Look forward to your thoughts on the 300's Phil. I personally find them stunning speakers and a big step up from the fantastic 150's.Thanks for the comments. The MP150 review is coming soon and I have had 2 X12 subs delivered and waiting on S300/MP300's coming soon, hopefully.
There is def a place for tripole in object based audio."Enough power to destroy an entire planet.."
I'd love a set of these. But I do wonder. In these days of domestic 7.1, Atmos etc. is there any need for bi-pole - or even tri-pole - surround speakers?
Depending on the seating positions, unless you have a commercial sized cinema room, you should avoid monopole designs, especially for the seating level surrounds. Reason being is that listeners are always closer to the surrounds than the front sound stage, so some diffuse effect is required to spread the sound evenly and to try and avoid localising the speakers position (yet still be able to place an object or effect within the mix). Both the MK S150T and the XTZ S5 were excellent at achieving this and blending the entire system together."Enough power to destroy an entire planet.."
I'd love a set of these. But I do wonder. In these days of domestic 6.1, 7.1, Atmos etc. is there any need for bi-pole - or even tri-pole - surround speakers?
That's interesting that you're using tripoles as TM. Which way are you installing them? Side speakers pointing front to back in the room or towards the side walls?There is def a place for tripole in object based audio.
I use tripole in my Atmos sytem and will be installing a pair as TM height speakers. I've heard many Atmos systems with tripole and they work better than monopoles IMO.
Pin point accuracy for object steering with a large enveloping spread of sound that allows the speakers to disappear.
I agree with you regarding the bipoles, but some very high end custom installers in the US are using bipoles as ceiling/surround speakers for Atmos systems in smaller rooms to great effect.Interesting and I'd like to hear how you get on with it. I have a set of bi-poles for side surrounds but I don't think they'd be as effective for TM's.
I would give it a go.mmmm you have me thinking now. Get rid of my Apex 10's that were intended for TM and get another pair of Monitor Audio FX for the ceiling.
They do have grills so that you can't see the drivers!!I too agree that having identical front speakers is extremely beneficial and worth the effort if you can accommodate it.
I once owned KEF's THX speaker packager (The old TDM series from around 1999/2000) and it remains to this day the best home cinema experience I've heard.
Unfortunately, I moved to a smaller house with a female who likes real wood furniture and they had to go.
Now I'm free to do what I like, and knowing that KEF discontinued the TDM series over 10 years ago, if I was looking to rediscover a dedicated cinema room then these MK's would be top of my wanted list.
The only thing that would be of concern for my slight OCD tendancies, is the fact that the driver array does not lend itself well to a symmetrical layout with the centre speaker. I really want the tweeter sit above or below the bass drivers... though I accept that it would defeat the objective of a controlled vertical dispersion pattern.
It's actually one reason why the old KEF TDM series were (IMO) better.... they too used a 5 driver array per cabinet, but the tweeters were dead centre in each speaker with 2x mid drivers symmetrically placed above and below.
Strange as lsound have them down as in stock, and I thought Russell would have made his KK setup at home available for any review like he did for HCC.I'm surprised about the KK's not being in stock for review. They seem to be quickly becoming a novelty item
Great review though and i'm looking forward to reading about the MP's.