Let me fill in the gaps first:
This is the setup I have-
Denon 3802 receiver
Toshiba 36" flat HDTV monitor
Daewoo DVD player
Toshiba VCR
Sharp VCR
M60s on the front (set about 4' on either side of the TV)
VP 150 on top of the TV
EP175 sub between the TV and the left front speaker
QS8s on either side of the couch set 1' back perhaps
12AWG stranded copper wire for all speakers
RCA gold interconnects for the components as well as the sub
My listening position is around 10-12 feet away from the TV depending on which corner of the couch I am measuring from
The room itself is carpeted and is around 25'L X 14'W X 25'H with the living room opening into the foyer above 12' or so.
Now to your other questions:
What I am referring to when I unscientifically equate 'level of output' and 'choice of sub' is this: I recall having read in some posts that an inadequate sub (given the size of the room) can give rise to a perception of overall lack of power. I have been wondering if a larger sub (say the EP 350) would more adequately complement the output from the other speakers and thereby provide a more balanced listening experience. Admittedly this is subjective and very much a function of the room's acoustic profile. Better positioning of the sub and/or phase control may be a temporary solution till I can come up with another $1000 or so for another sub (note to axiom: it may be a good idea to provide a continuously variable phase shift control on the subs).
By the way, the spec sheet that came with the sub advised listeners not turn up the output of the sub beyond the halfway mark - maybe this is a way of creating some dynamic headroom while still protecting the driver, but if some reader could come up with a better explanation for this, please inform.
As I said earlier, I perceive low output levels only when I am playing DVDs; the CDs sound quite loud (without changing the volume on the receiver). I am planning to get a second DVD player soon. I will test this again on the new source and report if I find any differences.
I do not believe I suggested anywhere that the company is hiding a design flaw. Apologise if anybody got that impression from my posts. Needless to say, good design is all about making the right compromises, which by definition give rise to some shortcomings in reference to the targeted price/performance point. To take one of you own examples, if a gasoline engine designer is targeting low-end torque, the best way to get there is through larger displacement, which obviously sacrifices fuel economy. There may be designs that overcome this tradeoff but these are likely to be more complicated and expensive, or require exotic fuels. likewise, when designing the enclosure of the QS8s or the fasteners, the designer may have been limited by cost and size considerations in eliminating all possible resonances. In my opinion, as long as the artefact has a minimal probability of occurence, and does not interfere in most normal circumstances, it is not a flaw but an acceptable shortcoming. If indeed there is such a design consideration, I am merely seeking more information so I can try and manage around it. For my next purchase (the surround backs), I can accordingly settle on the M3s instead of the QS8s if the designer regards M3s to be better in this particular circumstance. Lastly, if the problem I have described above has not been experienced by the designer during product testing, then it can only benefit him/her to be aware of the issue and design around it if reasonably possible when the next design update is due.
I do not disagree that QS8s sound great as sorround speakers go and I am sure I would not buy anything else for a sorround speaker; maybe for the backs but not for the main sorrounds.
The ZZ.. ZZZ.... noise (it seemed as if it originated from cabinet resonance) was present when I was playing an Indian film music CD. The name of the movie is 'Sagara Sangamam'. I am not sure you would be able to get the CD easily, but I would be happy to make a copy of the CD if you like and are still interested in testing it out.
