Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners RX-V2600 and M80's (hopefully)

I just purchased a Yamaha rx-v2600 last week - hoping that
it would be capable of handling the M80's. I noticed in the RX-V4600 thread that other receivers were listed as being able to handle the load without issue (NAD, HK, Denon, ...), but Yamaha was missing from the list. Are there any known issues with the Yamaha's? Unfortunately, I'm at the end of my budget and there's really nothing left over to spend on an external amp, for now at least.

So, hear's the question (**albeit a subjective one**), is it possible to enjoy the M80's ("loud" action movies) driven by the Yamaha receiver? I can get the M60's now and be certain my receiver can drive them without an external amp, but I don't want to latter regret not getting the M80's. I could probably be able to pick up an amp this summer - but I dont' want to wait until this summer to purchase the speakers.

I have a 15'x22' enclosed media room with a 10' ceiling. Are M60's more than enough for this size of room? I've purchased a Panny 900 and will probably use a diy screen initially, with plans to pick up a Carada screen a little later.


Here's my planned setup:

M80s, VP150, QS8s, EP350?/500? (not ordered yet)
Yamaha RX-V2600
Panasonic PT-AE900U
Carada Criterian 92-102" (not ordered yet)


Thanks for any suggestions!

- Paul

Hey Paul (and welcome to the forum!):
Yamaha is not on the list of receivers that are generally recommended for driving the M80s. But, I don't think that's a bad thing if the Yamaha has the features you wanted.

I believe that the M60s, if mated with the EP500 sub, will do very well for your action movies in your room. How far away from the front speakers will you be sitting? Set the M60s to "small" on your receiver to let the 500 take much of the burdon off your receiver and the M60s. Honestly, if you were committed to the M80s, I would recommend the EP500 for those action movies anyway.

FWIW-

I'll be sitting about 11' back in the front row and 17' in the back row.

I'm not 100% committed to the M80s, but if I go with the M60s, I'm afraid I'll always wonder if I'm missing anything . As far as the sub goes, I'm guessing the EP500 is worth the extra $$$ from what I've read so far here.

- Paul

Unless your plan is to induce premature deafness in your friends, family and yourself, the 60s with an EP500 should be a killer combination that leaves nothing to be desired.

IMHO the 80's are great speakers for large or small rooms. They sound just as good at low levels and better when you just have to rattle the walls. The 500 helps there too.

I'm in a 11 x 17 room, but it's open to other rooms in the basement

The 4600 is holding it's own quite well. I have no desire as of yet for an external amp. My neighbors are already mad enough at me.

I'm sure the 60's would have done me just fine, but I too knew I would regret not getting the 80's for some silly reason at some point.

gman, my room is approximately the same size and I drive my setup (2XM60ti + VP150 + 2XQS8 + HSU STF-2.) with a Yamaha RX-V657.

Your receiver is perfect for the M60ti.

Paul, welcome. In the past some Yamaha receivers had difficulties with 4 ohm speakers. The tests on more recent models(e.g. 1500 and up)indicate substantial 4 ohm power and should do well with M80s except in situations such as extremely loud levels in extremely large rooms, which would also cause problems with other units.

Mark - M60s
dmn23 - M60s
bugbitten - M80s
newf - M80s
pfillion - M60s
John - M80s should probably work with receiver

Ok, it looks like a tie ... unless I put my vote in! I think I subconsciously wanted everyone to say the M80s were absolutely, hands down, the best way to go (or maybe not so subconsciously).

