Non ML Center & Surround Speakers for a 5.1 system?

I've been wondering how non-ML center channel & rear surround speakers would match with my ML Aeon i's and Depth in a home theater system. I did some searches on these threads, but didn't find much info. I know most of you would recommend that I use other ML speakers for this purpose, but my budget and space is limited & I just want to experiment for now.

I'm not sure where to begin, but I'm looking using some basic NHT, Polk or Klipsch speakers. I'd appreciate input from anyone who has tried such as setup. TIA

zzvelik said:

I've been wondering how non-ML center channel & rear surround speakers would match with my ML Aeon i's and Depth in a home theater system. I did some searches on these threads, but didn't find much info. I know most of you would recommend that I use other ML speakers for this purpose, but my budget and space is limited & I just want to experiment for now.

I'm not sure where to begin, but I'm looking using some basic NHT, Polk or Klipsch speakers. I'd appreciate input from anyone who has tried such as setup. TIA

Click to expand...

If you aren't opposed to buying used...audiogon should yield some nice ML center channel speakers. Tweeter is going out of business and you should be able to pick up a center channel at a decent price.

You could also consider B&W.

Erik

Don't go non -ML!

Hi Zee,
I have the same speakers: Aeon and Depth. I've heard this system with a B&W Centre and Rears, it did not sound too integrated, the Centre stuck out like a sore thumb!
The Frescos don't sound bad when used as rear speakers but I would stick with ML electrostatic centre channels like Cinema, Theater, Motif, Stage, Feature or Matinee. Anything else will not blend properly.
I went with a Cinema i centre and Script i as rear channels and am very satisfied with them. The Scripts sounded better than the Frescos, but the Frescos are much smaller, which is always a plus. I can't really say the Scripts sound far better than the Frescos, the Scripts sounded more like music, the Frescos sounded slightly more mechanical.
BTW, I bought used Aeons and have never had a problem with them.
Cheers,
Chris

I second what Chris said about using an ML center channel (preferably electrostatic) as the front integration is the most important. I am using a pair of Mirage Omnipolar speakers for my rear channels, and even though they aren't a prefect match, their omnipolar radiation pattern makes them a better match than most box speakers.

Just an idea if you can't swing a full ML system.

BTW I have Vista's with a stage for the fronts.

Just an idea if you can't swing a full ML system.

Chuck

I did an A/B comparison in my dads home theater with a cinema i and a klipsch
reference center channel. they where very similar the Klipsch slightly outperformed the cinema i that's when I decided to upgrade to the stage anyway a friend also uses klipsch dipole surrounds with his Request and cinema i
it it sounds good I would look into the klipsch line I have heard them integrate fairly well with Logans.

I also would recommend staying with ML for a center. The sonic blend across the three front channels is critical for good soundstaging.

But then I'm biased towards LARGE ML-based centers

But sides and or rears, other brands might blend OK.
I personally recommend Mirage omnipolars for side or rear duties.

Hello Zee,
Another way to stay within budget is to use Front, Centre and Sub only.
The rears only add about 5-10% to the sound field. I did that for a while until I could afford a pair of Scripts, can't really say that adding rears had the same positive impact as adding the Sub and Centre.

BTW Fishman, your system looks awesome! Does the Stage sound better than the Cinema centre?

Chris

i just want to voice my agreement with what is being said. That is, sonic matching of the mains with the center is important. I also have the aeon i and after testing with BIC and Boston Acoustics, went for the cinema i.

Just a disclaimer, it was an unfair competition. I just wanted to see just how significant the difference could be to help justify spending all that for the ML. In side by side comparisons, i am comfortable in saying that it is justifiable.

The sound transitioned flawlessly with the ML in the center but was noticeable with other speakers. Even if the speaker is of better quality, I suspect that the change in the soundstage may cause you to take notice, which should be avoid

The rears may not be as important. It may be better to spend more on the center and get that up to standards before worrying about the rears, which tend to carry less detail in movies and should blend in more easily with about anything up front. After all, even MLs speakers typically used for the rear are not based on the design of the aeons. That is, they do not have large electrostatic panels. So it tends to be less important to apply that technology in the rear where you should focus on speakers with good dispersion, which tends to be built into the design of surrounds.

I picked up a pair of Mirage Omnisat V2's that I'm using as my rears.



They're very transparent and mate up well with my system.

You can pick up a pair at Crutchfield for under $600.00, There's quite a few very good reviews on them as well and if you've got quite a bit a of power going to the rears (I have 200 watts) they can handle up to 175W.

Hello,
Another road would be purchasing ML Design Series for use as Surrounds. I am currently using Montage's as Surrounds with Vantage/Stage up front. While not perfect, it sounds quite good. You can find Montages for around 6-700 so they are certainly a cost effective solution. Same applies for Mosaic, etal.
Cheers,
ML

It looks like the consensus is to stick with Martin Logan for a cleaner & more open center channel sound and using less expensive speakers for the rear such as the Mirage Ominpolar or Omnistats. I'll keep my eyes open for a used ML CC on Audiogon, but I don't think I'll find deals such as a Cinema which sold for $150 on Ebay & a Logos listed on DC's CL for $590 earlier today whose ad was just removed. Concerning Tweeter, all the ones in CA closed about 2 years ago. It's sad to see them go just like Good Guys which closed their doors about 2 years ago & used to have some higher end stuff that you just don't see in the regular BB or CC stores.

I've listed my Aeon i's on the classifieds since they never passed the WAF. I have gotten to enjoy them for 2 years now, and if they don't sell... I get to enjoy them more and not have to worry about matching them with a ML CC or what to replace them with! If I do end up getting a ML CC, I can easily hide it in my new BDI cabinet, but I don't know how I'm going to sneak in the rear speakers. I'll see how much longer my luck will last! Thanks to all for your recommendations and suggestions.

EDIT: The BDI top drawer height is slightly less than 7", thus I don't think that any of the current or discontinued electrostatic ML center channels speakers will fit in there, so I'm back to square one.

For the record, I found this helpful thread:

http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6492

Too bad ML doesn't make a slimmer electrostatic model so it would fit into my cabinet.

Update on my center channel:

I just added a Bohlender Graebener (BG) Radia Z-5 center channel speaker and it really mates well with the Aeon i's in the front. I learned that BG makes the ATF tweeter that ML uses on their Vignette and Fresco speakers and there was no need to look any further. I had ruled out the ML ATF speakers since they wouldn't fit in my cabinet & the BG Z-5 fit in very snugly.

I now need a pair of Mirage speakers for the rear setup. I got to hear the nanostats at a BB Magnolia store. I couldn't do an A/B comparison with the Omnistats since they were mounted on a different wall. I'd much rather go with the nanos so I can hide them behind my couch, but the Omnistat V2s are going for less that $200 shipped at Vanns. I'd appreciate some feedback from anyone familiar with these speakers.

Thanks again,

Z