dynaudio or M & k for home theater

I really like the sound of wilson speakers and think dynaudio sound similar. dynaudio is much better value for a home theater. A dealer over the phone said M & K is the best choice because it is designed for home theater. I have heard dynaudios and like them,(I also know the saying if you like what you hear buy it). Since it is probably a good hour to a m and k dealer I wonder who has heard these and if they are worth the drive. Or stick with wilsons or dynaudios. I also want to make a decision slowly not like my 2 channel system which got 3 preamps, and 2 amps, and 2 cd players last year.
I've heard about three different M&K home theater setups. I didn't like anyone of them. If you can afford Wilson, by all means, jump on that. I have heard Dynaudio in a two channel setup, but not as home theater. I'd be confident in saying you're going to like the Dynaudio setup better. Plus, you already know you like it. As for M&K being designed for home theater, there is some truth to that. M&K was orignally designed for use at Skywalker Sound for George Lucas. He now uses B&W 802's all the way around. Aren't all 5 channel setups designed for home theater anyway?
I have M&K and like them a lot. I go around and listen to systems in all the high end stores I can find. I usually leave thinking my system stacks up really well and I wouldn’t change for what I just heard. Until……………. I heard a full Wilson system! That is the first time I left a demo and felt disappointed with my system. If you can afford it I would go with the Wilson’s.
I use Dynaudio's and love them for music and HT. I moved from Snell to Dynaudio.

Another brand you may want to consider is Revel. Kevin Voelks is a very talented speaker designer.
Dynaudio doesn't have good centers, and no rears in the contour series, which is where you want to be at. I also don't think they sound like Wilsons, but ymmv. ps. I owned 1.3SEs, a phenomenal speaker.

I have two systems--M&K S150s for HT, and to be determined for the other (Wilson Sophias top right now). M&Ks have awesome dynamics, and it is spooky how good they sound in HT. A little flat for music, but that is the way they are designed.

Wilson is great, but 25-30k for HT (Sophias, Watch) vs 3k M&Ks is a different entire league...match the M&Ks with a quality sub and be done. I am.
Actually, the 1.3 makes a WONDERFUL center channel as well as a nice surround. They just don't make bipole/dipoles.

To each their own.
I agree strongly with Keithr. My dedicated theater began with Definitive BP2002TL as mains, CLR2500 center, BP2x sides and 6.5” 2-way in-wall rears. Threw a big soundstage but something was still lacking.

I then converted over to M&K S-150 for mains and center, SS-150 tripole for sides, kept the Definitive in-walls for the rear and use a Boston Acoustics PV1000 sub. This change yielded a dramatic improvement across the audio spectrum. It really is scary how well the M&Ks image and seem to disappear in front of you. They are very accurate and dynamic which I think works very well in HT. Regarding their use for music...they’re OK...a little ‘cool’ for my taste. I chose the PV1000 over the M&K MX200 because I felt it was faster and tighter than the M&K. Overall output was lower with the PV1000, but I wanted something cleaner rather than high output. I figure I can always add another PV1000 if I need it...so far not even a consideration!

I recently considered combining my 2-channel system with my HT system. I moved my Boston Acoustics Lynnfield 500L speakers from my living room to the HT (along with the Aragon 8008ST amp to drive them). Now, mind you, these are $5000 floor-standing speakers v. the $1700 M&K satellites. It was no contest…..the M&Ks just sounded better. They presented a bigger soundstage, were more dynamic and drew you into the action to a greater degree. Another big plus is their small size. Even in my dedicated room, placed next to a 92” diagonal screen, its nice to not see a huge tower right next to the picture.

If HT is the primary consideration, I think its very hard to beat the M&Ks, especially when cost is factored in. If you want to also use them for 2-channel listening, you might want to look at some other brands that straddle the HT/2-channel line a little better. Hope this helps.
The reason wilson sounds like dynaudio is b/c wilson uses dynaudio drivers. I use the 1.8's and contour center up front and the integration is seemless. I don't know what keithr is talking about, the quality and craftsmanship of the center channel is consistent with the rest of the series. They just upgraded the contour line and the new series also has a center channel. If you are looking for wilson sound at a reasonable cost I think you already know what you need to get.
Thanks for the great info., I still have not purchased componets, the carpet seems to be taking longer than I thought. Any more info on comparisons between people that heard M & K, wilson, dynaudio first hand would be great. After reading these posts I think I may also have to make a drive to compare dynaudio to M & K.

Wilson doesn't use dyn drviers anymore, and only used the woofers in the W/Ps. Tweeters have been focal for sometime, and scanspeak on the midranges. I was a Wilson owner btw (Cub IIs) as well, right before I got my 1.3SEs.

An MTM is a limiting design for any center channel as you can read just about anywhere. The contour center does not have even the same tweeter as the 1.8s from what I have been told. 3 identical speakers across the front produce magic. It is the easiest solution as well. The 1.3s aren't shielded which also causes problems for some (not me, due to fp). There are no wall brackets, keyholes, or anything to allow convenient mounting either. I love Dynaudios, but for HT they aren't for me. There subs also aren't competitive with what else is available. Dyns also take a lot of current to drive, and 100db peaks are going to tax an amp.

BTW- if you have the scratch, the Avantgarde Solos is another choice for HT and 2 ch. Absolutely awesome sounding.