John, thanks for the info on the Yamaha's historical difficulties. So, I'm understanding from your comments that an external amp would not be required (knowing, of course, that I'd only be able to push the M80s to about half their potential)

pfillion - thanks for the M60s nod - and if you don't mind, what made you choose the STF-2 over either the EP350/500? I'm definitely up in the air over the sub. Being my first 'real' speaker system to purchase, I wasn't even expecting to be considering an $1,150 sub.

newf - great to hear the 4600 is holding its own - I think the 2600 has the same wpc rating, so hopefully I would be able to see similar results, except maybe the mad neighbors

bugbitten - if you run without the M200s are you able to rattle the walls? cuz that's what I'm talking about!

dmn23 - appreciate your comments - I'm hoping to get the best quality sound at exhilrating loudness levels (with a good sub), looks like the M60s may very well do both


Has anyone had the opportunity to do side-by-side comparison of the M60s and M80s in a similar sized room (15x22x10)? I've read on Axiom's site that they are tonally equal (at least very close), but I'm concerned that they won't be with one less high and mid driver.

Thanks again!

-Paul

Paul, in my view there's no good reason to doubt what you read on the Axiom site about the M60 and M80 being very similar tonally. Alan Lofft has discussed this and pointed out that the additional mid and high drivers give greater power handling capacity for extremely high sound levels in extremely large rooms. This doesn't change the tonal quality at more reasonable levels. Be that as it may, if this is going to cause you to continually linger in anguished doubt in the future, then go with the M80s.

If your parenthetical comment reacting to my previous post and ending "...half their potential" was based on something I said, that certainly wasn't intended. Apparently no lab tests on your new 2600 have been published, but the recent Hometheater lab results on the 2500 showed among other things 198 watts into 4 ohms with 0.1% THD and 242 watts at 1.0%. Keeping in mind that the M80s would be using about 1 watt at comfortably loud average listening levels and that even brief peaks might be unlikely to use more than about 100 watts, this would appear to provide for the full potential to be realized.

gman, I think you should go with the M60Ti, this way you can save your money to buy the EP500 instead of the 350. The sub is playing a MAJOR role for movies, buy a copy of War Of The World and do some tests to see what I mean

At first I bought the HSU STF-2 to match the M22Ti because my budget was limited, then I have finally decided to upgrade to the M60Ti. I will probably upgrade my Sub next spring for the EP500 as my brother is planing to buy an Axiom setup. (Maybe I'll be able to sell him my STF-2 )

The STF-2 is a great Sub (my whole house is shaking with War Of the World.) but from what I read the EP500 is major improvement.

For the M60Ti, they are perfect for music! (even at high volume.) I'm not using the Sub for music as I prefer the Pure Direct mode, IMO imaging is a lot better in Pure Direct than Stereo. (Last night I was listening Pink Floyd - The Final Cut and the difference was obvious as I was switching back and forth between the 2 modes.)

Patrick

The Denon will make the 80s rattle the walls. My son has a 3805 as well which he uses for B&W 703s. The 703s are not as efficient as the 80s and yet he gets plenty of volume.

If budget is an issue, get the 60s and the 500. If not, the 80s and the 500. But. Get the 500!

If I did it again, I would get the 2805 and monoblocks.

Thank you to everyone for their great comments/suggestions.

John, I came up with the "half their load" on my own! I was assuming that since the M80s can handle a max load of 400W, and figured the 2600 could deliver around 200+W @ 4 ohms - I was looking at half the potential load. Did I understand you correctly in stating that it would require *1* Watt to listen at a comfortable level in a room with my dimensions? Wow, I was expecting a bit larger number! So, I'm guessing if I was somehow able to pump 400W to each M80, everyone would become instantly deaf?

As far as the sub goes, the EP600 seems like probably overkill for me (and my budget). And I'm afraid I would want to upgrade the EP350 after no too long. I think I'm settled on getting the EP500, thanks to the people here and the fantastic reviews.

However, I still haven't decided on the M60s/M80s just yet.

Do the M80s offer any additional depth or definition over the M60s? Or do the M80s really only offer the capability to achieve louder sound levels?

Please bear with me, I'm just trying to make the most educated decision possible since I'll probably have these speakers for a long, long time!

One other side question ... has anyone had experience with buying from the factory outlet? I've read the quality of the speakers is great. I'm curious about the time it's been taking to fill the orders. Are the wait periods accurate?

