to much going on with all that extra reflection ! Was that how the recording was meant to sound ?

I know you all are now in a rage ! I know some of you will be loading your guns and heading to MI. Remember I am looking for Ideas and discussion on the topic.

Something I have played with is the average 5.1 system. I have a $500.00 Sony system that has a built in receiver and Dolby and DTS decoder. It came with tiny little monitors and a weak sub. The sub was replaced immediately with my Sunfire True sub. That in it self made a HUGE difference on the sound. This is not a top shelf system by any means. However; it does a great job at movie soundtracks. With the added sub it produces tremendous bass. Most receivers and processors do all the crossing over to the speakers. Some of the better ones you can adjust your self but that being said most 5.1 and 6.1 7.1 use a separate sub channel that is crossed over at a 80 hz with a 12db X-over. The mains and the rears never see above 80 hz unless you adjust the fronts to Large and let them roll with the sub. This works but does get a bit busy at times. Most of the sound track is from the center speaker as all vocals and dialog comes from it. Wouldn't it make sense to have a great center channel and 4 good monitors with a great sub to get you the exact recording that the engineer wanted?

 

[ted99]

I agree

I have an 11.2 HT system with M-L Ascent i for mains and Theater for center. All the other speakers are cone-type. I also have absorber on the walls behind the M-L speakers to absorb the back wave. I like the stats for their clarity, fast response, and the directionality which minimizes wall and ceiling reflections.

My receiver is the Yamaha RX-Z11, with all of the built-in ambience fields and the latest audio codecs. For HT, I believe that the audio mixer put in all the ambience that the Director wanted into the 7.1 mix, and I want that, not anything added by my room/speakers. The advanced audio codecs that my blu ray and receiver are capable of give me exactly what the director intended. If the director wasn't very good, it's not my room's fault. For music, I like the ambience fields for different venues that Yamaha has developed by measuring the actual ambience in the different venues. For instance, for Cher, I do a stadium. For Karen Akers, I do a Jazz Club. For classical, I use one of the Halls. I want the reverb that was actually measured in these venues, not what my room/speaker adds. The surround cone speakers are positioned and selected for their lack of directionality.

 

[Bernard]

I just don't see the real advantage to a all planer system or all stat system for HT. Most of the soundtracks are mastered in studios with cone speakers in a echo proof room.

But the same can be said of music, i.e. most music is not mastered using planars, and a lot is recorded in echo proof rooms. So, using your reasoning, why users planars for even music?

Do you have a spare flame-proof suit? Personally I think using MLs for HT is a waste.

 

[Rich]

Actually, for proper surround sound it is important to have a diffuse rear soundfield so that sounds are not localized. This is why THX recommends dipolar speakers for surround applications. The rear wave reflection of MLs helps achieve an even, diffuse rear soundfield and can make for a very realistic surround sound experience. Like anything else though, they have to be set up properly to sound their best.

As for the front three speakers, I am a firm believer in absorption of the rear wave for most listening applications.

 

[jjcarr]

I find that Logans deliver more detail and lifelike vocals than any other speaker. For the very reason they are so good on music vocals is why they are so good on movies. Personally I don't care for a center channel. The only reason to use one is to ensure proper vocal placement for off-center seating, but it puts so much critical sound through such a small stat or other driver that it compromises the sound.

A proper THX 7.1 system has dipole (not bipole) side speakers and direct rear speakers. I have found using Logans for rear and side channels to be a waste for movies. Given the very limited frequency range that is sent to the rear channels, getting a high-end amp or high-end speakers is money wasted. Better to spend money on subs, processor, or main amp.

Try firing up your theater and listen up close to what is actually coming out of the rear channels, there isn't much.

But, with Logans up front, I get more air and real-life sound than with other cone speakers. When I go watch a movie in the theater, it sounds like crap in comparison. I find the "air" and realism of the Logans more than compensates for any issue due to their radiating pattern. Also, because they have a 4' minimum vertical radiating area, this gives the sound more body than it would otherwise.

 

[Rich]

That's correct, jjcar, dipolar -- not bipolar. Sorry about that. I corrected it in my post. This is recommended for the side channels in a 7.1 and for the rear channels in a 5.1 THX setup.

 

[C.A.P]

This is good ! This is what i was looking for !

 

[babydoc]

This is good ! This is what i was looking for !

I have a 5.1/2.1 listening system that is entirely Martin Logan. Summits and Theater up front. Script i's in back. 2 Descent i subs in front and 2 Descent subs in back. Most of my critical listening is with 2.1 but I watch movies and sports with HT system for immersive sound effect. I have heard many, and I mean many conventional speaker HT systems. With proper room treatment they can sound very good. The speed of the panels simply trounces standard transducers and they are incredible at leading edge recreation. Having said that, most movie sound tracks, even in Dolby HD, sound like unadulerated C**P. This vitiates the effect of having high quality loudspeakers altogether. What keeps this system in place for me are the very few soundtracks that are excellent (live music concerts for example) and SACD-surround recordings.

