Are Mission m3ds as good as it gets for surrounds?


Standard Member
I have Proac Hexa fronts and was dissatisfied with 2005.2 Eggs as surround backs + rears (4 on the back wall, well behind the listening position; I dont want to hang anything on the side walls): they seemed to create a separate sound stage from the fronts, even after YPAO equalization. I attributed this to their directionality and am testing bipole Mission m3ds surround backs. These seem much better in that they don't seem to create a separate soundfield. They sound very diffuse and laid back (as some reviews suggested they would). Interestingly, the YPAO equalisation is much flatter than with the Eggs, which required a significant taming of the upper frequencies, presumably partly because I have large flat reflective walls.

I have considered other rear surround options:

- more Hexas: expensive, and even more directional than the Eggs

- M&K speakers: 4Ohm and described in various reviews as harsh / unrefined, which is what I want to avoid.

It seems as if bipoles are the way to travel. Before I say snap to the Missions, are there other options that might have a little more punch without losing the unified sound field? How are the various Jamos, for example?


Active Member
I went from mission m7ds to m/k k-4s rears which sound much better than the missions,Try and get a demo, for movies the m&k range sound superb and to my ears are very hard to beat and have never suffered harshness with movies, though they can sound clinical with music.
Cheers Gonzo.:)


Standard Member
Thanks. The m5ds are supposed to be an advance on the m7ds, if I have understood.

What difference will 4Ohm speakers make when all the other speakers are 8Ohm? My Yamaha has a setting for 6Ohm speakers, but does not mention 4Ohms.

Has anyone seen M&K speakers for demo in central London?


Distinguished Member
kef eggs are monopole, and the mission's are di/bi pole, which would explain their behaviour.
Top Bottom