Thanks,
Paul

An audition may be the only way to tell. Or a home trial.

If you are going to have the speakers for a long, long time, just get the M80s and be done with it.

Okay Paul, I see where that phrase came from, but actually the maximum power rating on speakers doesn't have much to do with reaching their full potential, rather it's theoretically the power that could be handled continuously without going up in smoke(Alan has reported that Axiom has actually tested it to over a thousand watts). Note also the suggested 10 watt minimum(not just 1/40th potential), which would actually be adequate for listening at a moderately loud level to program material which didn't have extreme dynamic levels.

Yes, 1 watt would be used for a comfortably loud average listening level at a normal listening position. The rated sensitivity in-room is 95dB for 1 watt at a listening distance of one meter. At a more typical distance of 10-15' this might drop to about 85dB, still quite loud. A much quieter part around 65dB would use about 1/100th watt, a 105dB peak would use about 100 watts(10dB more output requires ten times the power).

Paul, I don't know where you live but I have both the 80s and the 60s so if you care to drop by for a comparison listen you're more than welcome. Also I bought my EP600 from the FO and the thing looks brand new with nary the first scratch or indication that it came from the FO. Some have said their particular shipping date was well ahead of the Axiom's proposed ship date, my delivery date was dead on what I was told.

Reading through the gist of your post here I'd suggest the 80s simply because if you do not I'm visualizing you as the type of person who will be questioning your decision and you'll end up sending a pair of 60s back to Axiom for trade up to the 80s. My preference? The 80s.

BrotherBob, thanks for the offer to audition the speakers. Unfortunately, I live in Texas.

Since I do live in Texas, everything's suppose to be big and the M80s seemed to fit the bill as far as having the biggest sound potential. But ... after talking with Alan Lofft I've finally made my decision to go with the M60s (along with the VP150, QS8s, and the EP500). The factory outlet was tempting, but I get my Panasonic projector delivered today, and my receiver and theater seating are just waiting around. I can't wait a month+ to get the Axioms!

As was the advice of people in this thread, it seems the best decision is to go ahead and audition the M60s (and trade up to the M80s if it's necessary). I might just need to use the grill covers on the M60s and pretend they're M80s.

To pass on information I got while talking with Alan, he said it would be very difficult to tell the difference between the M60s and M80s with the EP500 running, at least in my room (3300cf). Without the EP500, running in stereo I would be able to tell the difference with more bass coming from the M80s (larger cabinet). I'll most likely be running the EP500 most of the time, so I decided to use the extra money towards my projector screen - once I figure out my screen size - hopefully tonight!

Thanks everyone!

gman,

Let us know when you have received and completed your setup..

Before seeing this message board, I had made all the same product choices for my new home theater/Music room that I'll be getting very shortly.

.. Being the Yamaha RX-V2600, Axiom M60s, QS8, VP150 & EP500 in a 5:1 configuration for now, along with the Panasonic PT-AE900U projector..

Let me know if you're happy with everything you got or will be getting..

I should be ordering everything before year-end..

On my side, I'm very confident with these final choices.. (I did also hesitate a bit re. M80s. The M60s will be perfect I'm sure).

I also did not chose the type of projector screen yet.. I wanted to see first in a 16ft room (14,5 ft projection I guest), the projection width. Would a 92in screen be too wide? I don't know..


Michel

Hi Michael,

I'm still working on getting everything setup. I did receive my speakers from axiom and I am very pleased!

As to the screen, I ordered a 144" Carada screen with a 2.05 aspect ratio, and am hoping to get it before Christmas. My back row sits at around 17' feet away. Before ordering my screen, I picked up a 4'x8' (107" diagonal - 2.0 aspect ratio) whiteboard for around $11 to check out what size I would need (or really how big was too big). I read from various places, as I'm sure you have as well, that you should sit back, at a minimum, somewhere between 1.5 to 2.0 times the screen width. I knew I wasn't going to be able to make the definitive decision on my screen size without checking this out for myself and verifying with my own eyes what would work best for me. I wouldn't think that 92" would be too large for the distance your sitting at, but that's all subjective of course. BTW, the PT-AE900U is awesome - definitely no SDE! I'll update you after I do a true "test" when I get my screen mounted.

