Paradigm Signature or Monitor Audio Platinum or something entirely different

[admin_exported]

I am interested in a high quality home cinema and music setup but am undecided whether to go for a combined system or get a seperate 2-channel and home cinema setup.

For a seperate system I would be interested to get a pure home cinema system such as the Klipsch THX-Ultra2 7.2 system with a Denon AVC-A1HD for amplification, which would allow me to also get a seperate high quality stereo setup, eg. I have been considering Wilson Benesch ACT Speakers + good 2-channel power amps and preamps (e.g. Pass Labs or Audionet)

Alternatively I would be interested in a full surround setup using floorstanders for front L/R and would be considering the Monitor Audio Platinum 5.1 or Paradigm Signature Reference 5.1 using S8 for fronts as both systems seem to get more tha positive reviews but arte difficult to get an audition for in a full 5.1 setup.

The price of the three alternatives is more or less similar. As usual I ahve tried to listen to these setups but apart from the Monitor Audio PL-300 and Wilson Benesch ACT I could not listen to the others and much less a full surround setup.

From the speakers I have heard B&W 802D, KEF Reference 207/2, the above mentioned Monitor Audio PL-300 and Wilson Benesch ACT I liked the last by far the most but building a full setup around those seems cost prohibitive.

Any thoughts?

 

[Anonymous]

Tricky one, this one, but I am very envious with your kind of budget.

The Paradigm S8's are wonderful loudspeakers, but personally, I prefer the Monitor Audio PL300's. Recently, I purchased a pair of Mordaunt-Short Performance 6 loudspeakers and are chuffed to bits with them. Perhaps you may like to consider the Performance 6's, as well. Considerably cheaper, and quite a favourite among the What Hi Fi crew (especially Clare Newsome).

A full 5.1 or 7.1 set-up consisting of Mordaunt-Short Performance 6 loudspeakers, powered by the flag-ship Denon AVP-A1HDA and Denon POA-A1HD, for example, will be absolutely awe-inspiring.

Dan.

 

[TheHomeCinemaCentre]

A very nice dilema. At this level a good quality demonstration is essential and time invested in travelling will be well spent. Hearing the systems correctly set up in the full configuration you intend to buy will make your choice easier.

Everyone will have their opinion as to which system is best but by the time you factor in your room and the various options on amplifciation and speakers only you can really make that choice. The speakers you are looking at will all allow a high quality stereo and home cinema set up so it will come down to the sound you prefer.

The KEF 207/2 as the front speakers in a surround sound set really works for me and if you have the room would be my main recommendation. As an alternative I would suggest you try to audtion the PMC range with PB1's at the front if you can.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Whether or not you go for a single or two systems can only come down to your choice, so auditioning is essential. I've tried over the years to combine the two, going down the pre/power route etc, but was never entirely happy with the audio performance. If budget allows, the only way to get the best from the two is to have two systems, but a separate room will be needed for the 2 channel system as multiple speakers in the same room will affect their performance.

Having heard the KEF Reference 7.2 system at the Bristol show early this year (you'll see my comments about it in the Show section of these forums), I have to say it's one of the best AV systems I've heard which is based on a hi-fi speaker package. Driven by the Denon pre/power, the whole thing sounded huge, effortless, and extremely listenable. If I were to combine 2 channel and multi-channel systems, the KEF would be the route I'd take. The reason for this is that I do feel the UniQ driver lends itself extremely well to AV. There will be alternatives, and all will be worth an audition, maybe something along the lines of ATC.

Separating the systems will allow you to split your budget to what you feel is more important. If movies are more important you can spend the majority on that, and the rest on your AV, or vice versa. It also means that occupying separate rooms there will never be conflicts when someone wants to listen to music while others want to watch a movie. You may also find that one room will sound better for music than the other. Looking at the AV system, we find it hard to do much better than the Yamaha DSPZ11 and MK S150 system. The MK 150's are purely designed to reproduce movie soundtracks (being a passive version of the active ones used in studios), and when added to the excellent processing of the DSPZ11, makes an extremely hard combination to beat. Compared to hi-fi speakers, the MK's add punch and bite, dragging out more subtle details for a far more immersive experience. This type of system is definitely worth an audition as many of those who hear it become MK converts, and from that point, nothing else will do!