 

[jjcarr]

I have a 5.1/2.1 listening system that is entirely Martin Logan. Summits and Theater up front. Script i's in back. 2 Descent i subs in front and 2 Descent subs in back.

2 Descents in front and 2 in back! Damn, I bet that sounds sweet. I'm definitely a fan of multiple subs...

 

[Adamo]

I use Logans up front (Odysseys and Stage up front) and dipole surrounds and direct surround backs for a 7.2 surround set up. This works out very well for movies.

 

[JMAUSGP]

ML and HT

I have been using an ML 7.2 system for 12 years in my HT. Depending on the material Dolby, DTS, Doby MA, Lossless Audio and Surround sound ad nauseam, nothing sounds or has sounded like an ML HT system. I would argue that you have to have a high-end projector to make the visual effect equal to the ML sound effect. And now with SACD and DVD-A and an OPPO Digital 980H you can take 5.1 Surround and send it thru HDMI to a 7.2 ML system and get 7.2 Surround, talk about soundstage. You can hear the rear material placed between the left side and left rear as well as the right side and right rear, hanging in mid-air, very cool. I have been watching HDTV since 98 on a 119 inch digital projector system with MLs all around. When a system is properly calibrated and the source material is up to snuff, it's magic, movie magic or music magic, it can not be surpassed, IMHO:music:.

 

[C.A.P]

any more thoughts on this ! or are we dead !

 

[Horchem1972]

ML or planars for home theater

I currently use Monolith's II's with a Logos center channel.I have very happily lived with Infinity Prelude Quadrapoles for surrounds.I believe in very fast and accurate speakers for the front channels.The same is for movies as you like in music.I assume that you listen to Logans because they are extremely accurate in producing music.Therefore it is safe to assume that that same accuracy will work for movie soundtracks.Many people consider ML speakers a waste of money for home theater,but alot more consider spending 1000's of dolllars on speaker cable insane.The best part is everyone has their own opinion.In the long run all that matters is what you think,because it is your money.:music:

 

[Rich]

C.A.P.,

I think it is like anything else in this crazy hobby. There are many incredible-sounding multichannel/home theater setups using electrostatic speakers all around, just like there are many that use all point source speakers. You just need to try to get out and audition a few and see which you prefer. I have heard some great systems that were all-electrostatic (JonFo's system comes to mind) and I have heard some awesome systems that used other speakers for the rear.

I personally use the Clarities for the rear and the frescos for the side speakers in a 7.1 setup. I have to say, the fresco's (or the fresco i's) make excellent surround speakers if you want to stick with ML but not use electrostatics for the surround channels.

Regarding your question about problems with the rear wave interfering with the coherence of the soundtrack, I absorb the rear wave of my Summits and Stage anyway so this is not a problem in my system. As I mentioned above, I think the rear wave reflection of the surround speakers helps add a diffusiveness to the surround sound field that is beneficial, if they are set up properly. If you do use electrostats for the rears, you might want to consider placing diffusion behind the panels to help promote that diffuse soundfield.

 

[tonyc]

I guess I'm just a planar person. I bought my original ML center channel (Logos) to mate with a pair of Apogee Divas I was using as front channels and a pair of Acoustat 2's I was using as rear channels in an integrated (HT and music) system. The Apogees and Acoustats are long gone but I still use the Logos in my now separate HT with Aeons up front, Scenarios in the rear and a Descent sub. I simply prefer planar speakers to cones and domes whether its HT or music. I don't really worry much about whether it is accurate or what the makers intended I only worry about whether or not I like how it sounds (and I do).

 

[Nik]

No one has mentioned about ML in walls- how would the Passage or Voyage do?
Edit: I know they are not electrostats but just curious

 

[nsgarch]

Just avoid this:

There are many all-MLstat HT systems Chris. I actually installed one using CLS's for the mains (in 1993!) There's only one big no-no (everything else being individual preference, God help us ) and that's a freestanding rear projection unit (or other large box) between the main stats (and no, draping it with blankets won't help because it still blocks the necessary back wall reflections ) It's hard enough setting up stats as it is, without some large object between them! So you have to have a wall mounted flat screen, front projection screen, or a recessed rear-projection unit.

 

[kcl]

Well, I'm running a 7.2 system with ML Summits in front, a Theater center, Descent sub, and all other speakers cones. I'm very happy with the results. For movies, we drop down a 96" x 54" screen and display on it with a Sony G90 projector, and the results are simply spectacular! (See my system link for details and pictures.) Aside from a dedicated, custom designed theater room, I think I would be very hard pressed to create a better home theater experience. This includes using any electrostat or ribbon speakers for any of the other positions.

Actually, though the Summits are admittedly superb, I think its the Theater center that make our HT so good. I seem to recall that something like 80% of HT sound comes from the center, and the Theater does a masterful job. (I've related this story before, but I originally had a Cinema center and got talked into trying the Theater. I doubted that the improvement in sound would be worth almost doubling the price. I was wrong! I never plugged the Cinema back in. )

(Note that for music, I run 2-channel w/o the subs. IMO, the summits are so good that anything else actually diminishes the sound.)