Good news, the end of the year is just about here! (time to order your stuff ).

- gman

I have the PT-AE900U and I agree, it's an awesome projector. I myself have a 92" screen and I sit about 11-12' back with no problems whatsoever, no SDE at all.



Sutter

Happy to ear you're satisfied with the M60s and EP500.. It had to be a very nice combinaison.

Will you be using your RX-V2600 in a 5:1 or 7:1 setup?

Re. screen, I noticed from Panasonic's PT-AE900U's specs that the wider you go, the less LUX (luminosity) you get.. I don't know what is a good useful minimal required LUX to fully enjoy watching a movie, live show, ... ? I guess that at 144in wide, you'll need to keep your room pretty dark at all time...

(Thanks SutterCane for your inputs re. 92in screen)

My PT-AE900U's and my RX-V2600 have been ordered.. I should get those just before christmas. I had a pretty good price on both of these items + I was getting an extra free lamp for the projector..

For the speakers, I'll have to finish up the room first.. Actually working on it. I just couldn't leave the speakers in my bedroom or living room until I'm done. My wife wouldn't like it very much, especially during Christmas familly reunions.

It will come soon enough.. I should finish the room during the holidays.

By the way, are you using a HDTV hi res. DVD player? Should I look for a DVD player that has HDMI interface?

I was told that my actual low cost DVD player would not use the full potentiel of the projector.. It would give a lower resolution than the 1280 x 720 native HD resolution the projector can support..

Keep me posted when you have everything setup..

Michel C

Michel welcome. All present DVDs are 480i, so yes, no DVD player uses the "full potential" of a 720p native resolution display. The 480i information coming off the DVD has to be deinterlaced from i to p and scaled up from 480 to 720 so that the 720p device will display a full picture(but this still isn't a full 720 resolution as from a 720 source). If the player or receiver doesn't do this the projector itself will deinterlace and scale up to 720p. Unless a more expensive player would happen to do a visibly better job of this than the projector, it wouldn't necessarily result in an improved picture.

Michel, I purchased an OPPO DVD player which has HDMI output. The RX-V2600 will pass through any HDMI signals to your projector for upscaling via the projector to 720p (as John mentioned). One advantage of using an HDMI DVD player is the signal only needs to be upscaled, where as the component/s-video/composite sources will need to be converted to digital then upscaled. Whatever way you go though, all you need is one HDMI cable run to the projector!

I got a bit of bad news today. I got a call from Carada and they had held off on building my screen because they wanted to ensure I knew what I was ordering! Unfortunately, I forgot I gave them 2 email addresses and I missed their email messages from a week ago asking about my room size and projector location, etc. As it turns out, I think I'm going to take this opportunity to change to a 1.78 aspect ratio so I don't have to mess with the projector once I set it up. So, I probably won't receive my screen until next week or so.

BTW, I do have totally light controlled room and I've ordered a "Bright White" screen to ensure plenty of brightness with a 134-144" screen.

-gman

Thanks John for your info..

You seems to know much about the subject.. Could you tell me if i'd be doing a good buy ( again knowing it will be use with Panasonic's projector that has HDMI input.) Would it be an improove product against everything on the market?

I'm looking at the Panasonic's DVD-S97 Universal Player that has the following specification:

YCbCr Resolution: 720X480X30/NTSC or 720X576X25/PAL (progressive and interlaced)

HDMI: 480p, 576p, 720p, 1080i

reference:

http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/PanasonicDVDS97p1.php

Any other recommendations?

Ok gman, so any DVD player that has HDMI output is an improovement in sound & image quality in our case?..

Is the 1.78 aspect ratio a 16/9, 4/3, other size screen? Can you tell me a little more about this choice since I'll also have to order one shortly..