Taking this route, you'll find you'll have a bigger budget left for your 2 channel system, and the recommendation are going to vary as to what sort of budget is available.

 

[Anonymous]

David, with regards to a seperate AV setup, I had listed the
Klipsch THX Ultra in my initial post because I read positive things
about it and heard that Miller & Kreisel was not doing so well
financially at some point but perhaps I read wrong. More generally how
do you compare a satellite sub system such as M&K or Klipsch THX
Ultra to a package which mixes and matches floorstanders with centers
and surrounds and sometimes there are not evene dipoles for the back
channels available in the line.
My thinking is that a satellite
system with 3 identical fronts and 4 dipoles may actually better for
pure movie watching than a mixture of high quality stereo speakers which were not necessarily designed with surround in mind (at least in
terms of a homogenuous sound field, etc. and adding 2 subwoofers should
take care of the bass too.) For music listening a seperate pair of
floorstanders would obviously be a must in such a solution. How do you
find that a pure M&K setup compares to the much more expensive
mixtures from KEF Reference and Monitor Audio PL-300 FOR MOVIES ONLY.
Assuming one gets a high quality pair of stereo speakers, eg KEF 207/2 in a seperate room for stereo
listening...

 

[Frank Harvey]

Ken Kreisel disbanded M&K about 3 or 4 years ago now, but the company was bought and resurrected by a European company, who took on about 3 of the original staff ()mainly design team). Since then, they've continued to make what was available before, produced 2 new ranges, with more products to come, and have built the company back up to where it was. Business as usual.

I know shows aren't the best place to hear stuff (although M&K always kicks butt at shows), but I wasn't overly impressed with the Klipsch package. It just sounded harsh, boomy, and basically unconvincing. I can only relay what I've heard personally.

MK exclusively produce tripoles, which fire in 3 directions instead of 2, giving a more diffuse surround image - many feel that these give pretty much the best surround performance you can get.

This sort of system trounces many Av packages made up of hi-fi speakers, especially those that use standard direct firing speakers at the rear, and inferior centre speakers - after all, the centre is THE most important speaker in the whole system. Ideally, the best speaker systems have fully matching left, centre, and right speakers. In other words, exactly the same.

How does MK compare to the likes of MA Platinum and KEF Reference? Ths is personal preference, and many would go for the 'nicer' presentation of the MA's and the KEF's. For me personally, I'd have to spend an inordinately silly amount of money to better my 150's, which I refuse to replace as I've heard nothing come close. I use 207/2's for music, but as good as they sound for movies, and they sound amazing for movies, I prefer the MK's even though they're much cheaper. Only a demo can sort out which route you'd take. What sort of differences are there you ask? Hi-fi speakers are very polite. People want to hear their music in a relaxing way, which doesn't suit a movie soundtrack. The MK's bring out the midrange more, and more detail with it, and also sound massive even though they're only about 13" cubed. The mian reason they sound the way they do i the way they're designed. The following paragraph will give you the basics behind this.

Systems like the MK's are based around 5 speakers that cut off at 80Hz and utilise a sub for anything below that point. The smaller sides of the satellite speakers add less to what's going on, unlike big floorstanders. Because they're focussed on a smaller frequency bandwidth, their midrange has more punch than a hi-fi speaker can handle. The sealed cabinets aren't affected by room boundaries like bigger ported floorstanders, which can be a real pain to incorporate in some systems. This also gives a more even frequency response. Because the front 3 speakers are identical, any sound passing between them does not change in timbre or pitch. Also, hi-fi speakers tend to have a very narrow horizontal dispersion, hence the sweet spot with music. MK's are designed for a wide dispersion, helping those not in the centre to hear all three speakers when they're producing the same frequencies. What do you hear? Clearer dialogue for one. Gunfire takes on a whole new meaning, as do the shells as they hit a concrete floor. The hustle and bustle of a New York city street becomes a more expansive, believable experience. Films are masterd on this type of speaker setup, and in many cases, on these very speakers, albeit active versions.

So for me, the 150's for movies, and 207/2's for music on a separate system is the way I chose. Like I said, you can then choose which system is more important to you, and spend accordingly.