Now that I have M22s in a separate room, I was at last given the opportunity to test difference (especially for music) to have direct firing side speakers compared to QS8s. I started 2 weeks ago with the back surrounds, but we did most of it yesterday and today.
I tested a tad more scenarios than the ones in the files attached, but one of the main axiom I was following was that it had to be doable physically in my setup. Below are two pictures showing the tables that used to hold the back QS8 now used to test the M22. I am mentionning this because a better setup for the M22s are more in the back and in a "circle" instead of on the side. But it is not practical for me so I tried it, but did not dwell too long on it (sad because it is good).
I am not entirely sure how if this will work, but I have attached the two files the we used (the tests were done with 2 friends) to make sure everyone understood which device to use when. 1/3 of the tests were done while we 2 waited outside the room and one did setups. The rest of the time, the setup change were too obvious to be bothered with attempt at blinding (there was no running with scissors).
Word document describing tests Excel spreadsheet containing results (the notes A/B/C/D were a lot closer than that B+,B,B-,C+, but I expanded the range to make it easier to understand).
NOTE: I just tried the link. Do "Save target as..." and then rename the first .zip as .docx and the second one as .xlsx.
-------------------
Executive Summary:
-------------------
With the usable setup, the M22s did provide a slightly better sense of presence for "true" multi-channel. But it is nowhere enough to justify 500$, especially that, for some application, it is a tad inferior. Now, that being said, if the M22 are moved more towards the back and firing as if in a circle with the mains, then there is a definitive improvement for music. I would actually like to try M80s in that configuration, but it will have to wait until I have a house!
For movies, as long as there was QS8s all around, the presence or not of a parallel M22 did not seem to matter (I could not tell).
The setups (only the usable ones) could be ranked rought like thus:
Surround + Back
1. QS8 + QS8 (the one I currently use)
2. QS8-M22 + QS8 (the one that was anticipated to be much better)
3. M22 + QS8 (the other one I was counting on a lot, but which could have caused me hell to re-configure between movies and music)
4. QS8-M22 + None
5. M22 + None (wins over QS8 + none because of 60+% music emphasis)
6. QS8 + None
QS8+None is really poor for surroud music that is not just ambience. But, when a back QS8 doubles the surround (same material) or is extrapolated using Dolby Ex, it suddently provides a lot of direction in addition to ambience, making it almost as good as a single M22 well positioned behind.
I have always said the smallest improvement was when going from 5.1 to 7.1, but now I would say that if you listen to a lot of multi-channel music really using the channels for instruments (see the word document attached for examples and better description), then the move is very important as long as you move then far enough to the back.
---------------------------------------
Executive Summary of Executive Summary:
---------------------------------------
I have spared myself 500$ today!
Do not worry, Axiom, I will be back for more at some point or another!
One of the next step I may actually try... someday... is to place my M22s in place of the hanging QS8 and feed them the side-surround input. That might just work!
THAT'S ALL!!!