I was looking in buying a Da-lite screen.. Is Carada a good product? What model are you then looking at buying? I find those screen pretty expensive..

Michel,

A 1.78 aspect ratio is a 16:9 (widescreen) ratio for HD. There's a wide range of different aspect ratio's for various formats. Some of them are as follows:

1.78 - HD
1.33 - NTSC or PAL (Regular Tv) also known as 4:3
1.85 - Letterbox

Those are just a few examples, and there's others as well, but that gives you a general idea.

I probably could have broke that down and explained it a little better. There's a lot to this subject in terms of aspect ratios for various formats. When I have more time I'll post again with more detail.

I hope this helps a little though.

Ok Michel, here's the run down. I apologise up front, for this will be somewhat long winded. lol

Alright, I'll start with aspect ratio's followed by their respected formats. For the sake of this discussion, I'll stick with widescreen formats.

1.85 - Flat Widescreen
2.39 - 2:1 Anamorphic (Scope)
2.39 - Super35 (Scope)
2.39 - Techniscope
1.85 - 16mm
1.85 - Super16

1.85 - Flat Widescreen:
Very popular. Inefficient use of image area. Open-matte transfer of image fits televisions well. 1.66:1 in Europe.

Movie examples:
Good Will Hunting, As Good As It Gets, Saving Private Ryan, There's Something About Mary, Waterboy, The Truman Show

2.39 - 2:1 Anamorphic (Scope):
Uses a 2:1 horizontal squeeze in filming, and a 2:1 horizontal unsqueeze in projection. Very efficient use of image area. Does not translate well to television (44 percent image loss).

Movie examples:
Star Wars (all), October Sky, Blade, I Know What You Did Last Summer, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, My Best Friend's Wedding

2.39 - Super35 (Scope):
Uses silent aperture in shooting. 2.39:1 slice extracted from source and printed in scope format on theatrical release prints, requiring the 2:1 horizontal unsqueeze in projection. Very inefficient use of image area of source. Open-matte transfer of source fits televisions well.

Movie examples:
Independence Day, Titanic (except underwater scenes), Austin Powers (I and II), The Matrix, Air Force One

2.39 - Techniscope:
Poor man's scope. Runs film at half speed, using only 2 perforations per frame instead of 4. Scope theatrical release prints are made by blowing up each frame by a factor of 2 in the vertical direction only, which fits the "scope" release format perfectly. Note that this format used the image area very efficiently, but only has half the vertical resolution of films shot in anamorphic scope format.

Movie examples: THX-1138, American Graffiti, underwater scenes in Titanic.

1.85 - 16mm:
In shooting, very similar to 35mm flat widescreen format, except on a smaller scale. A 1.85:1 area is extracted from the 1.33:1 image area of the 16mm film and is blown up to 35mm, resulting in a hard-matted 35mm flat widescreen print. Movies shot this way look very grainy.

Movie examples: Clerks

1.85 - Super16:
In shooting, the soundtrack area of the 16mm film is used for image, resulting in a 0.493" by 0.292" camera aperture (1.69:1 aspect ratio). This source image is blown up to 35mm and printed in the flat format, resulting in a hard-matted 1.69:1 flat print, which is run at 1.85:1 in theatres, of course. Movies shot this way look very grainy.

Movie examples: Chasing Amy, Leaving Las Vegas

Now these are all film aspect ratio's in relation to their respected formats. In terms of what we're talking about here, you'll want a 1.78 ratio, which is the ratio designated for HD, more and less. You'll sometimes here it refered to as 1.76, or at least I have anyways.

In todays world of ATV (Advanced Television Standards), it pretty much boils down to the following, for the most part.

If you are a film buff and want to watch movies at home that are in the same format that was shown on the big screen, consider this: movies made for cinema screens are filmed with an aspect ratio of between 1.85:1 and 2.4:1, and the director consciously uses the entire screen to tell you the story. So when a movie is re-packaged for television broadcast, various editing methods are used to try and make everything on the large movie screen fit onto a 1.33:1 TV. That means that 40-50% of the movie is affected.

