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.
eralff
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.