 

[JonFo]

As the representative of probably the most extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to multichannel use of planar systems, I’ll throw my $0.02 in

If one can do a custom room designed for ML’s, load it with custom and commercial acoustic management tools, then add a collection of ML’s tuned to the room, then yes, surround music and movies are stunning on these speakers.

My benchmark for very good movie soundtrack reproduction is a Meridian Digital Theater system in a custom, treated room with a front projection system. Short of my own theater, nothing I’ve ever heard commercial or consumer, can touch a well setup Meridian system for movies.

So much like any other class of speaker, to do planar’s correctly, it all starts with basic room dimensions. In our case, with enough front to back depth to keep speakers out from the walls, and enough room for loading up the acoustic treatments that go behind a planar dipole speaker (as we’ve discussed in depth on our Acoustic treatments thread).

Front channels require substantial absorption, and the rear of the room can use some diffusion, specifically, behind the rear speakers if they are dipolar ESL’s. If the rear wall is far enough back, some diffusion on that can be helpful as well for generalized ambiance, even in 2ch modes.

But the biggest secret in correctly setting up a good multichannel system is to ensure you have absolute cohesion in the time-domain between all the speakers. Modern AVR’s now make this easier with their internal calibration routines through their supplied mics. But if doing it by hand, boy, better get a measurement rig and time align those speakers to the 0.5ms level of accuracy. I can actually detect a less than 1ms error between the speakers and notice the diff when corrected.

Since time-domain is so important in multichannel, ensuring the room is not smearing your first arrivals with excess reverberant field reflections or resonant room modes is critical. Acoustic treatments are a must for top-notch performance.
Here’s a data point: My friends Meridian system always seemed to beat my rig on movies. Never on ultimate vocal or musical performance, but overall soundtrack cohesion was better on his rig. Once I deployed the additional acoustic treatments in January, my system was finally able to cleanly resolve mid and low bass to the point of where the superior mids and highs of the ESL’s were now able to surpass the Meridian system. So even though I had superior bass and high frequency performance, and my time-alignment was impeccable, the room resonances in the bass and mid-bass were impacting the sound field imaging and clarity.


Finally, the center channel is indeed the most important channel in multichannel audio and movies. For instance, the DVD-A of the Blueman group “Audio”, has mid-bass and bass information on the center at levels as high and at times higher than the L/R pair. So even though much energy is in the LFE, the center is getting pounded with 80 to 400Hz signals. Which leads to my consistent recommendation: get the biggest center you can afford and or place. Ideally, a center is equal to ones L/R speaker in terms of SPL profile (power curve), tonality, bass extension but with dispersion suited to a center location.

In my case, matching Monoliths required a bit of custom work, so I built my SL3XC.

The results are that for both soundtracks and music, this system covers the bases. One can hear every bit of difference between say the CD version of Stings “Sacred Love” and the SACD version. The SACD is miles ahead in terms of immersion, extension and depth of sound field. On movies, DolbyTruHD is clearly superior to all other encodings and on soundtracks like Transformers, can really immerse you.
Yet at the same time, the dialog quality and clarity is superior, as the ESL’s are extremely articulate on voice.

Bottom line: any multichannel system is more demanding in terms of room and setup than a 2ch system will be. But if done right, can be much more rewarding, about 5.1 times more rewarding

 

[JonFo]

... Whats the advantage of running a Martin Logan or a Planer type speaker in the front rear and sides of a HT system. Is it not a fact that all stats and planners exhibit a rear wave that has some reflective ambiance added to the sound. Thus would this wave or added air of reflection add confusion to the original mastering of the DVD. ...

Chris, these are all good questions and well worth exploring.

To your direct question: yes dipolar radiators are not ideal for HT due to their rear wave and additional (delayed) energy they put into the room that can impact clarity. Which is why acoustical treatments are a must to manage that sound.

So, for best performance (regardless of MCH vs. 2CH) I’m of the opinion that one must treat the room for reflections and modes. But then, that’s true for cone speaker systems as well. It’s just that most cone designs are monopoles and don‘t create additional challenges with rear reflections.

However, a benefit planars bring is that they are line sources vs. point sources. Which means their vertical dispersion is better controlled, therefore less ceiling and floor reflections. That’s a huge plus. Another is the depth of the ‘near-field’ SPL performance. We’ve all experienced the amazing qualities of line sources that don’t seem to vary in intensity almost regardless of where one is in (or at times out of) the room.

So yes, just plunking down 5 MLs in a bare rectangular room will probably not image as well as 5 monopole speakers on soundtracks.

They would be better on audio 2 ch, as the added ambiance can be a plus for many recordings, but for movies where dialog localization and sound field localization are timing dependent, the added rear-wave reflections and comb-filtering would not be helpful.

But, do it right, as I noted above, and it’s waaay better than cones.