Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Set on Axiom speakers, need avice

No, you!

michael_d-

Thanks for the nice comment! Please see the following link for an exhaustive look at the construction of my HT room:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=278717&fpart=1

The QS8s have an additional driver that the QS4s do not? Maybe I'm missing something but the Products page describe both the QS4 and the QS8 as dual tweeter, dual woofer designs...the QS4 has 2 1" tweeters and two 4" woofers while the QS8 has 2 1" tweeters and 2 5.25" woofers. Please, someone fill me in if I'm wrong here.

@ Brandon - Great looking room

@ Terry - don’t discount QS8s as surround speakers even for music. I know the recommendation is for direct radiating (identical all around if possible) but almost all my multi-channel music SACDs and DVD-As use the surround channels for ambient sounds which the QS8s are better suited to produce. Same goes if you use PLII or PLIIx processing as they are going to pull out the ambient information and route it to the back.

I compared both QS8s and M22s as surround and rear speakers in my apartment (speakers were 5.5’ away and I proffered the QS8s for both movies and music. The more diffuse sound from them blends better with their corresponding mains and with each other over a wider listening area. OTOH if I were just sitting in the sweet spot I found the advantages of the QS8s less noticeable especially as back speakers even more so the further away the back speakers were. However, I still can’t see using anything but the QS8s for surrounds even for music.



I’ve compared M22s and QS8s as surround, back, wide and height speakers so here’s my take for what it’s worth.

For movies, as mentioned, the dispersion characteristics of the QS8s better spread out the sound the way an array of surround speakers in a movie theater does. This helps the surround sound stage (sides and rear) to blend more seamlessly between all your speakers. It also helps prevent the side/rear soundstage from collapsing to the nearest speaker for people sitting off to either side.

For music I prefer the QS8s because most of the multi-channel music I have or have seen the surround channels only carry ambient sounds from the venue they were recorded in or mixed to simulate that. I have about 50 multi-channel recordings and I can only think of 2 DSOTM and Quaudiophiliac that mix discrete instruments of vocals into the surround channels. I’m sure there are many more but in my experience the ambient stuff far out weighs the directional.

In terms of usage I’ve noticed the following order of precedence in speakers:

Movies - Center, mains, surrounds, wides, heights, backs.
Music - Mains, (center and surrounds (about even)), wides, backs, heights.

Although in both cases the surrounds play less of a role it’s still significant in many recordings because they are often solely responsible for creating the side and back soundstage.

Some might question my putting surrounds on par with the center for music but the more high quality multi-channel music I’m getting the more I’m hearing sound engineers mix most of the center channel into the mains. On the audio demo Blu-ray that came with my Oppo there was almost nothing coming out of the center channel. My understanding is that the sound engineers understand that the mains are likely going to be the best speakers on someone system for music reproduction.

http://www.soundstage.com/surrounded/surrounded200307.htm

On thing I have noticed is that for back (not surround) speakers that are about 5’ or more away then using the M22s actually have some advantages over the QS8s in my experience do to the more directional nature of sound effects. However, IMO M22s are overkill as back speakers and M2s or M3s would be more cost effective in this role.

Overall my preference for speakers would be

L/C/R = identical tower or bookshelf. Timber matched vertical center if identical not possible. Timber matched horizontal center if vertical not possible.
Surrounds = QS8s or QS4 depending on room size
Wide = M2 or M3 maybe M22 if room is really big and wides are far away.
Height = QS4 maybe QS8s if room is huge
Back = M2 or M3 I skip backs in small rooms when using QS8 surrounds.

Obviously people will have differing opinions on what’s most important.

Cheer,
Dean

Sorry, Brandon, I thought your question was why the QS8's are more costly than M22's.

Man, your room's transformation was inspiring to see.

Nice work on the acoustic treatments also.

And lighting.

Ahh... and those butt friendly chairs...

Looks like one could spend many hours immersed in quality entertainment...

Likewise.

Seeking,

I realize I am late to this party and you are obviously getting some great help.

I also have the PB12-NSD paired with 22's (the W series however). I was extremely worried as well that a bookshelf was not going to give me what I wanted, as they were being put into a dedicated theater. My room is about 1750 cubic feet, which Axiom stated would be no problem for the 22's to fill.

Well, they weren't kidding. Movies are just amazing. I am using a 5.1 setup with a W150 and QS8's. During the action scenes which get very loud, they hang in there and envelope the entire room with sound without issue. As most of the guys here can attest, I am a perfectionist and am always concered something may not be 100% what it can be. Who wants to spend $2500 and not be satisfied, right? I did have some issues with sub placement, but that was sorted out and now the NSD works with the M22's very well.

I do believe the M60 may be a better choice for two channel, or if your room is more than about 2400 cubic feet. At least I would try the 22's, and if they don't quite do it for you, exchange them for the M60's.

They are the same concept, but the QS4 uses a smaller woofer and therefore is a smaller speaker, as you noticed.

Oh, I don't! I'm planning on using M2's for my bedroom surrounds since, I believe, that the QS8s would create too much dispersion in that smaller space. I'm currently using Tannoy PBM 6.5's for my surrounds in that space and they work really well. I think they are probably comparable to an M3 as far as the sound goes. The M2's would make an ideal match for rears in this set-up.

Now, my living room is much better suited for the QS8s.

You are correct about SACD/DVD-A multi channel music.

As the dust is starting to settle on multichannel music mixing for the end user, it looks like music will always be the ugly stepchild of HT. Most people are not willing or capable of setting up 5 matching full range speakers (the initial ideal) for music listening. But many people do have HT set-ups (and if they are smart, Axioms, but I digress... ...) so, we as engineers/producers, are trying to account for the typical HT system, knowing that it will probably be smallish speakers with a subwoofer/center channel (but hopefully full range mains), in a 5.1 configuration.

I mean, you should hear the debates/arguments for/against using the LFE in music mixing. Or how/when to use bass management. So many variables to consider! Most people have crap playback anyway, surround audio makes it that much harder to mix for a real world scenario.

So, HT is the only thing that is keeping multichannel high definition audio alive!

And I loves me some multichannel music...

BTW: Quaudiophiliac is very cool, but way too short! I was a kid, but I remember when the first Quad vinyl formats were happening. My how far we've come! Wish Frank were still alive, he would be all over this current technology, and years ahead of it...