Another way to get cinema-sized films onto a TV is using the Letterbox format. Most people have heard of this. Letterbox means that no editing was done to the film, but rather the way that the TV screen is manipulated to match the aspect ratio of the film. By adding a black area along the top and bottom of the screen, often referred to as "black bars," the TV screen is able to mimic the aspect ratio of the movie screen. While you don't necessarily miss out on any action, this is not always an ideal solution because on smaller TV sets, the narrow strip where the movie appears is even smaller, making it hard to see all the details. The bigger the TV screen, the less problematic the letterbox will be.

Perhaps the greatest thing about widescreens is that they mean an end to the need for action-eliminating edits. Since the aspect ratio is of widescreen is closer to that found in movie theaters, there is plenty of room for the whole picture. However, because the aspect ratios do not match exactly, there may still be black bars around the movie (making it either letterboxed or sideboxed or both), but they will be narrower and therefore won't affect the image area as greatly.

And since more and more people are buying widescreens either in the form of a front projector or a RPTV, producers are filming specifically for widescreen formats. That means that there is more widescreen content available than ever before. Since more and more TV stations are expected to be broadcasting digitally and the top digital format, HDTV, can supply an aspect ratio of 16:9, widescreen will soon be everywhere. It is likely we will see the ubiquitous 4:3 TV slowly replaced by widescreens, in fact, it's already begining to happen.

To filter through all this, or to sum things up (Thank God Huh ), the official aspect ratio for all HDTV programming is 16:9. That's the case whether you receive your HDTV signals via local over-the-air broadcasts, digital cable service, or satellite TV. Even if you don't currently receive HDTV, you've probably noticed that more and more non-HD versions of HDTV programs are being shown in widescreen, like "The Sopranos" and "The West Wing." Many DVD movies are optimized for display on 16:9 screens. The technical term for these DVDs is "anamorphic", but their packaging usually says "enhanced for 16x9 televisions" or "enhanced for widescreen televisions."

Nearly all current Hollywood movies are shot at aspect ratios that are even wider than 16:9 (1.78:1). The two most common formats are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, as previously mentioned. A movie at 1.85:1 is close to a perfect fit for a 16:9 screen, and even a significantly wider 2.35:1 film matches up better with a 16:9 screen than a 4:3 screen.

At anyrate, I hope I've been able to shed some light on this subject for you. If nothing else, I hope I was able to help a little bit.

Wow SutterCane..!

what a nice and complete explanation of what aspect ratio and formats are all about.. I'm sure this info will serve a lot more users.

A customer of mine is very active in the broadcast business and does most constructions and setups of TV studios around Montreal and Toronto, and like you said, TV networks have a lot of pressure to convert their equipment and studios to produce HDTV format programs.

I'll print your page info and keep it for records.

Thank you very much SutterCane for this well detailed explanation..!

It's not a problem bud, we're all here to help each other out.


Sutter

Michel, as Paul(gman)pointed out, one advantage of the HDMI connection is that it only involves one cable, instead of the three for a component connection. Another theoretical advantage is that it keeps the information digital all the way instead of requiring conversion to analog and back to digital, as in component. This may or may not actually slightly improve picture and/or sound, since modern converters work extremely well. The S97 is a fine player, and a good buy, but not better than everything else on the market, if that's what you were asking.

Thanks John,

I don't know if it's only them or if it's Panasonic but I phoned my supplier today and asked about the S97 and I was told it's been discontinued. I was surprised to ear this since I tought it was a fairly new product..

There are still some floor units available but honestly, I prefer in that case to spend some time and try to find another unit that is actually a hot and active product..

Any recommendations for a good DVD player and also for a good projector screen are more than welcome..

Michel C

Im pretty sure that it is not being discontinued. there was a period where there was none available about a month or two ago. but now they are back in stock everywhere. infact they just did a full review over at audioholics.